Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

7: Leave out first “a” and insert “their first”

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is a really important group, and I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has suggested that quite a lot of the amendments are drafting changes, but I think it goes further beyond that.

Speaking specifically to my first amendment, Amendment 7, the reason I put this in about it the first preliminary discussion is that we just had a significant debate about the issue of age. In the Commons, the sponsor of the Bill and the government Ministers who helped take this Bill through that House, voted against the amendment, which was agreed, and which said that this could be raised with somebody under the age of 18. That is why the debate on age has been significant and why I have put in this particular amendment.

One of my wider concerns is about how many preliminary discussions somebody will have. This is not going to be an easy decision for somebody, particularly a young person, to make, while thinking, “Is this the right time? Is it so unbearable that I actually want my life to end?”

Later in the Bill, there is quite a lot of procedure about recording medical information. The reason why I am interested in making sure it is “their first” discussion is so that we do not have, as can sometimes happen, an informal off-the-record discussion as part of this important process. I will be interested to hear what other noble Lords think about trying to be specific, recognising the concerns that amendments so far have sought to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting, but I think there is a profound misunderstanding. Let us look at Clause 8, because the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is making a very important point. Jess Asato was incredibly keen to specify that training in respect of

“domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse, is mandatory”.

Clause 8(8) says:

“The regulations must provide that the practitioner must have had training about the following”,


and paragraph (d) says “domestic abuse”. Subsection (10) says that training on domestic abuse must include

“training in respect of … coercive control and financial abuse”.

That was the point that Jess Asato was keen to establish.

Noble Lords will see at the top of page 41 of the Bill that the definition of domestic abuse

“includes behaviour that is controlling or coercive or … economic abuse”.

What is happening here is not a watering down of any of that. It is simply avoiding duplication between Clause 8(10) and the wide definition of domestic abuse in Clause 56. I understand why the noble Baroness might be confused about it, because it is slightly complicated, but that is the intention. It is not for one second to water down any of the protections.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I am confused at all. I know what Jess Asato tried to get into the Bill to give her assurances, and that something has changed. I had moved on to talk about the amendment from Jack Abbot, which was very important.

The issue of illness is an example of where the Government said they had worked with the Bill’s sponsor. The challenge of this group—I am thinking about what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said earlier—is that we are covering multiple issues on the basis of drafting changes. I would rather get into the substance of some of this when we get to later groups. However, Clause 14 says that, in the very unlikely circumstances that the doctor who agreed to give a second opinion “dies” or “through illness” is unable to continue, the person has the right to seek a second opinion elsewhere. My point is about removing “through illness”, which was specifically included the Bill. I am trying to understand why the noble and learned Lord is seeking to do that. I have already heard him say that you can just find another doctor, but I am particularly keen to hear from the Government their view, because they worked with the Bill’s sponsor in the Commons to get this phrasing about illness in.

The sponsor’s Amendment 416 is to do with independent doctors and Commons Amendment 459, and there is more than one reference to this issue. There was significant debate when Sarah Olney introduced her amendment in Committee in the Commons seeking to reduce the possibility of abuse by making sure that the second independent doctor has available the reasons why the first independent doctor concluded that the person was not eligible. My interpretation of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is that that goes away and there will not be two reports, and the amendment speaks further about aspects of the reports.

This amendment brought attention from other MPs. Lewis Atkinson talked about recognising that the provision of five different touchpoints of assessment—I appreciate the effort that has gone into trying to bring in safeguards around these matters—is one of the strengths of the Bill and that each assessment should be done in a way that can be progressed with more information. On the Bill’s record-keeping provisions, the assessment should become increasingly informed throughout the process, and therefore there should be an opportunity for a lot of those things to be shared with the panel, as the Bill proposes. Kim Leadbeater said that she was minded to support Sarah Olney’s amendment, but, again, some of those changes are being taken out.

I am not entirely clear about Amendment 417. I somewhat understand the disability definition, although there is only one reference to Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 anywhere.

This group of amendments needs careful scrutiny as we go through the different groups for later discussion. One of the aspects that we need to make sure of is that the extensive concessions made in the other House do not all of a sudden, through just a few changes here and there, go away. In fact, as we know, in this House we are even considering what further safeguards there could be. One of my reasons for rising today was to bring this to the attention of the Committee. I am not suggesting that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has done this in bad faith. He may well think that this is just being more efficient, but the extensive debate and the support in the other place—indeed, the support of Kim Leadbeater—for several of these amendments as they were originally drafted mean we should be asking him to think again. We will get into some of the detail in the debates on future groups. I beg to move.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 420 could sit beside Amendment 419 from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, but it has not been put in this group. This group is labelled “drafting changes” but, as we have just heard, the effect they would have goes further than that. I have tabled Amendment 420, to be discussed in a later group, to address a concern that the grounds on which a co-ordinating doctor can drop out are already too wide, but I see that the amendments in this group from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer compound that problem by expanding the grounds even further. I therefore feel I must speak briefly in this debate, despite the fact that my amendment comes later, because your Lordships’ Committee needs to be aware of the concern I am seeking to raise, which the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also has.

