Lords Chamber
Friday 24th April 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:07
None
-
None
My My Lords, My Lords, before My Lords, before we My Lords, before we begin, My Lords, before we begin, I My Lords, before we begin, I will make my usual brief remarks on how proceedings will run today. First, on the final Friday of the session, I give huge thanks on behalf of the whole House to all staff across the administration for their work facilitating all the sittings on this bill and all other private members bills this session. I know noble Lords are aware of the huge amount of work that takes place to enable us to undertake quality scrutiny.
In particular, I wanted to thank Michael Bleakley, who is the civil servant based in the government whips office. He has become a very well known figure to many noble Lords dealing with questions, queries, procedural points, preparing groups in a calm, professional, authoritative manner. One would expect from an exceptional public servant. Turning to the arrangements for today. As announced previously, I would look to adjourn proceedings at around 3 p.m. or earlier should the House conclude its business. Debate today will begin on the motion tabled by my noble friend Noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to take note of the motion to resolve to.
Into a committee and the amendments to that motion. Lord Porter will open the debate, followed by the noble Lady Baroness
In particular, I wanted to thank Michael Bleakley, who is the civil servant based in the government whips office. He has become a very well known figure to many noble Lords dealing with questions, queries, procedural points, preparing groups in a calm, professional, authoritative manner. One would expect from an exceptional public servant. Turning to the arrangements for today. As announced previously, I would look to adjourn proceedings at around 3 p.m. or earlier should the House conclude its business. Debate today will begin on the motion tabled by my noble friend Noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to take note of the motion to resolve to.
Into a committee and the amendments to that motion. Lord Porter will open the debate, followed by the noble Lady Baroness
10:09
Legislation: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - committee stage (day 14)
-
Legislation: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - committee stage (day 14)
Coffey. Following that debate, I understand Lord Faulks intends to beg leave to withdraw the motion that the House resolves into a committee, though it is, of course, for the House to decide. Should the House decide to go into committee. My noble friend has set two targets for today, my Lords. Some members have asked about whether this is Precedented. I have sought advice from the clerks. Understand that amendments to the motion to go into committee are precedented. But unusual progress of the debate today.
Ultimately, in the hands of the House, courtesy, kindness and respect for noble Lords who may have different opinions, remembering that they hold their views just as sincerely as you hold yours should be the cornerstone of our debate today and always in this House. With that, my Lords, I think we should move on to the business
**** Possible New Speaker ****
before us. Has to be again in committee on the terminally ill adults end of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the terminally ill adults end of life Bill. Lord Falconer of Thoroton here. My Lords, I beg to move that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. The question is that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. Amendment Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I beg to move my amendment that this House take note of the progress of its scrutiny of the Bill during the current session. My Lords. Today is our final day scheduled for the terminally ill adults end of life bill. I am despondent that this bill, so important to so many, has not failed on its merits, but failed as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a result of procedural wrangling. Hear, hear. There is no prospect that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is no prospect that the Bill can get through this House today or before prorogation. Ahead of the King's Speech on 13th May. Consequently, we cannot complete the Committee stage, let alone have a Report stage when we could have tested the House's views on the amendments proposed and had a Third
Ultimately, in the hands of the House, courtesy, kindness and respect for noble Lords who may have different opinions, remembering that they hold their views just as sincerely as you hold yours should be the cornerstone of our debate today and always in this House. With that, my Lords, I think we should move on to the business
**** Possible New Speaker ****
before us. Has to be again in committee on the terminally ill adults end of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the terminally ill adults end of life Bill. Lord Falconer of Thoroton here. My Lords, I beg to move that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. The question is that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. Amendment Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I beg to move my amendment that this House take note of the progress of its scrutiny of the Bill during the current session. My Lords. Today is our final day scheduled for the terminally ill adults end of life bill. I am despondent that this bill, so important to so many, has not failed on its merits, but failed as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a result of procedural wrangling. Hear, hear. There is no prospect that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is no prospect that the Bill can get through this House today or before prorogation. Ahead of the King's Speech on 13th May. Consequently, we cannot complete the Committee stage, let alone have a Report stage when we could have tested the House's views on the amendments proposed and had a Third
10:11
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
amendments proposed and had a Third Reading debate. If the elected chamber decides to return this bill to us in the next session, as I very much hope that they will, there will be ample time for us to pick up where we left off and complete the proper task assigned to us as a revising chamber. We are not a democratically elected house, but we are rightly held to account for what we do here or in this case, what we have not done.
Members of the public who support assisted dying by a very large margin will be asking themselves why Parliament has failed to enact a measure that they believed would and should become law after members of Parliament voted in favour of it in the other place. That is why I believe it is not only right, but also imperative that we take some time today to consider why we find ourselves in this position. I remain as committed as I have throughout the whole process to this bill, and so, I believe, do a majority in this House.
We know the majority of the Commons do. So do a majority of the public, as demonstrated in survey after survey by reputable polling organisations over a long period of time. The Assisted Dying Bill commands strong views in those circumstances. It is for us, in your Lordships House to debate with civility and with patience. We need to set an example for the way that we conduct this debate to everybody else engaged in the in the debate. I have kept that important point in my mind at all times in the course of this debate.
The public have had an eye on our proceedings in this matter in a way that they rarely do. Our constitutional role is to revise and propose amendments not to block. And I know because many noble Lords have said so, that it is not just supporters of this bill who believe that we have let ourselves and Parliament down, but maps. More importantly still, we have let down those terminally ill people and those who loved them, loved them, who were depending on us at least, to reach conclusions on the bill.
While this House has debated assisted dying on several occasions over the past two decades. For the first time, we have had before us a bill sent from the other place. Following unprecedented scrutiny and with clear majorities there at both second and Third Reading. The suggestion that members of Parliament did not deeply interrogate this bill in the other place, and that the issues it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
raised were not properly dealt with, is profoundly mistaken. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Bill passed its Third Reading in the Commons in June after more than 100 hours of debate, after more than 100 hours of debate, including 29 sittings in Bill committee. Two full days of debate and report on the floor of the and report on the floor of the House, and a full day's debate at Second Reading and Third Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading, with no whipping and no guillotines. That is almost double the time given to scrutiny in the other place, for example, to the Children and Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill that we have been debating.
Altogether, the Bill Committee in the other place considered and debated over 600 amendments, accepting around a quarter of them, over 100 amendments were made in the sponsor's name and more than 30 amendments had been tabled by MPs and passed by MPs who had voted against the bill. As a result, we were sent a robust, safe bill that is at least as good, if not better, than most of those wide range of bills I have been associated with over the last 30 years.
There are, of course, have been important issues for this House to consider, but we have also got to consider how to ensure the assisted dying process, if there is to be one, is focussed on the patient and can operate in a way that is safe, but is not so burdensome that it becomes unworkable. We have debated all of these issues and very many others. We have had time to debate all the issues which we needed to be debated at appropriate length.
Yet at the end of this session, having completed the Committee stage of only seven out of 59 clauses after 13 days of committee, we have reached no conclusion on any part of the Bill or on the question should we return the Bill to the Commons? The only Committee stage debates of equivalent length in the last 20 years in your Lordships House have been for massively larger bills. The 176 pages of the Welfare Reform Act took 17 seconds.
Sittings. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act was 392 pages and required 15 sessions. The Crime and Policing Bill is 429 pages and is needed 15 sittings for a bill of this size, 51 pages. Following such intense scrutiny in the Commons and drawing upon the vast experience of other jurisdictions which have introduced assisted dying around the world, we have made LA slow progress in our consideration. We could unquestionably have got through all the stages of our consideration of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this bill if we had conducted ourselves, as we normally do. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. There was a letter sent to all members of the House on the 7th of members of the House on the 7th of September last year, signed by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Baroness Burger. That letter sought to persuade the House, letter sought to persuade the House, and I agreed to introduce a select committee. It said rightly, that at that point, that is, in September we had several months in which it was entirely possible to complete all stages of the Bill, and yet we have not.
Why has this happened? It has happened because the Order Paper has been flooded with amendments, because of the speed with which we have got through. Our work has been unnecessarily slow, and because some opponents, not all, resisted all attempts, including by some noble friends who are no friends of the bill, to agree a path by which we could reach a conclusion. Over 1200 amendments across 80 groups, no more than four groups dealt with in a day at committee and in most committee days less.
The debated committee has found some areas where improvements can be made, and I have accepted that, as would be normal in any bill of this significance. For example, the Eating disorders clause, the express reference to multidisciplinary teams, extra protections for those between 18 and 25, and in 12 of the 14 cases, proposed amendments have been put down by myself to deal with the Delegated Powers Committee's recommendations. Overall, the debates have revealed the strength of the bill and the considerable thought that has gone into these issues.
Before the bill reached this place and as it went through the other place, by way of example, and it's a key example, the key predictions of five stages of safeguard that have to be gone through the two doctor structure. And the panel is a structure which works and it is well thought out. It is perfectly legitimate to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, suggested, that we do. Whether the High Court is a. Is better than a panel. I do not think that it is, but it's an issue that was fully debated in the Commons, and it is a point of principle, which is.
If we had acted as we normally do, we would have resolved at report by agreement or by a vote, but we never got there. I tried on a number of occasions to agree an informal timetable, where the key issues might be debated on the floor of the House at committee, but in a proportionate way so as to ensure both scrutiny and that we complete our work in a reasonable way. I am very grateful to those who have attended countless open meetings I have had, particularly those who made clear that they would vote against the bill at Third Reading, at Third Reading, but also that also believe that it is necessary for this House to finish its scrutiny in in its entirety so it can pass a final judgement.
Could I say that the noble Lord Lord Carlile was hugely helpful in discussions last December about what the most important issues for this House to consider were. On Wednesday, the 3rd of December last year, we circulated a revised group grouping. After a meeting with other interested peers. After that meeting, we wrote. We believe that the more that colleagues are prepared to engage in these discussions in good faith, the better it will be for the orderly and timely conduct of the extremely important debates we are having on the issue.
We would welcome the co-operation of as many peers as may wish to contribute. The noble and learned Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss, who I am happy to see in her place today, who spoke powerfully on my motion on the 8th of January about the danger to the reputation of this House, helped to agree a set of 13 themes which might prove the basis for a sensible timetable for committee. Each of these attempts has been unsuccessful. It was impossible to get enough of those who tabled amendments to agree.
Could I express my gratitude to the Government Chief Whip who, without ever breaching the neutrality the government adopted, was helpful and cooperative at all stages in the course of this bill, going through this House and for all in his office in particular, as he has already said, Michael Blakely, who has dealt so patiently with the groupings each week. The Chief whip made available 16 days for consideration, which was unprecedented for a private member's bill. The bill did need more time than the more normal private member's bill.
It got it. The reason the bill has failed to complete its processes in this House is not because of a lack of time. It is because a small minority were not willing to co-operate, as we normally do, to ensure that there can be proportionate. Debate over and over. Opponents said it was inappropriate that the bill was dealt with by a private member's bill. I disagree with that. Assisted dying is not a bill which could ever have been in a manifesto because it is a matter of conscience.
A private member's bill is the normal way that most issues of conscience are dealt with. There are other legislative vehicles, but this was the most appropriate throughout the process. The sponsor in the other place and myself have had the fullest official support, which has never breached in any way the neutrality of the government. We have access to parliamentary counsel for drafting and officials to help us with the development of policy options. Although the policy choices have remained rightly for I these officials have been absolutely first class.
I have had considerable experience of doing bills as a Minister. This team has been complete and second to none. There are those who say if the sponsor agreed many more points put in committee, the bill would have got three through. I took on board many points, as I thought I should, but so very many of the amendments couldn't possibly be agreed. They were impractical and placed intolerable burdens on the patient. Where there were amendments with legitimate views on both sides, which I resisted, they should have been dealt with at report much more than letting ourselves down.
Are the very many people who support the bill and who feel we have not treated them properly. Elise Hu, some of us met on Wednesday, spoke of the metastatic breast cancer that has left her with a life expectancy of two years. She said obviously, I hope to beat the odds and be a medical miracle, but the meds keep stopping working and I'm running out of meds to try. But I'm living life to the full as much as I can, filled with beautiful friends and family.
But I am terrified. Not terrified of dying per se, but terrified of a long, drawn out, painful death. This bill will come too late for me, but I'm here to fight for the many thousands that will come after me and their families, in the hope that they'll be given the choice of a dignified, pain free death. People need meaningful end of life choice, and the unelected peers need to accept the will of the people.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. Juliette, whose husband died from terminal oesophageal from terminal oesophageal oesophageal cancer, said, as someone who lived with lived experience of watching my husband experience of watching my husband die slowly and painfully from a terminal illness, I am deeply saddened and disappointed to see saddened and disappointed to see the assisted dying bill being stalled in the House of Lords. I feel that people like me are not feel that people like me are not being listened to. After the successful vote in the Commons, I had such hope that this legislation would pass.
I am holding on to hope, but I am also realistic that time is running out before I end. Could I thank first the staff of your Lordships House for their patience, courtesy and consideration throughout these difficult Fridays. Could I thank all the people in the country who have given unstinting support to the change in the law, and especially those who are terminally ill themselves, or who have a loved one, is terminally ill, and who have shown such courage and forbearance in telling their stories, and have been utterly bewildered by the way we have behaved.
Could I think, could I thank all noble Lords and noble Baroness who have assisted the Bill over the last ten months? I have never been more proud of being part of a group such as this. We have tried our very best to ensure that your Lordships House would behave as it normally does, and make decisions on the Bill. We have failed because of a small minority. The consequence is that your Lordships House have disrespected so many of those in the public who supported the Bill.
It is clear that the issue will not go away, and nor should it until it is resolved. Parliament can and must come to a decision. It is now for the Other place to decide what we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do next. My Lords, I beg to move. The original question was that the House do now again resolve the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. Since when an amendment has been made by Lord Falconer of been made by Lord Falconer of Thoroton at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper amendment to the amendment in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
name of the Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Baroness Coffey. My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Lord moves in mysterious ways as a well-known phrase. But, my Lords, today, perhaps it's better to say the Lords move in mysterious ways. I came back to the Council of Europe specifically to continue debate on this bill, because I believe that scrutiny is necessary. And the purpose of a sitting Friday on this bill, I thought, was to debate the legislation before us, not to debate process.
But the reason I put this amendment in today to that of the noble and learned Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was in response to the letter circulated by the Bill sponsors to MPs this week, which I consider was actually somewhat misleading. I particularly put in the reference in my memory to the excellent reports prepared by respected cross-party committees, select committees of this House, the Constitution Committee, but in particular the DRC. The continuing claim that this bill is the safest in the world and was largely good to go in this House, perhaps with a few tweaks, just does not hold true.
The reports and recommendations therein of the two committees to which I referred were pretty damning. The unprecedented use of Henry VII's powers, the number of issues to be left to regulations, and so on. I have to say, if I were the sponsor of this bill, I'd have been absolutely embarrassed by the outcome of these reports. It was embarrassing to read. For peers who also support the principle of the bill, but those reports confirmed that this was a poor, flawed bill. Now, Second Reading I raised.
My main issue was guarding against indirect coercion, a topic that came up in particular with the Royal College of Psychiatrists. But for certain, safety is not secure in this bill. Nevertheless, I suggested that while I would try to make improvements to the way the bill worked, I did feel then that the Commons might need to start again and to come up with a better bill. Now, for what it's worth, I wish the government had been actually more open on the discussions they were having with the bill's sponsors.
I respect the neutrality that the government took, but it was particularly important to see how this bill might work in practice. Time after time, pretty much parliamentary routes proved fruitless. Freedom of information, freedom of information. Requests were turned down repeatedly, consistently, even when the departments actually bothered to reply, and certainly haven't replied to lots of the appeals that were made. But the ongoing response was that discussions on how this might work or discussions that have happened would not be in the public interest to reveal that.
And so, my Lords, that led to me, and I think, others tabling perhaps more amendments than I had expected to do so, including those being raised on issues raised by the Royal Colleges, the Law Society and other distinguished bodies. Now, my amendments have largely tried to draw out how this bill would work in practice, whether the safeguards claimed would really provide the safeguards in practice, but also to consider the devolution issue. When the focus had flipped from an MoJ court led process to a largely health based bill.
And I'm conscious that the noble and learned Lord has commended the civil servants. I understand why he's done that. But what we did see by the introduction of the government officials is the whole inclusion of lots of Henry VII's powers. Exactly the things the report's thought were not appropriate. My Lords, the detail matters. I want how this legislation may operate to be determined here in Parliament, with lots more on the face of the Bill, as your Lordships often do on government bills, leaving lots of this to Unamendable secondary legislation is not appropriate.
More importantly, this important change should largely be in primary legislation, else we also end up with legal rulings, case law taking us down various paths. It's a well-established principle. Apart from human rights violations, that primary legislation is not overturned by the courts. But that is certainly not the case for secondary legislation. So it's important that when we discuss these matters, that we also discuss these issues on the floor of the House, because that also matters when it comes to court cases, not just conversations offline in rooms elsewhere, not being recorded by civil servants, all these other things that could be used potentially in future deliberations.
Now, my Lords, when I was a Minister, particularly as a Cabinet Minister, every Friday, I would personally download reports from the GCSE, the DPI and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to check on the progress of legislation for which I was responsible. I have to say, while it's sometimes revealed issues that officials never brought to my attention when they'd been told off by GCSE and others, and that they soon learned that attention to detail really did matter. The reason I took such an interest in legislation presented to the House
Members of the public who support assisted dying by a very large margin will be asking themselves why Parliament has failed to enact a measure that they believed would and should become law after members of Parliament voted in favour of it in the other place. That is why I believe it is not only right, but also imperative that we take some time today to consider why we find ourselves in this position. I remain as committed as I have throughout the whole process to this bill, and so, I believe, do a majority in this House.
We know the majority of the Commons do. So do a majority of the public, as demonstrated in survey after survey by reputable polling organisations over a long period of time. The Assisted Dying Bill commands strong views in those circumstances. It is for us, in your Lordships House to debate with civility and with patience. We need to set an example for the way that we conduct this debate to everybody else engaged in the in the debate. I have kept that important point in my mind at all times in the course of this debate.
The public have had an eye on our proceedings in this matter in a way that they rarely do. Our constitutional role is to revise and propose amendments not to block. And I know because many noble Lords have said so, that it is not just supporters of this bill who believe that we have let ourselves and Parliament down, but maps. More importantly still, we have let down those terminally ill people and those who loved them, loved them, who were depending on us at least, to reach conclusions on the bill.
While this House has debated assisted dying on several occasions over the past two decades. For the first time, we have had before us a bill sent from the other place. Following unprecedented scrutiny and with clear majorities there at both second and Third Reading. The suggestion that members of Parliament did not deeply interrogate this bill in the other place, and that the issues it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
raised were not properly dealt with, is profoundly mistaken. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Bill passed its Third Reading in the Commons in June after more than 100 hours of debate, after more than 100 hours of debate, including 29 sittings in Bill committee. Two full days of debate and report on the floor of the and report on the floor of the House, and a full day's debate at Second Reading and Third Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading, with no whipping and no guillotines. That is almost double the time given to scrutiny in the other place, for example, to the Children and Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill that we have been debating.
Altogether, the Bill Committee in the other place considered and debated over 600 amendments, accepting around a quarter of them, over 100 amendments were made in the sponsor's name and more than 30 amendments had been tabled by MPs and passed by MPs who had voted against the bill. As a result, we were sent a robust, safe bill that is at least as good, if not better, than most of those wide range of bills I have been associated with over the last 30 years.
There are, of course, have been important issues for this House to consider, but we have also got to consider how to ensure the assisted dying process, if there is to be one, is focussed on the patient and can operate in a way that is safe, but is not so burdensome that it becomes unworkable. We have debated all of these issues and very many others. We have had time to debate all the issues which we needed to be debated at appropriate length.
Yet at the end of this session, having completed the Committee stage of only seven out of 59 clauses after 13 days of committee, we have reached no conclusion on any part of the Bill or on the question should we return the Bill to the Commons? The only Committee stage debates of equivalent length in the last 20 years in your Lordships House have been for massively larger bills. The 176 pages of the Welfare Reform Act took 17 seconds.
Sittings. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act was 392 pages and required 15 sessions. The Crime and Policing Bill is 429 pages and is needed 15 sittings for a bill of this size, 51 pages. Following such intense scrutiny in the Commons and drawing upon the vast experience of other jurisdictions which have introduced assisted dying around the world, we have made LA slow progress in our consideration. We could unquestionably have got through all the stages of our consideration of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this bill if we had conducted ourselves, as we normally do. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. There was a letter sent to all members of the House on the 7th of members of the House on the 7th of September last year, signed by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble Lord, Lord Harper, and my noble friend Baroness Burger. That letter sought to persuade the House, letter sought to persuade the House, and I agreed to introduce a select committee. It said rightly, that at that point, that is, in September we had several months in which it was entirely possible to complete all stages of the Bill, and yet we have not.
Why has this happened? It has happened because the Order Paper has been flooded with amendments, because of the speed with which we have got through. Our work has been unnecessarily slow, and because some opponents, not all, resisted all attempts, including by some noble friends who are no friends of the bill, to agree a path by which we could reach a conclusion. Over 1200 amendments across 80 groups, no more than four groups dealt with in a day at committee and in most committee days less.
The debated committee has found some areas where improvements can be made, and I have accepted that, as would be normal in any bill of this significance. For example, the Eating disorders clause, the express reference to multidisciplinary teams, extra protections for those between 18 and 25, and in 12 of the 14 cases, proposed amendments have been put down by myself to deal with the Delegated Powers Committee's recommendations. Overall, the debates have revealed the strength of the bill and the considerable thought that has gone into these issues.
Before the bill reached this place and as it went through the other place, by way of example, and it's a key example, the key predictions of five stages of safeguard that have to be gone through the two doctor structure. And the panel is a structure which works and it is well thought out. It is perfectly legitimate to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, suggested, that we do. Whether the High Court is a. Is better than a panel. I do not think that it is, but it's an issue that was fully debated in the Commons, and it is a point of principle, which is.
If we had acted as we normally do, we would have resolved at report by agreement or by a vote, but we never got there. I tried on a number of occasions to agree an informal timetable, where the key issues might be debated on the floor of the House at committee, but in a proportionate way so as to ensure both scrutiny and that we complete our work in a reasonable way. I am very grateful to those who have attended countless open meetings I have had, particularly those who made clear that they would vote against the bill at Third Reading, at Third Reading, but also that also believe that it is necessary for this House to finish its scrutiny in in its entirety so it can pass a final judgement.
Could I say that the noble Lord Lord Carlile was hugely helpful in discussions last December about what the most important issues for this House to consider were. On Wednesday, the 3rd of December last year, we circulated a revised group grouping. After a meeting with other interested peers. After that meeting, we wrote. We believe that the more that colleagues are prepared to engage in these discussions in good faith, the better it will be for the orderly and timely conduct of the extremely important debates we are having on the issue.
We would welcome the co-operation of as many peers as may wish to contribute. The noble and learned Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss, who I am happy to see in her place today, who spoke powerfully on my motion on the 8th of January about the danger to the reputation of this House, helped to agree a set of 13 themes which might prove the basis for a sensible timetable for committee. Each of these attempts has been unsuccessful. It was impossible to get enough of those who tabled amendments to agree.
Could I express my gratitude to the Government Chief Whip who, without ever breaching the neutrality the government adopted, was helpful and cooperative at all stages in the course of this bill, going through this House and for all in his office in particular, as he has already said, Michael Blakely, who has dealt so patiently with the groupings each week. The Chief whip made available 16 days for consideration, which was unprecedented for a private member's bill. The bill did need more time than the more normal private member's bill.
It got it. The reason the bill has failed to complete its processes in this House is not because of a lack of time. It is because a small minority were not willing to co-operate, as we normally do, to ensure that there can be proportionate. Debate over and over. Opponents said it was inappropriate that the bill was dealt with by a private member's bill. I disagree with that. Assisted dying is not a bill which could ever have been in a manifesto because it is a matter of conscience.
A private member's bill is the normal way that most issues of conscience are dealt with. There are other legislative vehicles, but this was the most appropriate throughout the process. The sponsor in the other place and myself have had the fullest official support, which has never breached in any way the neutrality of the government. We have access to parliamentary counsel for drafting and officials to help us with the development of policy options. Although the policy choices have remained rightly for I these officials have been absolutely first class.
I have had considerable experience of doing bills as a Minister. This team has been complete and second to none. There are those who say if the sponsor agreed many more points put in committee, the bill would have got three through. I took on board many points, as I thought I should, but so very many of the amendments couldn't possibly be agreed. They were impractical and placed intolerable burdens on the patient. Where there were amendments with legitimate views on both sides, which I resisted, they should have been dealt with at report much more than letting ourselves down.
Are the very many people who support the bill and who feel we have not treated them properly. Elise Hu, some of us met on Wednesday, spoke of the metastatic breast cancer that has left her with a life expectancy of two years. She said obviously, I hope to beat the odds and be a medical miracle, but the meds keep stopping working and I'm running out of meds to try. But I'm living life to the full as much as I can, filled with beautiful friends and family.
But I am terrified. Not terrified of dying per se, but terrified of a long, drawn out, painful death. This bill will come too late for me, but I'm here to fight for the many thousands that will come after me and their families, in the hope that they'll be given the choice of a dignified, pain free death. People need meaningful end of life choice, and the unelected peers need to accept the will of the people.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. Juliette, whose husband died from terminal oesophageal from terminal oesophageal oesophageal cancer, said, as someone who lived with lived experience of watching my husband experience of watching my husband die slowly and painfully from a terminal illness, I am deeply saddened and disappointed to see saddened and disappointed to see the assisted dying bill being stalled in the House of Lords. I feel that people like me are not feel that people like me are not being listened to. After the successful vote in the Commons, I had such hope that this legislation would pass.
I am holding on to hope, but I am also realistic that time is running out before I end. Could I thank first the staff of your Lordships House for their patience, courtesy and consideration throughout these difficult Fridays. Could I thank all the people in the country who have given unstinting support to the change in the law, and especially those who are terminally ill themselves, or who have a loved one, is terminally ill, and who have shown such courage and forbearance in telling their stories, and have been utterly bewildered by the way we have behaved.
Could I think, could I thank all noble Lords and noble Baroness who have assisted the Bill over the last ten months? I have never been more proud of being part of a group such as this. We have tried our very best to ensure that your Lordships House would behave as it normally does, and make decisions on the Bill. We have failed because of a small minority. The consequence is that your Lordships House have disrespected so many of those in the public who supported the Bill.
It is clear that the issue will not go away, and nor should it until it is resolved. Parliament can and must come to a decision. It is now for the Other place to decide what we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do next. My Lords, I beg to move. The original question was that the House do now again resolve the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. Since when an amendment has been made by Lord Falconer of been made by Lord Falconer of Thoroton at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper amendment to the amendment in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
name of the Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Baroness Coffey. My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Lord moves in mysterious ways as a well-known phrase. But, my Lords, today, perhaps it's better to say the Lords move in mysterious ways. I came back to the Council of Europe specifically to continue debate on this bill, because I believe that scrutiny is necessary. And the purpose of a sitting Friday on this bill, I thought, was to debate the legislation before us, not to debate process.
But the reason I put this amendment in today to that of the noble and learned Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was in response to the letter circulated by the Bill sponsors to MPs this week, which I consider was actually somewhat misleading. I particularly put in the reference in my memory to the excellent reports prepared by respected cross-party committees, select committees of this House, the Constitution Committee, but in particular the DRC. The continuing claim that this bill is the safest in the world and was largely good to go in this House, perhaps with a few tweaks, just does not hold true.
The reports and recommendations therein of the two committees to which I referred were pretty damning. The unprecedented use of Henry VII's powers, the number of issues to be left to regulations, and so on. I have to say, if I were the sponsor of this bill, I'd have been absolutely embarrassed by the outcome of these reports. It was embarrassing to read. For peers who also support the principle of the bill, but those reports confirmed that this was a poor, flawed bill. Now, Second Reading I raised.
My main issue was guarding against indirect coercion, a topic that came up in particular with the Royal College of Psychiatrists. But for certain, safety is not secure in this bill. Nevertheless, I suggested that while I would try to make improvements to the way the bill worked, I did feel then that the Commons might need to start again and to come up with a better bill. Now, for what it's worth, I wish the government had been actually more open on the discussions they were having with the bill's sponsors.
I respect the neutrality that the government took, but it was particularly important to see how this bill might work in practice. Time after time, pretty much parliamentary routes proved fruitless. Freedom of information, freedom of information. Requests were turned down repeatedly, consistently, even when the departments actually bothered to reply, and certainly haven't replied to lots of the appeals that were made. But the ongoing response was that discussions on how this might work or discussions that have happened would not be in the public interest to reveal that.
And so, my Lords, that led to me, and I think, others tabling perhaps more amendments than I had expected to do so, including those being raised on issues raised by the Royal Colleges, the Law Society and other distinguished bodies. Now, my amendments have largely tried to draw out how this bill would work in practice, whether the safeguards claimed would really provide the safeguards in practice, but also to consider the devolution issue. When the focus had flipped from an MoJ court led process to a largely health based bill.
And I'm conscious that the noble and learned Lord has commended the civil servants. I understand why he's done that. But what we did see by the introduction of the government officials is the whole inclusion of lots of Henry VII's powers. Exactly the things the report's thought were not appropriate. My Lords, the detail matters. I want how this legislation may operate to be determined here in Parliament, with lots more on the face of the Bill, as your Lordships often do on government bills, leaving lots of this to Unamendable secondary legislation is not appropriate.
More importantly, this important change should largely be in primary legislation, else we also end up with legal rulings, case law taking us down various paths. It's a well-established principle. Apart from human rights violations, that primary legislation is not overturned by the courts. But that is certainly not the case for secondary legislation. So it's important that when we discuss these matters, that we also discuss these issues on the floor of the House, because that also matters when it comes to court cases, not just conversations offline in rooms elsewhere, not being recorded by civil servants, all these other things that could be used potentially in future deliberations.
Now, my Lords, when I was a Minister, particularly as a Cabinet Minister, every Friday, I would personally download reports from the GCSE, the DPI and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to check on the progress of legislation for which I was responsible. I have to say, while it's sometimes revealed issues that officials never brought to my attention when they'd been told off by GCSE and others, and that they soon learned that attention to detail really did matter. The reason I took such an interest in legislation presented to the House
10:32
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
was it does. Coming back to. I do not want this to be determined in the courts, particularly on the courts, particularly on secondary legislation. Now it's well known that I tabled 111 amendments, including one I amendments, including one I withdrew that included six clause ten parts. A third of those were just on Wales, which I think was actually a good debate. I'm actually a good debate. I'm particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Canvas and Baroness, Lady Smith of Canvas and the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, when we discussed a key devolution issue in that regard.
But other issues that only came up and were scrutinised and starting to get answers on how this might work for another, amendments on things like face to face. As it stands, the bill today without amendment, very little needs to be face to face. A lot of this could be online, could be on the phone, could be by people abroad. All these sorts of issues start to raise questions on how will these safeguards really work. Panels on the face of the bill, I think are due to be in public, although in debating amendments, we learned that at the request of the applicant, they could be in private.
And going further on amendments, we discovered it was the intention of the bill sponsors that actually it would all be in private. And also, by the way, there could be pre-recordings, it could just be audio and we start to paint, for me, quite a different picture on how the panels or indeed other parts of the process can be done that really check about whether coercion is happening or has happened. Well trained social workers don't just read reports when they go to visit somebody, they're looking at different signals.
And it's those sorts of detail that only by doing amendments and having significant debate, that we started to understand how this might work in practice. A panel being available 24 over seven by the by teams potentially. So these sorts of things only came out as a result of going into detail. Recognising that all the information we've asked for to be released was not released. My Lords advocates expect to become full time job for people discussing artificial intelligence, discussing issues to do with power of attorney.
We didn't get on to the new amendments being proposed by the bill sponsor that basically you could keep going to a different doctor. So you got the answer you wanted. I hope we might still reach it. Probably not. Not this time. But being able to check or against potential coercion, that is what has worried people concerned about this bill the most, and that includes people who strongly support the principle. I do fear that many peers and many MPs are putting choice for some ahead of concern on coercion for others.
And just like happened in the Scottish Parliament, the more scrutiny this Bill has got, the more concerns people have had. That's why I was encouraged by very recent polling of the public that show that people want a safe bill and want the Lords to do their job. Just saying it so it is safe repeatedly is not enough. Now I'm a Democrat. I used to be an MP. I lost, I'm here and it is the choice of the Commons that if they decide to try and Parliament act, this bill, that is their absolute privilege and I respect that.
But what I do hope actually, is that they look at the issues that have been raised in this House, look carefully at what has gone through, not only in the Commons but here. And what are the unanswered questions and whether that bill, the Bill before us still today, is the right bill to achieve the ends
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that they wish? Yes, of course. The noble Baroness will be aware, and I'm sure she will agree, that and I'm sure she will agree, that if the Bill comes back a second time to the Commons, it will come back here, and the effect of the back here, and the effect of the Parliament Act is not to stop further debate, but simply to prevent the House from blocking the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prevent the House from blocking the Bill and not returning it to the Lords. The Commons. Yes, I completely do. And that's why I say I respect if the MPs decide that they want to effectively use the Parliament Act process. That is their right, of course, but I would rather that we don't have to go through this whole again of then having to change the bill at this end. On what's been a flawed bill, and I appreciate I'm aware of the parliamentary process, but can I just say I completely understand the passions for people who want assisted dying to happen in this country.
A variety of amendments have been rejected when talking about pain or others as being a choice, as being a criteria. OK. Autonomy, as I say, versus the risk of coercion. But I do think that they should come up with a better bill. Now, my Lords, I'm very conscious. I've spoken for somewhat longer than I'd intended to. I could have said a lot more in response to what the noble and learned Lord said. The two houses are different in their processes. Could have given examples of popular PMS.
One in particular had a majority of 304 in the Commons, and then never made it through this House. But unconscious. Others do want to speak, and for what it's worth, I do actually want us to go into committee at some point today. With that, my Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. The original question was that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the itself into a committee upon the Bill. Since when an amendment has been moved to set out on the Order Paper and a further amendment has Paper and a further amendment has been moved to that amendment. The question I therefore have to put is that Baroness Coffey amendment to that Baroness Coffey amendment to the amendment in the name of Lord Falconer of Thoroton be agreed to.
My Lords, Baroness Campbell of My Lords, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton will be taking part remotely, and it has been agreed. She will be called as the third noble Lord to speak in the debate on this amendment.
But other issues that only came up and were scrutinised and starting to get answers on how this might work for another, amendments on things like face to face. As it stands, the bill today without amendment, very little needs to be face to face. A lot of this could be online, could be on the phone, could be by people abroad. All these sorts of issues start to raise questions on how will these safeguards really work. Panels on the face of the bill, I think are due to be in public, although in debating amendments, we learned that at the request of the applicant, they could be in private.
And going further on amendments, we discovered it was the intention of the bill sponsors that actually it would all be in private. And also, by the way, there could be pre-recordings, it could just be audio and we start to paint, for me, quite a different picture on how the panels or indeed other parts of the process can be done that really check about whether coercion is happening or has happened. Well trained social workers don't just read reports when they go to visit somebody, they're looking at different signals.
And it's those sorts of detail that only by doing amendments and having significant debate, that we started to understand how this might work in practice. A panel being available 24 over seven by the by teams potentially. So these sorts of things only came out as a result of going into detail. Recognising that all the information we've asked for to be released was not released. My Lords advocates expect to become full time job for people discussing artificial intelligence, discussing issues to do with power of attorney.
We didn't get on to the new amendments being proposed by the bill sponsor that basically you could keep going to a different doctor. So you got the answer you wanted. I hope we might still reach it. Probably not. Not this time. But being able to check or against potential coercion, that is what has worried people concerned about this bill the most, and that includes people who strongly support the principle. I do fear that many peers and many MPs are putting choice for some ahead of concern on coercion for others.
