Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am sure that the legal advice the noble Baroness has been given is absolutely correct. My point is that surely this problem arises now. This Bill does not change the position in any way.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

With all due respect, I am not aware that the legislation has actually been enacted in either the Isle of Man or Jersey.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Until it is enacted, there is not a problem. When it is enacted, the problem arises, whether or not this Bill is enacted.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

We are discussing the wording of this Bill, with due respect. I raise this as a concern for clarification. It needs clarification because, if noble Lords are anticipating that this Bill and the legislation in the other jurisdictions will pass, we cannot leave a legal loophole or difficulty that might jeopardise the care of patients coming to England from the Crown dependencies. That is why I have raised it.

I turn to Amendment 11. Currently, the Bill speaks of the person being “ordinarily resident” in England and Wales, but there is a problem with “ordinarily”. In 1983, Lord Scarman stated in a House of Lords judgment that

“‘ordinarily resident’ refers to a man’s abode in a particular place or country which he has adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being”.

So far, so good. However, in the healthcare context, the 2012 Review of Overseas Visitors Charging Policy said:

“The vagueness of the definition means that OR”—


ordinary residence—

“is difficult to interpret and apply on an individual case basis”.

People fell through the gaps and the NHS was not recovering its costs. Then, during his time as Immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Harper, pointed out that

“we need to do a better job of making sure that front-line professionals have a simpler system”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 7/11/13; col. 290.]

The problem with the definition in the Bill is that it could cover someone who is now living in another country but has an address of convenience in England and Wales for whatever reason. We know that there are thousands of empty properties owned by people who are not living permanently in this country. Apart from the more than 187,000 homes that are owned by people living permanently abroad, there are 5.5 million people who are British passport holders or have residency visas to live in the UK but are living abroad permanently. What will be the position of these people if they wish to access an assisted death here? Currently, they would not be eligible for NHS treatment if it were to be funded by the NHS. If they came to live in the UK for a year, they would then become eligible for the NHS, but, with the prognosis of six months or less, they would be expected to be dead within that time. Of course, this assumes that there is any accuracy in prognostication, which there is not.

Let me put to your Lordships a scenario that is, sadly, not infrequent. A person working for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in an embassy abroad becomes seriously and terminally ill and is repatriated to the UK. Their house is rented out and they have to give notice, so they go to live in a different area—one, they hope, with good specialist palliative care services that can provide them with support. However, not being able to be in their own home and surrounded by their own things, and without contact with people who would otherwise have a role in their lives, they easily become very depressed.

Let us look at that scenario under this Bill. Suppose they decide that they want an assisted death. They will not have been resident for 12 months prior to making a first declaration to request an assisted death. Will that person, who may have worked all their life in service of this country, now be ineligible? I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is nodding that they would. I believe that, under the wording of the Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The noble Baroness referred to the two amendments that I have on the Marshalled List that I have not yet spoken to. She seemed to be ascribing motives to the amendments. She referred only to two amendments—the two amendments I have tabled—and she seemed to be suggesting they were designed to stop people accessing this service. I hope she will stay and listen to me when I explain what my amendments are about, and she will see that is entirely the opposite of what they are designed to do.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that nothing is impossible in human rights law. But it would be exceptionally surprising if the courts were to say that a criterion as well established as ordinary residence were not a justifiable criterion to address the difficult problem of which people ought to benefit from the advantages that this Bill, if enacted, would confer. One other point—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I agree that the notion of ordinary residence is very well established. I am more concerned about the subsection which requires a 12-month prior residency. That does not apply to anything we do in any other aspect of the NHS, for example. You might have been resident here a fortnight, but if you get knocked over in the street, you will be looked after and looked after for free. It is more the latter than the former that I was concerned with. I am grateful to have the noble Lord’s legal assurance but, as he said, it is not absolutely certain. One might retain him if the case came up.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

If I were advising the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, as a client, I would say that a court would recognise that Parliament, when it enacts legislation of this sort, has to make a choice and decide what is an appropriate and reasonable period to require a person to have satisfied in order to benefit—to prevent a health tourism that we all wish to avoid in this legislation. We should also remember that if Parliament enacts this legislation, the courts will have no power to strike it down in this country. The most that they could do is make a declaration of incompatibility, but that is extremely unlikely in this context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have completed three groups of amendments, which is fewer than I had hoped for when I spoke in the House this morning. All noble Lords need to reflect on that before we resume consideration of the Bill next Friday.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Before the noble Lord adjourns proceedings, can I ask him whether he would give anxious consideration to how we are going to complete Committee on this enormously important Bill, which this House may well want to amend and may well wish to disagree with at Third Reading? It is surely essential that this House is provided with the time that enables us to do our job, because if we do not do our job, it will be enormously damaging to the reputation of this House. Is there any way in which he can give thought to this over the next few days?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I am very happy to give thought to that. When I came to this Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago and announced the extra days, I hoped that that would assist the House, but at this rate of progress I think we may still struggle. I am very happy to consider that. My door remains open to anybody for whom I can give assistance on that. The point that I keep making is that, at the end of the day, this is a Private Member’s Bill and the Government remain neutral on the Bill itself.