My Amendment 420 highlights that these provisions should be limited to cases of death or illness. Clause 14 fails to define in which situations it would be acceptable for the state not to be concerned that the doctor is unwilling. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has highlighted in her Amendment 420A, the danger is that the current wording would allow the risk of changing doctors until the wanted answer is given. These probing amendments are going to be discussed later, and they will focus on the need to restrict the grounds for changing the co-ordinating doctor by excluding the word “unwilling”, which Amendments 420 and 420A both address.

It would be helpful if my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer could answer these questions on this matter. How do we distinguish between a doctor who is unwilling due to conscience and one who is unwilling due to suspicion? Without a requirement to record the specific reasons for unwillingness, is there a danger that we are creating a black box? If a doctor steps away because they are uncomfortable, for instance, with a family member’s influence, surely the system needs to capture that specific hesitation before a new doctor is appointed. Will my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer specify what circumstances cross the line where the state should be more curious about why the doctor is unwilling?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that it is the Equality Act, not the disability Act; I apologise for that. If we were to restrict it to that, we would restrict it to a particular thing, and we think that it should be wider that. Again, we can talk about that at the ever-expanding meeting.

On Amendment 416, the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, was particularly exercised by the fact that the second doctor would not see the report of the first doctor; he would have some degree of problem with that. The noble Lord will know that, where a second doctor is brought in—where a referral is made to a new practitioner—the co-ordinating doctor must provide the new doctor with a copy of the previous report. If the new doctor is satisfied as to all the matters mentioned in Clause 11 on capacity et cetera, he or she then has to say why he or she disagrees with the previous doctor. The noble Lord’s legitimate sharpness in relation to that point was based, I think, on an improper understanding of Amendment 416, which will allow this to happen only once the new doctor sees the report of the previous doctor.

In the light of my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which was right for us to have, I will not move my amendment. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was kind enough to indicate that she will withdraw her amendment to my amendment, because the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, thinks his drafting is better, we will have to wait and see what happens on Report. Do not hold it against me when I come back with the same amendment on Report.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his extensive responses. They reflect that “ensure” and “take reasonable steps” are actually different in law compared with what is expected. I am grateful to him for saying that he will not press his amendments in Committee and that he will allow us the opportunity to meet him and others to discuss some of these issues, where we think the provisions go beyond what might be considered legal drafting. I am slightly concerned that the Government did not reply to one particular aspect, but I will take that up separately with the Minister. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw—

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might take the opportunity to respond to the point I put to him on confirming the drafting of that amendment. He must have overlooked it.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is in the notes, but I will write to the noble Lord on that.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

Amendment 7 (to Amendment 6) withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am most grateful for that intervention, because many people who work in the embassies abroad do not live in the embassy; they live in apartments, houses or whatever in its vicinity.

The wording of the Bill prompted my probing amendment, so I ask the noble and learned Lord, in the light of this, whether he is comfortable with the vagueness of the term “ordinarily” or whether he sees merit in reconsidering this wording carefully to clarify the residency requirement to avoid death tourism and ensure that others are not discriminated against. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I had originally tabled Amendment 15, which I withdrew, because it looked like I was trying to be nasty and stop the bucket list for people or stop them going on holiday, but that was not my intention. My intention was to think about residency in a proper way. Bearing in mind previous comments from the Minister, I have ended up replacing one amendment with four in order to be precise throughout the Bill.

In essence, I am not convinced that simply being ordinarily resident is enough. I say that because you can be ordinarily resident in more than one country. You can only be domiciled in one country. The issue here is: who is the Bill trying to cater for? I think, frankly—bearing in mind Amendment 23, proposed by my noble friend Lord Frost—that we should be looking at UK citizens and those whom the Government have decided to give indefinite leave to remain, and keep it at that. The element of “ordinarily resident” is that you can have settlement for a purpose. The single purpose could be that you just state that your settlement—your purpose for being ordinarily resident—is simply to take advantage of this Bill. I do not think that is enough.

As regards the amendments that have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, I also do not want this extending to someone being able to live anywhere in the United Kingdom. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Moylan has perhaps anticipated some of the situations where people have moved abroad and then want to come back. The essence of the Bill should be that it is focusing on providing provision in this country for people who permanently live in this country, which is why “domiciled” is a better test than simply “ordinarily resident”, because, as I say, you can be ordinarily resident in more than one country.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have not previously spoken on this Bill, so I hope that noble Lords will understand that I approach the tabling of amendments and speaking to them simply from the point of view of trying to ensure that the Bill is workable. It is of course a Bill which is intended to be provided essentially by the National Health Service, so with these amendments in this group I am entirely saying that we must make this service workable by the National Health Service. If I had to put what I have to say into one sentence it would be: let us have definitions in relation to eligibility by reference to residence that accord with those definitions that are presently used by the National Health Service and let us not try to ask the NHS to become an immigration inspector. I am afraid that there is also the longer version, but I will try to keep it as short as I can.