And just like happened in the Scottish Parliament, the more scrutiny this Bill has got, the more concerns people have had. That's why I was encouraged by very recent polling of the public that show that people want a safe bill and want the Lords to do their job. Just saying it so it is safe repeatedly is not enough. Now I'm a Democrat. I used to be an MP. I lost, I'm here and it is the choice of the Commons that if they decide to try and Parliament act, this bill, that is their absolute privilege and I respect that.
But what I do hope actually, is that they look at the issues that have been raised in this House, look carefully at what has gone through, not only in the Commons but here. And what are the unanswered questions and whether that bill, the Bill before us still today, is the right bill to achieve the ends
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that they wish? Yes, of course. The noble Baroness will be aware, and I'm sure she will agree, that and I'm sure she will agree, that if the Bill comes back a second time to the Commons, it will come back here, and the effect of the back here, and the effect of the Parliament Act is not to stop further debate, but simply to prevent the House from blocking the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prevent the House from blocking the Bill and not returning it to the Lords. The Commons. Yes, I completely do. And that's why I say I respect if the MPs decide that they want to effectively use the Parliament Act process. That is their right, of course, but I would rather that we don't have to go through this whole again of then having to change the bill at this end. On what's been a flawed bill, and I appreciate I'm aware of the parliamentary process, but can I just say I completely understand the passions for people who want assisted dying to happen in this country.
A variety of amendments have been rejected when talking about pain or others as being a choice, as being a criteria. OK. Autonomy, as I say, versus the risk of coercion. But I do think that they should come up with a better bill. Now, my Lords, I'm very conscious. I've spoken for somewhat longer than I'd intended to. I could have said a lot more in response to what the noble and learned Lord said. The two houses are different in their processes. Could have given examples of popular PMS.
One in particular had a majority of 304 in the Commons, and then never made it through this House. But unconscious. Others do want to speak, and for what it's worth, I do actually want us to go into committee at some point today. With that, my Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. The original question was that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the itself into a committee upon the Bill. Since when an amendment has been moved to set out on the Order Paper and a further amendment has Paper and a further amendment has been moved to that amendment. The question I therefore have to put is that Baroness Coffey amendment to that Baroness Coffey amendment to the amendment in the name of Lord Falconer of Thoroton be agreed to.
My Lords, Baroness Campbell of My Lords, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton will be taking part remotely, and it has been agreed. She will be called as the third noble Lord to speak in the debate on this amendment.
10:39
Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Markham (Conservative)
I assume that doesn't mean now. Does it mean now? No, no, no. The third. OK, fine. So, my Lords, I want to begin personally, as I've mentioned in this debate, my mother was a married nurse supporting terminally ill people through their final days. In 2007, she was staged. She was diagnosed with late stage womb cancer when she was in pain. At the end of her life, she was helped by hospice staff, in my own words, to take an earlier train home.
That experience changed how I see the debate. I considered myself broadly in favour of assisted dying because I believe in choice, in personal autonomy. But what I witnessed and what I've learned since, is what has happened to my mother happens quietly all the time across the across the country, informally and inconsistently, with no upfront oversight, no safeguards. The current ban does not prevent assisted dying. It simply makes it unregulated, unequal and unsafe. It forces some people to travel to Dignitas, often alone, dying earlier than they need to, because the law has given them no other way.
It leaves their relatives looking over their shoulders, concerned that they might face prosecution for helping them. Their loved ones have their dying wish. It forces others to take their own lives frightened and alone, or perhaps with assistance, but with no way to protect against abuse. We heard evidence in the select committee that 650 650 terminally ill people commit suicide every year with no controls, no safeguards and no protections. Under the current legislation, others without the ability or resources to take control, risk dying terribly or without dignity, in pain and with suffering.
So I came to this bill believing in the principle of assisted dying to allow choice and autonomy, but believing that it needed the skills of this Lordships House to make the assisted dying the best, the safest process in the world. So I was in favour of setting up the special committee to take evidence. I even sat on it. I was in favour of giving the bill extra time to allow additional scrutiny. It was fitting that we had a similar number of sittings on this bill as the current Crime and Policing Bill, but as Lord Falconer set out, this bill has had plenty of time compared to other bills.
It has just not chosen to use that time wisely. It has taken 20 times longer, 20 times more per page of legislation than other bills such as the Crime and Policing Bill, such as the welfare, Health and Security Bill. The Levelling Up bill, 20 times longer. So I believe it's had plenty of time for scrutiny. And as I say, we just have not chosen to use that time wisely. And I believe the whole bill and the reputation of Lords is the poorer for it.
I know that many Lords will say that Lord Faulks has not been responsive to suggested amendments. He has pointed out of the many examples where he has. But for me, the failure for us to get through to the end of this process and to discuss all the clauses of the Bill, has made. It made us all the poorer. Please let me give me. Give an example. In an earlier clause, Baroness Monckton of Darlington Forest spoke eloquently and movingly about the dangers of people with learning disabilities being inadvertently coerced into assisted dying through them, wanting to crowd police.
The whole house was moved and educated that day by Baroness Monckton, and Lord Faulks immediately, immediately agreed to make the necessary amendments to safeguard this. This was the Lords at its best into the detail and understanding the full consequences, and then acting to protect. So to me, the real missed opportunity here is that we. By spending so much time on the early clauses and not getting through the bill, it did not have the benefit of this House's wisdom, experience and expertise to go through and make the points and understand it in the very, very clear way that Baroness Monckton did that day and the way that Lord Faulkner reacted.
So that's my true regret to this, and my true regret that we let down 70% of the British population who support assisted dying. He saw the House of Commons pass the Bill and don't understand how the Lords can block it without even a vote. But most of all, I'm sorry to those people who are currently terminally ill, for whom the assisted dying bill held out a safe, humane and pain free death of their own choosing. And so I would like to finish up by remembering some of those people who passed away during the passage of this bill, for whom we are too late.
Anthony Shackleton was aged 59 when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. He battled for six years and travelled in the end to Dignitas. In December 24th, he said to his wife Louise, look at my options. I could go there and die peacefully with grace, without pain or be laid to bed, laid to rest in her bed, not even able to move my house, my to see anything unless someone moved my head. He spent his final four days laughing and in his wife's words, in total peace with his decision for accompanying her husband so he could die with dignity.
Louise spent ten months under police investigation. What he wanted, as he put it, was nothing more than a good death. Kate Bilderbeck was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in 2022 and died in 2025. A nurse for more than 20 years at Great Ormond Street, her. Her daughter Poppy, watched her struggle each year to try and blow out the candle. I was forced to watch my only parent lie, barely conscious, waking only to cry out in agony, denying people autonomy at the end of life benefits no one.
My mum's birthday wish was to die. MHRA, aged 42, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease and experienced rapid deterioration over two years before passing away in July 25th. A mother of two, she spent her life protecting victims of domestic abuse, the only legal control she could exercise at the end of her death was to stop eating and drinking. She knew exactly what that meant. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not an easy death, but with the current law in English in England, this is the only way I have control, she said.
I want to protect my children from seeing me choke and struggle to breathe. She wanted to die surrounded by loved ones, music and laughter. She deserved better than starving to death being her only option. And finally, Nathan Nathaniel died aged 40, who was known by many of us here as a fearless campaigner who, as I say, many of us had the the privilege to meet and understand what a force of nature he truly was. He wanted to know the option was there.
His family said that he would found so much comfort and reassurance had he known it was available in this case, and need that reassurance alone. The mere knowledge that they can choose to die peacefully matters enormously to the dying. There are many, many, many more people I could mention. My Lords, the current law does not protect people. It abandons them often to die in pain, sometimes to die without dignity, sometimes to die alone in a foreign country, or relying on the quiet, unregulated compassion of those around them.
My mother was fortunate. Many are not these people nurses, teachers, parents, magistrates deserved better. So do thousands of people like them who face the same choice or the absence of one. This year and every year that follows, our colleagues in the other place raise the hopes of the nation. Last year by passing this bill. And I'm sorry that we've let d pledge, I speak for many, many of our colleagues here is that we will try, we will try, and we will try again to bring this bill back as soon as possible in the next session to do what is right, democratically and most importantly of all, to give those people who are terminally ill hope and choice of a better way to die.
That experience changed how I see the debate. I considered myself broadly in favour of assisted dying because I believe in choice, in personal autonomy. But what I witnessed and what I've learned since, is what has happened to my mother happens quietly all the time across the across the country, informally and inconsistently, with no upfront oversight, no safeguards. The current ban does not prevent assisted dying. It simply makes it unregulated, unequal and unsafe. It forces some people to travel to Dignitas, often alone, dying earlier than they need to, because the law has given them no other way.
It leaves their relatives looking over their shoulders, concerned that they might face prosecution for helping them. Their loved ones have their dying wish. It forces others to take their own lives frightened and alone, or perhaps with assistance, but with no way to protect against abuse. We heard evidence in the select committee that 650 650 terminally ill people commit suicide every year with no controls, no safeguards and no protections. Under the current legislation, others without the ability or resources to take control, risk dying terribly or without dignity, in pain and with suffering.
So I came to this bill believing in the principle of assisted dying to allow choice and autonomy, but believing that it needed the skills of this Lordships House to make the assisted dying the best, the safest process in the world. So I was in favour of setting up the special committee to take evidence. I even sat on it. I was in favour of giving the bill extra time to allow additional scrutiny. It was fitting that we had a similar number of sittings on this bill as the current Crime and Policing Bill, but as Lord Falconer set out, this bill has had plenty of time compared to other bills.
It has just not chosen to use that time wisely. It has taken 20 times longer, 20 times more per page of legislation than other bills such as the Crime and Policing Bill, such as the welfare, Health and Security Bill. The Levelling Up bill, 20 times longer. So I believe it's had plenty of time for scrutiny. And as I say, we just have not chosen to use that time wisely. And I believe the whole bill and the reputation of Lords is the poorer for it.
I know that many Lords will say that Lord Faulks has not been responsive to suggested amendments. He has pointed out of the many examples where he has. But for me, the failure for us to get through to the end of this process and to discuss all the clauses of the Bill, has made. It made us all the poorer. Please let me give me. Give an example. In an earlier clause, Baroness Monckton of Darlington Forest spoke eloquently and movingly about the dangers of people with learning disabilities being inadvertently coerced into assisted dying through them, wanting to crowd police.
The whole house was moved and educated that day by Baroness Monckton, and Lord Faulks immediately, immediately agreed to make the necessary amendments to safeguard this. This was the Lords at its best into the detail and understanding the full consequences, and then acting to protect. So to me, the real missed opportunity here is that we. By spending so much time on the early clauses and not getting through the bill, it did not have the benefit of this House's wisdom, experience and expertise to go through and make the points and understand it in the very, very clear way that Baroness Monckton did that day and the way that Lord Faulkner reacted.
So that's my true regret to this, and my true regret that we let down 70% of the British population who support assisted dying. He saw the House of Commons pass the Bill and don't understand how the Lords can block it without even a vote. But most of all, I'm sorry to those people who are currently terminally ill, for whom the assisted dying bill held out a safe, humane and pain free death of their own choosing. And so I would like to finish up by remembering some of those people who passed away during the passage of this bill, for whom we are too late.
Anthony Shackleton was aged 59 when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. He battled for six years and travelled in the end to Dignitas. In December 24th, he said to his wife Louise, look at my options. I could go there and die peacefully with grace, without pain or be laid to bed, laid to rest in her bed, not even able to move my house, my to see anything unless someone moved my head. He spent his final four days laughing and in his wife's words, in total peace with his decision for accompanying her husband so he could die with dignity.
Louise spent ten months under police investigation. What he wanted, as he put it, was nothing more than a good death. Kate Bilderbeck was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in 2022 and died in 2025. A nurse for more than 20 years at Great Ormond Street, her. Her daughter Poppy, watched her struggle each year to try and blow out the candle. I was forced to watch my only parent lie, barely conscious, waking only to cry out in agony, denying people autonomy at the end of life benefits no one.
My mum's birthday wish was to die. MHRA, aged 42, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease and experienced rapid deterioration over two years before passing away in July 25th. A mother of two, she spent her life protecting victims of domestic abuse, the only legal control she could exercise at the end of her death was to stop eating and drinking. She knew exactly what that meant. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not an easy death, but with the current law in English in England, this is the only way I have control, she said.
I want to protect my children from seeing me choke and struggle to breathe. She wanted to die surrounded by loved ones, music and laughter. She deserved better than starving to death being her only option. And finally, Nathan Nathaniel died aged 40, who was known by many of us here as a fearless campaigner who, as I say, many of us had the the privilege to meet and understand what a force of nature he truly was. He wanted to know the option was there.
His family said that he would found so much comfort and reassurance had he known it was available in this case, and need that reassurance alone. The mere knowledge that they can choose to die peacefully matters enormously to the dying. There are many, many, many more people I could mention. My Lords, the current law does not protect people. It abandons them often to die in pain, sometimes to die without dignity, sometimes to die alone in a foreign country, or relying on the quiet, unregulated compassion of those around them.
My mother was fortunate. Many are not these people nurses, teachers, parents, magistrates deserved better. So do thousands of people like them who face the same choice or the absence of one. This year and every year that follows, our colleagues in the other place raise the hopes of the nation. Last year by passing this bill. And I'm sorry that we've let d pledge, I speak for many, many of our colleagues here is that we will try, we will try, and we will try again to bring this bill back as soon as possible in the next session to do what is right, democratically and most importantly of all, to give those people who are terminally ill hope and choice of a better way to die.
10:48
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
My Lords, I rise as one of the Lords spiritual and as a member of the Select Committee which examined this bill, I do so with a deep this bill, I do so with a deep sense of responsibility for the integrity of our legislative process, and for the dignity and protection of those whose lives may be most directly affected by what we decide. I have been deeply moved by the personal stories that have been shared by noble Lords in recent months, and wish to acknowledge my noble friend's stories that he shared with us just now.
My own dear cousin died earlier this week from a condition that could, at many stages, have been described as terminal. She continued resolutely to live life to its fullness, and her sudden death is a matter of great sadness to me. In our context, where questions of life, death, care and conscience are so closely intertwined, the quality of our scrutiny is not a procedural detail, it is a moral necessity. Some may dismiss my contribution as one which is grounded in a faith, but this is as legitimate and significant as any other viewpoint grounded in faith, belief or none.
Whilst my faith informs my alarm at our designation of dignity or the lack of it, it is from my experience on the Select Committee that I have found that the more closely we have examined this bill, the more concerns have come into focus, not fewer. For a bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative. Within our own proceedings. There has been an acknowledgement, even from those closely involved in the bill, that it is not yet in a settled or satisfactory form.
When such admissions are made, it is incumbent upon us to listen with care. The Select committee heard evidence that raised a number of unresolved and deeply serious questions. These questions were practical as well as deeply principled, whether the state should be obligated to address unmet need before assisting someone to die, even if, in doing so, the person's mind might be changed. How we ensure that we continue to uphold our duty to suicide prevention for those who are terminally ill. How such a significant change in the law would be delivered in a way that does not put vulnerable people at further risk.
How this would work for extremely vulnerable populations who do not have the same choice, such as prisoners? These are not marginal concerns. They go to the heart of how we understand protection, vulnerability and moral responsibility. Across this House, peers from many different perspectives have expressed concern that breadth of unease ought not to be dismissed lightly. Yet I share the concern that the time afforded for debate has often been limited in ways that do not reflect the gravity of the subject before us.
When the bill was first introduced, it contained a number of delegated powers of a kind that noble Lords have already pointed out rightly attracted concern. While some adjustments may have been made, the underlying issue remains whether too much is being left unresolved to be determined later rather than clarified now, there must be opportunity for a deliberative process as these are examined. Moreover, the committee and indeed the House more broadly, has raised a number of detailed questions to which clear answers have not always been forthcoming from the government or its advisers.
That lack of clarity makes it difficult for us to discharge our duty with the confidence that is required. My Lords, in my ministry, I am often reminded that how we care for those at the end of life is a measure of our common life together, that care must be marked by compassion, by clarity, and by a steadfast commitment to protect the most vulnerable. For that reason, I believe we must continue to proceed with great caution until the questions that have been raised are answered more fully, and until this bill has received the depth of scrutiny it requires, it would be irresponsible to allow it to move forward.
This is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that any change we make is just humane and worthy of the trust
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is placed in us. Lords. Baroness Campbell of Surbiton is taking part remotely. I Surbiton is taking part remotely. I invite for no less to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invite for no less to speak. My Lords, as requested by the noble and learned Lord Low Faulkner, noble and learned Lord Low Faulkner, I have reflected on the progress we have made on the terminally ill have made on the terminally ill Adults End of Life Bill to date. I know we have engaged in vital scrutiny work and made progress, although the supporters of the Bill. It does seem agonisingly slow, I am acutely conscious that the role of this House is not to rubberstamp legislation.
It demands that we draw upon our knowledge, our experience and research evidence to demonstrate why revision is necessary and, most importantly, to insist insist firmly that a bill is made safe before it leaves us. That is, our constitutional duty, and it is what we have been doing over the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
past 14 weeks in committee on this bill. Yet our work has been dismissed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yet our work has been dismissed as filibustering or worse. My Lords, as filibustering or worse. My Lords, that is simply not true. The breadth of participation in this breadth of participation in this House reflects deep and genuine House reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability
My own dear cousin died earlier this week from a condition that could, at many stages, have been described as terminal. She continued resolutely to live life to its fullness, and her sudden death is a matter of great sadness to me. In our context, where questions of life, death, care and conscience are so closely intertwined, the quality of our scrutiny is not a procedural detail, it is a moral necessity. Some may dismiss my contribution as one which is grounded in a faith, but this is as legitimate and significant as any other viewpoint grounded in faith, belief or none.
Whilst my faith informs my alarm at our designation of dignity or the lack of it, it is from my experience on the Select Committee that I have found that the more closely we have examined this bill, the more concerns have come into focus, not fewer. For a bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative. Within our own proceedings. There has been an acknowledgement, even from those closely involved in the bill, that it is not yet in a settled or satisfactory form.
When such admissions are made, it is incumbent upon us to listen with care. The Select committee heard evidence that raised a number of unresolved and deeply serious questions. These questions were practical as well as deeply principled, whether the state should be obligated to address unmet need before assisting someone to die, even if, in doing so, the person's mind might be changed. How we ensure that we continue to uphold our duty to suicide prevention for those who are terminally ill. How such a significant change in the law would be delivered in a way that does not put vulnerable people at further risk.
How this would work for extremely vulnerable populations who do not have the same choice, such as prisoners? These are not marginal concerns. They go to the heart of how we understand protection, vulnerability and moral responsibility. Across this House, peers from many different perspectives have expressed concern that breadth of unease ought not to be dismissed lightly. Yet I share the concern that the time afforded for debate has often been limited in ways that do not reflect the gravity of the subject before us.
When the bill was first introduced, it contained a number of delegated powers of a kind that noble Lords have already pointed out rightly attracted concern. While some adjustments may have been made, the underlying issue remains whether too much is being left unresolved to be determined later rather than clarified now, there must be opportunity for a deliberative process as these are examined. Moreover, the committee and indeed the House more broadly, has raised a number of detailed questions to which clear answers have not always been forthcoming from the government or its advisers.
That lack of clarity makes it difficult for us to discharge our duty with the confidence that is required. My Lords, in my ministry, I am often reminded that how we care for those at the end of life is a measure of our common life together, that care must be marked by compassion, by clarity, and by a steadfast commitment to protect the most vulnerable. For that reason, I believe we must continue to proceed with great caution until the questions that have been raised are answered more fully, and until this bill has received the depth of scrutiny it requires, it would be irresponsible to allow it to move forward.
This is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that any change we make is just humane and worthy of the trust
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that is placed in us. Lords. Baroness Campbell of Surbiton is taking part remotely. I Surbiton is taking part remotely. I invite for no less to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
invite for no less to speak. My Lords, as requested by the noble and learned Lord Low Faulkner, noble and learned Lord Low Faulkner, I have reflected on the progress we have made on the terminally ill have made on the terminally ill Adults End of Life Bill to date. I know we have engaged in vital scrutiny work and made progress, although the supporters of the Bill. It does seem agonisingly slow, I am acutely conscious that the role of this House is not to rubberstamp legislation.
It demands that we draw upon our knowledge, our experience and research evidence to demonstrate why revision is necessary and, most importantly, to insist insist firmly that a bill is made safe before it leaves us. That is, our constitutional duty, and it is what we have been doing over the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
past 14 weeks in committee on this bill. Yet our work has been dismissed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yet our work has been dismissed as filibustering or worse. My Lords, as filibustering or worse. My Lords, that is simply not true. The breadth of participation in this breadth of participation in this House reflects deep and genuine House reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability
10:55
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (Crossbench)
organisations about the risks this particular legislation may pose to particular legislation may pose to the most vulnerable. I have spent over two decades studying similar over two decades studying similar laws internationally. I have long supported autonomy for disabled people, but autonomy without people, but autonomy without protection is not freedom, it is risk. And when the outcome is irreversible, that risk must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Public opinion is given to reflect that caution. Despite the high profile celebrities fronting their campaign for assisted dying, of course they get the headlines.
Actor Miriam Margulies's recent outburst against, and I quote, a cohort of rabid Catholic privilege Lords out to sabotage the bill was heard loud and clear. But please don't be mistaken this is not a reflection of public opinion. The latest polling by Waterhouse Insight Agency shows there is no clear or informed public mandate for this bill. Around 4 in 10 people do not understand that assisted dying involves administering lethal drugs. When voters are better informed, support falls away.
Nor is this a public priority, with far greater concern focussed on NHS pressures and social care. Importantly, the same polling shows strong support for the role of this House. A clear majority of the public believes the House of Lords has a duty to amend or block legislation if it risks harm. That is not a call for us to step aside. It is a call for us to do our job without significant amendment. This bill cannot guarantee protection for those in vulnerable situations or those outside its intended scope, nor can it ensure that decisions are entirely are made entirely free from pressure.
These concerns are shared by, for example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of GPS. Where is it? The Equality Commission? Sorry, but you've lost me here. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and disability organisations, even liberty, an organisation long associated with defending individual freedoms, cannot support this bill. They warned Parliament at Second Reading that the risk to those whose rights are fragile must also be protected.
As they put it, the autonomy of one group cannot override the rights of another. Rights must be carefully and proportionately balanced. This bill fails that test. I also struggle to understand why the bill's sponsor appears unwilling to recognise the weight of expert evidence. I welcomed his open door policy to engage with our concerns, and I sought to assist him to understand the nature of a terminal prognosis. I arranged for two eminent in intensive care consultants from Saint Thomas's Hospital to meet with him.
They provided a clear tutorial on prognostication for the noble and learned Lord. They demonstrated a six month prognosis cannot provide a reliable foundation for legislation of this kind. But has he returned with amendments of his own to address this deficit in the bill? No. Much of the chatter around the debate inside and outside this chamber focuses on motives. It should not. Our role is to examine all available evidence, test safeguards and make revisions. Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear.
This particular bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your Lordships why it is dangerous for them. They fear unequal access to care, shaping their choices. They fear subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected. They fear error in prognosis. They fear persistent assumptions about the value of their lives, and they fear a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity. These are real and repeated concerns. I have contributed to amendments which have sought to strengthen safeguards.
To that end, that is not obstruction. It is our duty. After 14 weeks, it is clear more work is needed before this legislation can be considered safe. My Lords, I am here to help prevent harm, particularly to those least heard. That is why I will continue
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to press for stronger safeguards. If this Bill is to proceed, it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If this Bill is to proceed, it must clearly demonstrates that it can protect those in highly vulnerable situations while respecting the wishes of those it respecting the wishes of those it is intended to serve. At present, is intended to serve. At present, it does not meet this test. My Lords, that is where careful scrutiny was brought us so far. In the absence of actual amendments, we are now. We now have a better understanding of the risks and the changes we need to make.
When or if a similar bill returns to this House. That, my Lord, is progress. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. I, my Lords, my Lords, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. I, my Lords, my Lords, I rise to express my agreement with the noble and learned Lord Foulkes concern that the Committee stage of concern that the Committee stage of this bill should have been completed. I want it to be part of completed. I want it to be part of a process which amended this bill so we could reach Report stage and have some meaningful votes on
Actor Miriam Margulies's recent outburst against, and I quote, a cohort of rabid Catholic privilege Lords out to sabotage the bill was heard loud and clear. But please don't be mistaken this is not a reflection of public opinion. The latest polling by Waterhouse Insight Agency shows there is no clear or informed public mandate for this bill. Around 4 in 10 people do not understand that assisted dying involves administering lethal drugs. When voters are better informed, support falls away.
Nor is this a public priority, with far greater concern focussed on NHS pressures and social care. Importantly, the same polling shows strong support for the role of this House. A clear majority of the public believes the House of Lords has a duty to amend or block legislation if it risks harm. That is not a call for us to step aside. It is a call for us to do our job without significant amendment. This bill cannot guarantee protection for those in vulnerable situations or those outside its intended scope, nor can it ensure that decisions are entirely are made entirely free from pressure.
These concerns are shared by, for example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of GPS. Where is it? The Equality Commission? Sorry, but you've lost me here. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and disability organisations, even liberty, an organisation long associated with defending individual freedoms, cannot support this bill. They warned Parliament at Second Reading that the risk to those whose rights are fragile must also be protected.
As they put it, the autonomy of one group cannot override the rights of another. Rights must be carefully and proportionately balanced. This bill fails that test. I also struggle to understand why the bill's sponsor appears unwilling to recognise the weight of expert evidence. I welcomed his open door policy to engage with our concerns, and I sought to assist him to understand the nature of a terminal prognosis. I arranged for two eminent in intensive care consultants from Saint Thomas's Hospital to meet with him.
They provided a clear tutorial on prognostication for the noble and learned Lord. They demonstrated a six month prognosis cannot provide a reliable foundation for legislation of this kind. But has he returned with amendments of his own to address this deficit in the bill? No. Much of the chatter around the debate inside and outside this chamber focuses on motives. It should not. Our role is to examine all available evidence, test safeguards and make revisions. Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear.
This particular bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your Lordships why it is dangerous for them. They fear unequal access to care, shaping their choices. They fear subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected. They fear error in prognosis. They fear persistent assumptions about the value of their lives, and they fear a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity. These are real and repeated concerns. I have contributed to amendments which have sought to strengthen safeguards.
To that end, that is not obstruction. It is our duty. After 14 weeks, it is clear more work is needed before this legislation can be considered safe. My Lords, I am here to help prevent harm, particularly to those least heard. That is why I will continue
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to press for stronger safeguards. If this Bill is to proceed, it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If this Bill is to proceed, it must clearly demonstrates that it can protect those in highly vulnerable situations while respecting the wishes of those it respecting the wishes of those it is intended to serve. At present, is intended to serve. At present, it does not meet this test. My Lords, that is where careful scrutiny was brought us so far. In the absence of actual amendments, we are now. We now have a better understanding of the risks and the changes we need to make.
When or if a similar bill returns to this House. That, my Lord, is progress. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. I, my Lords, my Lords, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. I, my Lords, my Lords, I rise to express my agreement with the noble and learned Lord Foulkes concern that the Committee stage of concern that the Committee stage of this bill should have been completed. I want it to be part of completed. I want it to be part of a process which amended this bill so we could reach Report stage and have some meaningful votes on
11:02
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
have some meaningful votes on certain parts of this bill, with which I disagree profoundly. And I want to thank the noble Lord for his acknowledgement of my part. In some discussions we had, to which I refer in a moment. I also wanted to say, My Lords, what a singular privilege it is to speak shortly after the noble Lord Lord Markham, who made a moving, personal and brave speech. I think what he illustrated is that when we debate difficult issues like this, we should, as members of the House of Lords, be seeking to embrace an agreement in the final analysis, not raise our fists in disagreement.
And we really should have reached a conclusion of this process. It does raise some questions, which I hope the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip will take into account of the suitability of Committee stage in your Lordships House for private members bills of this general kind. Conscience issues, major conscience, conscience issues coming from the House of Commons. The noble Lord noble and learned Lord, in the technical language of this House, is not my noble friend, but he is my learned friend of many decades.
And I can say to your Lordships that that phrase, my learned friend, which I have about many others in this House, is a bond of friendship. However, we disagree and we have all been trying. I think, though a number of the lawyers here have disagreed about issues, to find a consensus for this bill. Of course, my noble friend Lord Falconer, if a noble Lord, Lord Falconer, if you allow me to tease him slightly, has shown in this House his barrister's skills and the skills that made him such a distinguished Lord Chancellor, his powers of preparation, his knowledge of the law, his facility with competing conceptual issues.
He's a fine advocate, but I'm going to let you into a trade secret, my Lords, for there are dangers of brilliance among advocates. It's a fact that the very best advocates are the ones who lose the most cases, because they are given the most difficult cases to argue. And I fear this has been an example, and it would be perhaps unkind to say of the noble Lord that he's demonstrated his powers to make a silk or silk purse out of a sow's ear.
But this bill has many imperfections, not least, those imperfections are in its failure to safeguard the most vulnerable. Now, I absolutely agree that the noble Lord has made some concessions, and he's mentioned them, and some of them are important concessions. But he did mention very kindly the attempt that he and I had made, as I thought it together, to try and bring back, as was in the original version of this bill, when it started its course in the House of Commons, that the ultimate governance of the process of assisted suicide.
Assisted dying should be with the courts rather than with the largely unaccountable panels, which are set up under an untested system which was introduced in the House of Commons by amendments. I think the promoters of this Bill made a serious mistake doing that. A former Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Lord Burnett, was made a Knight of the Garter this week. There's a reason why we have such confidence in senior judges, because they are able to ensure ultimate governance of the laws passed by these Houses of Parliament.
I was disappointed and I was surprised that the noble and Lord Burnett Lord did not disagree, did not agree to a process was which was available for us to meet with officials and parliamentary draughtsman to try and produce an acceptable and mutually agreeable version of my amendment 150, which was debated on the first day of this Committee stage and would have introduced ultimate governance by the courts. I heard him say this morning that we could have achieved that at Report stage.
Perhaps we had, but he did not take the advantage of trying to go through that process when it was available during the course of Committee stage. And I believe, my Lords, that if we had reached an agreement and there was a formula available which we talked about, if we had reached agreement, we might have shortened quite a lot of the debate in your Lordships House on this bill. I also would say, as kindly as I can to the Noble and learned, Lord, that I think it's rather hyperbolic to allege that this bill has illegitimately been delayed by this House.
Yes, it has been delayed by this House, but the question is as to the legitimacy of that delay. We heard earlier from the noble Lady who moved the amendment, and I would remind the noble and learned Lord, that much of the opposition has not come from old Fogeys like me. I'm now a veteran of this House. I've been here 26 years after 14. In the other place, much of the opposition has come from a group of. They. They'll forgive me. Newbies to this House, but not newbies to Parliament, noble Lords and ladies who were Cabinet Ministers in very recent time, and who have the spirit and intent of the House of Commons very much in their minds, in the work they do in the House of Lords, and we are, in general terms, very grateful for having them here.
But what they were doing was not coming here as newbies to obstruct that house, of which they'd been members for many years, even if they lost their seats, which I didn't, by the way. But I think they came here to do exactly what it says on the tin, as it were, to amend draft legislation. So it's fit for purpose and to try and do so, as I stated earlier, by agreement, not by disagreement. So although I do wish that they had at times been quicker and had put down fewer amendments, they have been doing what we are here for to make draft legislation fit for purpose.
If there is a further bill, we should, as a House, be less obdurate, and the noble and learned Lord, who ever is the sponsor of the Bill, should be less obdurate. We should have a stronger critical faculty, and we should have an ambition to complete the process of the House. And my final words are just to remind your Lordships of what this bill does. This bill is intended to give a citizen the power deliberately to bring about the death of another citizen, something that, since the end of capital punishment has not been available to citizens of this country except in a legitimate war? Let's not forget the importance of what is being asked for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By Lord. Lord Lansley Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By Lord. Lord Lansley Lord Lansley Lord Lansley. Lords, I will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be brief. My Lords, my Lords. This House has debated assisted dying this century on nine occasions, first in 2003 and then in 2005, and there are very few members in the House today who spoke in those debates. With the
And we really should have reached a conclusion of this process. It does raise some questions, which I hope the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip will take into account of the suitability of Committee stage in your Lordships House for private members bills of this general kind. Conscience issues, major conscience, conscience issues coming from the House of Commons. The noble Lord noble and learned Lord, in the technical language of this House, is not my noble friend, but he is my learned friend of many decades.
And I can say to your Lordships that that phrase, my learned friend, which I have about many others in this House, is a bond of friendship. However, we disagree and we have all been trying. I think, though a number of the lawyers here have disagreed about issues, to find a consensus for this bill. Of course, my noble friend Lord Falconer, if a noble Lord, Lord Falconer, if you allow me to tease him slightly, has shown in this House his barrister's skills and the skills that made him such a distinguished Lord Chancellor, his powers of preparation, his knowledge of the law, his facility with competing conceptual issues.
He's a fine advocate, but I'm going to let you into a trade secret, my Lords, for there are dangers of brilliance among advocates. It's a fact that the very best advocates are the ones who lose the most cases, because they are given the most difficult cases to argue. And I fear this has been an example, and it would be perhaps unkind to say of the noble Lord that he's demonstrated his powers to make a silk or silk purse out of a sow's ear.
But this bill has many imperfections, not least, those imperfections are in its failure to safeguard the most vulnerable. Now, I absolutely agree that the noble Lord has made some concessions, and he's mentioned them, and some of them are important concessions. But he did mention very kindly the attempt that he and I had made, as I thought it together, to try and bring back, as was in the original version of this bill, when it started its course in the House of Commons, that the ultimate governance of the process of assisted suicide.
Assisted dying should be with the courts rather than with the largely unaccountable panels, which are set up under an untested system which was introduced in the House of Commons by amendments. I think the promoters of this Bill made a serious mistake doing that. A former Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Lord Burnett, was made a Knight of the Garter this week. There's a reason why we have such confidence in senior judges, because they are able to ensure ultimate governance of the laws passed by these Houses of Parliament.
I was disappointed and I was surprised that the noble and Lord Burnett Lord did not disagree, did not agree to a process was which was available for us to meet with officials and parliamentary draughtsman to try and produce an acceptable and mutually agreeable version of my amendment 150, which was debated on the first day of this Committee stage and would have introduced ultimate governance by the courts. I heard him say this morning that we could have achieved that at Report stage.
Perhaps we had, but he did not take the advantage of trying to go through that process when it was available during the course of Committee stage. And I believe, my Lords, that if we had reached an agreement and there was a formula available which we talked about, if we had reached agreement, we might have shortened quite a lot of the debate in your Lordships House on this bill. I also would say, as kindly as I can to the Noble and learned, Lord, that I think it's rather hyperbolic to allege that this bill has illegitimately been delayed by this House.
Yes, it has been delayed by this House, but the question is as to the legitimacy of that delay. We heard earlier from the noble Lady who moved the amendment, and I would remind the noble and learned Lord, that much of the opposition has not come from old Fogeys like me. I'm now a veteran of this House. I've been here 26 years after 14. In the other place, much of the opposition has come from a group of. They. They'll forgive me. Newbies to this House, but not newbies to Parliament, noble Lords and ladies who were Cabinet Ministers in very recent time, and who have the spirit and intent of the House of Commons very much in their minds, in the work they do in the House of Lords, and we are, in general terms, very grateful for having them here.
But what they were doing was not coming here as newbies to obstruct that house, of which they'd been members for many years, even if they lost their seats, which I didn't, by the way. But I think they came here to do exactly what it says on the tin, as it were, to amend draft legislation. So it's fit for purpose and to try and do so, as I stated earlier, by agreement, not by disagreement. So although I do wish that they had at times been quicker and had put down fewer amendments, they have been doing what we are here for to make draft legislation fit for purpose.
