Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I cannot let the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, get away with that. What happened on Wednesday night was a separate issue. As it happens, I argued for a change in the law in relation to decriminalising abortion—but now I am on this side. This sort of easy “swatting away”, “culture war”-style argument is unhelpful. People, in good faith, are concerned about the lack of safeguards in this Bill.

I do not agree with the idea that no one wants to get to Report. I would much prefer to be voting on aspects of the Bill, because a wide range of the concerns that have been raised could be addressed through amendments tabled by the sponsor of the Bill so that we can get on with it. That is what I would want.

The only reason we are discussing Wales, as far as I am concerned, is what has happened since we discussed it on the first day in relation to the Senedd’s decision. It is a perfectly appropriate thing to raise. The idea that we are wasting time talking about Wales—said by people who apparently respect devolution—seems a bit rich. We want to get to Report, and we should keep the insults out in order to do so.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 765, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would delete Clause 42(4). I will briefly read the subsection, as it is not very long:

“Regulations under subsection (3) may make any provision that … could be made by an Act of Parliament, and … would not be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd”.


I will not repeat the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who quoted the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, on which I sit, which argued that the clause is highly inappropriate. Rather than do that, I will put to the sponsor of the Bill a simple question, and I would be grateful if he addressed it when he winds up. I quote from the report of the committee:

“Delegated powers that can be used to do anything that an Act of Parliament can do are very rare, with the wording currently appearing in just two Acts: the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020”.


I was not on the committee when that report was produced, but my understanding is that the argument at the time was that the exigencies of Brexit required business to be done by regulation, rather than by an Act of Parliament. My question for the sponsor of the Bill is: what is the exigency in this case that requires the provision, which he believes needs to be made, to be made by regulation, which necessarily has to be dealt with on a “take it or leave it” basis, rather than by an Act of Parliament that Peers and Members of the other place can amend? I would be grateful if he could answer that question when he replies to the debate. If he cannot, I look forward to returning to this on Report, if we ever get there.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, regrettably, we are never going to get to Report. Members of the House keep referring to Report. My noble and learned friend, the sponsor of the Bill, has frequently said that he will come back to some of the questions that have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others. Normally, that would happen on Report. Were there a more disciplined and focused approach to scrutinising the Bill by those who oppose it, we would have perhaps got to Report, but we have not. We have had a long debate about Wales, including all sorts of questions about the devolutionary arrangements, and I wonder whether we can now hear from the Front Bench.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

Would the noble Baroness perhaps like to make it clear whether she believes that it is inappropriate for the sponsor of the Bill to reply to the question I have just put in Committee?

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I hope I will be permitted to say something about Wales. I was going to make a much longer speech but my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, made an excellent argument on the merits of the issues relating to Wales.

The short point to which I wish to draw attention is the issue in this case. Is it an issue about criminal law? This often arises in questions within a federal form of government, which in reality we have here: how do you characterise this issue? Does anyone really think this is about the criminal law? The criminal law is part of finding the solution, but it is a debate about a moral issue and how to use the resources of the NHS. The criminal law should not be seen as an impediment.

I would have said a lot more about other things but, being accused of wasting time, I will not make that speech. I just draw attention to the problem that arose in 2016-17. Wales wanted to pursue its own policy in relation to what is old-fashionedly known as the chastisement of children. Of course, the chastisement of children is governed by the criminal law. As Wales wanted to do it at a time when there was a Conservative Government in London and a Labour Government in Wales, there was an intergovernmental discussion on how this issue should sensibly be dealt with. It was decided that an exception ought to be written into the Government of Wales Act and the very complicated schedules, permitting Wales to make its own decision. So it was excised from the reservations of powers to Westminster.

All Amendment 844 seeks to do is to make a minor alteration to look at the issue for the people of Wales. Should they be entitled to deal with this issue comprehensively? I say nothing about what happened in the Senedd—enough has been said about that. I remind noble Lords that there will be a new Senedd after 7 May, before the Bill is dealt with, and a very different attitude may be taken. Having heard what has been said about the desire that the people of Wales should not be entitled to make their own decisions, I very much hope we are able to try to focus. What is the issue? Is it one that Wales ought to be able to make? If it is not, the simple solution is a technical one, which can easily be made through Amendment 844.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My intervention will be brief and is addressed to the noble and learned Lord. Does he believe that his amendments will ever be adopted and incorporated into a piece of legislation that will be passed in this Session? If in fact, as we read in many newspapers and in other media, it is unlikely to be adopted, I therefore address a question to my noble friend the Minister: why are we permitting more time to be given to a pointless exercise, when the country can ill afford to be spending money on pursuing legislation that will never be implemented?

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I have four amendments in this group. Two of them cover ground already explored by other noble Lords, so I will not go over that ground again. We will simply address two of them, Amendments 540A and 862C. I will deal with the latter amendment first. Amendment 862C relates in subject matter to Amendment 459A, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, described to noble Lords a few moments ago, and which he tabled in response to the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee. As others have said, that is very welcome. My amendment seeks to ensure that the regulation-making power in Clause 22 is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. After all, that is a more exacting procedure, and I would have thought it was appropriate. If the noble and learned Lord thinks it is not, perhaps he would like to explain why when he responds to this debate.

Amendment 540A concerns a matter raised earlier in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass: training. The impact assessment refers to training for healthcare professionals and sets out three levels: tiers 1, 2 and 3. Tier 1 is

“a 90-minute e-learning module and a 60-minute online interactive session with a facilitator”.

That is the lowest level, and then there is tier 2. Tier 3 is

“an advanced two-day in-person training package, aimed at staff who are likely to lead the VAD service and act as the coordinating doctor”.

I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could answer this when he responds: given the importance of the role of the independent advocate, is it not necessary for training to be at the highest level? Would not, say, the tier 3 training set out in the impact assessment be appropriate? If it is not, what other training does he think might be appropriate?