I have tabled Amendments 11B, 258B, 305A—with my noble friend Lord Howe—306C and 449B. From my point of view, they are not about trying to bring Scots into England and Wales for this purpose; they are about aligning the definitions in the Bill for a service provided by the NHS with the definitions that are used day by day in the provision of NHS services. This is not a bureaucratic issue; it is a practical issue. If the NHS is providing somebody with a service which, in the current circumstances, may be something of a substantial character relating to what develops into palliative or end-of-life care, it should be in a position to provide an assisted dying service, if the person is eligible for that service.

I leave aside the question of whether they come from overseas or Crown dependencies because those persons would not be ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and they are probably not registered with a medical practice in England Wales, so they would not be eligible for those reasons. It comes back to the term “ordinarily resident”, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, correctly said, is not defined in statute. It is understood in the National Health Service and wherever it is used by the case she referred to, R v Barnet London Borough Council, ex parte Nilish Shah—the Shah case—in which Lord Scarman said that “ordinarily resident” is where a person normally lives

“voluntarily and for settled purposes”,

forming part of the regular pattern of their lives.

It appears in statute, in the sense that the NHS Wales Act requires that services be provided for those persons who, for the time being, are ordinarily resident in Wales, but there is no further definition of “ordinarily resident”. The charging overseas visitors legislation is secondary legislation, but it uses the ordinarily resident test.

What is interesting in this context is that, although “ordinarily resident” is in theory a test of whether one has free access to NHS services or is subject to charging, in practice, when somebody registers with a general practice—no pun intended—they complete form GMS1, which asks those from abroad to identify whether they would be subject to visitor charging outside the practice. But the form also states that:

“Anybody … can register with a GP practice and receive free medical care from that practice”.


So, as far as the NHS is concerned, primary care—essentially community care and everything other than secondary care—is available free to people who are ordinarily resident, and it does not ask or check. From my point of view, the most important thing we should absolutely have in our minds is: are we asking the NHS to change all the practices of its recent history and do something completely different?

I will turn a longer speech into a short speech. My noble friends Lord Moylan and Lady Coffey have tabled some very interesting amendments. My noble friend Lady Coffey’s is interesting, because the question of domicile is a very challenging one in this context. But we would be asking the NHS to become not only immigration inspectors but tax inspectors, since the question of where one is domiciled is a tax issue as well as an immigration issue. I do not think we need to go there at all. All these amendments would do is simply take out all the other amendments, but they also challenge what is in the Bill.

Clause 1 refers to a person who

“is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months ending with the date of the first declaration”.

In the NHS, I am not aware that anybody tests whether somebody is ordinarily resident in England and Wales. They simply ask whether you are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; it is a matter of whether one is charged for NHS services or not. If somebody from Scotland—a later group will examine this in more detail—registers with an English practice, they do not say, “Are you ordinarily resident in England?” They do not ask at all. If they did, they would ask, “Are you ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom”, because that is the only operative test. Further, they do not ask, “Have you been ordinarily resident for 12 months?”, less still, with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, 60 months, as one of the amendments proposes. They do not ask at all, because it is a matter of fact under common law that one is ordinarily resident “for the time being”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the issue of residency and eligibility criteria. As I have already made clear and will now repeat, I will confine my comments to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

First, I turn to the amendments which narrow the residence criteria in respect of eligibility for assistance under the Bill. Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would change the residence criteria for assistance under the Bill from requiring a person to be “ordinarily resident” to “permanently resident”. Unlike “ordinarily resident”, “permanently resident” does not have a set definition in the context of UK immigration law. It is possible that it would be taken as referring only to those who have citizenship or indefinite leave to remain, which is a much narrower scope than the current wording of “ordinarily resident”.

Similarly, Amendments 23, 309, 300A and 306A would restrict access to assisted dying support to British citizens or people with indefinite leave to remain. This may result in migrants on long-term work or study visas who have resided in England and Wales for longer than 12 months being denied access to an assisted death, thereby potentially giving rise to indirect discrimination based on race. These amendments may be subject to challenge under Article 14 of the ECHR when read with Article 8, on the basis that this may amount to unjustified discrimination. This differential treatment would require an objective and reasonable justification.