If there is a further bill, we should, as a House, be less obdurate, and the noble and learned Lord, who ever is the sponsor of the Bill, should be less obdurate. We should have a stronger critical faculty, and we should have an ambition to complete the process of the House. And my final words are just to remind your Lordships of what this bill does. This bill is intended to give a citizen the power deliberately to bring about the death of another citizen, something that, since the end of capital punishment has not been available to citizens of this country except in a legitimate war? Let's not forget the importance of what is being asked for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By Lord. Lord Lansley Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By Lord. Lord Lansley Lord Lansley Lord Lansley. Lords, I will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be brief. My Lords, my Lords. This House has debated assisted dying this century on nine occasions, first in 2003 and then in 2005, and there are very few members in the House today who spoke in those debates. With the
11:11
Lord Baker of Dorking (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Baker of Dorking (Conservative)
possible exception of the Baroness possible exception of the Baroness Finlay of Llandaff. She was a very devoted opponent to the bill of those days, just as I was a devoted those days, just as I was a devoted supporter of it. But this is but all those debates were about all those debates were about private bills that originated in this House. What we have now is a bill coming from the House of bill coming from the House of Commons. It is not a government bill, but it did receive a great deal of debate and amendment and improvement, and then it was sent to us.
But we do not exist as a House, my Lords, to frustrate the determined will of the House of Commons. Our task is to examine bills which they don't do themselves in any measured way today, to improve them and to send them back. But this has been frustrated by, in fact, a group of relatively small people, just seven have actually amended nearly over a thousand amendments. And that is a tiny amount that is a tiny minority by any standard, my Lords.
No. And I believe that the prolonged filibuster which they embarked upon is a constitutional farrago. It's a denial of democracy, and it is a return to give to this House the wrecking powers, which were taken away from us in 1912. And I would like to congratulate Lord Falconer for the very patient way he dealt with the very repetitive speeches that he heard that were full of absurd exaggerations and extravagant fantasies. He didn't lose his cool, and that is quite remarkable.
And I'd also like to thank Carlyle, who's just talking to somebody. But I would like to thank Lord Carlile for his very effective contributions to improving the bill. He came forward with several proposals, but he too is frustrated from implementing them at the moment. As a result of us returning the bill to the House of Commons in the way that we received it. I support this bill for two reasons. It will reduce the suffering of many elderly people who are suffering a prolonged death, and nothing was more eloquent than the speech of my noble friend Lord Markham about that.
And we are particularly well suited in the House to debate this sort of measure, because on the whole, we are rather older than most MPs and we have all experienced the deaths of friends and colleagues and relatives. Only this week. One of my closest friends is a cross-bench in this house died. I had tea with him the previous week. Robert Skidelsky. We were very close friends. We lived close to each other. He was a brilliant economist, but he was also a very good bridge player and I shall miss him enormously.
But this. These are. He is one of the lucky ones, as it were. But one of the two reasons why I support this bill is that it does reduce the suffering of people when they slowly begin to lose the control of their own bodies. It's very interesting what the bishop said, because in the in the debates in the past, the main argument was sanctity of life. It's only the bishops that make that argument any longer. No one will make that argument any longer.
What we're concerned is the safeguards and this bill will reduce the suffering of people because we lose slowly, lose the control over our own bodies, and people can't get up and dress themselves and wash themselves and feed themselves, or prepare the food, or walk or run or engage in any life whatsoever. Then they can lose control of their bowels and their bladder. It is a very pleasant, unpleasant way to die. Very, very unpleasant. And I think that you can go to palliative care, you can you can anaesthetise pain, but you cannot anaesthetise in dignity.
And this allows people to die in a very dignified way, in a sensible way, at their own homes. Now, there's another compelling reason why this bill should actually pass, because I did ask for some evidence from the the research people in our library as to how many prosecutions and convictions for aiding a suicide each year have occurred over the last ten years. How many got to court? Well, from 215 2015 to 2025, only ten went to court and there were only two convictions.
I tried to find out what the sentences were for the two convicted, but you can't get that information at all easily. I suspect they were probably suspended sentences. So in fact, the law against suicide for elderly people is not effectively operating in the courts today because every prosecutor will know that when faced with a court hearing where the accused person has killed his wife, or the wife has killed the husband, and they have done it not from greed, not forgetting the bungalow, but for actually love.
And juries will not convict. And so we have a law on the statute book which is not being effectively operated. And the police have really disengaged, in fact, from promoting such cases. This is the evidence again, I got from the library from April 1329 to March 25th, 199 cases were referred to the public prosecutor by the police for assisted suicide. Of these, 199 cases, 131.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord Lord Baker, but I am sure he would want the House to be aware that the Attorney General's guidelines has assisted General's guidelines has assisted in enabling prosecutors to make decisions which would obviate the decisions which would obviate the need for prosecution, where there is no evidence that the person assisting did it other than by love. So the fact that there is so there are so few prosecutions is something we should celebrate as opposed to criticise, because those ten that go forward are because there is evidence that that which was done was not well done and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should be prosecuted. Are you. Saying that the police
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are you. Saying that the police have decided very clearly what the position is, because since 2009 and position is, because since 2009 and 25, 199 cases were referred to the director of Public prosecution by the police, that the court physician assisted suicide. Of physician assisted suicide. Of these, 199 cases, 131 were not proceeded with by the Director of Public Prosecutions and were withdrawn, and the police then withdrew 39 of the cases. So this is not a law that is operating today because juries will not convict.
And my Lord, I would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't want to interrupt him, the noble Lord, again, but I think it's right for him to know that this matter came before the this matter came before the Attorney General myself to determine how we should address this problem. How could we make it better? How could we differentiate between those who should validly be between those who should validly be prosecuted and those who should not? And the Director of Public prosecution then has a duty to implement the Attorney General's guidelines when making a decision as to whether or not to prosecute, and they have duly done so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do. Recognise there is that power, but it is very rarely used. That's the point I'm making all the time. Geordies will not convict now. This has happened before in our history, has happened before in our history, my Lords. There was a time when the law decided that youngsters, as well as 10 or 12, could be hanged well as 10 or 12, could be hanged for stealing a pocket handkerchief, but that fell away because juries but that fell away because juries would not convict.
And similarly, I do not believe that, in fact, the present law on suicide can in fact operate effectively and therefore it should be changed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I reflect on the debate. I. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Keep going. My Lords. I've spoken only once previously in the many long hours of debate on this bill that was at of debate on this bill that was at Second Reading when I told the story of Daniel, the much loved son story of Daniel, the much loved son of the noble Lord Monks, who, in the absence of any form of assisted dying in this country and faced with intolerable suffering, starved himself to death in 2024, like many others around our country, I had strong hopes that this bill would have given.
For the first time, people very close to the end of their life some choice on how to leave this world while remaining silent in the chamber, it quickly became very clear to me that an additional voice was certainly not needed. I've been distressed and disturbed by what I've witnessed here. As I was coming into this place a little over a year ago now, I was given to understand that we had two central responsibilities. Our job was not to seek to displace or overturn the elected house, but to act as a scrutinising and revising chamber.
So how well have we carried out those responsibilities? As the noble Lord Faulkner reminded us, this is the bill of 59 clauses in committee. After 120 hours of debate, we've managed to scrutinise only seven of those clauses. The rest of the Bill 52 clauses has received no scrutiny whatsoever. And as to our responsibility to propose revisions for the elected House to consider. Well, there have been a handful of entirely non-contentious matters where revisions have been made during Committee stage.
But of course, substantive revisions would fall to be considered and voted on at Report stage, and we have never come even close to reaching that point. So in sum, we have abjectly failed in our responsibilities as a scrutinising and revising chamber. It became apparent very early on during Committee stage that the rate of progress was utterly glacial. The noble Lord Faulkner proposed a motion to the House seeking additional time, if necessary, and committing the House to completing consideration of the bill in good order to return it to the Commons.
Nobody voted against it, but also nobody changed the form or the length of their contributions to these debates, even by a tiny amount, to make it objective, achievable and all efforts by the noble Lord Faulkner, as he reminded us to establish more streamlined processes, came to nought. Now there's been a catch all justification that we've heard again today, offered by some of the bill's opponents, that it has always been, and I quote, a bad bill in need of fundamental root and branch reworking from top to bottom as a result of insufficient earlier work and detailed scrutiny.
I reject that view, and I regard it as deeply disrespectful and insulting slur on the sponsors of the bill and all those highly expert advisers who have supported
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the sponsors at every stage of the bill's preparation. Yes. I also think it rather ignores
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also think it rather ignores the very detailed consideration the bill received in the elected bill received in the elected chamber, in many cases, with hon. Members. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Members. I. With, with great. With great, with great respect,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With great, with great respect, I'd like to conclude my remarks. In the elected chamber with many cases of hon. Members weighing their positions after close consultation with deeply interested constituents, noble Lords may disagree with the Bill and oppose its objectives, but please don't claim that there is some grave technical deficiency in it to justify that position. Now, I've used throughout these remarks the word we in describing the House's handling of this bill. But this is not about the House as a whole, because what has become abundantly clear to me, and I suspect to many people in the wider community, is how a relatively small number of people in this place have been able to use its procedures not to scrutinise or revise a bill supported by the elected House, but simply to seek to block it.
In my younger days, I attended a number of lively demonstrations led by the chant kill the Bill. Well, the message and intent of some colleagues may have been less brutally expressed in this House, but the objective has been clear. Many noble Lords have had grave reservations on particular points in the Bill, but have seen it as their duty to seek what they consider would be improvements. They, too, have been thwarted by the actions of those determined to block its passage.
Indeed, the whole House has been denied any meaningful opportunity to express their view on the bill as a whole, and what it was seeking to achieve. Now. This may now prompt a wider debate about the role of this House, the privileges it confers on noble Lords, and whether its procedures are justifiable when they can be used so blatantly to overturn the expressed will of the elected chamber. Now, I recognise that many noble Lords have genuine, deeply felt objections to this Bill, perhaps as a result of their faith or just a strong personal conviction that this bill can never build in enough safeguards to satisfy their conscience.
I recognise and respect that. But is it right on that basis to use the privileged position this this House gives to each of us to impose that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
personal view on the membership of the House as a whole? I think not. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Now, that is a matter of interest to those of us concerned with constitutional issues in our with constitutional issues in our democracy and institutions, though I have to say I would not run a I have to say I would not run a local trade union branch meeting with a difficult decision to make with a difficult decision to make in this self-regulated way that so many Lords take great pride in. But as we lay this bill to rest and pronounce the last rites over it, at least for now, I think, first of all, of those ordinary, decent people, perhaps with deeply loved ones in circumstances such as those that faced Daniel yearning to see this change enacted, they will be bewildered and outraged to understand how it has founded in this place, on this matter.
The House has not served our nation well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well done.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well done. Great. And. Or an opportunity to reflect on this debate. I think actually it's around it's actually it's around it's approaching 250 members who've spoken in the debate, not the spoken in the debate, not the minority that have been spoken about. I remind the House that I was I'm a past president of the was I'm a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a fellow of three other royal colleges. And when my husband was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, he read that motor neurone disease is the most feared illness.
He took a different view. He joked that he was just fading away. He had good care. I wish everybody did. He died naturally and peacefully at home with a smile on his face. My Lords, fear is infectious. Please let's not feed on fear. The bill's aim was to provide patients with choice at the end of their lives, but for this to be meaningful, it needs to be a meaningful choice, a real choice. And I've introduced amendments to try to address the other side of choice the lack of palliative care and the gaps in services that underlie so many of the distressing stories that we've heard.
The lack of clarity about the actual means by which someone would be assisted to end their own life, and the risk of implicit institutional coercion when new processes and procedures change the culture in the NHS. Let me give you
But we do not exist as a House, my Lords, to frustrate the determined will of the House of Commons. Our task is to examine bills which they don't do themselves in any measured way today, to improve them and to send them back. But this has been frustrated by, in fact, a group of relatively small people, just seven have actually amended nearly over a thousand amendments. And that is a tiny amount that is a tiny minority by any standard, my Lords.
No. And I believe that the prolonged filibuster which they embarked upon is a constitutional farrago. It's a denial of democracy, and it is a return to give to this House the wrecking powers, which were taken away from us in 1912. And I would like to congratulate Lord Falconer for the very patient way he dealt with the very repetitive speeches that he heard that were full of absurd exaggerations and extravagant fantasies. He didn't lose his cool, and that is quite remarkable.
And I'd also like to thank Carlyle, who's just talking to somebody. But I would like to thank Lord Carlile for his very effective contributions to improving the bill. He came forward with several proposals, but he too is frustrated from implementing them at the moment. As a result of us returning the bill to the House of Commons in the way that we received it. I support this bill for two reasons. It will reduce the suffering of many elderly people who are suffering a prolonged death, and nothing was more eloquent than the speech of my noble friend Lord Markham about that.
And we are particularly well suited in the House to debate this sort of measure, because on the whole, we are rather older than most MPs and we have all experienced the deaths of friends and colleagues and relatives. Only this week. One of my closest friends is a cross-bench in this house died. I had tea with him the previous week. Robert Skidelsky. We were very close friends. We lived close to each other. He was a brilliant economist, but he was also a very good bridge player and I shall miss him enormously.
But this. These are. He is one of the lucky ones, as it were. But one of the two reasons why I support this bill is that it does reduce the suffering of people when they slowly begin to lose the control of their own bodies. It's very interesting what the bishop said, because in the in the debates in the past, the main argument was sanctity of life. It's only the bishops that make that argument any longer. No one will make that argument any longer.
What we're concerned is the safeguards and this bill will reduce the suffering of people because we lose slowly, lose the control over our own bodies, and people can't get up and dress themselves and wash themselves and feed themselves, or prepare the food, or walk or run or engage in any life whatsoever. Then they can lose control of their bowels and their bladder. It is a very pleasant, unpleasant way to die. Very, very unpleasant. And I think that you can go to palliative care, you can you can anaesthetise pain, but you cannot anaesthetise in dignity.
And this allows people to die in a very dignified way, in a sensible way, at their own homes. Now, there's another compelling reason why this bill should actually pass, because I did ask for some evidence from the the research people in our library as to how many prosecutions and convictions for aiding a suicide each year have occurred over the last ten years. How many got to court? Well, from 215 2015 to 2025, only ten went to court and there were only two convictions.
I tried to find out what the sentences were for the two convicted, but you can't get that information at all easily. I suspect they were probably suspended sentences. So in fact, the law against suicide for elderly people is not effectively operating in the courts today because every prosecutor will know that when faced with a court hearing where the accused person has killed his wife, or the wife has killed the husband, and they have done it not from greed, not forgetting the bungalow, but for actually love.
And juries will not convict. And so we have a law on the statute book which is not being effectively operated. And the police have really disengaged, in fact, from promoting such cases. This is the evidence again, I got from the library from April 1329 to March 25th, 199 cases were referred to the public prosecutor by the police for assisted suicide. Of these, 199 cases, 131.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord Lord Baker, but I am sure he would want the House to be aware that the Attorney General's guidelines has assisted General's guidelines has assisted in enabling prosecutors to make decisions which would obviate the decisions which would obviate the need for prosecution, where there is no evidence that the person assisting did it other than by love. So the fact that there is so there are so few prosecutions is something we should celebrate as opposed to criticise, because those ten that go forward are because there is evidence that that which was done was not well done and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should be prosecuted. Are you. Saying that the police
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are you. Saying that the police have decided very clearly what the position is, because since 2009 and position is, because since 2009 and 25, 199 cases were referred to the director of Public prosecution by the police, that the court physician assisted suicide. Of physician assisted suicide. Of these, 199 cases, 131 were not proceeded with by the Director of Public Prosecutions and were withdrawn, and the police then withdrew 39 of the cases. So this is not a law that is operating today because juries will not convict.
And my Lord, I would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I don't want to interrupt him, the noble Lord, again, but I think it's right for him to know that this matter came before the this matter came before the Attorney General myself to determine how we should address this problem. How could we make it better? How could we differentiate between those who should validly be between those who should validly be prosecuted and those who should not? And the Director of Public prosecution then has a duty to implement the Attorney General's guidelines when making a decision as to whether or not to prosecute, and they have duly done so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I do. Recognise there is that power, but it is very rarely used. That's the point I'm making all the time. Geordies will not convict now. This has happened before in our history, has happened before in our history, my Lords. There was a time when the law decided that youngsters, as well as 10 or 12, could be hanged well as 10 or 12, could be hanged for stealing a pocket handkerchief, but that fell away because juries but that fell away because juries would not convict.
And similarly, I do not believe that, in fact, the present law on suicide can in fact operate effectively and therefore it should be changed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I reflect on the debate. I. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Keep going. My Lords. I've spoken only once previously in the many long hours of debate on this bill that was at of debate on this bill that was at Second Reading when I told the story of Daniel, the much loved son story of Daniel, the much loved son of the noble Lord Monks, who, in the absence of any form of assisted dying in this country and faced with intolerable suffering, starved himself to death in 2024, like many others around our country, I had strong hopes that this bill would have given.
For the first time, people very close to the end of their life some choice on how to leave this world while remaining silent in the chamber, it quickly became very clear to me that an additional voice was certainly not needed. I've been distressed and disturbed by what I've witnessed here. As I was coming into this place a little over a year ago now, I was given to understand that we had two central responsibilities. Our job was not to seek to displace or overturn the elected house, but to act as a scrutinising and revising chamber.
So how well have we carried out those responsibilities? As the noble Lord Faulkner reminded us, this is the bill of 59 clauses in committee. After 120 hours of debate, we've managed to scrutinise only seven of those clauses. The rest of the Bill 52 clauses has received no scrutiny whatsoever. And as to our responsibility to propose revisions for the elected House to consider. Well, there have been a handful of entirely non-contentious matters where revisions have been made during Committee stage.
But of course, substantive revisions would fall to be considered and voted on at Report stage, and we have never come even close to reaching that point. So in sum, we have abjectly failed in our responsibilities as a scrutinising and revising chamber. It became apparent very early on during Committee stage that the rate of progress was utterly glacial. The noble Lord Faulkner proposed a motion to the House seeking additional time, if necessary, and committing the House to completing consideration of the bill in good order to return it to the Commons.
Nobody voted against it, but also nobody changed the form or the length of their contributions to these debates, even by a tiny amount, to make it objective, achievable and all efforts by the noble Lord Faulkner, as he reminded us to establish more streamlined processes, came to nought. Now there's been a catch all justification that we've heard again today, offered by some of the bill's opponents, that it has always been, and I quote, a bad bill in need of fundamental root and branch reworking from top to bottom as a result of insufficient earlier work and detailed scrutiny.
I reject that view, and I regard it as deeply disrespectful and insulting slur on the sponsors of the bill and all those highly expert advisers who have supported
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the sponsors at every stage of the bill's preparation. Yes. I also think it rather ignores
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also think it rather ignores the very detailed consideration the bill received in the elected bill received in the elected chamber, in many cases, with hon. Members. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Members. I. With, with great. With great, with great respect,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With great, with great respect, I'd like to conclude my remarks. In the elected chamber with many cases of hon. Members weighing their positions after close consultation with deeply interested constituents, noble Lords may disagree with the Bill and oppose its objectives, but please don't claim that there is some grave technical deficiency in it to justify that position. Now, I've used throughout these remarks the word we in describing the House's handling of this bill. But this is not about the House as a whole, because what has become abundantly clear to me, and I suspect to many people in the wider community, is how a relatively small number of people in this place have been able to use its procedures not to scrutinise or revise a bill supported by the elected House, but simply to seek to block it.
In my younger days, I attended a number of lively demonstrations led by the chant kill the Bill. Well, the message and intent of some colleagues may have been less brutally expressed in this House, but the objective has been clear. Many noble Lords have had grave reservations on particular points in the Bill, but have seen it as their duty to seek what they consider would be improvements. They, too, have been thwarted by the actions of those determined to block its passage.
Indeed, the whole House has been denied any meaningful opportunity to express their view on the bill as a whole, and what it was seeking to achieve. Now. This may now prompt a wider debate about the role of this House, the privileges it confers on noble Lords, and whether its procedures are justifiable when they can be used so blatantly to overturn the expressed will of the elected chamber. Now, I recognise that many noble Lords have genuine, deeply felt objections to this Bill, perhaps as a result of their faith or just a strong personal conviction that this bill can never build in enough safeguards to satisfy their conscience.
I recognise and respect that. But is it right on that basis to use the privileged position this this House gives to each of us to impose that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
personal view on the membership of the House as a whole? I think not. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Now, that is a matter of interest to those of us concerned with constitutional issues in our with constitutional issues in our democracy and institutions, though I have to say I would not run a I have to say I would not run a local trade union branch meeting with a difficult decision to make with a difficult decision to make in this self-regulated way that so many Lords take great pride in. But as we lay this bill to rest and pronounce the last rites over it, at least for now, I think, first of all, of those ordinary, decent people, perhaps with deeply loved ones in circumstances such as those that faced Daniel yearning to see this change enacted, they will be bewildered and outraged to understand how it has founded in this place, on this matter.
The House has not served our nation well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well done.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well done. Great. And. Or an opportunity to reflect on this debate. I think actually it's around it's actually it's around it's approaching 250 members who've spoken in the debate, not the spoken in the debate, not the minority that have been spoken about. I remind the House that I was I'm a past president of the was I'm a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a fellow of three other royal colleges. And when my husband was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, he read that motor neurone disease is the most feared illness.
He took a different view. He joked that he was just fading away. He had good care. I wish everybody did. He died naturally and peacefully at home with a smile on his face. My Lords, fear is infectious. Please let's not feed on fear. The bill's aim was to provide patients with choice at the end of their lives, but for this to be meaningful, it needs to be a meaningful choice, a real choice. And I've introduced amendments to try to address the other side of choice the lack of palliative care and the gaps in services that underlie so many of the distressing stories that we've heard.
The lack of clarity about the actual means by which someone would be assisted to end their own life, and the risk of implicit institutional coercion when new processes and procedures change the culture in the NHS. Let me give you
11:30
11:30
Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
this week, I had an encounter with a neurosurgeon. It was a day that changed mine and my family's lives changed mine and my family's lives forever. The outcome could have been so very different and I don't like to think about that. It was like to think about that. It was about choice at the end of life, but whose choice? The actual choice about whether to live or die was in the hands of the doctor. And let me explain. The doctor's clinical team had been distressed when a judge approved the request of a previous patient with a high level spinal injury, to turn off her life support.
He didn't want to put his team through it again. Just one case of having to turn off a young woman's life. Support had been enough to change his attitude and the culture of care in his team. Now, my unconscious daughter was being ventilated after a major injury, and he was refusing to admit her to intensive care. My daughter's husband was the chief persuader to give her a chance to live, to admit her, to intensive care, to give her a chance to respect the choice of those who knew her best.
And during the conversation that followed, the surgeon was in tears about the situation, and I, the mother of his new patient, was his comforter. He thought that my daughter's life would not be worth living, that she would be so disabled that she would soon ask for her life support to be turned off to. He did admit her. She recovered consciousness. She had a high level spinal injury and would be permanently paralysed and she couldn't talk. We taught her to spell words by opening her eyes letter by letter, as we recited the alphabet to her, and ten days after her injury, she blinked the letters of a poem which gave us hope.
It went like this. Still silent body. But within my spirit sings. Dancing in Love, light. And 21 years later, this is her reflection dictated on her phone. I love my life and I'm so grateful for my family, for fighting for it. I'm grateful to all those clinicians who helped to keep me alive after my injury, believing in the value of my life, especially in those early days when I doubted it myself. I'm grateful to have a health system that supports and cares for disabled people, supports that enable me to live a happy, full, useful life as a wife, a mother, a teacher, and a mentor in my family and in the wider community.
Even though I don't know how my health will look in the future. What I have learnt over the past two decades of living with a spinal injury is that in the midst of the challenges, there are far more surprising gifts than I could ever have imagined. My Lords, my point is this there is a real risk of implicit coercion at both interpersonal and institutional levels, and this must be considered alongside explicit coercion in any future legislation. Keeping assisted dying outside the NHS may mitigate the systemic and institutional pressures.
I have tried to find some ways to make this bill safer, to minimise any unintended consequences on patient care and on the NHS. Sadly, the noble and learned Lord responded to all of my amendments with the words I don't agree. I conclude that my concerns and the concerns expressed by the medical royal colleges and organisations representing disabled people have not and could not be addressed.
He didn't want to put his team through it again. Just one case of having to turn off a young woman's life. Support had been enough to change his attitude and the culture of care in his team. Now, my unconscious daughter was being ventilated after a major injury, and he was refusing to admit her to intensive care. My daughter's husband was the chief persuader to give her a chance to live, to admit her, to intensive care, to give her a chance to respect the choice of those who knew her best.
And during the conversation that followed, the surgeon was in tears about the situation, and I, the mother of his new patient, was his comforter. He thought that my daughter's life would not be worth living, that she would be so disabled that she would soon ask for her life support to be turned off to. He did admit her. She recovered consciousness. She had a high level spinal injury and would be permanently paralysed and she couldn't talk. We taught her to spell words by opening her eyes letter by letter, as we recited the alphabet to her, and ten days after her injury, she blinked the letters of a poem which gave us hope.
It went like this. Still silent body. But within my spirit sings. Dancing in Love, light. And 21 years later, this is her reflection dictated on her phone. I love my life and I'm so grateful for my family, for fighting for it. I'm grateful to all those clinicians who helped to keep me alive after my injury, believing in the value of my life, especially in those early days when I doubted it myself. I'm grateful to have a health system that supports and cares for disabled people, supports that enable me to live a happy, full, useful life as a wife, a mother, a teacher, and a mentor in my family and in the wider community.
Even though I don't know how my health will look in the future. What I have learnt over the past two decades of living with a spinal injury is that in the midst of the challenges, there are far more surprising gifts than I could ever have imagined. My Lords, my point is this there is a real risk of implicit coercion at both interpersonal and institutional levels, and this must be considered alongside explicit coercion in any future legislation. Keeping assisted dying outside the NHS may mitigate the systemic and institutional pressures.
I have tried to find some ways to make this bill safer, to minimise any unintended consequences on patient care and on the NHS. Sadly, the noble and learned Lord responded to all of my amendments with the words I don't agree. I conclude that my concerns and the concerns expressed by the medical royal colleges and organisations representing disabled people have not and could not be addressed.
11:34
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
I was very glad to give way to my former boss, but with the greatest respect to a number of Lords, I think what we are hearing is, in a sense, what we would have heard had we taken this bill to Third Reading. We're hearing debates about the principle of the bill, whereas this is a debate about where we have reached and how we should perhaps have dealt with this bill, or indeed, how we should deal with a bill if we are presented with a bill like this in a future session.
So I want to focus on that point, and I'm very glad, actually, to have followed the noble Lord Lord Carlile, because I think he devoted some, made some very important and substantial points about how we should do that. So few noble Lords might remember that several weeks ago I said, I thought our responsibility was to proceed with the Bill to the point at report where we are considering and improving the bill by amendment and voting on that, and that we should therefore take the bill to Third Reading.
And my expectation would be that we would send it back in an improved form to the other place. And in order to achieve that, I said I would withdraw the amendments that were in my name, and I did so. I was very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Goodman of Wycombe and noble Lord Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord Bishop of Southwark, in assisting in withdrawing those amendments. I don't think any other noble Lords did that.
To my knowledge. What I want to say in a in a sentence is we are a self-regulatory house. If we wish that to work, we have to regulate ourselves because we cannot rely upon somebody else doing it for us. We did not do that. And I think we have to think very carefully about any future bill that we receive and seek to do that. I think we should do it in our through our normal procedures, perhaps with. As the noble Lord Lord Carlile said, thinking again and differently about how we conduct the Committee procedures in relation to a bill of this kind.
But we definitely should do it substantively at report with votes. Now, it seems to me when we see a new bill I do not wish to see. I don't know what the proposals will be in another place, but we definitely should not see the same bill presented back to us by way of a Parliament Act procedure. I think the sponsors of the Bill should recognise that the debates that we have seen and the amendments that we have seen, but not necessarily debated, of which several are mine, should be separated into revisions to the bill.
Substantive, substantial revisions to the bill. I would I would draw attention to just two. One, not least because listening to Baroness Hollins, I agree with her that we need more by way of safeguards in relation to the availability of standards of palliative and end of life care built into the bill. One of my amendments was to that effect, but particularly, I would draw noble Lords attentions to the two speeches that we heard during earlier debates from Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and about the relationship between the structure of this bill and the National Health Service.
It will not work as it is presently structured. I believe we have to go back to thinking about an assisted dying service, if we wish there to be one which operates independently from the NHS. But of course, with the participation of all of those willing clinicians and others who are needed professionally to support it. But it will not work if it is put into the structure of the NHS as we presently have it. So I hope we if if, if the if the sponsors of the bill wish to bring back another bill, it is a different bill and it is a bill which, for my part, I hope those who have been opposed to this bill would be willing to put aside the fact that they are opposed in principle, and leave that to the Third Reading debate, when.
If they are opposed in principle, they can vote against it, but at least give those who are in favour of the bill and another place, if they send it back to us, the opportunity to see what the bill would look like with the amendments that we think need to be made to it, because at the moment on this procedure, we have not accomplished that responsibility.
So I want to focus on that point, and I'm very glad, actually, to have followed the noble Lord Lord Carlile, because I think he devoted some, made some very important and substantial points about how we should do that. So few noble Lords might remember that several weeks ago I said, I thought our responsibility was to proceed with the Bill to the point at report where we are considering and improving the bill by amendment and voting on that, and that we should therefore take the bill to Third Reading.
And my expectation would be that we would send it back in an improved form to the other place. And in order to achieve that, I said I would withdraw the amendments that were in my name, and I did so. I was very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Goodman of Wycombe and noble Lord Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord Bishop of Southwark, in assisting in withdrawing those amendments. I don't think any other noble Lords did that.
To my knowledge. What I want to say in a in a sentence is we are a self-regulatory house. If we wish that to work, we have to regulate ourselves because we cannot rely upon somebody else doing it for us. We did not do that. And I think we have to think very carefully about any future bill that we receive and seek to do that. I think we should do it in our through our normal procedures, perhaps with. As the noble Lord Lord Carlile said, thinking again and differently about how we conduct the Committee procedures in relation to a bill of this kind.
But we definitely should do it substantively at report with votes. Now, it seems to me when we see a new bill I do not wish to see. I don't know what the proposals will be in another place, but we definitely should not see the same bill presented back to us by way of a Parliament Act procedure. I think the sponsors of the Bill should recognise that the debates that we have seen and the amendments that we have seen, but not necessarily debated, of which several are mine, should be separated into revisions to the bill.
Substantive, substantial revisions to the bill. I would I would draw attention to just two. One, not least because listening to Baroness Hollins, I agree with her that we need more by way of safeguards in relation to the availability of standards of palliative and end of life care built into the bill. One of my amendments was to that effect, but particularly, I would draw noble Lords attentions to the two speeches that we heard during earlier debates from Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and about the relationship between the structure of this bill and the National Health Service.
It will not work as it is presently structured. I believe we have to go back to thinking about an assisted dying service, if we wish there to be one which operates independently from the NHS. But of course, with the participation of all of those willing clinicians and others who are needed professionally to support it. But it will not work if it is put into the structure of the NHS as we presently have it. So I hope we if if, if the if the sponsors of the bill wish to bring back another bill, it is a different bill and it is a bill which, for my part, I hope those who have been opposed to this bill would be willing to put aside the fact that they are opposed in principle, and leave that to the Third Reading debate, when.
If they are opposed in principle, they can vote against it, but at least give those who are in favour of the bill and another place, if they send it back to us, the opportunity to see what the bill would look like with the amendments that we think need to be made to it, because at the moment on this procedure, we have not accomplished that responsibility.
11:39
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
So that I put down one amendment >> So that I put down one amendment and I didn't speak to it, but I don't like the bill. Everyone knows don't like the bill. Everyone knows that. But I was working and trying very hard to get it to Third Reading. And I'm grateful to the noble and learned Lord for recognising that. But what I did want to say to your Lordships is something about the future. It's inevitable there will be another Bill, and can I implore that the other House, assisted by us, has pre-legislative scrutiny, because if we have pre-legislative scrutiny, we really should be putting it through this House.
11:40
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
Can I rise to speak? I've. I'm >> Can I rise to speak? I've. I'm one of the newbies that Lord Carlile referred to. Although I have not spent time in government, I actually spent a lot of time in I actually spent a lot of time in local government and a brief time in the European Parliament. Noble Lords would know that I only spoken Lords would know that I only spoken twice during the debate. One substantial speech that I made at the start, and then one intervention, and I've sat through the the many Fridays that we've had, and I want to pay tribute to Lord Markham speech earlier.
Moving and personal. And I was with some friends last night who asked me if I was going back home to Sheffield or was I staying. And I said, I'm going to stay and I'm going to listen. I don't have a pre-prepared speech. I'm going to speak from the heart. And I have to say that there has been occasions during the deliberations here that actually noble Lords have raised some really important points, whether it's around learning disabilities, whether it's prisoners. And I have to say that Lord Falconer and others that are sponsoring this have listened.
But my frustration has been that just because we have like I have ten minutes today, doesn't mean I need to take ten minutes to get to the point. And I think noble Lords need to reflect on that, that the points that you need to make. If we were to make them quicker, then we may well have got through the many more topics. And I pay tribute to Lord Carlile and his efforts trying to narrow the debate into topics. And I thought we had a way forward, because I have to say, my Lords, that on Wednesday, when I was making my way to the Public Services Committee due to the tube strike, I set up 1.5 hours earlier, not realising the tubes were still running, I got.
So I was here an hour and a half an hour and 15 before the. Because the Jubilee Line was still running, there were many people outside Parliament deeply frustrated by what is happening in your Lordships House, and I have to say that there are issues of confidence and trust, and our reputation is at stake. And you know what? Our duties are here to revise and scrutinise legislation, and that's what we do best. And I have to say that one of the key points for me has always been about choice.
And I've made it very clear to you, Lordships House, in my first speech on this topic, that this is not something that I would like to exercise, nor will any member of my family or anyone else I know from my faith. However, who am I to stop others and I? That's why I've said I will play an active role in helping revise and improve this legislation where I can. But I don't intend to block. And I really hope that the sponsors of this.
Both Lord Falconer here and also see. This. I'm not sure what the terminology to use, but my friend from the other place are here and they are listening because I see this issue coming back to us. My Lords, this is not going to go away just because we're not able to conclude our deliberations. And as Baroness Butler-Sloss said earlier, that we may have to do some pre scrutiny on this because ultimately, you know, as I see it, this is half time for this issue.
There's going to be a second half after in the next session. And I really hope that all noble Lords from both sides of the argument reflect on how we have conducted ourselves in the many Fridays and how we can improve how we operate and the public perception with it. And with that, I'll stand down after three minutes. My Lords. minutes. My Lords.
Moving and personal. And I was with some friends last night who asked me if I was going back home to Sheffield or was I staying. And I said, I'm going to stay and I'm going to listen. I don't have a pre-prepared speech. I'm going to speak from the heart. And I have to say that there has been occasions during the deliberations here that actually noble Lords have raised some really important points, whether it's around learning disabilities, whether it's prisoners. And I have to say that Lord Falconer and others that are sponsoring this have listened.
But my frustration has been that just because we have like I have ten minutes today, doesn't mean I need to take ten minutes to get to the point. And I think noble Lords need to reflect on that, that the points that you need to make. If we were to make them quicker, then we may well have got through the many more topics. And I pay tribute to Lord Carlile and his efforts trying to narrow the debate into topics. And I thought we had a way forward, because I have to say, my Lords, that on Wednesday, when I was making my way to the Public Services Committee due to the tube strike, I set up 1.5 hours earlier, not realising the tubes were still running, I got.
So I was here an hour and a half an hour and 15 before the. Because the Jubilee Line was still running, there were many people outside Parliament deeply frustrated by what is happening in your Lordships House, and I have to say that there are issues of confidence and trust, and our reputation is at stake. And you know what? Our duties are here to revise and scrutinise legislation, and that's what we do best. And I have to say that one of the key points for me has always been about choice.
And I've made it very clear to you, Lordships House, in my first speech on this topic, that this is not something that I would like to exercise, nor will any member of my family or anyone else I know from my faith. However, who am I to stop others and I? That's why I've said I will play an active role in helping revise and improve this legislation where I can. But I don't intend to block. And I really hope that the sponsors of this.
Both Lord Falconer here and also see. This. I'm not sure what the terminology to use, but my friend from the other place are here and they are listening because I see this issue coming back to us. My Lords, this is not going to go away just because we're not able to conclude our deliberations. And as Baroness Butler-Sloss said earlier, that we may have to do some pre scrutiny on this because ultimately, you know, as I see it, this is half time for this issue.
There's going to be a second half after in the next session. And I really hope that all noble Lords from both sides of the argument reflect on how we have conducted ourselves in the many Fridays and how we can improve how we operate and the public perception with it. And with that, I'll stand down after three minutes. My Lords. minutes. My Lords.
11:44
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
My Lords. Now. Lord, Lord. My Lords. >> Prentice. Prentice. >> Lord, I am one of the members of your Lords Lordship Select Committee on that. Like Lord Markham, we came from different perspectives on the bill. As noble Lords know, I am not in favour of the principle of assisted dying. However, my view has always been that the role of your Lordships House is very clear that it is to scrutinise and to amend legislation, and I have at no point sought to
11:44
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
delay the legislation, because I think it is crucial that we send a message to the other House and if message to the other House and if my views prevailed, my preference would have been to say we don't want this legislation at all, but that doesn't appear to be the will of your Lordships House. And the of your Lordships House. And the view of the country seems to be a general preference for legislation on assisted dying. But as legislators, as I said at Second Reading, we're not legislating for ourselves or our own preferences.
We must be legislating for the most vulnerable in society. I am in a different position from many noble Lords because the sponsor of the bill, the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, did actually agree with one of my proposals on the 16th of January and has tabled three amendments 330 A, 357 A and 387 A about allowing or indeed requiring a doctor to ask somebody why they want an assisted death. My Lords, if this legislation stops today, I would like very much to ask the noble Lord and anyone in the other place who might be minded to sponsor a similar bill in the next session, to do as the noble Lord Lord Lansley said, and find a way of bringing forward legislation that would include some of the safeguards that the noble Lord has actually indicated that he would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support. Apologise for intervening on on Baroness. But I completely agree Baroness. But I completely agree with what she said and the way that that would happen would be the bill would come back from the Commons would come back from the Commons and we would agree here to put in those amendments, which I put in as those amendments, which I put in as a result of the power of her speeches, and then we would send it back to the Commons, where it would be agreed and not let it get caught be agreed and not let it get caught in a procedural thicket.
Again.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. Crossbenchers first, then. No, this is a private member's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No, this is a private member's bill. There was no manifesto commitment to it, nor was it in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
King's Speech. It is. There couldn't be. Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. Order, order! I'm sorry, the noble Lord interrupts me. I'm not going to give way. Excuse me, my Lords. It is our duty as the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House said to scrutinise, to approve, to
We must be legislating for the most vulnerable in society. I am in a different position from many noble Lords because the sponsor of the bill, the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, did actually agree with one of my proposals on the 16th of January and has tabled three amendments 330 A, 357 A and 387 A about allowing or indeed requiring a doctor to ask somebody why they want an assisted death. My Lords, if this legislation stops today, I would like very much to ask the noble Lord and anyone in the other place who might be minded to sponsor a similar bill in the next session, to do as the noble Lord Lord Lansley said, and find a way of bringing forward legislation that would include some of the safeguards that the noble Lord has actually indicated that he would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support. Apologise for intervening on on Baroness. But I completely agree Baroness. But I completely agree with what she said and the way that that would happen would be the bill would come back from the Commons would come back from the Commons and we would agree here to put in those amendments, which I put in as those amendments, which I put in as a result of the power of her speeches, and then we would send it back to the Commons, where it would be agreed and not let it get caught be agreed and not let it get caught in a procedural thicket.
Again.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. Crossbenchers first, then. No, this is a private member's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No, this is a private member's bill. There was no manifesto commitment to it, nor was it in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
King's Speech. It is. There couldn't be. Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order, order. Order, order! I'm sorry, the noble Lord interrupts me. I'm not going to give way. Excuse me, my Lords. It is our duty as the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House said to scrutinise, to approve, to
11:47
Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
amend or reject any bill. Constitutionally, we are under no Constitutionally, we are under no duty to pass a bill simply because the other place did so. No the other place did so. No constitutional crisis will ensure when this bill fails, as it probably will today. A majority of probably will today. A majority of MPs now agree that this is the case. Government Ministers have told the House that the government isn't responsible for ensuring that safety is considered and provided for in legislation.
That is a matter for the noble Lord and ultimately it is a duty of this House to scrutinise draft legislation to ensure that what we pass is safe. Yet what has happened is that the noble and learned Lord has made multiple commitments to table amendments, etc. to remedy problems, but hasn't done so. Indeed, some of the amendments which he has tabled have reduced the safeguards contained in the Bill, such as those inserted by Daniel Francis MP and Jess Asato MP, which relate to people with learning disabilities and domestic abuse.
We know that it has been said that MPs expected this House to scrutinise the Bill and improve it. Now it has been reported in Parliament news that new data has emerged suggesting that the initial support for the bill was not an endorsement of its specific mechanics, but rather a tentative nod towards a concept that many MPs believe is now fundamentally unsafe. Now, only 40% would vote for the bill, while 45% would not. There was, as has been said, no legislative scrutiny, no consultation, no impact assessment, proper impact assessment before the bill was introduced and the result was widespread concern, not least among the professional organisations.
The Short Lords Select Committee, which took evidence, received very specific and detailed criticisms and concerns from stakeholders. Most of these concerns have not been addressed by the sponsor, including
**** Possible New Speaker ****
concerns articulated By the Royal College of Psychiatrists of GPS, or Pathologists of Nursing and of Pathologists of Nursing and of physicians by the British Geriatric Society, the Law Society, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the organisation standing together against domestic abuse. These are very real concerns about the safety very real concerns about the safety of this bill and about its impact and effect on professionals and on and effect on professionals and on ordinary people. The debates, both at Second Reading and committee, have enabled very extensive and necessary discussion in much of the bill, but because it was so deficient at the time it came to your Lordships House, much remains to be considered.
At least 244 peers have been directly involved in scrutiny of the bill in committee. The average speech has lasted less than seven minutes. It has been said that only a handful of peers. Table amendments. In fact, 92 peers tabled or supported amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, has tabled 76 amendments. Noble Lords Lord Birt and panicked. Table 35 jointly. Apart from that, the supporters of the bill did not table any amendments, nor, for the most part, was there any constructive contribution to improving the Bill.
We have now debated over 800 amendments in the course of that debate. We have considered not just seven clauses as has been asserted. Rather, we have considered clause one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 59 and schedules one, two and three in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whole or in part. That this is a private. You should give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You should give way. Is it to the noble Baroness position that we have completed our position that we have completed our scrutiny Committee stage of all clauses beyond seven that she's mentioned? Because if not, I'm not mentioned? Because if not, I'm not quite sure what point she's making. We certainly mentioned those clauses, but the idea that we can
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clauses, but the idea that we can we completed our scrutiny is really nonsense. My Lords, to be accused of nonsense is slightly, slightly unsettling and I do not accept the accusation. The reality is we have considered in depth a number of issues.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A nonsense. This bill seeks to provide for individuals to be provided with by individuals to be provided with by doctors with fatal drugs to kill themselves, and where those patients cannot self-administer. Clause 258 says that the coordinating doctor may assist that coordinating doctor may assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the drug. We haven't yet debated this clause at haven't yet debated this clause at length, but it does raise the spectre of Doctor Shipman. What protection is there against a Doctor Shipman in these circumstances? What protection exists for those who may be subject to coercion, which will not be identified because of virtual assessments, for example, where the assessing doctor is not in the room with the patient or has no way of knowing who else is there and what is going on.
These things had to be identified and discussed and amendments tabled to address them. In the course of our debates and through the submission of evidence to the committee. We have identified multiple other serious problems, many of which there was no engagement by the sponsor as the noble Baroness Baroness Meyer Baroness Hollins said, following clearly argued criticisms, the noble Lord has accepted a long number of problems with the bill. However, there are no or virtually no amendments to address those issues.
The legal definition of persons exerting pressure must expressly include bodies corporate to uncover institutional or organisational abuse. Think, my Lords, of the pressures of bed blocking and budgets in the NHS. Regrettably, many of the amendments which the noble and learned Lord tabled weakened safeguards for which the MPs voted, such as explicit domestic abuse training or the mandatory independent advocate presence under the guise of tidying up the Bill. Often these would save the government many money. The government's impact assessment reveals that it almost halved the cost of the assisted dying process.
If independent advocates or translators do not have to be present. There was provision for independent advocates to assist those who have substantial difficulty understanding the process. Under the noble and learned Lords amendments. Advocate doesn't have to be physically present during medical assessments, and a person is allowed to entirely waive their right to an advocate. It's perhaps paradoxical and dangerous to expect that someone who qualifies for an advocate precisely because they struggle to understand information, to independently decide to waive that very protection.
At the outset, the advocate is introduced only after key clinical and eligibility assessments have been completed, rendering them a box ticking process. My Lords, think of the over 100 languages spoken in England and Wales, and of the problems of people with hearing difficulties articulated by the noble Baroness Baroness Nicholson and those people with other communication difficulties. My Lords doctor, shopping possibilities have expanded as a consequence of the noble and learned Lords amendments. Let us be very clear. As is appropriate, our debates have ranged over a large number of issues.
We have considered the effect on the NHS, the necessity to revise the NHS constitution, the effect on practitioners who did not join their professions to kill people and who need protection against involvement. We have yet to debate the existing conscience protection provisions, but we know they are inadequate. The BMA and the Royal College has asked for an explicit opt in model. Rebuffed multiple times in the Commons. Finally, the noble and learned Lord acknowledged the concern, but his amendment 669 A introduces only a requirement for opt in for training and not opt in for assisted dying as a whole.
The bill provides some protection for professionals, but not for all the other people who enable our NHS to work. The administrators, the porters, the cleaners. The current option of going to an employment tribunal if facing disciplinary action in the context of an unwillingness to engage in any way in assisted dying is just not satisfactory. People need their jobs to pay their rent or mortgage to feed their children. A system wide opt in model is the only way to protect staff from institutional pressure.
Yet the noble and learned Lord drew the line at protecting administrative staff to ensure that the NHS runs properly. My Lords, too many issues which should be debated fully in this House ought to be left to secondary legislation where Parliament can only accept or reject but not amend. For example, the approval of lethal drugs, the provision of assisted suicide services in England and Wales, something the DPC has said should be removed. My Lords, we talk of democracy. Yet there is nothing democratic about handing sweeping powers to Ministers rather than to Parliament.
My Lords, there are those like me who believe that all life is sacred and to be protected from conception to natural death. That is not and has not been the subject of our debates over these months as legislators, some with the religious faith, some with humanist beliefs, or maybe no beliefs. We have been through this bill word by word and clause by clause, to see if it can be improved. We have identified the massive inadequacies in the provision of specialist care.
Specialist palliative care and the consequences of that inadequate inadequacy, the disparity of access to hospice care, the unique identity of hospices in providing a safe place to live and die without pain and at peace. The huge trust which is fundamental to the doctor patient relationship in places in which people live and die, and the potential consequences if the bill is passed in terms of both private and funding and public funding arrangements for hospitals and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
funding for the NHS. Yes, I'm coming to an end. I'm coming. To order. Can I just say that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To order. Can I just say that over 11 minutes, and it's supposed to be ten minutes to bring the comments to an end. To bring my comments to an end.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To bring my comments to an end. We have tabled amendments to provide some protection for the vulnerable, the weak, the poor, the disabled, the sick, those with suicidal ideation, those with mental health problems, and all those whom we have identified. Many of us have concluded that this bill is not safe. And so we have worked to try and make it safer. As I conclude, I would like to pay tribute to those living with serious illness and disabilities and people like Pete and George, who have attended every day of our debates and who sit behind me.
And to all those.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order! Order! Can you please bring your remarks to an end now? It's nearly 12 minutes. And these are the people that want to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
are the people that want to speak. The 12 minutes include the interruptions which I've suffered. But to all those who have written to encourage us as we fulfil our duties as legislators in your Lordships House, scrutinising this Lordships House, scrutinising this flawed and very dangerous bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
flawed and very dangerous bill. Prentiss. Prentiss. Prentiss. Prentiss.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I regret that I have not been here this winter during the discussions on this bill, but the discussions on this bill, but watching it on television has been a key part of the rhythm of the a key part of the rhythm of the weeks I've spent at home during my chemo induced cognitive dysfunction. chemo induced cognitive dysfunction. The plot of Midsomer Murders was often beyond me, and the steroid frenzy, I felt meant that I often frenzy, I felt meant that I often couldn't settle to a book.
But during 13 bouts of chemo and an operation, I kept returning Friday after Friday to this debate. Why, you ask yourself? It may be because as a government lawyer, the Constitution is in me. Like, you know, the writing in a stick of rock. But it is also, of course, that as your normal procedures, your love of friends, of work, of food and drink are taken from you because you have to remain isolated. The issues of life and death come sharply into focus.
And what I watched, and this is from a unique perspective, I think my telly newly installed in my bedroom, shockingly some might say, was impressive. It
That is a matter for the noble Lord and ultimately it is a duty of this House to scrutinise draft legislation to ensure that what we pass is safe. Yet what has happened is that the noble and learned Lord has made multiple commitments to table amendments, etc. to remedy problems, but hasn't done so. Indeed, some of the amendments which he has tabled have reduced the safeguards contained in the Bill, such as those inserted by Daniel Francis MP and Jess Asato MP, which relate to people with learning disabilities and domestic abuse.
We know that it has been said that MPs expected this House to scrutinise the Bill and improve it. Now it has been reported in Parliament news that new data has emerged suggesting that the initial support for the bill was not an endorsement of its specific mechanics, but rather a tentative nod towards a concept that many MPs believe is now fundamentally unsafe. Now, only 40% would vote for the bill, while 45% would not. There was, as has been said, no legislative scrutiny, no consultation, no impact assessment, proper impact assessment before the bill was introduced and the result was widespread concern, not least among the professional organisations.
The Short Lords Select Committee, which took evidence, received very specific and detailed criticisms and concerns from stakeholders. Most of these concerns have not been addressed by the sponsor, including
**** Possible New Speaker ****
concerns articulated By the Royal College of Psychiatrists of GPS, or Pathologists of Nursing and of Pathologists of Nursing and of physicians by the British Geriatric Society, the Law Society, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the organisation standing together against domestic abuse. These are very real concerns about the safety very real concerns about the safety of this bill and about its impact and effect on professionals and on and effect on professionals and on ordinary people. The debates, both at Second Reading and committee, have enabled very extensive and necessary discussion in much of the bill, but because it was so deficient at the time it came to your Lordships House, much remains to be considered.
At least 244 peers have been directly involved in scrutiny of the bill in committee. The average speech has lasted less than seven minutes. It has been said that only a handful of peers. Table amendments. In fact, 92 peers tabled or supported amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, has tabled 76 amendments. Noble Lords Lord Birt and panicked. Table 35 jointly. Apart from that, the supporters of the bill did not table any amendments, nor, for the most part, was there any constructive contribution to improving the Bill.
We have now debated over 800 amendments in the course of that debate. We have considered not just seven clauses as has been asserted. Rather, we have considered clause one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 59 and schedules one, two and three in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whole or in part. That this is a private. You should give way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You should give way. Is it to the noble Baroness position that we have completed our position that we have completed our scrutiny Committee stage of all clauses beyond seven that she's mentioned? Because if not, I'm not mentioned? Because if not, I'm not quite sure what point she's making. We certainly mentioned those clauses, but the idea that we can
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clauses, but the idea that we can we completed our scrutiny is really nonsense. My Lords, to be accused of nonsense is slightly, slightly unsettling and I do not accept the accusation. The reality is we have considered in depth a number of issues.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A nonsense. This bill seeks to provide for individuals to be provided with by individuals to be provided with by doctors with fatal drugs to kill themselves, and where those patients cannot self-administer. Clause 258 says that the coordinating doctor may assist that coordinating doctor may assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the drug. We haven't yet debated this clause at haven't yet debated this clause at length, but it does raise the spectre of Doctor Shipman. What protection is there against a Doctor Shipman in these circumstances? What protection exists for those who may be subject to coercion, which will not be identified because of virtual assessments, for example, where the assessing doctor is not in the room with the patient or has no way of knowing who else is there and what is going on.
These things had to be identified and discussed and amendments tabled to address them. In the course of our debates and through the submission of evidence to the committee. We have identified multiple other serious problems, many of which there was no engagement by the sponsor as the noble Baroness Baroness Meyer Baroness Hollins said, following clearly argued criticisms, the noble Lord has accepted a long number of problems with the bill. However, there are no or virtually no amendments to address those issues.
The legal definition of persons exerting pressure must expressly include bodies corporate to uncover institutional or organisational abuse. Think, my Lords, of the pressures of bed blocking and budgets in the NHS. Regrettably, many of the amendments which the noble and learned Lord tabled weakened safeguards for which the MPs voted, such as explicit domestic abuse training or the mandatory independent advocate presence under the guise of tidying up the Bill. Often these would save the government many money. The government's impact assessment reveals that it almost halved the cost of the assisted dying process.
If independent advocates or translators do not have to be present. There was provision for independent advocates to assist those who have substantial difficulty understanding the process. Under the noble and learned Lords amendments. Advocate doesn't have to be physically present during medical assessments, and a person is allowed to entirely waive their right to an advocate. It's perhaps paradoxical and dangerous to expect that someone who qualifies for an advocate precisely because they struggle to understand information, to independently decide to waive that very protection.
At the outset, the advocate is introduced only after key clinical and eligibility assessments have been completed, rendering them a box ticking process. My Lords, think of the over 100 languages spoken in England and Wales, and of the problems of people with hearing difficulties articulated by the noble Baroness Baroness Nicholson and those people with other communication difficulties. My Lords doctor, shopping possibilities have expanded as a consequence of the noble and learned Lords amendments. Let us be very clear. As is appropriate, our debates have ranged over a large number of issues.
We have considered the effect on the NHS, the necessity to revise the NHS constitution, the effect on practitioners who did not join their professions to kill people and who need protection against involvement. We have yet to debate the existing conscience protection provisions, but we know they are inadequate. The BMA and the Royal College has asked for an explicit opt in model. Rebuffed multiple times in the Commons. Finally, the noble and learned Lord acknowledged the concern, but his amendment 669 A introduces only a requirement for opt in for training and not opt in for assisted dying as a whole.
The bill provides some protection for professionals, but not for all the other people who enable our NHS to work. The administrators, the porters, the cleaners. The current option of going to an employment tribunal if facing disciplinary action in the context of an unwillingness to engage in any way in assisted dying is just not satisfactory. People need their jobs to pay their rent or mortgage to feed their children. A system wide opt in model is the only way to protect staff from institutional pressure.
Yet the noble and learned Lord drew the line at protecting administrative staff to ensure that the NHS runs properly. My Lords, too many issues which should be debated fully in this House ought to be left to secondary legislation where Parliament can only accept or reject but not amend. For example, the approval of lethal drugs, the provision of assisted suicide services in England and Wales, something the DPC has said should be removed. My Lords, we talk of democracy. Yet there is nothing democratic about handing sweeping powers to Ministers rather than to Parliament.
My Lords, there are those like me who believe that all life is sacred and to be protected from conception to natural death. That is not and has not been the subject of our debates over these months as legislators, some with the religious faith, some with humanist beliefs, or maybe no beliefs. We have been through this bill word by word and clause by clause, to see if it can be improved. We have identified the massive inadequacies in the provision of specialist care.
Specialist palliative care and the consequences of that inadequate inadequacy, the disparity of access to hospice care, the unique identity of hospices in providing a safe place to live and die without pain and at peace. The huge trust which is fundamental to the doctor patient relationship in places in which people live and die, and the potential consequences if the bill is passed in terms of both private and funding and public funding arrangements for hospitals and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
funding for the NHS. Yes, I'm coming to an end. I'm coming. To order. Can I just say that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To order. Can I just say that over 11 minutes, and it's supposed to be ten minutes to bring the comments to an end. To bring my comments to an end.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To bring my comments to an end. We have tabled amendments to provide some protection for the vulnerable, the weak, the poor, the disabled, the sick, those with suicidal ideation, those with mental health problems, and all those whom we have identified. Many of us have concluded that this bill is not safe. And so we have worked to try and make it safer. As I conclude, I would like to pay tribute to those living with serious illness and disabilities and people like Pete and George, who have attended every day of our debates and who sit behind me.
And to all those.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order! Order! Can you please bring your remarks to an end now? It's nearly 12 minutes. And these are the people that want to speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
are the people that want to speak. The 12 minutes include the interruptions which I've suffered. But to all those who have written to encourage us as we fulfil our duties as legislators in your Lordships House, scrutinising this Lordships House, scrutinising this flawed and very dangerous bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
flawed and very dangerous bill. Prentiss. Prentiss. Prentiss. Prentiss.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I regret that I have not been here this winter during the discussions on this bill, but the discussions on this bill, but watching it on television has been a key part of the rhythm of the a key part of the rhythm of the weeks I've spent at home during my chemo induced cognitive dysfunction. chemo induced cognitive dysfunction. The plot of Midsomer Murders was often beyond me, and the steroid frenzy, I felt meant that I often frenzy, I felt meant that I often couldn't settle to a book.
But during 13 bouts of chemo and an operation, I kept returning Friday after Friday to this debate. Why, you ask yourself? It may be because as a government lawyer, the Constitution is in me. Like, you know, the writing in a stick of rock. But it is also, of course, that as your normal procedures, your love of friends, of work, of food and drink are taken from you because you have to remain isolated. The issues of life and death come sharply into focus.
And what I watched, and this is from a unique perspective, I think my telly newly installed in my bedroom, shockingly some might say, was impressive. It
12:00
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Conservative)
was the calm, quiet scrutiny of was the calm, quiet scrutiny of legislation, far from few voices which some have said were heard. I frequently had to consult the booklet to see who it was that was booklet to see who it was that was speaking. I saw the former heads of royal colleges explain why no Royal royal colleges explain why no Royal College can support this bill. I saw lawyers worried that coroners are not able to feel that there are sufficient safeguards in this bill.
I saw former NHS managers worried about the effects on the service and the staff that they care for so deeply. I saw experts on devolution get into the details. I was impressed by the deep experience of bishops, often speaking from their time as parish priests. When then when they frankly have held more hands of the dying than the rest of us put together. As I watched from the coalface of trying not to die, I felt huge sympathy for the very ill people who think that this bill might be the answer to their problems.
Illness leaves you with few options and little control. The system can seem unyielding as. And as a result, uncaring. This, in my experience, is worse than pain. Of course you are exhausted, miserable, and sick. You look awful. You're often smelly and some symptoms are frankly revolting. Of course you worry about your family watching you go through all this, and you worry very deeply about what it's doing to them. Even with my excellent care, good prognosis, I have definitely, at times felt death would be much easier whenever my treatment has not not been as speedy as it might be because of capacity issues.
And I'm currently waiting longer than I want to, frankly, for radiotherapy, which is due to start the week after next or when I've been waiting literally on the floor, having fainted of a less than perfectly clean NHS corridor. I get a vision in my head. I've had a vision in my head of crisp white sheets and certainty that would come from knowing you were instantly going to die. For me, and I suspect for most vulnerable people, those that vision passes and life becomes worth living and good again.
But I don't think we should deny for one minute that that vision is briefly an attractive one. My Lords, we owe the dying better than this bill. We owe them the best deaths we can manage real effort and enthusiasm put into palliative care and all facilities, including temporary nursing where necessary, to help people die at home, surrounded by their families. We need to really integrate physical and mental care and not just talk about it. We owe the dying love, care and respect, and we hope that crisp white sheets and some control over treatment deaths may be become part of the normal system of palliative care, and not just reserved for people who engineer some form of assisted dying.
We owe the vulnerable legislative protection.
I saw former NHS managers worried about the effects on the service and the staff that they care for so deeply. I saw experts on devolution get into the details. I was impressed by the deep experience of bishops, often speaking from their time as parish priests. When then when they frankly have held more hands of the dying than the rest of us put together. As I watched from the coalface of trying not to die, I felt huge sympathy for the very ill people who think that this bill might be the answer to their problems.
Illness leaves you with few options and little control. The system can seem unyielding as. And as a result, uncaring. This, in my experience, is worse than pain. Of course you are exhausted, miserable, and sick. You look awful. You're often smelly and some symptoms are frankly revolting. Of course you worry about your family watching you go through all this, and you worry very deeply about what it's doing to them. Even with my excellent care, good prognosis, I have definitely, at times felt death would be much easier whenever my treatment has not not been as speedy as it might be because of capacity issues.
And I'm currently waiting longer than I want to, frankly, for radiotherapy, which is due to start the week after next or when I've been waiting literally on the floor, having fainted of a less than perfectly clean NHS corridor. I get a vision in my head. I've had a vision in my head of crisp white sheets and certainty that would come from knowing you were instantly going to die. For me, and I suspect for most vulnerable people, those that vision passes and life becomes worth living and good again.
But I don't think we should deny for one minute that that vision is briefly an attractive one. My Lords, we owe the dying better than this bill. We owe them the best deaths we can manage real effort and enthusiasm put into palliative care and all facilities, including temporary nursing where necessary, to help people die at home, surrounded by their families. We need to really integrate physical and mental care and not just talk about it. We owe the dying love, care and respect, and we hope that crisp white sheets and some control over treatment deaths may be become part of the normal system of palliative care, and not just reserved for people who engineer some form of assisted dying.
We owe the vulnerable legislative protection.
12:04
Baroness Hayman (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Hayman (Crossbench)
Yeah yeah yeah yeah. >> Yeah yeah yeah yeah. >> Lord Doyle. It's an absolute privilege to follow the very moving privilege to follow the very moving and very focussed speech of the noble Lady. Lady Prentice. And I noble Lady. Lady Prentice. And I think the one, perhaps the one good thing I'll say about the last year, that has been a real revelation and something which I respect enormously, is the number of people who have shared their experiences of death, of dying, of illness, and their views about the best way forward.
No one can pretend there is unanimity on this issue, and we have to respect all those views and listen to them. My Lord, I was a member of the Select committee on Joel Joffe's bill on assisted dying 20 years ago. The experience of being a member of that select committee, the visits that we made, the evidence that we heard, convinced me that it was possible to frame legislation that safeguarded against coercion and did not compromise, but actually complemented palliative care.
And it, for me, gave the argument. And the noble Lord Lord Markham spoke about this for regulation. So I was surprised to hear the noble Lady alone describe what could go so badly wrong in an unregulated system. Shipman coercion. No one knowing what happens, and I simply do not accept that a tightly regulated bill with the sorts of safeguards that are in this bill is better, is not better than a wholly unregulated system that we have at the moment.
Yeah. The visit to Oregon in particular, and that select committee made me very aware of another issue, that having legislation for assisted dying would only directly affect a small number of people who took up that option, and that of the number of people who investigated the option, the number of people who actually in that system, you got a prescription, took a prescription, but never used it, found that they could cope with the situation in which they found themselves.
It's about 30%, I understand, across jurisdictions, but the very existence of legislation, the very existence of a system that they knew, if in the end things became intolerable, they could access, gave huge reassurance for the hundreds of people who would die through assisted dying legislation. There are thousands who would feel more secure, who would be reassured by the fact that there was an option. And I put myself absolutely in that category, and I suspect many others in the House would do so, too.
My Lords, I have participated. Noble Lord Lord Baker is in his place. I've gone to head to head with the noble Baroness Baroness Finlay on all those debates as well, and I have participated in all of them. So, my Lords, I have been disappointed before. I have seen bills fail before, but nothing has made me feel. In the words of Lord Faulkner, despondent in quite the way that the process we have gone through in the last year has done.
So I think it is important that we reflect in today's proceedings, because they should be a reflection on what I consider to be a collective failure. I think we have failed those people who came to us with their experiences, either through families or their own experience of the inability of palliative care. However good to meet what they actually need at the end of life. I think we have failed those repeated campaigners who knew that the legislation would be too late for them, but didn't want others to go through what they have gone through.
I think we have failed to respect the consistent weight of public opinion on this issue, that we ought to have a different, a regulated and a safe system, and I think, my Lords, that we have failed to respect the elected House's request to us to do the job that was described so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. So I think we do have to reflect, because I think all those failures have damaged the reputation of this House, and they have damaged what many of us have respected and felt to be very much part of the House's DNA self-regulation.
And we have not fulfilled our duty to use our procedures on a bill that has come, passed by the House of Commons to focus either on the issue of principle by a vote at second or Third Reading, or on specific detail, where we need to calibrate the strength of opinion in this House, i.e. to vote and send our conclusions to the Commons for their response. Instead, we have had prolonged and painful process described by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Protracted, repetitive debate which ironically have led to us failing to properly address issues such as the issues about the Delegated Powers Committee, which we do have to take seriously. But I find it disingenuous that the amendment says that we haven't taken proper account of it, when the reason we haven't been able to is because we haven't got to that bit of the bill yet, because we spent so much time on other bits of the bill.
My Lords, I just say one thing that has been criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, about not moving enough. I think he described the processes that he's been through. I've been present at many of those meetings, and attempts have been made to find a serious process to identify the issues that are most important, to try and reach either consensus on them, or to reach a point when we can vote on them and decide what we want to tell the Other place, but instead, we have spent hours focusing, as it was put to me, by a very brave woman dying of stage four breast cancer, she said, I've listened to you and what you have been doing is focusing all the time on hypothetical harms, some of them bizarre.
The pregnancy test for everybody, those sorts of issues, and what you have done is ignored. The actual and profound suffering that is before your eyes. That is a serious accusation to us, my Lords. Of course, as legislators, we have a responsibility to scrutinise legislation like this for safety. And we have a responsibility, though, to have full debate and to reach conclusions. My Lords, we have not discharged that responsibility and that is something that I think all of us
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should reflect very seriously about. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Lord, Lord, Lord. Harding. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. My mother in law died from. Motor neurone disease a couple of Motor neurone disease a couple of years ago. She was a primary school headmistress, and she took firm control of her life throughout her
No one can pretend there is unanimity on this issue, and we have to respect all those views and listen to them. My Lord, I was a member of the Select committee on Joel Joffe's bill on assisted dying 20 years ago. The experience of being a member of that select committee, the visits that we made, the evidence that we heard, convinced me that it was possible to frame legislation that safeguarded against coercion and did not compromise, but actually complemented palliative care.
And it, for me, gave the argument. And the noble Lord Lord Markham spoke about this for regulation. So I was surprised to hear the noble Lady alone describe what could go so badly wrong in an unregulated system. Shipman coercion. No one knowing what happens, and I simply do not accept that a tightly regulated bill with the sorts of safeguards that are in this bill is better, is not better than a wholly unregulated system that we have at the moment.
Yeah. The visit to Oregon in particular, and that select committee made me very aware of another issue, that having legislation for assisted dying would only directly affect a small number of people who took up that option, and that of the number of people who investigated the option, the number of people who actually in that system, you got a prescription, took a prescription, but never used it, found that they could cope with the situation in which they found themselves.
It's about 30%, I understand, across jurisdictions, but the very existence of legislation, the very existence of a system that they knew, if in the end things became intolerable, they could access, gave huge reassurance for the hundreds of people who would die through assisted dying legislation. There are thousands who would feel more secure, who would be reassured by the fact that there was an option. And I put myself absolutely in that category, and I suspect many others in the House would do so, too.
My Lords, I have participated. Noble Lord Lord Baker is in his place. I've gone to head to head with the noble Baroness Baroness Finlay on all those debates as well, and I have participated in all of them. So, my Lords, I have been disappointed before. I have seen bills fail before, but nothing has made me feel. In the words of Lord Faulkner, despondent in quite the way that the process we have gone through in the last year has done.
So I think it is important that we reflect in today's proceedings, because they should be a reflection on what I consider to be a collective failure. I think we have failed those people who came to us with their experiences, either through families or their own experience of the inability of palliative care. However good to meet what they actually need at the end of life. I think we have failed those repeated campaigners who knew that the legislation would be too late for them, but didn't want others to go through what they have gone through.
I think we have failed to respect the consistent weight of public opinion on this issue, that we ought to have a different, a regulated and a safe system, and I think, my Lords, that we have failed to respect the elected House's request to us to do the job that was described so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. So I think we do have to reflect, because I think all those failures have damaged the reputation of this House, and they have damaged what many of us have respected and felt to be very much part of the House's DNA self-regulation.
And we have not fulfilled our duty to use our procedures on a bill that has come, passed by the House of Commons to focus either on the issue of principle by a vote at second or Third Reading, or on specific detail, where we need to calibrate the strength of opinion in this House, i.e. to vote and send our conclusions to the Commons for their response. Instead, we have had prolonged and painful process described by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Protracted, repetitive debate which ironically have led to us failing to properly address issues such as the issues about the Delegated Powers Committee, which we do have to take seriously. But I find it disingenuous that the amendment says that we haven't taken proper account of it, when the reason we haven't been able to is because we haven't got to that bit of the bill yet, because we spent so much time on other bits of the bill.
My Lords, I just say one thing that has been criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, about not moving enough. I think he described the processes that he's been through. I've been present at many of those meetings, and attempts have been made to find a serious process to identify the issues that are most important, to try and reach either consensus on them, or to reach a point when we can vote on them and decide what we want to tell the Other place, but instead, we have spent hours focusing, as it was put to me, by a very brave woman dying of stage four breast cancer, she said, I've listened to you and what you have been doing is focusing all the time on hypothetical harms, some of them bizarre.
The pregnancy test for everybody, those sorts of issues, and what you have done is ignored. The actual and profound suffering that is before your eyes. That is a serious accusation to us, my Lords. Of course, as legislators, we have a responsibility to scrutinise legislation like this for safety. And we have a responsibility, though, to have full debate and to reach conclusions. My Lords, we have not discharged that responsibility and that is something that I think all of us
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should reflect very seriously about. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Lord, Lord, Lord. Harding. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. My mother in law died from. Motor neurone disease a couple of Motor neurone disease a couple of years ago. She was a primary school headmistress, and she took firm control of her life throughout her
12:14
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)
life. Three weeks before she died, she called a multidisciplinary team she called a multidisciplinary team meeting of all of the various clinicians, including the palliative care team and her family, palliative care team and her family, to express her wishes very, very clearly. She had reached the point where she could not move other than where she could not move other than her face. She couldn't breathe without a Cpap mask for more than a without a Cpap mask for more than a few minutes, and life was intolerable.
And she told us that she intended to die in three weeks time. That was an assisted death. To the layman. It was completely legal. She simply because she could still speak. Three weeks later, she told her nurse to take her mask off, and. She asked the nurse to give her a sedative, and she passed away completely peacefully. That has completely shaped my view. And as my noble friend Lord Markham set out so much more eloquently than I and has done throughout the course of this bill, we have an unregulated system which is scary and unfair.
So I'm in favour of this bill. This is the first time I've spoken in it, because I'm afraid I took the view at the very beginning that as I am not a clinician, a theologian or an ethicist, I wasn't going to do a particularly good job at improving it. And I was really concerned that people would try and talk it out, and I didn't want to be part of the talking it out. So that's why I it's not that I haven't followed it.
I've sat here on the occasional Friday, I've read and I've listened, but I felt from the very beginning that there are members of your Lordships' House who care deeply about the subject and believe completely in their view, and who are going to use process to kill Bill. And I'm afraid, I'm really sad to say, I think that's exactly where we are. And I feel sad that I failed the people who contacted me and asked me to help them, because I've remained silent throughout the whole process, which is why I'm speaking today.
Although I fear I'm now repeating what others have said. But I'm also, as the noble Lady Baroness Hayman has just said, incredibly sad about what it says about this house. I also care deeply about the role this House plays in our democracy. We may not have individually been democratically elected, but we play a very important part in the democratic process. And sitting today, I am more and more concerned about the fact that we have not done that most fundamental democratic thing, which is vote.