In addition, under various international agreements, the UK has an obligation not to discriminate against EU, EEA and Swiss nationals on the basis of nationality, although the agreements do not prevent restrictions on the basis of residency. Since these amendments would prevent individuals from those countries from accessing these services on an equal basis to UK citizens in the same circumstances, they are likely to be contrary to the UK’s international obligations under those agreements.

Amendments 11A, 258A, 306B and 449A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seek to change the residency requirement from “ordinarily resident” to “domiciled”. These amendments would add complexity and potential uncertainty to the eligibility requirements. “Domiciled” refers to the determination of a person’s permanent home largely for tax purposes, meaning that a person can be domiciled in a place without being resident there. It is not a familiar concept in domestic law outside of taxation, so it is unclear how it would apply in this context. Further elaboration in guidance would be needed to make these amendments workable. It is also unclear what practical impact this change would have when the Bill would still require people to be physically present in England and Wales in respect of the steps under Clauses 8, 10, 11 and 19.

I will next turn to Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, Kim Leadbeater specifically introduced this concept of England and Wales, and, in Committee, Stephen Kinnock did not raise any issues with it at all in terms of operability or similar. I am astonished to hear some of the other elements that are now coming out for the first time in the consideration of this Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sorry to hear of the noble Baroness’s surprise. I am simply setting out where the Government have particular concerns within the scope to which I referred. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer may be able to comment more appropriately, if he wishes to do so, on the points that she raises.

Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would widen the eligibility criteria to include UK citizens of pensionable age who are living abroad. There are two main issues with this amendment. The first is that the UK has obligations under international agreements that enable residents of partner countries to receive certain benefits, including some health service provision, in the UK. These agreements are, as I mentioned, with the EU, EEA states and Switzerland. As I set out, these agreements prevent restrictions based on nationality, although they permit those based on residency. Therefore, the amendment would have the effect of opening access to provision of assistance under the Bill to EU, Swiss and EEA residents of pensionable age, provided that they satisfy other eligibility criteria. Widening access only to UK nationals of pensionable age would be contrary to the UK’s obligations under those agreements.

Secondly, by including those who have “moved to live abroad”, the amendment would enable pensionable-age citizens from Northern Ireland or Scotland who have moved abroad to access the provision of assistance, in accordance with the Bill, if they satisfy the other eligibility criteria.

For all the other amendments in this group, on which I make no comment, any workability concerns are less significant. For example, Amendment 10 would remove two eligibility criteria from Clause 1, while Amendment 13 would change the requirements relating to ordinary residence in England and Wales. As Clause 1 is largely descriptive, these amendments would have limited legal effect without corresponding amendments being made to operative provisions later in the Bill.

While these are choices for noble Lords, these amendments may introduce inconsistencies and ambiguity into the Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, these amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials, so the way in which they are currently drafted means that they may not be fully workable, effective or enforceable—but, of course, the issues raised are rightly a matter for noble Lords to consider and decide on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am surprised to hear that. I will make inquiries, but I am almost sure that that will not be the case with this.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, gave us an interesting tour d’horizon of the law and said how “ordinarily resident” applies in various areas. “Ordinarily resident” means the same thing in all those areas. For the reasons I have already given, I do not think it will prove a difficult thing to apply in practice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his endorsement of the approach to “ordinarily resident”.

The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked me a number of questions, such as about the citizen who was ordinarily resident here and then went to live abroad—I think that was the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. If a person decided that they were going to move to Spain and live the rest of their days there, then when they become ill they wanted to come back and have an assisted death, under the terms of this Bill they would not be eligible because they would not have been ordinarily resident in this country for 12 months—this country being England and Wales.

The noble Lord’s second question was about somebody from Northern Ireland who comes here and asks for an assisted death. Again, they would not be eligible because the assumption under his question was that that person’s ordinary residence was in Northern Ireland. His third question was about why opinion is not satisfied. It seemed to us that opinion is enough in relation to this because it would be done basically by asking a number of questions and you would assume that the answers that you had would be honest.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I notice that the noble and learned Lord has taken interventions. I do not believe that he has addressed my issue about the risk of tourism. He has used interchangeably during his explanations “permanently” and “ordinarily resident”. No distinguished lawyer here has countered the view that you can be ordinarily resident in more than one country at the same time. We have the broader issue that case law and NHS guidance can change this. It really needs revisiting. Will he try to address my issues about tourism and this Bill?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I honestly think that is a smokescreen. The Bill says, in a way that the law has recognised time and again—because this Parliament has to make choices from time to time about who gets benefits—that the benefits of the Bill should be given only to those who ordinarily live in this country. That phrase has not given rise to problems. The courts understand it, doctors understand it and the panels will understand it. If we in this Parliament cannot say that we will give rights only to those who are ordinarily resident, which is a phrase that means something, we will never be able to determine who is entitled to our rights. I say, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that what we are trying to do in the Bill is clear. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to withdraw her amendment.