And I worry that we are not settled as a community here, my Lords, that we have unfinished business. Not for many more hours of debate, because I think we are kidding ourselves if we think anyone is changing their view as a result of our hours of debate. But in order to settle what our actual conclusions are, as the noble Lady Baroness Hayman said, I know that I will upset a number of friends on my benches, but I've been sitting here thinking, has all this debate really been designed to make the bill safer, or has it just been designed to talk it out? One of the things when you join this House, as I did from business, that surprises you about the processes of this, this great place is how short you're expected to speak for in business, no one gives a three minute speech.
The idea that your your that your first speech here should be, as I was guided no more than 5 to 6 minutes. Better if you can make it four is anathema to people outside of Parliament. But when you look and see. We know I've been here far too long now. I think it's normal. And I've learned, actually, it's an important part of our process. You can distil the important parts of an argument into a 3 to 6 minute speech. You can make important decisions in 17 days of debate.
You absolutely can. And we do, my Lords. And that's an important part of our democratic process, and we have not done that. Ten noble Lords have accounted for 26% of the time. Most of them have spoken for more than two hours, well beyond the 4.5 minutes. And I promise I will speak for no more than five. And so I am embarrassed by our role, not because people hold very different views. That's important that they do, but because we have failed. As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, to bring it to a vote, either in principle or in detail.
And I would just say, we do have unfinished business, my Lords, people across the country, whatever their view, think we have not done our job and to write. Polling shows the public want a safe, assisted dying bill and for Lords to do its job. We haven't yet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And as an unelected chamber, I think it's very important that we focus on what the public thinks. And over the last few months we've heard opponents of the bill suggesting that it lacks public support, and I want to correct the record on this. The most recent record on this. The most recent Social Attitudes survey, which is, by the way, the highly regarded Bible that tracks longitudinal
And she told us that she intended to die in three weeks time. That was an assisted death. To the layman. It was completely legal. She simply because she could still speak. Three weeks later, she told her nurse to take her mask off, and. She asked the nurse to give her a sedative, and she passed away completely peacefully. That has completely shaped my view. And as my noble friend Lord Markham set out so much more eloquently than I and has done throughout the course of this bill, we have an unregulated system which is scary and unfair.
So I'm in favour of this bill. This is the first time I've spoken in it, because I'm afraid I took the view at the very beginning that as I am not a clinician, a theologian or an ethicist, I wasn't going to do a particularly good job at improving it. And I was really concerned that people would try and talk it out, and I didn't want to be part of the talking it out. So that's why I it's not that I haven't followed it.
I've sat here on the occasional Friday, I've read and I've listened, but I felt from the very beginning that there are members of your Lordships' House who care deeply about the subject and believe completely in their view, and who are going to use process to kill Bill. And I'm afraid, I'm really sad to say, I think that's exactly where we are. And I feel sad that I failed the people who contacted me and asked me to help them, because I've remained silent throughout the whole process, which is why I'm speaking today.
Although I fear I'm now repeating what others have said. But I'm also, as the noble Lady Baroness Hayman has just said, incredibly sad about what it says about this house. I also care deeply about the role this House plays in our democracy. We may not have individually been democratically elected, but we play a very important part in the democratic process. And sitting today, I am more and more concerned about the fact that we have not done that most fundamental democratic thing, which is vote.
And I worry that we are not settled as a community here, my Lords, that we have unfinished business. Not for many more hours of debate, because I think we are kidding ourselves if we think anyone is changing their view as a result of our hours of debate. But in order to settle what our actual conclusions are, as the noble Lady Baroness Hayman said, I know that I will upset a number of friends on my benches, but I've been sitting here thinking, has all this debate really been designed to make the bill safer, or has it just been designed to talk it out? One of the things when you join this House, as I did from business, that surprises you about the processes of this, this great place is how short you're expected to speak for in business, no one gives a three minute speech.
The idea that your your that your first speech here should be, as I was guided no more than 5 to 6 minutes. Better if you can make it four is anathema to people outside of Parliament. But when you look and see. We know I've been here far too long now. I think it's normal. And I've learned, actually, it's an important part of our process. You can distil the important parts of an argument into a 3 to 6 minute speech. You can make important decisions in 17 days of debate.
You absolutely can. And we do, my Lords. And that's an important part of our democratic process, and we have not done that. Ten noble Lords have accounted for 26% of the time. Most of them have spoken for more than two hours, well beyond the 4.5 minutes. And I promise I will speak for no more than five. And so I am embarrassed by our role, not because people hold very different views. That's important that they do, but because we have failed. As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, to bring it to a vote, either in principle or in detail.
And I would just say, we do have unfinished business, my Lords, people across the country, whatever their view, think we have not done our job and to write. Polling shows the public want a safe, assisted dying bill and for Lords to do its job. We haven't yet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And as an unelected chamber, I think it's very important that we focus on what the public thinks. And over the last few months we've heard opponents of the bill suggesting that it lacks public support, and I want to correct the record on this. The most recent record on this. The most recent Social Attitudes survey, which is, by the way, the highly regarded Bible that tracks longitudinal
12:20
Baroness Mattinson (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Mattinson (Labour)
Bible that tracks longitudinal public attitudes, published in March, shows an overwhelming eight out of ten of us supporting changing the law to enable assisted dying. This powerful evidence is consistent across respected public polling. It's consistent across age, across gender, across region, and across political attitudes. It's also consistent amongst those with disabilities, those who profess a religion, and those who work in the medical professions. Data modelling by the polling organisation More in common reveals that support far outweighs opposition in every constituency in Britain.
But don't take my word for this polling guru, Professor Sir John Curtice, observed recently that the picture of public support for assisted dying was, and I'm quoting one of remarkable stability and near consensus in public attitudes, while another very senior and highly respected pollster, Peter Kellner, says, and again, I quote, having reported, conducted and commissioned polls for half a century, I cannot think of a major social controversy where the public mood has been so settled and so emphatic.
Both pollsters, in my experience, place the very highest value on presenting an objective and truthful representation of people's views. And those views are not just widespread and consistently held in favour of assisted dying. They also heartfelt. They're not theoretical. They're drawn from painful, public, painful personal experience. And many of those stories here I've briefly. So I will continue, if you don't mind. Many of those stories have been told very movingly here today. The point is that 52% of us have cared for or witnessed a family member who was terminally ill and suffering at the end of their life.
Unsurprisingly, experience of this rises with age up to 66% in the 50 to 64 year old age group, and higher. As you get beyond that and research, for example, England's first ever citizens jury. So more qualitative research, deliberative research tells us that support for law change actually grows. The more people understand the issue and the more they hear about the issue. Meanwhile, the backdrop to this debate is that trust in our democracy has never been lower. Too often the public doesn't feel listened to.
Confidence in this unelected chamber is at its lowest ever. A desultory 1 in 5. Have confidence in the House of Lords to do its job. At the end of last year, YouGov found that just 2% had a lot of confidence in the House of Lords, and only 17% had some confidence. Some noble Lords today have quoted a poll that suggests that the public would like to see us doing better scrutiny. Yes, in abstract they absolutely would. But when we reference this particular bill, a YouGov poll recently found that 58% disagreed with the way the Lords has dismissed this bill, while only 17% found it acceptable.
Again, public opposition rises, as you would expect, with greater experience by age, consistent with the lived experience of the impact and pain of the alternative. As this debate draws to its close, I think we should all be aware that the Bill of the way this bill has been treated by this chamber risks having profound implications for the chamber itself and its reputation, as well as the absolute tragedy of ignoring the passionately held public view for assisted dying art.
But don't take my word for this polling guru, Professor Sir John Curtice, observed recently that the picture of public support for assisted dying was, and I'm quoting one of remarkable stability and near consensus in public attitudes, while another very senior and highly respected pollster, Peter Kellner, says, and again, I quote, having reported, conducted and commissioned polls for half a century, I cannot think of a major social controversy where the public mood has been so settled and so emphatic.
Both pollsters, in my experience, place the very highest value on presenting an objective and truthful representation of people's views. And those views are not just widespread and consistently held in favour of assisted dying. They also heartfelt. They're not theoretical. They're drawn from painful, public, painful personal experience. And many of those stories here I've briefly. So I will continue, if you don't mind. Many of those stories have been told very movingly here today. The point is that 52% of us have cared for or witnessed a family member who was terminally ill and suffering at the end of their life.
Unsurprisingly, experience of this rises with age up to 66% in the 50 to 64 year old age group, and higher. As you get beyond that and research, for example, England's first ever citizens jury. So more qualitative research, deliberative research tells us that support for law change actually grows. The more people understand the issue and the more they hear about the issue. Meanwhile, the backdrop to this debate is that trust in our democracy has never been lower. Too often the public doesn't feel listened to.
Confidence in this unelected chamber is at its lowest ever. A desultory 1 in 5. Have confidence in the House of Lords to do its job. At the end of last year, YouGov found that just 2% had a lot of confidence in the House of Lords, and only 17% had some confidence. Some noble Lords today have quoted a poll that suggests that the public would like to see us doing better scrutiny. Yes, in abstract they absolutely would. But when we reference this particular bill, a YouGov poll recently found that 58% disagreed with the way the Lords has dismissed this bill, while only 17% found it acceptable.
Again, public opposition rises, as you would expect, with greater experience by age, consistent with the lived experience of the impact and pain of the alternative. As this debate draws to its close, I think we should all be aware that the Bill of the way this bill has been treated by this chamber risks having profound implications for the chamber itself and its reputation, as well as the absolute tragedy of ignoring the passionately held public view for assisted dying art.
12:24
Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Gerada (Crossbench)
Yes, yes. Spend. Spend. Crossbench. My Lords. crossbenchers. >> Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Right, my Lords, my Lords, thank you. I'd like to. First of all, I'd you. I'd like to. First of all, I'd like to remind the House that Harold Shipman was a murderer convicted of 15 life sentences plus four years. He did not provide an assisted death. So I'd like that to be on the record. I stand here as a general practitioner of over 40 years experience, and also, as I've said many times, president and chair of my Royal College of the Royal College of GPS.
Now, over these decades, I've had the privilege, though not always an easy one, to care for patients at the end of their lives. And for some, I have been present at the moment when life passes to death. It is an extraordinary moment, not as it is often portrayed as bleak or clinical or purely tragic, but something far different when death is well supported, when it's anticipated, and when it's held by family and those who care. It can be a moment of stillness, of connection and a sense of peace that feels unexpectedly profound.
It is one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had as a doctor. And in that moment or in those moments, one thing is always clear the patient is at the centre. Their wishes, their relationships, their dignity, all shape at that final phase of care unfolds when it goes well. But that is not the whole truth. I've also cared for many patients whose deaths have not gone well, patients who have refused treatments or have starved themselves rather than ensure what lies ahead, patients who sadly have ended their own lives unable to where the bear the weight of their diagnosis, and patients whose illnesses have taken away from them the ability to make their own decisions, and whose deaths have been placed into the hands of others families, clinicians and the systems acting in their place.
And this brings me, my Lord, to what I think is at the heart of this debate. The question sits simply, though uncomfortably, as whose death is it? And for decades, medicine has placed patient autonomy at the centre, bounded by capacity, consent, clinical judgement, protection from coercion. And we speak of choice, of dignity, of the individual's right to determine what happens to their own bodies. And we've actually built systems and laws and safeguards and languages all around that. And yet, at the moment when autonomy might matter most, the manner and timings of one one's own death, it is withdrawn.
At that point where a patient is dying, we say, not here, not you. And that, in my mind is not just a tension. It is an inconsistency that demands reflection, which is what I've been doing over the last few months. And I say with respect, that much of what I've heard in this House has strongly focussed on risk even today. But risk, my Lords, is not an unfamiliar territory in medicine. It's our daily working environment. We do not eliminate uncertainty.
We manage it. We make complex decisions every day about treatment capacity and withdrawal of care under conditions of imperfect knowledge, guided by safeguards, judgement and professional accountability. And along this focus on risk, there has also been a tendency, again, as I've heard today, to imagine worst case scenarios and to construct arguments that their point of failure rather than their point of function, the what if and to build in increasing complexity to cover every possible scenario that might come up to manage these hypothetical fears.
We've even heard it today about the hundred languages that are spoken. How do we manage learning disability? How do we manage people that are disabled? We do this every single day, a million times per day. Even the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, warned in his oral evidence that we are layering layer upon layer of complex bureaucracy on top of one another, expecting and in my mind, expecting the dying patient to jump through endless hoops, be that, see that, see their GP six times in six months, or live in the same address for 12 months, have repeated assessments.
My Lords, we've heard some powerful testimonies here about relatives who have died. Can you imagine at the moment of their death, we're asking them to do repeated serial sevens, which is counting backwards from 100 in sevens, or to draw a clock face to assess capacity. Can you imagine that? Now, let me take my own profession, general practice. Listening to some of the debates I've heard here. One might think that when a patient receives a terminal diagnosis, that general practice fades away, that we retreat or that care fragments.
This is not my experience, nor that of many of my colleagues. When a patient enters their final phase of life, general practice leans in. We intensify care. We place patients on dedicated pathways, we ensure rapid access to benefits, and we maintain continuity with the named clinician. More likely than not a GP, we coordinate care with community teams, with palliative care specialists and families, and we ensure that we we do our best to provide continuity in and out of hours.
In other words, my Lords, we organise ourselves around the patient. We do not move away. Instead, we gather more closely. Are there failures? Yes, of course no system is without them. But the end of life. Clinicians across disciplines try often beyond expectation, as I have to keep the patient at the centre and to get it right. This bill is not a theoretical exercise we've heard already. It's about real people in real distress at the most vulnerable point of their life.
And again, with great respect, I felt that the individual who was dying, who was trying to make sense of what's happening to them, has been overshadowed by hypothetical abstractions and overly complex arguments. Again, to bring an example that I'm familiar with, take the example around the Royal College of GPS opt in opt out that even I got confused when it was debated. Now my understanding and report and and backed up by my recent conversations with the Royal College, is that what they're saying is that the actual delivery of the assisted death should be voluntary.
OK. That moment when the person's in that place, wherever it is or at their home. But GPS, like all health professionals, would continue to have the duty of care to support their patients to ensure appropriate referral to relevant services, and to have a sufficient understanding to be able to advise their patient about choices. This is not unusual. This is what we do across medicine, whether we provide the interventions ourselves or not. I do not provide open heart surgery, but I have an understanding of the principles of open heart surgery.
There's also been little acknowledgement of the jurist. What jurisdictions abroad do. In particular, I had the honour of chairing a contingent from Australia, where assisted dying is practised with regulations, safeguards and societal acceptance. These systems are not static. They evolve, they are refined, and they're integrated into broader models of care. And perhaps most importantly, there has been too little focus on how we might design such a system well in this country, because we already know how to build nationally led, locally delivered systems with clear standards, safeguards and oversight.
Take, for example, organ transplantation, nationally coordinated, rigorously regulated, ethically governed yet delivered in specialist centres close to patients. So the question is not whether we can design such a framework. We repeatedly do this in complex areas of medicine and public health. It's whether we're willing to apply the same seriousness, the same governance and clinical maturity to this issue. And finally, the example of palliative care, which has come up repeatedly in these debates, I am not persuaded, and nor are any of my clinicians, that this is a simple binary choice between assisted dying being introduced or palliative care.
It is these these issues in practice are more nuanced. We've had evidence presented in this House to suggest that in jurisdictions where assisted dying has been introduced, palliative care funding has actually increased and got better. And that shouldn't surprise us. Both arrive from the same underlying commitment to reduce suffering, to respect the patient, and to provide compassion and appropriate care at the end of life. They are not my Lords in competition. They are the very best complementary. My Lords, I do not underestimate the gravity of what this bill has proposed.
Assisted dying, as we've heard, raises profound ethical questions, and it demands safeguarding clarity and humility. But we must also recognise, as we've heard, that some patients take things into their own hands, often in ways that are lonely, traumatic and unsupported. This bill took control of her. This bill is about whether we're willing to trust patients within a carefully designed framework to retain autonomy in how their lives end, and whatever position we take on this bill, I hope we can hold on to that principle.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Right, my Lords, my Lords, thank you. I'd like to. First of all, I'd you. I'd like to. First of all, I'd like to remind the House that Harold Shipman was a murderer convicted of 15 life sentences plus four years. He did not provide an assisted death. So I'd like that to be on the record. I stand here as a general practitioner of over 40 years experience, and also, as I've said many times, president and chair of my Royal College of the Royal College of GPS.
Now, over these decades, I've had the privilege, though not always an easy one, to care for patients at the end of their lives. And for some, I have been present at the moment when life passes to death. It is an extraordinary moment, not as it is often portrayed as bleak or clinical or purely tragic, but something far different when death is well supported, when it's anticipated, and when it's held by family and those who care. It can be a moment of stillness, of connection and a sense of peace that feels unexpectedly profound.
It is one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had as a doctor. And in that moment or in those moments, one thing is always clear the patient is at the centre. Their wishes, their relationships, their dignity, all shape at that final phase of care unfolds when it goes well. But that is not the whole truth. I've also cared for many patients whose deaths have not gone well, patients who have refused treatments or have starved themselves rather than ensure what lies ahead, patients who sadly have ended their own lives unable to where the bear the weight of their diagnosis, and patients whose illnesses have taken away from them the ability to make their own decisions, and whose deaths have been placed into the hands of others families, clinicians and the systems acting in their place.
And this brings me, my Lord, to what I think is at the heart of this debate. The question sits simply, though uncomfortably, as whose death is it? And for decades, medicine has placed patient autonomy at the centre, bounded by capacity, consent, clinical judgement, protection from coercion. And we speak of choice, of dignity, of the individual's right to determine what happens to their own bodies. And we've actually built systems and laws and safeguards and languages all around that. And yet, at the moment when autonomy might matter most, the manner and timings of one one's own death, it is withdrawn.
At that point where a patient is dying, we say, not here, not you. And that, in my mind is not just a tension. It is an inconsistency that demands reflection, which is what I've been doing over the last few months. And I say with respect, that much of what I've heard in this House has strongly focussed on risk even today. But risk, my Lords, is not an unfamiliar territory in medicine. It's our daily working environment. We do not eliminate uncertainty.
We manage it. We make complex decisions every day about treatment capacity and withdrawal of care under conditions of imperfect knowledge, guided by safeguards, judgement and professional accountability. And along this focus on risk, there has also been a tendency, again, as I've heard today, to imagine worst case scenarios and to construct arguments that their point of failure rather than their point of function, the what if and to build in increasing complexity to cover every possible scenario that might come up to manage these hypothetical fears.
We've even heard it today about the hundred languages that are spoken. How do we manage learning disability? How do we manage people that are disabled? We do this every single day, a million times per day. Even the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, warned in his oral evidence that we are layering layer upon layer of complex bureaucracy on top of one another, expecting and in my mind, expecting the dying patient to jump through endless hoops, be that, see that, see their GP six times in six months, or live in the same address for 12 months, have repeated assessments.
My Lords, we've heard some powerful testimonies here about relatives who have died. Can you imagine at the moment of their death, we're asking them to do repeated serial sevens, which is counting backwards from 100 in sevens, or to draw a clock face to assess capacity. Can you imagine that? Now, let me take my own profession, general practice. Listening to some of the debates I've heard here. One might think that when a patient receives a terminal diagnosis, that general practice fades away, that we retreat or that care fragments.
This is not my experience, nor that of many of my colleagues. When a patient enters their final phase of life, general practice leans in. We intensify care. We place patients on dedicated pathways, we ensure rapid access to benefits, and we maintain continuity with the named clinician. More likely than not a GP, we coordinate care with community teams, with palliative care specialists and families, and we ensure that we we do our best to provide continuity in and out of hours.
In other words, my Lords, we organise ourselves around the patient. We do not move away. Instead, we gather more closely. Are there failures? Yes, of course no system is without them. But the end of life. Clinicians across disciplines try often beyond expectation, as I have to keep the patient at the centre and to get it right. This bill is not a theoretical exercise we've heard already. It's about real people in real distress at the most vulnerable point of their life.
And again, with great respect, I felt that the individual who was dying, who was trying to make sense of what's happening to them, has been overshadowed by hypothetical abstractions and overly complex arguments. Again, to bring an example that I'm familiar with, take the example around the Royal College of GPS opt in opt out that even I got confused when it was debated. Now my understanding and report and and backed up by my recent conversations with the Royal College, is that what they're saying is that the actual delivery of the assisted death should be voluntary.
OK. That moment when the person's in that place, wherever it is or at their home. But GPS, like all health professionals, would continue to have the duty of care to support their patients to ensure appropriate referral to relevant services, and to have a sufficient understanding to be able to advise their patient about choices. This is not unusual. This is what we do across medicine, whether we provide the interventions ourselves or not. I do not provide open heart surgery, but I have an understanding of the principles of open heart surgery.
There's also been little acknowledgement of the jurist. What jurisdictions abroad do. In particular, I had the honour of chairing a contingent from Australia, where assisted dying is practised with regulations, safeguards and societal acceptance. These systems are not static. They evolve, they are refined, and they're integrated into broader models of care. And perhaps most importantly, there has been too little focus on how we might design such a system well in this country, because we already know how to build nationally led, locally delivered systems with clear standards, safeguards and oversight.
Take, for example, organ transplantation, nationally coordinated, rigorously regulated, ethically governed yet delivered in specialist centres close to patients. So the question is not whether we can design such a framework. We repeatedly do this in complex areas of medicine and public health. It's whether we're willing to apply the same seriousness, the same governance and clinical maturity to this issue. And finally, the example of palliative care, which has come up repeatedly in these debates, I am not persuaded, and nor are any of my clinicians, that this is a simple binary choice between assisted dying being introduced or palliative care.
It is these these issues in practice are more nuanced. We've had evidence presented in this House to suggest that in jurisdictions where assisted dying has been introduced, palliative care funding has actually increased and got better. And that shouldn't surprise us. Both arrive from the same underlying commitment to reduce suffering, to respect the patient, and to provide compassion and appropriate care at the end of life. They are not my Lords in competition. They are the very best complementary. My Lords, I do not underestimate the gravity of what this bill has proposed.
Assisted dying, as we've heard, raises profound ethical questions, and it demands safeguarding clarity and humility. But we must also recognise, as we've heard, that some patients take things into their own hands, often in ways that are lonely, traumatic and unsupported. This bill took control of her. This bill is about whether we're willing to trust patients within a carefully designed framework to retain autonomy in how their lives end, and whatever position we take on this bill, I hope we can hold on to that principle.
12:34
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
My, my Lords, my Lords, my Lords. I'm conscious that many, many noble Lords wish to speak in this debate. If we work together, everybody standing up will get the chance to speak before the wise words of the Lord Brady Baroness Harding can make your points in 4 to 6 minutes very easily. We'll all get to start to speak, but the next quantities will come for the Lord Brady Baroness Grey-Thompson. A number of groups call for. Please all work together. We'll all get to speak.
12:35
Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, I'd like to start by thanking the Chief Whip for recognising my inability to. Bob. recognising my inability to. Bob. So thank you very much. I'd also like to apologise that my noble friend Baroness Finlay of Llandaff is not able to be here today. Today she's attending the funeral of one of her patients, whom she spoke about in your Lordships chamber. In this very debate, the patient had four doctors who diagnosed them with a terminal condition and told them they had three months to live.
My noble friend has known him for 35 years. My Lords, it doesn't give me any sense of satisfaction that we are where we are today. This is a complex bill, and there are a whole range of emotions on all sides of the debate. But my Lords, people are angry and they're scared. And where we've got to in the debate doesn't address many of the issues of death, the good death or palliative care. I'm one of the peers that's been targeted in the press for the number of amendments that I've tabled, and they came about in different ways.
I wrote many of them. Some were tabled at the request of organisations, charities, organisations of and for disabled people and disabled individuals who are very worried about the reality of this bill. We've been criticised for the length of our speeches, the way that we've worded things. I'm very happy to show anyone my speech outside the chamber. I'm not allowed to do it in the chamber in terms of how much we edit and rewrite as we go along to not be repetitive.
But my Lords, my role is to bring our experience and knowledge to the chamber. It's hard to argue with the principle of two doctors settle wish and a six month diagnosis, but the Committee stage in the House of Lords is about detail, and the Committee stage has raised many issues of detail that we've explored, but it's not possible to put into simple soundbites. A letter was circulated yesterday about the role of the House of Lords, and mentioned that we've only completed seven clauses, but I agree with my noble friend Baroness O'Loan.
We have debated other parts of the Bill. I've made numerous attempts to get answers to my questions around clause 22, and they've not been forthcoming where the noble and learned Lord, and I probably agree, is on some of my amendments around advertising, and I understand why it took weeks for the noble and learned Lord to table them. But actually, I think what's been tabled is a much weaker version than what I originally put down. My Lords were continually told that this bill is the safest in the world, but in a meeting with the noble and learned Lord and the hon.
Member for Batley and Spen, I asked who said that? And I was told doctors from all around the world. But my Lords, that does not make it the safest bill in the world. It's not a very high bar and I have a frustration in the understanding of people outside the chamber about how Parliament works. The bill we've been presented with is very different from the bill that started in the Commons. Two of the time there were spent with the High Court judge as part of the bill, and that was then removed in the House of Commons.
At Report stage, 121 amendments were tabled, 44 from the sponsors. Of the remaining 77 amendments, MPs were only allowed to vote on seven. So I disagree that there's been detailed scrutiny. My Lords, this bill has failed because there are too many gaps in it. If we look at the recent bill in Scotland that failed because there were severe concerns at the third stage about safety and the Delegated Powers Committee, Royal colleges organisations on for disabled people, charities, individuals have all raised multiple concerns about this bill, not the principle.
And while many people have written to me about not wanting to die in pain and suffering, this is not in the bill. There's a lot of misunderstanding about what people might get. I really worry that people on the outside have been promised something that they were never going to get. Some think this is about euthanasia, my Lords. It is not one pill. Assisted death doesn't mean that the death is painless. It doesn't mean that it will be quick. And it's not for some of the groups who think they're going to get it.
It is not for people with motor neurone disease, but it could be for people with bulimia, and it certainly won't be available at a place of people's choosing. Most of the emails I get are saying, I want to choose the time and place of my desk without proper licensing, that will not happen. And there is a challenge that this being a private member's bill, and that those who oppose it have not had access to the team to be able to finesse our amendments. And yes, we have been asked several times to think about what groups we might like to debate, but I haven't seen a suggested group in this list.
And my Lords, we are not one single group of people in this debate. I am working alongside people I never thought I would agree with on anything. It shows the strangeness of this debate, and many of my amendments are drafting amendments just simply to get the correct language around disabled people and think about the impact it might have on those groups. And my Lords, I've had a lot of pushback on my amendments. Certainly, pregnancy seems to have attracted a lot of attention, and I made it clear in the debate it was not about who could get pregnant.
This was not a debate about gender recognition, nor about the age of the individual. This is set out in NHS guidance, and it seems a shame that those who are willing to take umbrage with me don't appear to listen to what I said in the chamber. My Lords, what have we learned? We've learnt being pregnant or homeless or poor or disabled should not be a barrier. And that's why the progress of this bill has been slow, because those comments have made people nervous. If you're homeless, poor or disabled, you do not have equal access to society.
So it's not a level playing field to start off with. And you have significant disadvantage and why disabled people are scared. My Lords, a couple of weeks ago, recently in the English Devolution Bill, I had my name on an amendment that was simply to enact legislation that passed 30 years ago. This was to make sure that taxis were accessible for disabled people. There was a three line whip against me and the vote was lost. Something as simple as making taxis accessible for disabled people.
This chamber voted against. So why do disabled people have little trust in this bill? And it's not just seven of us that have posed us this bill. There's many that have spoken the debates. The noble and learned Lord himself has tabled 76 amendments now on the ranking list. He comes fifth highest. To me, that shows that there is not the confidence that this bill is safe. I've received many emails, many of them asking, have I watched someone I love die? Yes I have.
I sat beside my father's bedside for weeks while he died, slowly having multiple amputations. I held his hand for the last 24 hours before he died, and I constantly think what I could have done differently. My father was instrumental in making me the person I am for all my strengths and weaknesses, and I seriously question myself if this bill had passed, would. If it made his death better. And no, it wouldn't. It absolutely would not have. We talk about choice and free will, but there are many people who have no choice or free will.
And this bill does not operate in a vacuum, and we cannot forget the significant amount of discrimination that many people face. I myself have experienced ableism within the health service and the point my treatment changed. It's not when I became an expert patient. It's not when I argued for my rights. It's when they realised I had a red stripey badge and I sat in the House of Lords. My Lords, we have to recognise the privilege that we have. I've had thousands of emails on this issue two this morning, one from someone who's emailed me many times, who finds my cruelty unforgivable and is disgusted with me.
Another. Another was sent to Miss Ledbetter and I was copied in. The individual said, I am someone with no one little in the way of family. There'll be no one there for me when I die. I know that I'll be manipulated to not waste inheritance money on care homes and end my life for the sake of others. I've been hospital dozens of times in the last few years, and my health declines each time I go by taxi. No one to look after me, not allowed sedation because there's no one at home to look after me for the following 24 hours.
I don't think I'll be someone who lives a long life. It's embarrassing to admit when you have no family to care about you, who would look after you in old age, or when you're ill, or to hold your hand in your last moments. So I believe we are the silent majority. My Lords, we've heard much debate today about the damage to your Lordships House, but I've had thousands of emails to say thank you for what we are doing here today to unpack the danger that this is in this bill.
My Lords, I am very clear on my role. It has not been pleasant to sit here, to be targeted by so many people, to say we are doing a bad job. But my Lords, our job is to protect everyone in British society. This bill does not do that.
My noble friend has known him for 35 years. My Lords, it doesn't give me any sense of satisfaction that we are where we are today. This is a complex bill, and there are a whole range of emotions on all sides of the debate. But my Lords, people are angry and they're scared. And where we've got to in the debate doesn't address many of the issues of death, the good death or palliative care. I'm one of the peers that's been targeted in the press for the number of amendments that I've tabled, and they came about in different ways.
I wrote many of them. Some were tabled at the request of organisations, charities, organisations of and for disabled people and disabled individuals who are very worried about the reality of this bill. We've been criticised for the length of our speeches, the way that we've worded things. I'm very happy to show anyone my speech outside the chamber. I'm not allowed to do it in the chamber in terms of how much we edit and rewrite as we go along to not be repetitive.
But my Lords, my role is to bring our experience and knowledge to the chamber. It's hard to argue with the principle of two doctors settle wish and a six month diagnosis, but the Committee stage in the House of Lords is about detail, and the Committee stage has raised many issues of detail that we've explored, but it's not possible to put into simple soundbites. A letter was circulated yesterday about the role of the House of Lords, and mentioned that we've only completed seven clauses, but I agree with my noble friend Baroness O'Loan.
We have debated other parts of the Bill. I've made numerous attempts to get answers to my questions around clause 22, and they've not been forthcoming where the noble and learned Lord, and I probably agree, is on some of my amendments around advertising, and I understand why it took weeks for the noble and learned Lord to table them. But actually, I think what's been tabled is a much weaker version than what I originally put down. My Lords were continually told that this bill is the safest in the world, but in a meeting with the noble and learned Lord and the hon.
Member for Batley and Spen, I asked who said that? And I was told doctors from all around the world. But my Lords, that does not make it the safest bill in the world. It's not a very high bar and I have a frustration in the understanding of people outside the chamber about how Parliament works. The bill we've been presented with is very different from the bill that started in the Commons. Two of the time there were spent with the High Court judge as part of the bill, and that was then removed in the House of Commons.
At Report stage, 121 amendments were tabled, 44 from the sponsors. Of the remaining 77 amendments, MPs were only allowed to vote on seven. So I disagree that there's been detailed scrutiny. My Lords, this bill has failed because there are too many gaps in it. If we look at the recent bill in Scotland that failed because there were severe concerns at the third stage about safety and the Delegated Powers Committee, Royal colleges organisations on for disabled people, charities, individuals have all raised multiple concerns about this bill, not the principle.
And while many people have written to me about not wanting to die in pain and suffering, this is not in the bill. There's a lot of misunderstanding about what people might get. I really worry that people on the outside have been promised something that they were never going to get. Some think this is about euthanasia, my Lords. It is not one pill. Assisted death doesn't mean that the death is painless. It doesn't mean that it will be quick. And it's not for some of the groups who think they're going to get it.
It is not for people with motor neurone disease, but it could be for people with bulimia, and it certainly won't be available at a place of people's choosing. Most of the emails I get are saying, I want to choose the time and place of my desk without proper licensing, that will not happen. And there is a challenge that this being a private member's bill, and that those who oppose it have not had access to the team to be able to finesse our amendments. And yes, we have been asked several times to think about what groups we might like to debate, but I haven't seen a suggested group in this list.
And my Lords, we are not one single group of people in this debate. I am working alongside people I never thought I would agree with on anything. It shows the strangeness of this debate, and many of my amendments are drafting amendments just simply to get the correct language around disabled people and think about the impact it might have on those groups. And my Lords, I've had a lot of pushback on my amendments. Certainly, pregnancy seems to have attracted a lot of attention, and I made it clear in the debate it was not about who could get pregnant.
This was not a debate about gender recognition, nor about the age of the individual. This is set out in NHS guidance, and it seems a shame that those who are willing to take umbrage with me don't appear to listen to what I said in the chamber. My Lords, what have we learned? We've learnt being pregnant or homeless or poor or disabled should not be a barrier. And that's why the progress of this bill has been slow, because those comments have made people nervous. If you're homeless, poor or disabled, you do not have equal access to society.
So it's not a level playing field to start off with. And you have significant disadvantage and why disabled people are scared. My Lords, a couple of weeks ago, recently in the English Devolution Bill, I had my name on an amendment that was simply to enact legislation that passed 30 years ago. This was to make sure that taxis were accessible for disabled people. There was a three line whip against me and the vote was lost. Something as simple as making taxis accessible for disabled people.
This chamber voted against. So why do disabled people have little trust in this bill? And it's not just seven of us that have posed us this bill. There's many that have spoken the debates. The noble and learned Lord himself has tabled 76 amendments now on the ranking list. He comes fifth highest. To me, that shows that there is not the confidence that this bill is safe. I've received many emails, many of them asking, have I watched someone I love die? Yes I have.
I sat beside my father's bedside for weeks while he died, slowly having multiple amputations. I held his hand for the last 24 hours before he died, and I constantly think what I could have done differently. My father was instrumental in making me the person I am for all my strengths and weaknesses, and I seriously question myself if this bill had passed, would. If it made his death better. And no, it wouldn't. It absolutely would not have. We talk about choice and free will, but there are many people who have no choice or free will.
And this bill does not operate in a vacuum, and we cannot forget the significant amount of discrimination that many people face. I myself have experienced ableism within the health service and the point my treatment changed. It's not when I became an expert patient. It's not when I argued for my rights. It's when they realised I had a red stripey badge and I sat in the House of Lords. My Lords, we have to recognise the privilege that we have. I've had thousands of emails on this issue two this morning, one from someone who's emailed me many times, who finds my cruelty unforgivable and is disgusted with me.
Another. Another was sent to Miss Ledbetter and I was copied in. The individual said, I am someone with no one little in the way of family. There'll be no one there for me when I die. I know that I'll be manipulated to not waste inheritance money on care homes and end my life for the sake of others. I've been hospital dozens of times in the last few years, and my health declines each time I go by taxi. No one to look after me, not allowed sedation because there's no one at home to look after me for the following 24 hours.
I don't think I'll be someone who lives a long life. It's embarrassing to admit when you have no family to care about you, who would look after you in old age, or when you're ill, or to hold your hand in your last moments. So I believe we are the silent majority. My Lords, we've heard much debate today about the damage to your Lordships House, but I've had thousands of emails to say thank you for what we are doing here today to unpack the danger that this is in this bill.
My Lords, I am very clear on my role. It has not been pleasant to sit here, to be targeted by so many people, to say we are doing a bad job. But my Lords, our job is to protect everyone in British society. This bill does not do that.
12:44
12:44
12:44
Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Farmer (Conservative)
disappointment of so many. I share the disappointment of so many in the disappointment of so many in this House that we have not. I'll this House that we have not. I'll just start again, my Lord. Thank you. This is a private member's bill finally passed in the Commons bill finally passed in the Commons with a majority of 26. I. I'm advising here. I've spoken to a advising here. I've spoken to a number of Labour MPs since. And what is not known, possibly, is that there was considerable pressure from number ten to pass the Bill.
It was known that the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, supported it and indeed there were government party bill supporters standing at the entrance to the lobbies, taking note of who was going through. I'm just passing, passing on what Labour MPs have said to me that they felt intimidated. There have been, and still are, considerable concerns about such an important matter as assisted suicide coming onto the statute book through a private member's bill. It has not had pre-legislative parliamentary scrutiny.
As we've heard. Committee stage in the other place was chaired by its sponsor and appeared to some to be unbalanced. There has been no publicly available impact assessment and cost or cost
**** Possible New Speaker ****
analysis by the government. My Lords, I will. When the noble Lord says there's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When the noble Lord says there's been no publicly available impact assessment that is wrong. There is assessment that is wrong. There is a publicly available impact assessment not published by the sponsors, but by published by the sponsors, but by published by the Department of Health and Social Care.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Care. I can tell you, my Lords, almost 250 members of this House have been involved in a massive and sustained effort to try to make this bill safe and workable. The House staff, as we've heard, have been outstanding in their service to us all, and I'm sure we're extremely thankful and grateful to them for that. Much has been imputed, particularly in the press, about our motivation in closely scrutinising this bill, including that we are cruel. At no time have we been unaware of the suffering the bill's supporters have wanted to alleviate.
However, it is not compassionate to pass a bill without addressing the many concerns raised by Royal colleges. Three committees of this House, myriad disability groups and others that would be cruel to the poor and the vulnerable. Yet we, and by extension, they have been shown not a little contempt at times when we have taken time to lay out how this Bill would affect them, and, my Lords, we need to be wary of contempt when courtesy, as we reminded at the beginning, is the currency of this House.
I continue to have a quiet concern about the language used. Orwell described political language as designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. First, we talk about assisted dying, when surely we mean assisted suicide, assisted suicide, assisted dying is what Dame Cicely Saunders said hospices would provide. Palliative care would provide. We will do all that, she said. We will do all that we can, not only to help you die peacefully, but to live until you die, because you matter until the last moment of your life.
And I urge this government to do what no previous one has done and make high quality palliative care sustainable and universally available. Second, the legal qualifier for assistance is terminal illness within six months to live. Well, we've heard already that when that prognosis has at least a 20 to 30% unreliability, according to evidence given to the select committee, we should not pretend that legal solidity exists where actually there might be pure wind. Third, any notion that noble Lords are filibustering rather than legitimately scrutinising this bill is unsustainable.
Given the length of both the Bill and the proceedings in the Commons and the fact that the mean length of speeches in this House has been actually under five minutes. But finally, I detect an assumption that anyone who is religiously motivated should not be heard or impose their views on anyone else. We do not impose our views, but we do echo a very substantial number of people outside this chamber whose faith is partly why this bill evokes deep concern.
In contrast, every day of our lives, secular humanism is imposed on us with its assumptions about the primacy of individual autonomy and the irrationality of belief. Such assumptions deny, first that human existence is inherently relational, and deny the loneliness of hyper individualism. Second, it takes more faith to believe that this incredible world in which we live came from nothing, than to believe that there is something, someone behind it. Does he who make the eye not see. Finally, the very many ethical, medical and practical reasons are why this bill has needed robust and lengthy scrutiny from a very diverse group of peers.
The process in this House and evidence from other countries has profoundly challenged the assumption that the service the Bill attempts to provide can be safe. Many here say this is not based on faith, but on evidence. To return to what I said in the beginning, this House, as a premier global reputation for its thoroughness of scrutiny. When I was in Brussels, I talked to a Italian lawyer lawyer working for the European Commission, and he said that the work received from this House was second to no other secondary chamber in the world.
My Lords, I believe we have lived up to that reputation over the course of this bill.
It was known that the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, supported it and indeed there were government party bill supporters standing at the entrance to the lobbies, taking note of who was going through. I'm just passing, passing on what Labour MPs have said to me that they felt intimidated. There have been, and still are, considerable concerns about such an important matter as assisted suicide coming onto the statute book through a private member's bill. It has not had pre-legislative parliamentary scrutiny.
As we've heard. Committee stage in the other place was chaired by its sponsor and appeared to some to be unbalanced. There has been no publicly available impact assessment and cost or cost
**** Possible New Speaker ****
analysis by the government. My Lords, I will. When the noble Lord says there's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When the noble Lord says there's been no publicly available impact assessment that is wrong. There is assessment that is wrong. There is a publicly available impact assessment not published by the sponsors, but by published by the sponsors, but by published by the Department of Health and Social Care.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Care. I can tell you, my Lords, almost 250 members of this House have been involved in a massive and sustained effort to try to make this bill safe and workable. The House staff, as we've heard, have been outstanding in their service to us all, and I'm sure we're extremely thankful and grateful to them for that. Much has been imputed, particularly in the press, about our motivation in closely scrutinising this bill, including that we are cruel. At no time have we been unaware of the suffering the bill's supporters have wanted to alleviate.
However, it is not compassionate to pass a bill without addressing the many concerns raised by Royal colleges. Three committees of this House, myriad disability groups and others that would be cruel to the poor and the vulnerable. Yet we, and by extension, they have been shown not a little contempt at times when we have taken time to lay out how this Bill would affect them, and, my Lords, we need to be wary of contempt when courtesy, as we reminded at the beginning, is the currency of this House.
I continue to have a quiet concern about the language used. Orwell described political language as designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. First, we talk about assisted dying, when surely we mean assisted suicide, assisted suicide, assisted dying is what Dame Cicely Saunders said hospices would provide. Palliative care would provide. We will do all that, she said. We will do all that we can, not only to help you die peacefully, but to live until you die, because you matter until the last moment of your life.
And I urge this government to do what no previous one has done and make high quality palliative care sustainable and universally available. Second, the legal qualifier for assistance is terminal illness within six months to live. Well, we've heard already that when that prognosis has at least a 20 to 30% unreliability, according to evidence given to the select committee, we should not pretend that legal solidity exists where actually there might be pure wind. Third, any notion that noble Lords are filibustering rather than legitimately scrutinising this bill is unsustainable.
Given the length of both the Bill and the proceedings in the Commons and the fact that the mean length of speeches in this House has been actually under five minutes. But finally, I detect an assumption that anyone who is religiously motivated should not be heard or impose their views on anyone else. We do not impose our views, but we do echo a very substantial number of people outside this chamber whose faith is partly why this bill evokes deep concern.
In contrast, every day of our lives, secular humanism is imposed on us with its assumptions about the primacy of individual autonomy and the irrationality of belief. Such assumptions deny, first that human existence is inherently relational, and deny the loneliness of hyper individualism. Second, it takes more faith to believe that this incredible world in which we live came from nothing, than to believe that there is something, someone behind it. Does he who make the eye not see. Finally, the very many ethical, medical and practical reasons are why this bill has needed robust and lengthy scrutiny from a very diverse group of peers.
The process in this House and evidence from other countries has profoundly challenged the assumption that the service the Bill attempts to provide can be safe. Many here say this is not based on faith, but on evidence. To return to what I said in the beginning, this House, as a premier global reputation for its thoroughness of scrutiny. When I was in Brussels, I talked to a Italian lawyer lawyer working for the European Commission, and he said that the work received from this House was second to no other secondary chamber in the world.
My Lords, I believe we have lived up to that reputation over the course of this bill.
12:50
Baroness Rafferty (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Rafferty (Labour)
Yes, yes. Rafferty. Rafferty, I >> Yes, yes. Rafferty. Rafferty, I speak for the first time in this debate as a nurse and former dean of the Florence Nightingale Faculty of the Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care at King's College London. Our patron saints include Florence Nightingale and Cicely Saunders, and it would be hard to imagine two more rigorous and formidable expert witnesses to comment upon the debates we have been having these past few weeks. Both were deeply committed Christians, driven by the alleviation of human suffering and providing the practical means to do so through nursing and palliative care.
Both were accomplished scientists. Nightingale, being hugely influential in public health, epidemiology, statistics and social science. As Cicely Saunders was in Physiology and Psychology of Pain, coining the concept of total pain to convey the holistic sense of suffering. But both had more speculative sides to their characters. In the case of Nightingale, a fascination with Thomas a Kempis, Teresa of Avila, and the medieval mystics, she committed some of her thoughts to paper consulting with Benjamin Jowett, Regius Professor of Greek and Theology at Balliol College, Oxford, who became her spiritual confessor.
Cicely Saunders Library reveals a similar quest to understand Christian ethics and the existential nature of the human condition. Both were deeply interested in troubled and possibly tormented by the challenge of squaring the existence of a benign god with the dark side of the soul and human suffering. Perhaps the ultimate question in their minds was an eschatological one how will it all end? How will life end? And what will death be like? In a sense, that is what we have been wrestling with over the past months, struggling to reconcile very different perspectives on how it will end for ourselves, loved ones, patients and relatives.
Some of us believe in enabling people to exercise autonomy over the end of life and nature of our own death, of their deaths, to have agency. Over the end, we have heard testimony from people who have chosen this path, as well as from relatives and loved ones. They have spoken so powerfully of the sense of freedom and relief it has provided. The physical, emotional and spiritual sense of peace for all concerned. There are those who do not agree that this should be possible.
Such views are profoundly personal. I happen to have witnessed some very difficult deaths of patients and close family members, and that has convinced me that assisted dying is a positive step in easing people through to a good ending. Denying that option to people who would like to avail themselves of it when we can offer it, and when international evidence demonstrates it is safe to do so. Not only seems cruel, but unethical when seen in the context of a bill that has passed in the elected chamber and is supported by public opinion, that seems like a dereliction of duty.
It is not our job to defy or block the democratic process. My Lords, I implore you, it is time to resolve our differences and do the right thing by finding a way to pass this bill.
Both were accomplished scientists. Nightingale, being hugely influential in public health, epidemiology, statistics and social science. As Cicely Saunders was in Physiology and Psychology of Pain, coining the concept of total pain to convey the holistic sense of suffering. But both had more speculative sides to their characters. In the case of Nightingale, a fascination with Thomas a Kempis, Teresa of Avila, and the medieval mystics, she committed some of her thoughts to paper consulting with Benjamin Jowett, Regius Professor of Greek and Theology at Balliol College, Oxford, who became her spiritual confessor.
Cicely Saunders Library reveals a similar quest to understand Christian ethics and the existential nature of the human condition. Both were deeply interested in troubled and possibly tormented by the challenge of squaring the existence of a benign god with the dark side of the soul and human suffering. Perhaps the ultimate question in their minds was an eschatological one how will it all end? How will life end? And what will death be like? In a sense, that is what we have been wrestling with over the past months, struggling to reconcile very different perspectives on how it will end for ourselves, loved ones, patients and relatives.
Some of us believe in enabling people to exercise autonomy over the end of life and nature of our own death, of their deaths, to have agency. Over the end, we have heard testimony from people who have chosen this path, as well as from relatives and loved ones. They have spoken so powerfully of the sense of freedom and relief it has provided. The physical, emotional and spiritual sense of peace for all concerned. There are those who do not agree that this should be possible.
Such views are profoundly personal. I happen to have witnessed some very difficult deaths of patients and close family members, and that has convinced me that assisted dying is a positive step in easing people through to a good ending. Denying that option to people who would like to avail themselves of it when we can offer it, and when international evidence demonstrates it is safe to do so. Not only seems cruel, but unethical when seen in the context of a bill that has passed in the elected chamber and is supported by public opinion, that seems like a dereliction of duty.
It is not our job to defy or block the democratic process. My Lords, I implore you, it is time to resolve our differences and do the right thing by finding a way to pass this bill.
12:55
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (Bishops)
Here. My Lords, my Lords, my Lords, Here. My Lords, my Lords, my Lords, my Lords, my Lords, I rise. I rise very briefly to make some very briefly to make some reflections, and it is a great privilege to follow my noble friend, privilege to follow my noble friend, because she is at Baroness Rafferty for your contribution, and I recognise the enormous amount of recognise the enormous amount of work that has gone into this Committee stage, and I am also grateful to Lord Faulkner for having met with me and the time that he has given me.
Thank you for that. You will know that I oppose this bill in principle, both as a priest but also as an as a nurse. But what is clear is that there are some things that unify us, whether we are in support of this bill or we oppose it, we are unified by the fact that actually what we want is as many people to die in a dignified, pain free, compassionate way with, in fact, the least possible fear that they can have.
I also believe that what we are unified in is that we do believe that there needs to be investment in palliative care now, and I do welcome the new modern framework for palliative care that the government has introduced, but also recognise that that investment still needs to occur in terms of financial investment. I also believe that we are unified in the fact that if this bill or this topic comes back in some form, is that we need to do our work differently.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the big, biggest societal shifts that we are seeing or will see. And therefore, as we have done, we need to take our role seriously. But actually, there is something about us learning for this process and looking forward to when it comes back, how we do it differently. And I was very taken, although I don't know the details, I was very taken by the noble Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss view of Pre-legislative scrutiny.
And I do think that seriously that we should look at this. I also believe that we are united by the reality that we know. This touches some of our deepest emotions, and I am very grateful for those who have shared their own experience and their stories. I have felt very humbled by having listened to those. As a Christian, I. For me, it clearly is an eschatological question as raised by my noble friend Baroness Rafferty. And of course, as a Christian.
For me, death is not the end. That there is hope in death and life everlasting. But as we talk about these things, it touches deeply. I think we need to recognise that we need to look after each other, and we need to look after ourselves and recognise that this process will have impacted us as well as those listening. Thank you.
Thank you for that. You will know that I oppose this bill in principle, both as a priest but also as an as a nurse. But what is clear is that there are some things that unify us, whether we are in support of this bill or we oppose it, we are unified by the fact that actually what we want is as many people to die in a dignified, pain free, compassionate way with, in fact, the least possible fear that they can have.
I also believe that what we are unified in is that we do believe that there needs to be investment in palliative care now, and I do welcome the new modern framework for palliative care that the government has introduced, but also recognise that that investment still needs to occur in terms of financial investment. I also believe that we are unified in the fact that if this bill or this topic comes back in some form, is that we need to do our work differently.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the big, biggest societal shifts that we are seeing or will see. And therefore, as we have done, we need to take our role seriously. But actually, there is something about us learning for this process and looking forward to when it comes back, how we do it differently. And I was very taken, although I don't know the details, I was very taken by the noble Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss view of Pre-legislative scrutiny.
And I do think that seriously that we should look at this. I also believe that we are united by the reality that we know. This touches some of our deepest emotions, and I am very grateful for those who have shared their own experience and their stories. I have felt very humbled by having listened to those. As a Christian, I. For me, it clearly is an eschatological question as raised by my noble friend Baroness Rafferty. And of course, as a Christian.
For me, death is not the end. That there is hope in death and life everlasting. But as we talk about these things, it touches deeply. I think we need to recognise that we need to look after each other, and we need to look after ourselves and recognise that this process will have impacted us as well as those listening. Thank you.
12:58
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Noble Lord. >> Lord Farmer my friend Lord Farmer, that I shall seek to avoid pure wind. I share the pure wind. I share the disappointment of so many in this house and indeed so many outside this house, that we have not completed our task of scrutinising this important bill. And scrutiny means not just debating seven clauses of a 59 clause Bill over 13 days. Scrutiny means completing Committee stage. It means completing Report stage. It means going to Third Reading and it means voting on our differences.
Because there are profound differences, there are differences which people can quite properly and reasonably hold. But there has to be a choice. There has to be a choice as to which side you are on and our failure. And it is a real failure for whatever reason. It's a stain on the reputation of this house, and it's a stain on our reputation because the issues raised by this bill are profound. They're important to people. They're important to people who are worried about death.
They're important to people who are worried they may be coerced into agreeing to assisted dying. They're highly contentious, and the bill has been passed by the other place, the democratically elected place. That does not mean that we have to agree with them, but it certainly does mean we have to come to a view and we have to vote on these matters. I, incidentally, have no doubt whatsoever that if we had got to Report stage and Third Reading and if we had voted on this bill, the overwhelming majority of this House would have voted in support of this bill and rejected the destructive amendments that were being put forward.
And I think the opponents of the bill know that as well. Now, I want to say something, if I may, about the points made long ago by the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, and she said, look at the reports of the Constitution Committee, look at the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, which she said undermined this bill. But the points made by those committees have been debated over the last 14 days. They've been debated again and again.
Those committees, as she will know, she hasn't been in this House that long, but she will know those committees regularly criticise bills that are produced, government bills and the way we deal with it is we address amendments to those bills to to deal with those concerns, a Report stage and we vote on them. And that's what we've been prevented from doing. Baroness Coffey then said it's vital that we scrutinise this important bill. Other noble Lords have made the same point.
Yes, that's what we have been doing, but we have to do so with proportionality. We have to ensure that we get through the business so we can vote on the issues which divide us. And I have to say to the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, that there were many occasions during this Committee stage when I personally was not convinced that she had any wish to see this bill complete its scrutiny, so that we could reach conclusions and vote on what divides us, the length and the repetition of the speeches of many of the opponents of this bill have used up the time available.
The same points were made again and again and again. And that's why this House has been denied the opportunity to move, to Report stage and to vote. Baroness Coffey then emphasised the need, and it's a vital need to protect against coercion. Yes, and we've debated that issue for many hours. But the risks of coercion have to be balanced against the wishes, the interests of dying people who do voluntarily want to end their lives. And the opponents of this bill have given little, if any, weight to those wishes and those interests.
And why? That is because they oppose the principle of this bill. And even more important than the damage to the reputation of this House, is the failure of this House to give proper concern to the wishes of those who are dying and who want, do want voluntarily to end their lives. Can I say just a word to Baroness Scotland? Because she invited the House to pay regard to what she called the Attorney General's guidelines on prosecutions.
In fact, the guidelines were introduced by the DPP, Keir Starmer. Whatever happened to him? Because the. And he did so because the appellate committee of this House, in its final case, before it was replaced by the Supreme Court, required him to do so. The case was brought by Debbie Purdy, and I was proud to be her advocate in the appellate committee. But what I say to Baroness Scotland is that this bill, if it were to be enacted, would provide a far better means of regulation and protection in relation to those who are at the end of their lives, than guidelines which involve the DPP exercising a discretion not to prosecute after the event.
That is a wholly unsatisfactory way of dealing with this matter. The opponents of this bill have criticised Lord Falconer for not accepting their amendments, but on so many of the issues Lord Falconer and those who support him simply do not agree with those amendments. We think that many of those amendments will undermine the purpose and the effect of this bill. They will make it exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, for those who want and need to use its provisions to do so.
The way to resolve such disputes is to vote, and that's what we can't do. The noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, who I see is not in her place. She said a further Bill should have pre-legislative scrutiny. I normally agree with the noble and learned Lady, but not on this. The disagreement surely are clear. After 14 days we know what we all think and we differ. We disagree. We are not going to agree. We need to come to a conclusion. So my hope is that the House of Commons will revive this Bill in the next session.
They will send it back to us in the same terms, so that the Parliament Act can apply. We can then continue our scrutiny. We can improve the Bill. It's not perfect, but we can complete our process and the opponents of the bill will not again be able to talk this bill out, because the Parliament Act will ensure that the will of the elected House will prevail, and that is as it should be. R my Lord.
Because there are profound differences, there are differences which people can quite properly and reasonably hold. But there has to be a choice. There has to be a choice as to which side you are on and our failure. And it is a real failure for whatever reason. It's a stain on the reputation of this house, and it's a stain on our reputation because the issues raised by this bill are profound. They're important to people. They're important to people who are worried about death.
They're important to people who are worried they may be coerced into agreeing to assisted dying. They're highly contentious, and the bill has been passed by the other place, the democratically elected place. That does not mean that we have to agree with them, but it certainly does mean we have to come to a view and we have to vote on these matters. I, incidentally, have no doubt whatsoever that if we had got to Report stage and Third Reading and if we had voted on this bill, the overwhelming majority of this House would have voted in support of this bill and rejected the destructive amendments that were being put forward.
And I think the opponents of the bill know that as well. Now, I want to say something, if I may, about the points made long ago by the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, and she said, look at the reports of the Constitution Committee, look at the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, which she said undermined this bill. But the points made by those committees have been debated over the last 14 days. They've been debated again and again.
Those committees, as she will know, she hasn't been in this House that long, but she will know those committees regularly criticise bills that are produced, government bills and the way we deal with it is we address amendments to those bills to to deal with those concerns, a Report stage and we vote on them. And that's what we've been prevented from doing. Baroness Coffey then said it's vital that we scrutinise this important bill. Other noble Lords have made the same point.
Yes, that's what we have been doing, but we have to do so with proportionality. We have to ensure that we get through the business so we can vote on the issues which divide us. And I have to say to the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, that there were many occasions during this Committee stage when I personally was not convinced that she had any wish to see this bill complete its scrutiny, so that we could reach conclusions and vote on what divides us, the length and the repetition of the speeches of many of the opponents of this bill have used up the time available.
The same points were made again and again and again. And that's why this House has been denied the opportunity to move, to Report stage and to vote. Baroness Coffey then emphasised the need, and it's a vital need to protect against coercion. Yes, and we've debated that issue for many hours. But the risks of coercion have to be balanced against the wishes, the interests of dying people who do voluntarily want to end their lives. And the opponents of this bill have given little, if any, weight to those wishes and those interests.
And why? That is because they oppose the principle of this bill. And even more important than the damage to the reputation of this House, is the failure of this House to give proper concern to the wishes of those who are dying and who want, do want voluntarily to end their lives. Can I say just a word to Baroness Scotland? Because she invited the House to pay regard to what she called the Attorney General's guidelines on prosecutions.
In fact, the guidelines were introduced by the DPP, Keir Starmer. Whatever happened to him? Because the. And he did so because the appellate committee of this House, in its final case, before it was replaced by the Supreme Court, required him to do so. The case was brought by Debbie Purdy, and I was proud to be her advocate in the appellate committee. But what I say to Baroness Scotland is that this bill, if it were to be enacted, would provide a far better means of regulation and protection in relation to those who are at the end of their lives, than guidelines which involve the DPP exercising a discretion not to prosecute after the event.
That is a wholly unsatisfactory way of dealing with this matter. The opponents of this bill have criticised Lord Falconer for not accepting their amendments, but on so many of the issues Lord Falconer and those who support him simply do not agree with those amendments. We think that many of those amendments will undermine the purpose and the effect of this bill. They will make it exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, for those who want and need to use its provisions to do so.
The way to resolve such disputes is to vote, and that's what we can't do. The noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, who I see is not in her place. She said a further Bill should have pre-legislative scrutiny. I normally agree with the noble and learned Lady, but not on this. The disagreement surely are clear. After 14 days we know what we all think and we differ. We disagree. We are not going to agree. We need to come to a conclusion. So my hope is that the House of Commons will revive this Bill in the next session.
They will send it back to us in the same terms, so that the Parliament Act can apply. We can then continue our scrutiny. We can improve the Bill. It's not perfect, but we can complete our process and the opponents of the bill will not again be able to talk this bill out, because the Parliament Act will ensure that the will of the elected House will prevail, and that is as it should be. R my Lord.
13:06
Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Deben (Conservative)
My Lord, my Lord. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hello, Catholic. May I make a confession? It is that I have learnt an enormous amount from listening on almost every moment of listening on almost every moment of this bill, and the one argument that most distresses me is that that suggests that this has been subject to a kind of filibuster. I subject to a kind of filibuster. I have learnt a great deal and I think I'm the better for it, although not the happier for it.
I want therefore, to explain something which I find extremely difficult, and we haven't really faced. The problem is not the problem that the noble Lord Lord Pannick has raised. The problem is the nature of the process right from the beginning. Now the noble Lord noble and learned Lord. Lord Faulkner said, this couldn't be a government bill. It's perfectly possible for the government to have put into its manifesto that a bill would be prepared, but people would be able to vote on it as they believed.
Right. That would have meant that we would have had a bill which would have answered the fundamental problems that many of us have now. The noble Lord knows that in principle I disagree with this bill, but my fundamental problem with it is this that I cannot ask or understand a whole range of things because they are not in the bill, but are left to a government to decide how it shall be done. That is why the noble Lady, if I may say so, with commendable and continuous patience, has had to say.
I can't answer that, because that depends what the House says. And then we'll have to answer that afterwards. Now, this is not a satisfactory way to proceed, and to blame the House of Lords in our debates, when actually. The fundamental issue is that what really happened, and we know what happened, was that the Prime Minister gave a promise and then didn't do it in the way that it should have been done. What he did was to arrange for a private member's bill to be produced.
That bill has been produced now. We are told it's a very good bill, robust and safe bill. Well, I think a robust and safe bill, first of all, would not be the only bill I can remember in 50 years in politics, which is opposed by every representative of the disabled movement. Now, what other bill would we bring forward to say this is a suitable bill to have, even though every disablement organisation is opposed to it, I give way, I thank I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Lord for giving way. I think there's over 300 disability groups there's over 300 disability groups that have expressed concerns at this. I think there's not a single disability group which has come out disability group which has come out in favour of it, but that has led in part, which I think also shows the problems that we have faced. There's been a wide range of amendments, particularly put by Baroness Grey-Thompson, but also Baroness Grey-Thompson, but also others put by myself and others on disability issues.
And those are, generally speaking, being inspired either directly by disability groups or been suggested by disability groups. But in virtually all of those, the answers come back. No. So it is perhaps not surprising
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that there is still this level of concern and opposition by disability groups. Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. My concern is merely to say that whatever your views are, I don't know of a previous occasion when know of a previous occasion when such concerted concerns have been, frankly not faced up to. The second frankly not faced up to. The second thing that I find very difficult is to say this is a robust and safe bill when so far it has not actually met the concerns of all the Royal colleges. Now, I entirely agree with the correction that was made by my noble friend.
Some of them are opposed in for particularity, some want particular changes and one I believe is opposed to it in principle. But the. The issue is we are making a very fundamental change. And it's this other issue which I find so difficult. I think the phrase used by the noble prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was about societal change. This is not like these other bills which were compared. This is making a change to something which we have held as a society for many, many years, hundreds of years.
As a matter of fact, we have never thought it proper for the state to take life, except when we believed it was all right. In terms of capital punishment, we certainly believe it to be right in the case of a just war. But we do have, I think, to face the fact that this is a very fundamental change. And some of the comments that have been made have been really concerning. When it is said, as it was, that this was nitpicking changes, then you realise that there was no understanding of the fundamental change that we are proposing now.
There are many who take a different view from me about that fundamental change, but we should all accept that this isn't a passing issue that can be discussed easily. And when the noble Lord Lord Pannick says we ought to get through it all. Yes, you can only do that if you don't do the job properly. And the problem here is that much of the job that we have had to do, and I say this directly to lady J, with whom I have had discussions in the past, ought to have been done before the bill came to this House, because it should have been done by a royal commission, and we should have had a proper bill, which was a government bill, and we should then have been able to use both our ability to debate and our right to decide at the end of it.
And all I hope is, and this is what I want to say to the noble Lord, I. I hope that he will not put back this bill unamended or even amended with his bits of amendment which so far he has been prepared to do, for which I thank him. And I don't mean bits in an unpleasant way. I mean the pieces that he has done. I wish he would do something quite different, which is to say, I very much believe in my cause.
I want it to be properly carried through a proper parliamentary system. I want to uphold what Parliament is about. I want, therefore, to have a proper commission. I want to have a proper bill proceeding produced by the government, and then I want people to be able to vote as a matter of conscience upon that. If he does that, he will have the respect of all of us. What does not help is the way in which, in many cases.
First of all, this house is being used to propagandise in some way that we've done this wrong. That's why we're having this debate now and not continuing in our in our debates on the very important issue of the National Health Service and how it's going to be affected. Why does the sponsor of this bill want to avoid that debate, which is crucial to the future? He shouldn't have to have it, because it should have been there in the government bill in the first place.
So what I say to the House is very simply this. I object strongly to being told that my learning was in some way done by filibustering. It was, in fact, the most revelatory discussions. And I end with just one story which happened to me this week, last week, which I didn't expect. I was sitting opposite somebody I'd known for years, and he leant across to me and he said. Do you have you been taking part in this bill? And I said, yes.
He said, on what side? And I said, I was opposed to the bill. I said, then, very honestly, I'm opposed to it in principle, but I've become more opposed to it as I've tried to discuss this bill. And he said to me, I'm very pleased. He said, I have a very seriously disabled child. Everybody who is in that position is frightened of this bill, because it's going to be so easy to move from it to a position in which, when you're not protected, it's so much easier to say you don't have much quality of life.
Why don't we just end it in the most dignified and sensible way? Now, the opponents of this bill will say, there's nothing in this bill that says that, but unless we can help people to come to terms with their fears, when we talk about the people who are upset by the non passing of this bill, let's remember those people who are terrified by the proposal.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hello, Catholic. May I make a confession? It is that I have learnt an enormous amount from listening on almost every moment of listening on almost every moment of this bill, and the one argument that most distresses me is that that suggests that this has been subject to a kind of filibuster. I subject to a kind of filibuster. I have learnt a great deal and I think I'm the better for it, although not the happier for it.
I want therefore, to explain something which I find extremely difficult, and we haven't really faced. The problem is not the problem that the noble Lord Lord Pannick has raised. The problem is the nature of the process right from the beginning. Now the noble Lord noble and learned Lord. Lord Faulkner said, this couldn't be a government bill. It's perfectly possible for the government to have put into its manifesto that a bill would be prepared, but people would be able to vote on it as they believed.
Right. That would have meant that we would have had a bill which would have answered the fundamental problems that many of us have now. The noble Lord knows that in principle I disagree with this bill, but my fundamental problem with it is this that I cannot ask or understand a whole range of things because they are not in the bill, but are left to a government to decide how it shall be done. That is why the noble Lady, if I may say so, with commendable and continuous patience, has had to say.
I can't answer that, because that depends what the House says. And then we'll have to answer that afterwards. Now, this is not a satisfactory way to proceed, and to blame the House of Lords in our debates, when actually. The fundamental issue is that what really happened, and we know what happened, was that the Prime Minister gave a promise and then didn't do it in the way that it should have been done. What he did was to arrange for a private member's bill to be produced.
That bill has been produced now. We are told it's a very good bill, robust and safe bill. Well, I think a robust and safe bill, first of all, would not be the only bill I can remember in 50 years in politics, which is opposed by every representative of the disabled movement. Now, what other bill would we bring forward to say this is a suitable bill to have, even though every disablement organisation is opposed to it, I give way, I thank I thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Lord for giving way. I think there's over 300 disability groups there's over 300 disability groups that have expressed concerns at this. I think there's not a single disability group which has come out disability group which has come out in favour of it, but that has led in part, which I think also shows the problems that we have faced. There's been a wide range of amendments, particularly put by Baroness Grey-Thompson, but also Baroness Grey-Thompson, but also others put by myself and others on disability issues.
And those are, generally speaking, being inspired either directly by disability groups or been suggested by disability groups. But in virtually all of those, the answers come back. No. So it is perhaps not surprising
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that there is still this level of concern and opposition by disability groups. Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. My concern is merely to say that whatever your views are, I don't know of a previous occasion when know of a previous occasion when such concerted concerns have been, frankly not faced up to. The second frankly not faced up to. The second thing that I find very difficult is to say this is a robust and safe bill when so far it has not actually met the concerns of all the Royal colleges. Now, I entirely agree with the correction that was made by my noble friend.
Some of them are opposed in for particularity, some want particular changes and one I believe is opposed to it in principle. But the. The issue is we are making a very fundamental change. And it's this other issue which I find so difficult. I think the phrase used by the noble prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was about societal change. This is not like these other bills which were compared. This is making a change to something which we have held as a society for many, many years, hundreds of years.
As a matter of fact, we have never thought it proper for the state to take life, except when we believed it was all right. In terms of capital punishment, we certainly believe it to be right in the case of a just war. But we do have, I think, to face the fact that this is a very fundamental change. And some of the comments that have been made have been really concerning. When it is said, as it was, that this was nitpicking changes, then you realise that there was no understanding of the fundamental change that we are proposing now.
There are many who take a different view from me about that fundamental change, but we should all accept that this isn't a passing issue that can be discussed easily. And when the noble Lord Lord Pannick says we ought to get through it all. Yes, you can only do that if you don't do the job properly. And the problem here is that much of the job that we have had to do, and I say this directly to lady J, with whom I have had discussions in the past, ought to have been done before the bill came to this House, because it should have been done by a royal commission, and we should have had a proper bill, which was a government bill, and we should then have been able to use both our ability to debate and our right to decide at the end of it.
And all I hope is, and this is what I want to say to the noble Lord, I. I hope that he will not put back this bill unamended or even amended with his bits of amendment which so far he has been prepared to do, for which I thank him. And I don't mean bits in an unpleasant way. I mean the pieces that he has done. I wish he would do something quite different, which is to say, I very much believe in my cause.
I want it to be properly carried through a proper parliamentary system. I want to uphold what Parliament is about. I want, therefore, to have a proper commission. I want to have a proper bill proceeding produced by the government, and then I want people to be able to vote as a matter of conscience upon that. If he does that, he will have the respect of all of us. What does not help is the way in which, in many cases.
First of all, this house is being used to propagandise in some way that we've done this wrong. That's why we're having this debate now and not continuing in our in our debates on the very important issue of the National Health Service and how it's going to be affected. Why does the sponsor of this bill want to avoid that debate, which is crucial to the future? He shouldn't have to have it, because it should have been there in the government bill in the first place.
So what I say to the House is very simply this. I object strongly to being told that my learning was in some way done by filibustering. It was, in fact, the most revelatory discussions. And I end with just one story which happened to me this week, last week, which I didn't expect. I was sitting opposite somebody I'd known for years, and he leant across to me and he said. Do you have you been taking part in this bill? And I said, yes.
He said, on what side? And I said, I was opposed to the bill. I said, then, very honestly, I'm opposed to it in principle, but I've become more opposed to it as I've tried to discuss this bill. And he said to me, I'm very pleased. He said, I have a very seriously disabled child. Everybody who is in that position is frightened of this bill, because it's going to be so easy to move from it to a position in which, when you're not protected, it's so much easier to say you don't have much quality of life.
Why don't we just end it in the most dignified and sensible way? Now, the opponents of this bill will say, there's nothing in this bill that says that, but unless we can help people to come to terms with their fears, when we talk about the people who are upset by the non passing of this bill, let's remember those people who are terrified by the proposal.
13:17
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
It's Labour's turn. >> Andrews. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> My Lords. >> I should begin. >> My.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My. Lords, by making. I should begin, my Lords, by making apology to the my Lords, by making apology to the most. I should begin by making apology to the Most Reverend, Most Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury. Because when I was shouting to be heard I didn't realise that she was standing and. And I apologise. I apologise for that. I. And I would like to. I'd like to continue, please, by bringing the. I would like to continue, please, by bringing.
I would like to continue, please, by bringing this back to the debate, to the question of the process and remind us that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer began with when moving his amendment was to talk about the pressure of public opinion. And it's obviously a very important subject, and it's been in relation to that much of this debate has taken place. I took part in a debate, my Lords, before the Bill came to this House with the noble Lord, in which was published in the spectator, and at the time he said opinion polls shouldn't determine whether or not Parliament passes this bill.
People should look at the details of how the thing works and see whether or not we can improve it. I do think, my Lords, that is what we have been doing it. It is not right to say that everybody's just kept, keep, kept on expressing their own views. The noble Lord Lord Barber pointed out, quite rightly, that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this House is. That public opinion is in favour of this Bill,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion is in favour of this Bill, and the Commons have passed it. Therefore we have got a duty to get through our business. Does the noble Lord agree? Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. I accept that that is the argument made by the noble and learned Lord. But the argument here learned Lord. But the argument here I'm trying to make in a limited time is about public opinion and its effect, and how we should regard it. And when the noble Lord regard it. And when the noble Lord Lord Barber said that we have a privilege here, he's right. But I was thinking, I think he was criticising the privilege in the wrong way. We must exercise that privilege because unlike most people in this country, we have been able to consider the bill at great length, and we owe it to those people to consider it seriously and to consider all its elements and all its effects.
And I can just testify for myself, my Lords, because I'm not an expert on the subject. I have learnt a tremendous amount in these discussions. And one thing I understood, I think, before it all the the broad arguments of principle. But I've just reread the explanatory notes which the noble and learned Lord and others issued about the bill when it began, and the words three words National Health Service hardly appear in those explanatory notes at all. And this was the big revelation to me, and I think to many people, this is not just a matter of what do you deeply believe about this very important issue, choice versus wider sanctity of life and so on.
It's what will actually happen to the most important public service in this country and all the ramifications of that. And we really do. And and then I think it's quite wrong to speak of this small minority of people who've been constantly agitating within the House. I don't know who these people are, but I do know that many noble Lords on both sides, actually, but certainly on the side that was critical of the bill, were very learned people in this subject of the effects on the National Health Service, the noble Lord Lord Stevens, for example, the noble Lady sitting next to me, Lady Cass, the noble Lady Holland, and so on.
And it's very, very important that those be heard and understood. And I sometimes think this bill would be clearer if it were entitled The Terminally Ill Adults National Health Service Bracket Assisted Suicide Bill, because it's not just about assisted suicide, it's how would it be carried out? And it would be carried out by the National Health Service in almost all cases. So we need to debate its costs, its professional conflicts and all the difficult questions that arise. And I think we have been doing that.
So I come back, therefore, in justification of what I think we've all been on both sides, been trying to do. This is described accurately as a conscience bill. And one thing, if you have a conscience about something, is you must be confident that what the result is safe. And if you. And if it isn't, how could you possibly. How could you possibly not object to it? How could you just say, oh, well, there we are. I don't think you can. So in his opening remarks, Lord Fuller noble and learned Lord Foulkes said the bill has not failed on its merits and I agree with him.
It's. It has failed on its demerits. And it's those that we have. Many of us cannot in conscience support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My. Lords, by making. I should begin, my Lords, by making apology to the my Lords, by making apology to the most. I should begin by making apology to the Most Reverend, Most Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury. Because when I was shouting to be heard I didn't realise that she was standing and. And I apologise. I apologise for that. I. And I would like to. I'd like to continue, please, by bringing the. I would like to continue, please, by bringing.
I would like to continue, please, by bringing this back to the debate, to the question of the process and remind us that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer began with when moving his amendment was to talk about the pressure of public opinion. And it's obviously a very important subject, and it's been in relation to that much of this debate has taken place. I took part in a debate, my Lords, before the Bill came to this House with the noble Lord, in which was published in the spectator, and at the time he said opinion polls shouldn't determine whether or not Parliament passes this bill.
People should look at the details of how the thing works and see whether or not we can improve it. I do think, my Lords, that is what we have been doing it. It is not right to say that everybody's just kept, keep, kept on expressing their own views. The noble Lord Lord Barber pointed out, quite rightly, that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this House is. That public opinion is in favour of this Bill,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion is in favour of this Bill, and the Commons have passed it. Therefore we have got a duty to get through our business. Does the noble Lord agree? Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. I accept that that is the argument made by the noble and learned Lord. But the argument here learned Lord. But the argument here I'm trying to make in a limited time is about public opinion and its effect, and how we should regard it. And when the noble Lord regard it. And when the noble Lord Lord Barber said that we have a privilege here, he's right. But I was thinking, I think he was criticising the privilege in the wrong way. We must exercise that privilege because unlike most people in this country, we have been able to consider the bill at great length, and we owe it to those people to consider it seriously and to consider all its elements and all its effects.
And I can just testify for myself, my Lords, because I'm not an expert on the subject. I have learnt a tremendous amount in these discussions. And one thing I understood, I think, before it all the the broad arguments of principle. But I've just reread the explanatory notes which the noble and learned Lord and others issued about the bill when it began, and the words three words National Health Service hardly appear in those explanatory notes at all. And this was the big revelation to me, and I think to many people, this is not just a matter of what do you deeply believe about this very important issue, choice versus wider sanctity of life and so on.
It's what will actually happen to the most important public service in this country and all the ramifications of that. And we really do. And and then I think it's quite wrong to speak of this small minority of people who've been constantly agitating within the House. I don't know who these people are, but I do know that many noble Lords on both sides, actually, but certainly on the side that was critical of the bill, were very learned people in this subject of the effects on the National Health Service, the noble Lord Lord Stevens, for example, the noble Lady sitting next to me, Lady Cass, the noble Lady Holland, and so on.
And it's very, very important that those be heard and understood. And I sometimes think this bill would be clearer if it were entitled The Terminally Ill Adults National Health Service Bracket Assisted Suicide Bill, because it's not just about assisted suicide, it's how would it be carried out? And it would be carried out by the National Health Service in almost all cases. So we need to debate its costs, its professional conflicts and all the difficult questions that arise. And I think we have been doing that.
So I come back, therefore, in justification of what I think we've all been on both sides, been trying to do. This is described accurately as a conscience bill. And one thing, if you have a conscience about something, is you must be confident that what the result is safe. And if you. And if it isn't, how could you possibly. How could you possibly not object to it? How could you just say, oh, well, there we are. I don't think you can. So in his opening remarks, Lord Fuller noble and learned Lord Foulkes said the bill has not failed on its merits and I agree with him.
It's. It has failed on its demerits. And it's those that we have. Many of us cannot in conscience support.
13:22
Baroness Andrews (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Andrews (Labour)
This is a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This House, and it's a profound. And it's been reflected in And it's been reflected in extraordinary speeches. But it is a devastating day for the people who devastating day for the people who invested hope in this House that we would follow the lead, the Democratic lead of the Other place, and improve and vote for this bill. I'm actually quite grateful to have I'm actually quite grateful to have followed the noble Lord. Lord. Oh gosh, Lord Moore of Etchingham, I beg your pardon, because there was one thing I wanted to take issue with him because on the 27th of March, he actually said that there was a big moral gulf in this house between the two sides.
I could not disagree more. My Lords, we disagree on many aspects of the bill, I disagree. For example, my dear friend Lord Deben that it should have been a government bill. I think there would have been an outcry if it had been a government bill. But we are not divided on morality. We find different ways to approach grace, and I'm certainly glad that we have the Most Reverend Prelate with us today, and to have listened to her words of reconciliation, because that, I think, is what this House has always been about.
And I want to. Noble Lords will forgive me for a bit of history, but I was the responding Minister on the first Bill on assisted dying in this House in 2005, and I remember very well, actually, what noble Lord Lord Baker said. There were several people in this House who are still here. What marked that debate in 2005 was a generosity of spirit. It was the first time we had ever debated it, and a gentleness of approach that took every single view of this House into respectful consideration.
That was true of the other three bills, the other two bills we've had in 2014 and 2016, we have never had a debate in this House, which has been contested, where views have been challenged for the reasons that they have held. This bill has been different in so many ways. The tone of our debate has, I think, been pretty awful at times. My Lords, we have not paid the respect we should have paid to what we have heard, and we've all learned a lot, my Lords, and what some.
I can also disagree with my noble Lord Lord Deben, because I do actually think this bill is better. It's the best bill we've ever had, not least because it has been embedded in legislation which has become tried and tested over the years. The Mental Capacity Act, for example. We've listened to the patient voice. We know more about patient safety than we did 20 years ago, and we have the experience of many other countries. When I stood at that Dispatch Box, my Lords, there was hardly any of the of the medical colleges which supported the bill.
They were sceptical and some were hostile. Public opinion was very ambivalent. It has moved. Medical opinion has moved to a position of warm neutrality. Many aspects are outstanding. We should. I would prefer not to give way if the noble Lady would be good. I have hardly spoken in this debate and I would like to make a coherent case. Public opinion has moved, medical opinion has moved, and I think the House has moved and many countries have taken the decision, and millions of people now have the right to choose to die in without fear and without pain.
And those include people who are near home in Jersey and the Isle of Man. But the major critical difference is that this House has listened to the Other place make up its own mind. But we have come to the decision that we must not do that. It was not it is not a bad bill. It was in the process of improvement. My Lords, one of the first things that Lord, Lord Faulkner said was he would have accepted many of the amendments which had come out of the Delegated Powers Report, and it is hardly surprising, my Lords, that delegated powers would have found the emphasis on delegation.
Something to comment on. They would have commented private members legislation does not have the government rigour sometimes. So there is always a sense that you have to put things into implementation. Let us have that debate. We have not had the debate and the House has not been able to vote on it. I just want to conclude, my Lords, because I once I have not had the experience that we've had across the House, extraordinarily personal and powerful statements not only by Lord Markham lady.
So moving this morning, but I have heard in the past few weeks the testimony of people who are living with the reality of what it means to know they are dying. And I think one of the things that they have found so difficult and so well said this afternoon were many people, is the disconnect with reality that they have heard, as we have wrestled with arcane elements, with bureaucratic and technocratic issues, which they do not recognise in their experience of dealing, say, with a multiple team of medics, rather than a single practitioner or a resident's qualifications.
I won't rehearse any of those. I think we would have done better to listen more. My Lords, rather than pontificate in some instances, we should have listened to Chris Whitty, who said do not overengineer a process which is already extremely complicated. I really wish more noble Lords had taken the advantage to listen to the Australian practitioners who told us how they manage in the most humane and effective ways to implement the Bill in Australia, the Act in Australia.
But I do actually want the House to listen for a moment to a real expert. This was a lady we heard on Wednesday who was terminally ill. She's in a wheelchair. I'm a lay preacher. I'm sorry. Lord Lord Moore is not here. He's not in his place. I'm a lay preacher in the Church of England. I am deeply grateful for the excellent care and treatment I receive. I do not want to die. Not now. I want to live, but alongside the desire to live.
I carry something else. Fear. A deep, persistent fear as to how my life may end. And while palliative care is often excellent, it is not all powerful. It has its limits. I am not alone. Too many terminally ill people are living not only with pain, but with fear. Fear of losing control, fear of being forced to continue on. All sense of dignity and meaning has gone. That fear shapes our days. For some, it leads to impossible choices. I may die sooner than I choose, and instead of confronting reality, we have seen repeated delay in the House of Lords.
DeLay is not neutral. It is a choice. It is a choice that risks overriding the will of the Commons and the wishes of the majority of the public, and that is where we are today. My Lords, when one hears predominantly from people in distress who do not know what their end will be like, we hear fear. We all fear dying, but we do not live with that reality. Day in, day out. And the implications for what has happened for this house are huge.
I believe the trust we place in self-regulation, which is a fragile. Concept and restraint has been fatally undermined. I believe the House lost sight of what we are here to do, which is to use our judgement to determine in this House what is really important, to ask the government to think again, and to give the House the chance to right.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This House, and it's a profound. And it's been reflected in And it's been reflected in extraordinary speeches. But it is a devastating day for the people who devastating day for the people who invested hope in this House that we would follow the lead, the Democratic lead of the Other place, and improve and vote for this bill. I'm actually quite grateful to have I'm actually quite grateful to have followed the noble Lord. Lord. Oh gosh, Lord Moore of Etchingham, I beg your pardon, because there was one thing I wanted to take issue with him because on the 27th of March, he actually said that there was a big moral gulf in this house between the two sides.
I could not disagree more. My Lords, we disagree on many aspects of the bill, I disagree. For example, my dear friend Lord Deben that it should have been a government bill. I think there would have been an outcry if it had been a government bill. But we are not divided on morality. We find different ways to approach grace, and I'm certainly glad that we have the Most Reverend Prelate with us today, and to have listened to her words of reconciliation, because that, I think, is what this House has always been about.
And I want to. Noble Lords will forgive me for a bit of history, but I was the responding Minister on the first Bill on assisted dying in this House in 2005, and I remember very well, actually, what noble Lord Lord Baker said. There were several people in this House who are still here. What marked that debate in 2005 was a generosity of spirit. It was the first time we had ever debated it, and a gentleness of approach that took every single view of this House into respectful consideration.
That was true of the other three bills, the other two bills we've had in 2014 and 2016, we have never had a debate in this House, which has been contested, where views have been challenged for the reasons that they have held. This bill has been different in so many ways. The tone of our debate has, I think, been pretty awful at times. My Lords, we have not paid the respect we should have paid to what we have heard, and we've all learned a lot, my Lords, and what some.
I can also disagree with my noble Lord Lord Deben, because I do actually think this bill is better. It's the best bill we've ever had, not least because it has been embedded in legislation which has become tried and tested over the years. The Mental Capacity Act, for example. We've listened to the patient voice. We know more about patient safety than we did 20 years ago, and we have the experience of many other countries. When I stood at that Dispatch Box, my Lords, there was hardly any of the of the medical colleges which supported the bill.
They were sceptical and some were hostile. Public opinion was very ambivalent. It has moved. Medical opinion has moved to a position of warm neutrality. Many aspects are outstanding. We should. I would prefer not to give way if the noble Lady would be good. I have hardly spoken in this debate and I would like to make a coherent case. Public opinion has moved, medical opinion has moved, and I think the House has moved and many countries have taken the decision, and millions of people now have the right to choose to die in without fear and without pain.
And those include people who are near home in Jersey and the Isle of Man. But the major critical difference is that this House has listened to the Other place make up its own mind. But we have come to the decision that we must not do that. It was not it is not a bad bill. It was in the process of improvement. My Lords, one of the first things that Lord, Lord Faulkner said was he would have accepted many of the amendments which had come out of the Delegated Powers Report, and it is hardly surprising, my Lords, that delegated powers would have found the emphasis on delegation.
Something to comment on. They would have commented private members legislation does not have the government rigour sometimes. So there is always a sense that you have to put things into implementation. Let us have that debate. We have not had the debate and the House has not been able to vote on it. I just want to conclude, my Lords, because I once I have not had the experience that we've had across the House, extraordinarily personal and powerful statements not only by Lord Markham lady.
So moving this morning, but I have heard in the past few weeks the testimony of people who are living with the reality of what it means to know they are dying. And I think one of the things that they have found so difficult and so well said this afternoon were many people, is the disconnect with reality that they have heard, as we have wrestled with arcane elements, with bureaucratic and technocratic issues, which they do not recognise in their experience of dealing, say, with a multiple team of medics, rather than a single practitioner or a resident's qualifications.
I won't rehearse any of those. I think we would have done better to listen more. My Lords, rather than pontificate in some instances, we should have listened to Chris Whitty, who said do not overengineer a process which is already extremely complicated. I really wish more noble Lords had taken the advantage to listen to the Australian practitioners who told us how they manage in the most humane and effective ways to implement the Bill in Australia, the Act in Australia.
But I do actually want the House to listen for a moment to a real expert. This was a lady we heard on Wednesday who was terminally ill. She's in a wheelchair. I'm a lay preacher. I'm sorry. Lord Lord Moore is not here. He's not in his place. I'm a lay preacher in the Church of England. I am deeply grateful for the excellent care and treatment I receive. I do not want to die. Not now. I want to live, but alongside the desire to live.
I carry something else. Fear. A deep, persistent fear as to how my life may end. And while palliative care is often excellent, it is not all powerful. It has its limits. I am not alone. Too many terminally ill people are living not only with pain, but with fear. Fear of losing control, fear of being forced to continue on. All sense of dignity and meaning has gone. That fear shapes our days. For some, it leads to impossible choices. I may die sooner than I choose, and instead of confronting reality, we have seen repeated delay in the House of Lords.
DeLay is not neutral. It is a choice. It is a choice that risks overriding the will of the Commons and the wishes of the majority of the public, and that is where we are today. My Lords, when one hears predominantly from people in distress who do not know what their end will be like, we hear fear. We all fear dying, but we do not live with that reality. Day in, day out. And the implications for what has happened for this house are huge.
I believe the trust we place in self-regulation, which is a fragile. Concept and restraint has been fatally undermined. I believe the House lost sight of what we are here to do, which is to use our judgement to determine in this House what is really important, to ask the government to think again, and to give the House the chance to right.
13:31
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
We all. >> Should be changed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. The law should be changed. The current law on aiding and abetting current law on aiding and abetting suicide does not address the issues which the promoters of this Bill undoubtedly seeks to address. But this bill, which we have before this House, the structure it has and the detail of it, is deeply flawed, and it required restructuring, and it required the debate, which we have had in the last six months. It is not a safe bill.
When you get down in the weeds, the original process, we have to remember, was for a process to be overseen and managed by the judges of the family division. Had that still been the case, it is obvious that many of the safeguards which had to be written into this bill in the absence of such judicial oversight and control, would not have needed to be put expressly on the face of the Bill. We rightly trust our judges on such delicate matters. They are used to dealing with whether or not to end life support and so on.
The Family Division judges were removed from the scene. That required a proper rethink. Instead, we got this bill. It was not the product of a royal commission. There had been no green paper. It has not received Pre-legislative scrutiny. There was no formal consultation process on a draft or outlined proposals, and that's why I'm afraid it is not fit for the very important purpose and aims which it has. Length does not mean quality.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Interesting speech on the basis of what the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst is saying, I think he's saying if the judge was still there, saying if the judge was still there, it would be OK. Why couldn't we have got to the Report stage and voted on that and made a decision on it?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. I think there were grave problems with having the judges as problems with having the judges as as the as the noble and learned Lord knows, it would have occupied far too much court time. It simply wasn't practicable to put it into the courts if it was to be dealt with properly by a judge, it would have been at least half a day, sometimes a day. And if you had a thousand cases a year, that would be a thousand court days.
The average. The High Court judge has 240 sitting days a year, as the noble and learned Lord is a former Lord Chancellor should jolly well know. Is he saying that there should have been four High Court judges taken out of business permanently? The answer must be no. I'm not going to debate further. No. Sit down. I'm sorry. I want to finish this and I shall be short. It is, as I've said, a deeply flawed bill on this grave issue of the administration of death, something completely new to our society.
Such a policy must be carried out properly with safeguards. From the outset. We must have proper safeguards, because it's had a flawed genesis. It's a bill which needs great changes. We've had the reports of the two delegated powers and Constitution committees which met, which highlighted flaws and identified the fact that we simply don't know the detail. And we are talking about people dying to leave the detail of the process to Statutory Instruments without even providing draft Statutory Instrument is simply not acceptable in this area.
It may be all right for other things, regulation of food or something. It is not appropriate here. This has been a big factor in causing so many amendments to be laid. It has been justifiably criticised by a large number of responsible, independent, professional and expert bodies, the great Royal Medical Colleges among them. That is why I put forward a large number of detailed amendments. As I've explained before, these were drafted by two independent bodies of distinction, namely the Law Society of England and Wales, coming at it as lawyers.
They don't have a view on the merits, but they want it to make it safe. And they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sent me a great bundle, which I then put down. Having looked at. Them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The other group were. Which provided me with amendments in which I identified was the Complex which I identified was the Complex Life and Decisions group at King's College London. As I've explained before, that is a group of multidisciplinary experts in the fields of mental health and capacity and decision making. They capacity and decision making. They know all about the official solicitors, that the Court of Protection and everything else. They are concerned to make it safe. Both these bodies, they're not saying no assisted dying, they're saying, but it must be managed properly.
So what I was putting forward was, I hoped, means of avoiding identified risks, risks identified by experts in the field to make the bill effective and safe, not to obstruct, but to improve. Two little heed has been paid to these concerns to ensure that the Bill is safe. The speeches to date and many amendments identified and promoted remedies. By last Christmas, it was clear to anyone with eyes to see that the bill needed correction and it needed major correction.
I thought, naively, perhaps, that after our Christmas break, the noble and learned Lord might return with outlined proposals for constructive amendments and perhaps invite discussions outside the chamber. Having heeded what the Royal Colleges and others were going to say and indeed the lawyers, the Law Society, I remind people that I'm actually barrister, not even a solicitor. So I don't have a vested interest in that. This was a golden opportunity for review. By then. Our committees detailed processes had identified the many gaps which any serious person would wish for to see filled if to proceed with assisted dying.
As I made clear now, I'm not a dyed in the wool supporter of assisted dying. Yes to autonomy, but not regardless long experience in my life, in the law and medical matters has led me to know that there are many risks in this area. This committee has identified the many gaps. They've got to be filled. The dangers cannot just be brushed aside. We who are concerned with this bill do not feel we've had the open engagement that it merited to.
Many serious questions remain unaddressed. There must be a complete rethink because this bill, a bill, is bound to come back. There must be a complete rethink in which those who promote the bill look seriously at the objections which have come from this. Well, I say this side from people like me to make certain that we really have a proper bill, which starts cautiously, because this is going to be a major change in our lives. That's all I'm going to say about this bill, and I've only been seven minutes.
But before I and may I say one more thing, I anticipate that this is my last speech in this chamber before compulsory departure. So I just wanted digress from the tumbril on one matter. What I've learnt in this House is the great depth of learning and wisdom, which is deployed all the time, sometimes from quite surprising sources. But speaking frankly, I had concluded well before 1999 that the time for hereditary peers was well past. However, I believed again, naively, that our continued process would spur proper reform.
That opportunity has now been lost and that, to me, is a pity, because it must be apparent to any thinking person that we cannot continue on the basis of appointments for life, for life, on the whim. And I emphasise whim because it sometimes is of the Prime Minister of the day. How change is to be achieved is a matter for those who remain in this House, but I suggest it might be a mixture of elected members and others appointed from bodies such as the Royal Colleges and Great Professions, for fixed terms, whether five years or ten years or whatever, to ensure expertise and breadth, which we do have in this House.
But something must be done. It cannot stay in the too difficult
**** Possible New Speaker ****
box any more. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. My Lord, my Lord, my Lords, my Lords. I spoke.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In Second Reading. To support my noble and. Learned friend Lord Falconer's.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Learned friend Lord Falconer's. Bill and I have been here throughout the Committee stage. I throughout the Committee stage. I am honoured to speak in the same debate as the Most Reverend prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. The law should be changed. The current law on aiding and abetting current law on aiding and abetting suicide does not address the issues which the promoters of this Bill undoubtedly seeks to address. But this bill, which we have before this House, the structure it has and the detail of it, is deeply flawed, and it required restructuring, and it required the debate, which we have had in the last six months. It is not a safe bill.
When you get down in the weeds, the original process, we have to remember, was for a process to be overseen and managed by the judges of the family division. Had that still been the case, it is obvious that many of the safeguards which had to be written into this bill in the absence of such judicial oversight and control, would not have needed to be put expressly on the face of the Bill. We rightly trust our judges on such delicate matters. They are used to dealing with whether or not to end life support and so on.
The Family Division judges were removed from the scene. That required a proper rethink. Instead, we got this bill. It was not the product of a royal commission. There had been no green paper. It has not received Pre-legislative scrutiny. There was no formal consultation process on a draft or outlined proposals, and that's why I'm afraid it is not fit for the very important purpose and aims which it has. Length does not mean quality.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Interesting speech on the basis of what the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst is saying, I think he's saying if the judge was still there, saying if the judge was still there, it would be OK. Why couldn't we have got to the Report stage and voted on that and made a decision on it?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. I think there were grave problems with having the judges as problems with having the judges as as the as the noble and learned Lord knows, it would have occupied far too much court time. It simply wasn't practicable to put it into the courts if it was to be dealt with properly by a judge, it would have been at least half a day, sometimes a day. And if you had a thousand cases a year, that would be a thousand court days.
The average. The High Court judge has 240 sitting days a year, as the noble and learned Lord is a former Lord Chancellor should jolly well know. Is he saying that there should have been four High Court judges taken out of business permanently? The answer must be no. I'm not going to debate further. No. Sit down. I'm sorry. I want to finish this and I shall be short. It is, as I've said, a deeply flawed bill on this grave issue of the administration of death, something completely new to our society.
Such a policy must be carried out properly with safeguards. From the outset. We must have proper safeguards, because it's had a flawed genesis. It's a bill which needs great changes. We've had the reports of the two delegated powers and Constitution committees which met, which highlighted flaws and identified the fact that we simply don't know the detail. And we are talking about people dying to leave the detail of the process to Statutory Instruments without even providing draft Statutory Instrument is simply not acceptable in this area.
It may be all right for other things, regulation of food or something. It is not appropriate here. This has been a big factor in causing so many amendments to be laid. It has been justifiably criticised by a large number of responsible, independent, professional and expert bodies, the great Royal Medical Colleges among them. That is why I put forward a large number of detailed amendments. As I've explained before, these were drafted by two independent bodies of distinction, namely the Law Society of England and Wales, coming at it as lawyers.
They don't have a view on the merits, but they want it to make it safe. And they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sent me a great bundle, which I then put down. Having looked at. Them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The other group were. Which provided me with amendments in which I identified was the Complex which I identified was the Complex Life and Decisions group at King's College London. As I've explained before, that is a group of multidisciplinary experts in the fields of mental health and capacity and decision making. They capacity and decision making. They know all about the official solicitors, that the Court of Protection and everything else. They are concerned to make it safe. Both these bodies, they're not saying no assisted dying, they're saying, but it must be managed properly.
So what I was putting forward was, I hoped, means of avoiding identified risks, risks identified by experts in the field to make the bill effective and safe, not to obstruct, but to improve. Two little heed has been paid to these concerns to ensure that the Bill is safe. The speeches to date and many amendments identified and promoted remedies. By last Christmas, it was clear to anyone with eyes to see that the bill needed correction and it needed major correction.
I thought, naively, perhaps, that after our Christmas break, the noble and learned Lord might return with outlined proposals for constructive amendments and perhaps invite discussions outside the chamber. Having heeded what the Royal Colleges and others were going to say and indeed the lawyers, the Law Society, I remind people that I'm actually barrister, not even a solicitor. So I don't have a vested interest in that. This was a golden opportunity for review. By then. Our committees detailed processes had identified the many gaps which any serious person would wish for to see filled if to proceed with assisted dying.
As I made clear now, I'm not a dyed in the wool supporter of assisted dying. Yes to autonomy, but not regardless long experience in my life, in the law and medical matters has led me to know that there are many risks in this area. This committee has identified the many gaps. They've got to be filled. The dangers cannot just be brushed aside. We who are concerned with this bill do not feel we've had the open engagement that it merited to.
Many serious questions remain unaddressed. There must be a complete rethink because this bill, a bill, is bound to come back. There must be a complete rethink in which those who promote the bill look seriously at the objections which have come from this. Well, I say this side from people like me to make certain that we really have a proper bill, which starts cautiously, because this is going to be a major change in our lives. That's all I'm going to say about this bill, and I've only been seven minutes.
But before I and may I say one more thing, I anticipate that this is my last speech in this chamber before compulsory departure. So I just wanted digress from the tumbril on one matter. What I've learnt in this House is the great depth of learning and wisdom, which is deployed all the time, sometimes from quite surprising sources. But speaking frankly, I had concluded well before 1999 that the time for hereditary peers was well past. However, I believed again, naively, that our continued process would spur proper reform.
That opportunity has now been lost and that, to me, is a pity, because it must be apparent to any thinking person that we cannot continue on the basis of appointments for life, for life, on the whim. And I emphasise whim because it sometimes is of the Prime Minister of the day. How change is to be achieved is a matter for those who remain in this House, but I suggest it might be a mixture of elected members and others appointed from bodies such as the Royal Colleges and Great Professions, for fixed terms, whether five years or ten years or whatever, to ensure expertise and breadth, which we do have in this House.
But something must be done. It cannot stay in the too difficult
**** Possible New Speaker ****
box any more. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. My Lord, my Lord, my Lords, my Lords. I spoke.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In Second Reading. To support my noble and. Learned friend Lord Falconer's.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Learned friend Lord Falconer's. Bill and I have been here throughout the Committee stage. I throughout the Committee stage. I am honoured to speak in the same debate as the Most Reverend prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
13:41
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Labour)
also to follow Lord Sandhurst in one of his last speeches here. one of his last speeches here. Being a relative newcomer to your Lordships House, one of Lord Lordships House, one of Lord Carlisle's newbies, I am in awe, and will always remain so of the great variety of expertise and experience of my noble Lord. These experience of my noble Lord. These last months have been proof of that writ large, powerful and persuasive arguments from some of the most eminent physicians, lawyers and other professionals in the country, as well as many noble Lords with a long history with the subject and a deep knowledge of this Bill.
I genuinely respect the views of opponents and have followed closely noble Lords, many amendments and speeches. Indeed, there are amongst you long standing and personal friends of mine and my noble Lords have made your arguments, some at great length. It is why I imposed a self-denying ordinance on speaking myself until and I speak up because the other house that has so impressed me is the way in which we conduct ourselves self-regulating, courteous, disciplined, scrutinising and improving legislation in order to fulfil our time honoured duty in returning bills to the other place, to our our elected representatives.
I am proud of our reputation and my role, but something irregular and troubling has gone on, and we all know this there has been an atmosphere in the House on occasion, despite my noble and learned friend's extraordinary good temper, which is not what I had hitherto known, there have been over 1000 and amendments, just seven noble Lords tabling half of them. We have spent over 100 hours scrutinising and improving this Bill. 16 days. This on top of the 110 hours in the other place.
And despite extra time, these Friday sittings, and my noble and learned friend's sincere attempts to reach agreement, here we are on our last day, having debated less than half the total groups of amendments, never more than four a day, a snail's pace. I welcome careful scrutiny, but I believe what I have witnessed is procedural obstruction. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, so eloquently pointed out to, I have in turn been baffled, dismayed, and ultimately embarrassed that these tactics mean the bill will fall today before this House can even vote on the principle of assisted dying, let alone pass it back for final consideration by this country's elected representatives, who have already supported it.
The additional hurdles proposed here would have made it impossible for those terminally ill people who have made the choice. And this is about choice, my Lords, to die with dignity. This bill would have imposed significantly more stringent conditions and safeguards than countries where assisted dying is already allowed. It was startling to me that in the select Committee stage of our proceedings, evidence from providers of assisted dying overseas, where it is already working, was denied. This bill is more robust.
It is safer than theirs. It is workable and enforceable. Contributions from dying people and their families were also not invited to the select committee. And I wish to mention one now. The terminally ill Michael Stubbs, who I spoke about in the Second Reading debate. He chose to end his life in Belgium. And I repeat his son David's words on the death. There was a beauty and so much dignity to it. Everyone got to hug and say our last words.
He seemed so at peace and filled with acceptance. I apologise to the Stubbs family and all the supporters of this bill that we have been denied the fair, proper
**** Possible New Speaker ****
constitutional process that could have made that choice possible. Here? Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Here, here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here, here. This debate has become very. Personal at times, and perhaps. I might indulge in it. First of all, may I say my apologies to the noble Lord Sandhurst for trying to get in
I genuinely respect the views of opponents and have followed closely noble Lords, many amendments and speeches. Indeed, there are amongst you long standing and personal friends of mine and my noble Lords have made your arguments, some at great length. It is why I imposed a self-denying ordinance on speaking myself until and I speak up because the other house that has so impressed me is the way in which we conduct ourselves self-regulating, courteous, disciplined, scrutinising and improving legislation in order to fulfil our time honoured duty in returning bills to the other place, to our our elected representatives.
I am proud of our reputation and my role, but something irregular and troubling has gone on, and we all know this there has been an atmosphere in the House on occasion, despite my noble and learned friend's extraordinary good temper, which is not what I had hitherto known, there have been over 1000 and amendments, just seven noble Lords tabling half of them. We have spent over 100 hours scrutinising and improving this Bill. 16 days. This on top of the 110 hours in the other place.
And despite extra time, these Friday sittings, and my noble and learned friend's sincere attempts to reach agreement, here we are on our last day, having debated less than half the total groups of amendments, never more than four a day, a snail's pace. I welcome careful scrutiny, but I believe what I have witnessed is procedural obstruction. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, so eloquently pointed out to, I have in turn been baffled, dismayed, and ultimately embarrassed that these tactics mean the bill will fall today before this House can even vote on the principle of assisted dying, let alone pass it back for final consideration by this country's elected representatives, who have already supported it.
The additional hurdles proposed here would have made it impossible for those terminally ill people who have made the choice. And this is about choice, my Lords, to die with dignity. This bill would have imposed significantly more stringent conditions and safeguards than countries where assisted dying is already allowed. It was startling to me that in the select Committee stage of our proceedings, evidence from providers of assisted dying overseas, where it is already working, was denied. This bill is more robust.
It is safer than theirs. It is workable and enforceable. Contributions from dying people and their families were also not invited to the select committee. And I wish to mention one now. The terminally ill Michael Stubbs, who I spoke about in the Second Reading debate. He chose to end his life in Belgium. And I repeat his son David's words on the death. There was a beauty and so much dignity to it. Everyone got to hug and say our last words.
He seemed so at peace and filled with acceptance. I apologise to the Stubbs family and all the supporters of this bill that we have been denied the fair, proper
**** Possible New Speaker ****
constitutional process that could have made that choice possible. Here? Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. Here, here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here, here. This debate has become very. Personal at times, and perhaps. I might indulge in it. First of all, may I say my apologies to the noble Lord Sandhurst for trying to get in
13:46
Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
Lord Sandhurst for trying to get in his way for his valedictory speech. He is a friend of mine. He will remain a friend of mine, and I shall miss him very much. And there are many other opponents of the bill that I so fervently support, who are dear friends of mine, who I greatly respect for and are, will continue to have great respect for including, for instance, I say a previous Chief Whip then who am I to argue with the wiles of a Chief Whip? But when five years.
When five years ago I was diagnosed with cancer, the cancer that had killed my father and had killed my brother, one of the first people to come to me to say, Michael, come and have a cup of tea, gave me a hug and gave me support and sympathy and advice. Was the noble Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, and I'm very sad that she's not here in her place today, because I would want her to have expressed that my, my, my affection for her, my gratitude for her in this house to her face.
This has been a bill of passions and disagreements, and I will continue to respect all of those of my friends who disagreed with me on this. But, and there's always a but in life, isn't there? Of course, this hasn't been a filibuster, has it? No, but I was silly. I went and actually looked at what a filibuster has actually defined it as. And it's it's to talk something to death, to death. And there's a certain irony in that definition, isn't there? Now, look, it's not a filibuster, but if something looks like an elephant, if it sounds like an elephant, if it smells like an elephant and it's standing on your bloody foot, I think you can be forgiven for believing that it is indeed an elephant.
Although, of course, it is not a filibuster, is it? But it is not the job of this House, as we've heard so many times, to bury a bill in distractions, which is what so much of the last few weeks and months have been about. I believe we have let ourselves down as a house by failing to come to a conclusion on this bill. We have harmed our future by failing to do our duty, and there are people out there.
There are opponents of this House who would bring this house down and use this debate. And the failure to deal with this bill properly as a reason for doing so. No one wants a bad law. Of course, no one wants a bad law, but we already have a bad law. It's a law which is cruel. It's a law which is callous. It's a it's called the law, if you like, of Dignitas, where people are forced, if they can afford it, only if they can afford it to go off to a strange land and die there.
We have a law now. It's a law of suffering, of excruciating pain. It's the law of humiliation and degradation, which far too many people have to endure totally unnecessarily. And I fail to understand how anyone can suggest that the current law, as we have in this country, is acceptable. We must find an alternative. We should not be made as individuals to go on that longest journey that we will ever take to our deaths.
Wrapped in pain and stumbling in fear. My Lords, to know that you can and may die in peace. It is to live in glory. This bill will fail, but it will be resurrected. It will return. It will succeed. And I personally will rejoice.
When five years ago I was diagnosed with cancer, the cancer that had killed my father and had killed my brother, one of the first people to come to me to say, Michael, come and have a cup of tea, gave me a hug and gave me support and sympathy and advice. Was the noble Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, and I'm very sad that she's not here in her place today, because I would want her to have expressed that my, my, my affection for her, my gratitude for her in this house to her face.
This has been a bill of passions and disagreements, and I will continue to respect all of those of my friends who disagreed with me on this. But, and there's always a but in life, isn't there? Of course, this hasn't been a filibuster, has it? No, but I was silly. I went and actually looked at what a filibuster has actually defined it as. And it's it's to talk something to death, to death. And there's a certain irony in that definition, isn't there? Now, look, it's not a filibuster, but if something looks like an elephant, if it sounds like an elephant, if it smells like an elephant and it's standing on your bloody foot, I think you can be forgiven for believing that it is indeed an elephant.
Although, of course, it is not a filibuster, is it? But it is not the job of this House, as we've heard so many times, to bury a bill in distractions, which is what so much of the last few weeks and months have been about. I believe we have let ourselves down as a house by failing to come to a conclusion on this bill. We have harmed our future by failing to do our duty, and there are people out there.
There are opponents of this House who would bring this house down and use this debate. And the failure to deal with this bill properly as a reason for doing so. No one wants a bad law. Of course, no one wants a bad law, but we already have a bad law. It's a law which is cruel. It's a law which is callous. It's a it's called the law, if you like, of Dignitas, where people are forced, if they can afford it, only if they can afford it to go off to a strange land and die there.
We have a law now. It's a law of suffering, of excruciating pain. It's the law of humiliation and degradation, which far too many people have to endure totally unnecessarily. And I fail to understand how anyone can suggest that the current law, as we have in this country, is acceptable. We must find an alternative. We should not be made as individuals to go on that longest journey that we will ever take to our deaths.
Wrapped in pain and stumbling in fear. My Lords, to know that you can and may die in peace. It is to live in glory. This bill will fail, but it will be resurrected. It will return. It will succeed. And I personally will rejoice.
13:51
Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Berger (Labour)
That I am. spend some time today on process, instead of continuing to consider the raft of outstanding issues that we would otherwise would have considered so that the substantive challenges can be addressed in any future legislation, including today. We would have considered how an assisted death would interact with the NHS Constitution, as we take note of the overall progress that has been made in this House, I will respond to a number of claims that we've heard today, in some cases more or less, from the moment that this bill arrived before us last summer.
The claim today has been that the scrutiny that has taken place has been unnecessary or unusual, and that in any event, the elected House had already taken sufficient scrutiny before we began. The bill was first published in the way any private member's bill is. We've heard, in fact, in this chamber in today that. Some some attempts to equate it with government bills, such as the Police and Crime Bill and the Welfare Rights Bill. But there was no prior public consultation on this bill.
There was no pre-legislative scrutiny. There was no green paper, no white paper, no international comparison. And even at the earliest stage, when the bill was first presented, it was several times longer than any private member's bill weighing in at 43 clauses. It has now been expanded to 59 clauses with three schedules, and the House of Lords Library tells us that this is the longest private member's bill ever. This is in stark contrast to previous well known private member's bills on issues of conscience that supporters have sought to use as precedents such as the seven clause long Abortion Act or the four clause long murder, Abolition of Death Penalty Act.
Both of those bills benefited from a commission which fulfilled the Pre-legislative scrutiny role that this bill has sorely lacked. After Second Reading, the amending stages in the other place began with a Committee stage in which the overwhelming majority of amendments were rejected by a committee made up of 14 members who supported the sponsor, in contrast to nine MPs who raised concerns with the bill, it was two thirds of the way through the Bill Committee stage in the Commons, about 62 hours in that the most significant safeguard in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the original Bill, the High Court stage at the end of the A process involving a judge, as has been discussed, was removed and replaced by the new UN trial process involving non-judicial process involving non-judicial panels overseen by a new SA like figure. The voluntary assisted dying Commissioner. This seismic change was, of course, made without any input from the 627 members of the Other place who were not on the Bill committee and significantly, no evidence was taken on that totally new process.
At Report stage in the Commons, scrutiny was limited to just over two days and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of 77 amendments tabled. My understanding was that Nicholas Mostyn gave evidence. Max Nicholas Mostyn gave evidence. Max Hill gave evidence to the Bill committee and they gave evidence about the role of the judges and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the possibility of a panel. AM I wrong? To. The point was, is that the change to the bill was introduced change to the bill was introduced after 62 hours. There was no evidence taken on the new process evidence taken on the new process of the six. At the Report stage. Of the 77 amendments tabled by members other than the sponsor. Only seven amendments were selected for a separate decision.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful to the noble Lady giving giving way. I think she, like I, were relatively unique in like I, were relatively unique in that we were the two two of the 12 member panel on the select member panel on the select committee in this House, which looked at this bill. And one of the issues that we found on our side was that the people against the bill refused to accept, to take the evidence that we were trying to evidence that we were trying to propose, for example, from other countries where there have been successful doing with this bill, particularly, for example, in Australia, New Zealand and many other countries, some 30 sovereignties.
We had great difficulty getting any chance of proper hearing until the very end, by which time it was really too
**** Possible New Speaker ****
late. Forgive me. I'm unclear exactly what the noble Lord is referring to. what the noble Lord is referring to. I can tell the House, just for clarity and for the record, that there was only one vote taken at the select committee of this place, the select committee of this place, and the vote was taken not to accept written evidence, which I think all of us would have think all of us would have benefited from, to accept the greatest and largest number of representations.
I voted actually to support having written evidence, to support having written evidence, and it's a shame that we didn't have it. It did mean that because of the time limitations, we didn't get to hear from more people. That was in large part determined by the clerks who supported us on that bill. I would say that it was therefore not surprising that the bill cleared the Commons by just 23 votes. It was less than half of its already moderate majority at Second Reading.
And the assertion that's been repeated today was that the Commons carried out thorough scrutiny and addressed the most important issues. But I don't attest that that mirrors the facts. This is not a criticism of the efforts made by our colleagues in the other place. It's an acknowledgement that the private Members bill process is completely inadequate to the task of scrutinising a bill of this length, magnitude and complexity which has not been preceded by any consultation or other pre-legislative scrutiny. It was therefore no surprise that when the bill arrived in this House that there was not one, but two select committees in this place that were scathing about the state in which we received the bill, and specifically about the 42 Henry the Eighth powers that the bill now confirmed.
Confirmed. And we heard that from the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. And it was exactly for that reason that an agreement was reached with my noble and learned friend to hold a time limited select committee that did not delay the timetable for the bill ensured that we maintained the four protected Friday committee sessions before the Christmas break at the end of last year, but allowed us to take evidence on the bill as we received it in this place and to hear from the professional bodies whose members will be responsible for delivering on the bill.
Evidence we heard from organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing, the GPS and Medical Examiners. All of these organisations who are neutral on the principle of assisted dying, but who have legitimate and significant concerns about the efficacy, workability and safety of this bill. And I was seeking to make an intervention before on my noble friend Baroness Andrews. There is not a single Royal college in this country that will attest to the safety of this bill.
And why is it that members in this place, noble Lords, believe that they know better than the people and the organisations in the professions who will have to deliver on this Bill? And it was the practical issues that were contained within the Bill or the gaps within it. It was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the disability organisations, the mental health organisations, the domestic abuse experts who talked about the lack of safeguards and guardrails in this bill. And today I have to express my significant disappointment that virtually none of that evidence that was presented to us has been taken on by the sponsor, by Noble and learned friends, and what should have been an opportunity to strengthen and improve this bill was said to have been treated as a hurdle to be jumped over to get this legislation over the finish line.
That rich body of authoritative evidence that was imparted over 13 panel sessions has been largely ignored in the in the sponsor's own amendments, which are the only amendments that have so far been accepted, saving one amendment to an amendment from my noble and learned friend Baroness Scotland. As for the comments that have been made about the Committee stage, I've attended every single session and sitting and I don't believe the depth and seriousness of this scrutiny can be captured in mere numbers and statistics.
However, since supporters of the Bill have repeatedly referred to the number of amendments tabled, I will point out only this. It is not clear what we are expected to see as a normal number of amendments for a private member's Bill of this length and complexity, which has not benefited from any pre-legislative scrutiny because there has never been any attempt to pass one like this before. It's a wholly spurious criticism. In any event, the rate at which those amendments have been debated has been in keeping with the usual process progress or in fact, faster.
And it's not just a handful of of noble Lords. It's been over 60 noble Lords who have tabled amendments. Many more have added their names to amendments tabled by others, and over 130 noble Lords have spoken. And of these speeches I've yet to learn, which are supposed to have been irrelevant, repetitious or unusual in length. We heard from Lord Pannick before that charge, but we haven't heard any specifics on which ones are supposed to have referred in that way. It is only speeches from those of us with concerns of the Bill that should be seen as illegitimate.
The charge of blocking by supporters of the bill has simply not been substantiated. It's a mere charge from some who apparently never intended that we should actually do our job. What would have helped us all to do our job is if the sponsor of the bill had indicated which, which amendments my noble and learned friend was prepared to accept or to offer an alternative to. And I and others have repeatedly requested since last November and again in subsequent meetings for this list at.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The letter of the 31st of January 2026, which I sent to. Every peer said that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Every peer said that. Forgive me, but I have seen that lesson looked at very closely about amendments that would be forthcoming. There was a letter forthcoming. There was a letter that said, for example, on the issue of 18 to 25 year olds, when my noble and learned friend would my noble and learned friend would bring forward alternatives, we are still waiting for those alternative amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments. I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness Baroness Berger saying I did not indicate which amendments coming I would accept because I indicated in detail which ones I would accept. I set out a whole number of amendments and the suggestion that the House did not know what I was willing to agree to is, I may say so, not correct. And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm really surprised she's saying that. I can only reiterate what I have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can only reiterate what I have said in previous meetings about having specifics, and I don't believe on the on the one of the 1000 amendments that we've had forthcoming, which of any that in fact, you know, some that we've had amendments tabled to just the night amendments tabled to just the night before to understand in detail what, if anything, the by Noble and learned friend was prepared to to accept, and I looked very closely at the communications that I've received. And there have been some indications on on two of the measures, but on everything else, we haven't received that.
And I've also taken a number of interventions. I will just, in conclusion, just address one issue that has been raised. The accusation has been repeatedly made last weekend and in fact, this morning as well, that it has been religion that has been driving opposition to this legislation. And there are peers who have participated in your Lordships House that have raised concern of all faiths and none. The objections that I and many others have to this bill are not doctrinal.
They are rooted in the real world consequences this bill may have for those that we have spent years striving to represent. In my own case, drawn from my direct experience as a member of Parliament for almost ten years, including for people who do not have the same amount of agency or resources that all of us in this place are fortunate to enjoy. I conclude by saying that to insist that we should have glossed over through this legislation that will hand the state the ability to end the lives of some of its most vulnerable citizens, ignoring the evidence that we have heard and the bill today, which no professional medical Royal College in this country will say is safe, I think has been a misguided approach.
The claim today has been that the scrutiny that has taken place has been unnecessary or unusual, and that in any event, the elected House had already taken sufficient scrutiny before we began. The bill was first published in the way any private member's bill is. We've heard, in fact, in this chamber in today that. Some some attempts to equate it with government bills, such as the Police and Crime Bill and the Welfare Rights Bill. But there was no prior public consultation on this bill.
There was no pre-legislative scrutiny. There was no green paper, no white paper, no international comparison. And even at the earliest stage, when the bill was first presented, it was several times longer than any private member's bill weighing in at 43 clauses. It has now been expanded to 59 clauses with three schedules, and the House of Lords Library tells us that this is the longest private member's bill ever. This is in stark contrast to previous well known private member's bills on issues of conscience that supporters have sought to use as precedents such as the seven clause long Abortion Act or the four clause long murder, Abolition of Death Penalty Act.
Both of those bills benefited from a commission which fulfilled the Pre-legislative scrutiny role that this bill has sorely lacked. After Second Reading, the amending stages in the other place began with a Committee stage in which the overwhelming majority of amendments were rejected by a committee made up of 14 members who supported the sponsor, in contrast to nine MPs who raised concerns with the bill, it was two thirds of the way through the Bill Committee stage in the Commons, about 62 hours in that the most significant safeguard in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the original Bill, the High Court stage at the end of the A process involving a judge, as has been discussed, was removed and replaced by the new UN trial process involving non-judicial process involving non-judicial panels overseen by a new SA like figure. The voluntary assisted dying Commissioner. This seismic change was, of course, made without any input from the 627 members of the Other place who were not on the Bill committee and significantly, no evidence was taken on that totally new process.
At Report stage in the Commons, scrutiny was limited to just over two days and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of 77 amendments tabled. My understanding was that Nicholas Mostyn gave evidence. Max Nicholas Mostyn gave evidence. Max Hill gave evidence to the Bill committee and they gave evidence about the role of the judges and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the possibility of a panel. AM I wrong? To. The point was, is that the change to the bill was introduced change to the bill was introduced after 62 hours. There was no evidence taken on the new process evidence taken on the new process of the six. At the Report stage. Of the 77 amendments tabled by members other than the sponsor. Only seven amendments were selected for a separate decision.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful to the noble Lady giving giving way. I think she, like I, were relatively unique in like I, were relatively unique in that we were the two two of the 12 member panel on the select member panel on the select committee in this House, which looked at this bill. And one of the issues that we found on our side was that the people against the bill refused to accept, to take the evidence that we were trying to evidence that we were trying to propose, for example, from other countries where there have been successful doing with this bill, particularly, for example, in Australia, New Zealand and many other countries, some 30 sovereignties.
We had great difficulty getting any chance of proper hearing until the very end, by which time it was really too
**** Possible New Speaker ****
late. Forgive me. I'm unclear exactly what the noble Lord is referring to. what the noble Lord is referring to. I can tell the House, just for clarity and for the record, that there was only one vote taken at the select committee of this place, the select committee of this place, and the vote was taken not to accept written evidence, which I think all of us would have think all of us would have benefited from, to accept the greatest and largest number of representations.
I voted actually to support having written evidence, to support having written evidence, and it's a shame that we didn't have it. It did mean that because of the time limitations, we didn't get to hear from more people. That was in large part determined by the clerks who supported us on that bill. I would say that it was therefore not surprising that the bill cleared the Commons by just 23 votes. It was less than half of its already moderate majority at Second Reading.
And the assertion that's been repeated today was that the Commons carried out thorough scrutiny and addressed the most important issues. But I don't attest that that mirrors the facts. This is not a criticism of the efforts made by our colleagues in the other place. It's an acknowledgement that the private Members bill process is completely inadequate to the task of scrutinising a bill of this length, magnitude and complexity which has not been preceded by any consultation or other pre-legislative scrutiny. It was therefore no surprise that when the bill arrived in this House that there was not one, but two select committees in this place that were scathing about the state in which we received the bill, and specifically about the 42 Henry the Eighth powers that the bill now confirmed.
Confirmed. And we heard that from the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. And it was exactly for that reason that an agreement was reached with my noble and learned friend to hold a time limited select committee that did not delay the timetable for the bill ensured that we maintained the four protected Friday committee sessions before the Christmas break at the end of last year, but allowed us to take evidence on the bill as we received it in this place and to hear from the professional bodies whose members will be responsible for delivering on the bill.
Evidence we heard from organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing, the GPS and Medical Examiners. All of these organisations who are neutral on the principle of assisted dying, but who have legitimate and significant concerns about the efficacy, workability and safety of this bill. And I was seeking to make an intervention before on my noble friend Baroness Andrews. There is not a single Royal college in this country that will attest to the safety of this bill.
And why is it that members in this place, noble Lords, believe that they know better than the people and the organisations in the professions who will have to deliver on this Bill? And it was the practical issues that were contained within the Bill or the gaps within it. It was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the disability organisations, the mental health organisations, the domestic abuse experts who talked about the lack of safeguards and guardrails in this bill. And today I have to express my significant disappointment that virtually none of that evidence that was presented to us has been taken on by the sponsor, by Noble and learned friends, and what should have been an opportunity to strengthen and improve this bill was said to have been treated as a hurdle to be jumped over to get this legislation over the finish line.
That rich body of authoritative evidence that was imparted over 13 panel sessions has been largely ignored in the in the sponsor's own amendments, which are the only amendments that have so far been accepted, saving one amendment to an amendment from my noble and learned friend Baroness Scotland. As for the comments that have been made about the Committee stage, I've attended every single session and sitting and I don't believe the depth and seriousness of this scrutiny can be captured in mere numbers and statistics.
However, since supporters of the Bill have repeatedly referred to the number of amendments tabled, I will point out only this. It is not clear what we are expected to see as a normal number of amendments for a private member's Bill of this length and complexity, which has not benefited from any pre-legislative scrutiny because there has never been any attempt to pass one like this before. It's a wholly spurious criticism. In any event, the rate at which those amendments have been debated has been in keeping with the usual process progress or in fact, faster.
And it's not just a handful of of noble Lords. It's been over 60 noble Lords who have tabled amendments. Many more have added their names to amendments tabled by others, and over 130 noble Lords have spoken. And of these speeches I've yet to learn, which are supposed to have been irrelevant, repetitious or unusual in length. We heard from Lord Pannick before that charge, but we haven't heard any specifics on which ones are supposed to have referred in that way. It is only speeches from those of us with concerns of the Bill that should be seen as illegitimate.
The charge of blocking by supporters of the bill has simply not been substantiated. It's a mere charge from some who apparently never intended that we should actually do our job. What would have helped us all to do our job is if the sponsor of the bill had indicated which, which amendments my noble and learned friend was prepared to accept or to offer an alternative to. And I and others have repeatedly requested since last November and again in subsequent meetings for this list at.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The letter of the 31st of January 2026, which I sent to. Every peer said that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Every peer said that. Forgive me, but I have seen that lesson looked at very closely about amendments that would be forthcoming. There was a letter forthcoming. There was a letter that said, for example, on the issue of 18 to 25 year olds, when my noble and learned friend would my noble and learned friend would bring forward alternatives, we are still waiting for those alternative amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments. I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness Baroness Berger saying I did not indicate which amendments coming I would accept because I indicated in detail which ones I would accept. I set out a whole number of amendments and the suggestion that the House did not know what I was willing to agree to is, I may say so, not correct. And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm really surprised she's saying that. I can only reiterate what I have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can only reiterate what I have said in previous meetings about having specifics, and I don't believe on the on the one of the 1000 amendments that we've had forthcoming, which of any that in fact, you know, some that we've had amendments tabled to just the night amendments tabled to just the night before to understand in detail what, if anything, the by Noble and learned friend was prepared to to accept, and I looked very closely at the communications that I've received. And there have been some indications on on two of the measures, but on everything else, we haven't received that.
And I've also taken a number of interventions. I will just, in conclusion, just address one issue that has been raised. The accusation has been repeatedly made last weekend and in fact, this morning as well, that it has been religion that has been driving opposition to this legislation. And there are peers who have participated in your Lordships House that have raised concern of all faiths and none. The objections that I and many others have to this bill are not doctrinal.
They are rooted in the real world consequences this bill may have for those that we have spent years striving to represent. In my own case, drawn from my direct experience as a member of Parliament for almost ten years, including for people who do not have the same amount of agency or resources that all of us in this place are fortunate to enjoy. I conclude by saying that to insist that we should have glossed over through this legislation that will hand the state the ability to end the lives of some of its most vulnerable citizens, ignoring the evidence that we have heard and the bill today, which no professional medical Royal College in this country will say is safe, I think has been a misguided approach.
14:03
Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat)
I just can't tell you how disappointed I am to see this disappointed I am to see this important bill come down to this. And I feel very, very strongly for And I feel very, very strongly for the sponsors as well. Some of the accusations that have that have been made here. I'm not a medical or a legal specialist, and I'm just going to take two minutes to make one point. Despite being given the extra time that we've had. We're faced with a bill that has not now been properly considered, a great opportunity wasted was a very small number of noble Lords to go to the extreme point.
I'm sorry, my Lords. I'm no stranger to this. I've had several bills in the in this private member's bills in the schools lost for the only reason that they ran out of time. But it's clear to me that the private member's bill is not suitable for purpose, and this is nowhere better highlighted than here today. The difference is that they started this started and already passed the common stage. So it's already got the the approval of the House.
And of course, not just this house, but also the number of of the proportion of British public as well who support it. They can see that this tactic of delay and manipulation is wrong. So I suggest the member system should be revised. It's not allowed to play with the builder that has clear will of the House. And I believe that the collective house, although we never had the opportunity to test that. However, pass the affected non passaging of this of the players have taken away the opportunity and surely the right of a painless death, if that is their wish.
And I hope that the elected House will invoke the Parliament act and stop making the perfect the enemy of the good Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lords.
I'm sorry, my Lords. I'm no stranger to this. I've had several bills in the in this private member's bills in the schools lost for the only reason that they ran out of time. But it's clear to me that the private member's bill is not suitable for purpose, and this is nowhere better highlighted than here today. The difference is that they started this started and already passed the common stage. So it's already got the the approval of the House.
And of course, not just this house, but also the number of of the proportion of British public as well who support it. They can see that this tactic of delay and manipulation is wrong. So I suggest the member system should be revised. It's not allowed to play with the builder that has clear will of the House. And I believe that the collective house, although we never had the opportunity to test that. However, pass the affected non passaging of this of the players have taken away the opportunity and surely the right of a painless death, if that is their wish.
And I hope that the elected House will invoke the Parliament act and stop making the perfect the enemy of the good Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lords.
14:06
Baroness Cass (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Cass (Crossbench)
I. Pass, pass, pass, my Lords, my Lords, this. This debate seems to have characterised everyone in the House as being either supporters of the Bill or opponents of the Bill, and I would like to declare myself somewhere in the middle, and I suspect and hope that there will be many other people who fall into that category and have maybe been more silent following Baroness Harding views, I have tried to keep my contributions to 2 to 3 minutes on every occasion I've spoken except one.
When I spoke at greater length to describe what I felt would be a more efficient, effective and safe medical model for delivering this bill, and I have tried to engage in good faith with the sponsors of the bill, both here and indeed, the sponsor in the other place, to work with them to look at how a shorter and less onerous process, but a safer process, might work. It is difficult, though, when one starts from the point of having to amend a process which doesn't seem to fit with the natural patient journey.
To do this by amendment, and what I hope may be possible when a bill comes back to the House, is that it will start from something that we talk about quite a lot in the NHS, which is co-production, where we build the blocks upwards with medical professionals and service users getting together to think about how a viable process in the NHS might work, with lawyers getting together to look at how this could proceed in an effective legal model and so on for other experts, so that rather than pre-legislative pre-legislative, I can't say the words pre-legislative scrutiny.
Gosh, false teeth out as as suggested by my noble and learned friend Baroness Butler-Sloss and indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury, we could start even before that with building blocks to create some legislation that people who with experience have contributed to, and that therefore will gain the confidence of all the relevant professional bodies and, most importantly, the people who will benefit as patients.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here. My Lord, my Lord, my Lord,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here. My Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord. Do the same to me in a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lord. Do the same to me in a moment. I will give way. I'm sure you'll do the same for. My Lords. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for letting me get in. I've sat through 13 days of the Committee stage of this bill, and
When I spoke at greater length to describe what I felt would be a more efficient, effective and safe medical model for delivering this bill, and I have tried to engage in good faith with the sponsors of the bill, both here and indeed, the sponsor in the other place, to work with them to look at how a shorter and less onerous process, but a safer process, might work. It is difficult, though, when one starts from the point of having to amend a process which doesn't seem to fit with the natural patient journey.
To do this by amendment, and what I hope may be possible when a bill comes back to the House, is that it will start from something that we talk about quite a lot in the NHS, which is co-production, where we build the blocks upwards with medical professionals and service users getting together to think about how a viable process in the NHS might work, with lawyers getting together to look at how this could proceed in an effective legal model and so on for other experts, so that rather than pre-legislative pre-legislative, I can't say the words pre-legislative scrutiny.
Gosh, false teeth out as as suggested by my noble and learned friend Baroness Butler-Sloss and indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury, we could start even before that with building blocks to create some legislation that people who with experience have contributed to, and that therefore will gain the confidence of all the relevant professional bodies and, most importantly, the people who will benefit as patients.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here. My Lord, my Lord, my Lord,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here. My Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord, my Lord. Do the same to me in a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lord. Do the same to me in a moment. I will give way. I'm sure you'll do the same for. My Lords. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for letting me get in. I've sat through 13 days of the Committee stage of this bill, and
14:09
Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
I've hardly spoken at all. I'm. I'm going to cut what I intended to say, because I know we're beginning to because I know we're beginning to run out of time to allow others who still want to come in to have a chance of doing so. Moreover, much chance of doing so. Moreover, much of what I wanted to say has already been said by other people, and I don't want to do what I think has don't want to do what I think has happened during the course of the Committee stage.
Endless repetition. I want to avoid that, but I do want I want to avoid that, but I do want to endorse 2 or 3 things that have been said, because I think they're important. I want to endorse the effect of the failure to scrutinise the bill in a fair, considered and disciplined way, so that voting on possible improvements could have taken place and on the thousands of people who have experienced agony, loss of dignity and a desperate wish to die peacefully.
And as soon as possible, these people and their close friends and relatives who feel their pain to have been let down, I am afraid to say, by a relatively small number of members of this House who have been determined to block the bill. So I do want to endorse that because I know it's been said already. I also strongly endorse the criticism that the opponents of the bill in this House have refused to take into account the overwhelming support for the bill from the general public, including the minority of people in this country of religious faiths and also of the of individual disabled people.
In both these cases, most of them want to see a change in the law and something along the lines of what this bill is trying to do. My Lords, the opponents of the bill have, I think, damaged the reputation of the Lords and not just by the number of amendments that have been tabled, some of them absurd, of course, and the repetition entailed, but also in the lack of accuracy and rigour in making their arguments that we have not talked about this morning.
And I want to do so in a particular area. There are many examples I could cite, but I want to concentrate on the presentation of the medical profession as opposed to the bill. My Lords, I perhaps should declare an interest. Although I'm not a doctor, I am the chair of the Trust Board of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which, like virtually all the Royal colleges, have taken a neutral position on this bill. Baroness Berger has just given, in my view, a really misleading impression about this, and I regret that she felt the need to do that.
When assisted dying was debated in the House in 2014 and 2015. It is absolutely true that the medical professions organisations were opposed, and there was justification in referring to that at that time. But those who are still implying this have simply not caught up with the changes in medical opinion over that decade. This is reflected, I think, in the view of 50 senior clinicians, including 13 presidents of royal colleges, former presidents of the Royal Colleges and the BMA.
And I'm just going to quote what they said, the status quo in this country is not working. The blanket prohibition of assisted dying has made the way we deliver end of care in this country more cruel and more dangerous. You now have an opportunity to vote for legislation that will give people in England and Wales choice and control at the end of their life. In our view, in our view, this choice will come to be seen as a compassionate and integral part of our National health Service, of immense comfort to dying people and their loved ones.
Changing the law will send a clear message to all in society that we will respect their wishes. We believe it is time for Westminster to show compassion by giving people choice. My Lords, I think that is a very important. My Lords, I'm not going to give way because this time is short, but I have already said I will make my. I am not going to give way, and if my. I'm not going to give my. I'm not giving away. I've just said, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I have to say to my noble friend that I don't think that it's appropriate for me to do so, and many others have not have not given way. I'm happy to discuss it with her afterwards. I know I have said I'm not going to give way. My Lord. The largest survey of medical opinion in the UK by the BMA found doctors more likely to support than oppose assisted dying and organisations which represent them have worked closely with my noble friend, my noble and learned friend Lord Faulkner, and with Kim Leadbeater MP, who was the sponsor of this bill in the House of Commons.
I had intended to turn to several examples of blatant misrepresentation that have taken place at Committee stage, but in the interests of giving other people an opportunity to express their views, I'm going to leave them out. But I'm afraid to say it was just a failure. It was just I'm not my Lords. I've already said I'm not giving way, my Lords. I want to to to turn to my conclusion. The debate on this bill would have been of a higher quality and and met the expectations of high standards in this House.
If those who opposed the bill had acknowledged the constructive cooperation of the medical profession, and if the position of medical stakeholders generally were not misrepresented by opponents of the Bill. My Lords, we must return to the Bill in in the next session of Parliament, but do so in a rigorous and honest way, where we do not misrepresent the position of the medical profession. My Lords, we have to complete it as well, in order to be sure that those who continue to suffer terrible deaths because of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cruel unfairness of the present law no longer have to do so. A word that the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A word that the. Evidence that was given to the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships House from the Royal Lordships House from the Royal Colleges, everyone expressed their concern about the safety of the concern about the safety of the Bill. So individual letters and so on, even from 50 people, is not the same as the evidence received by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
same as the evidence received by our committee. My Lord, I will just answer that briefly. I did not, in what I've just said in any way imply that the medical colleges did not have some suggestions of improvements to the bill. Many people have got suggestions for improvements to the bill, including my noble friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. What I am saying is it's misleading to suggest that they are opposed to the Bill in principle. As a profession, they are not.
They have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
been neutral. Before. My noble friend sits down. I've been accused of dishonesty in my representations, so I'll just repeat what I said. I was very, very clear that while the overwhelming majority, I think bar overwhelming majority, I think bar one of the Royal Medical colleges, takes a neutral position on the principle of assisted dying, there is not a single medical royal is not a single medical royal college in this country that will attest to the safety of this bill. I will reiterate my comments that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will reiterate my comments that that should concern us all. Yes, my Lord, I want to acknowledge that those who have
Endless repetition. I want to avoid that, but I do want I want to avoid that, but I do want to endorse 2 or 3 things that have been said, because I think they're important. I want to endorse the effect of the failure to scrutinise the bill in a fair, considered and disciplined way, so that voting on possible improvements could have taken place and on the thousands of people who have experienced agony, loss of dignity and a desperate wish to die peacefully.
And as soon as possible, these people and their close friends and relatives who feel their pain to have been let down, I am afraid to say, by a relatively small number of members of this House who have been determined to block the bill. So I do want to endorse that because I know it's been said already. I also strongly endorse the criticism that the opponents of the bill in this House have refused to take into account the overwhelming support for the bill from the general public, including the minority of people in this country of religious faiths and also of the of individual disabled people.
In both these cases, most of them want to see a change in the law and something along the lines of what this bill is trying to do. My Lords, the opponents of the bill have, I think, damaged the reputation of the Lords and not just by the number of amendments that have been tabled, some of them absurd, of course, and the repetition entailed, but also in the lack of accuracy and rigour in making their arguments that we have not talked about this morning.
And I want to do so in a particular area. There are many examples I could cite, but I want to concentrate on the presentation of the medical profession as opposed to the bill. My Lords, I perhaps should declare an interest. Although I'm not a doctor, I am the chair of the Trust Board of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which, like virtually all the Royal colleges, have taken a neutral position on this bill. Baroness Berger has just given, in my view, a really misleading impression about this, and I regret that she felt the need to do that.
When assisted dying was debated in the House in 2014 and 2015. It is absolutely true that the medical professions organisations were opposed, and there was justification in referring to that at that time. But those who are still implying this have simply not caught up with the changes in medical opinion over that decade. This is reflected, I think, in the view of 50 senior clinicians, including 13 presidents of royal colleges, former presidents of the Royal Colleges and the BMA.
And I'm just going to quote what they said, the status quo in this country is not working. The blanket prohibition of assisted dying has made the way we deliver end of care in this country more cruel and more dangerous. You now have an opportunity to vote for legislation that will give people in England and Wales choice and control at the end of their life. In our view, in our view, this choice will come to be seen as a compassionate and integral part of our National health Service, of immense comfort to dying people and their loved ones.
Changing the law will send a clear message to all in society that we will respect their wishes. We believe it is time for Westminster to show compassion by giving people choice. My Lords, I think that is a very important. My Lords, I'm not going to give way because this time is short, but I have already said I will make my. I am not going to give way, and if my. I'm not going to give my. I'm not giving away. I've just said, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I have to say to my noble friend that I don't think that it's appropriate for me to do so, and many others have not have not given way. I'm happy to discuss it with her afterwards. I know I have said I'm not going to give way. My Lord. The largest survey of medical opinion in the UK by the BMA found doctors more likely to support than oppose assisted dying and organisations which represent them have worked closely with my noble friend, my noble and learned friend Lord Faulkner, and with Kim Leadbeater MP, who was the sponsor of this bill in the House of Commons.
I had intended to turn to several examples of blatant misrepresentation that have taken place at Committee stage, but in the interests of giving other people an opportunity to express their views, I'm going to leave them out. But I'm afraid to say it was just a failure. It was just I'm not my Lords. I've already said I'm not giving way, my Lords. I want to to to turn to my conclusion. The debate on this bill would have been of a higher quality and and met the expectations of high standards in this House.
If those who opposed the bill had acknowledged the constructive cooperation of the medical profession, and if the position of medical stakeholders generally were not misrepresented by opponents of the Bill. My Lords, we must return to the Bill in in the next session of Parliament, but do so in a rigorous and honest way, where we do not misrepresent the position of the medical profession. My Lords, we have to complete it as well, in order to be sure that those who continue to suffer terrible deaths because of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cruel unfairness of the present law no longer have to do so. A word that the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A word that the. Evidence that was given to the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships House from the Royal Lordships House from the Royal Colleges, everyone expressed their concern about the safety of the concern about the safety of the Bill. So individual letters and so on, even from 50 people, is not the same as the evidence received by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
same as the evidence received by our committee. My Lord, I will just answer that briefly. I did not, in what I've just said in any way imply that the medical colleges did not have some suggestions of improvements to the bill. Many people have got suggestions for improvements to the bill, including my noble friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. What I am saying is it's misleading to suggest that they are opposed to the Bill in principle. As a profession, they are not.
They have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
been neutral. Before. My noble friend sits down. I've been accused of dishonesty in my representations, so I'll just repeat what I said. I was very, very clear that while the overwhelming majority, I think bar overwhelming majority, I think bar one of the Royal Medical colleges, takes a neutral position on the principle of assisted dying, there is not a single medical royal is not a single medical royal college in this country that will attest to the safety of this bill. I will reiterate my comments that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will reiterate my comments that that should concern us all. Yes, my Lord, I want to acknowledge that those who have
14:17
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
been campaigning for this bill in been campaigning for this bill in and outside of here are absolutely well motivated. Many have watched a loved one die in great discomfort loved one die in great discomfort or even agony, and are informed by grief. And understandably, they grief. And understandably, they don't want that for their loved ones or for themselves. I also want to acknowledge that they're often driven by choice and autonomy, which are honourable virtues facing death when illness threatens to remove bodily or cognitive control can be daunting.
And as I think, as the noble Lady Baroness Prentis, so vividly and movingly described earlier, you can feel how people would want to therefore assert control at the end of their life. So I acknowledge that, absolutely. But I want to refute something that keeps regularly being thrown out, this accusation that those of us who raise concerns about the bill don't care about those campaigners, and that we have never or are not listening to the terminally ill, to note the terminally ill are not an undifferentiated identity group with a fixed view.
We sadly will all know people who are terminally ill now, and I can tell you those I know find politicians enthusiasm for assisted dying in preference to an energy going into palliative care or hospices make them feel like a burden. A demoralised and demoralised and dispirited. It does seem to me that some people are determined to imply or undermine the motivations of those of us who put amendments in as though we're all part of some malign Machiavellian plot.
I mean, media reports this week, and by the way, credit to dignity on dying, in dying. I mean, they've got good comms and PR. I mean, their media work is second to none. But the media this week said that the Lords should hang our heads in shame. I just like to say we should actually hold our heads up high because it's been fashionable in politics at the moment to look the other way, see no evil, hear no evil, and so on.
But we were charged with a huge task, a heavy responsibility. If there was to be a law, that would mean that the state and doctors could help end the lives of the terminally ill. How could we pass that law without creating recklessly unsafe legislation? This has not been some tactical coup. As the noble Lady Baroness Hunter implied, the task was to scrutinise the longest private member's bill on record and, by the way, all without guidance from government Ministers.
Beyond the narrow technical comments on legal and operational workability, not safety. Also, we were charged with the task of scrutiny, not just by our intrinsic role here, but because MPs in the elected House told us they were relying on our House to fix a flawed bill, and conversely to. Conversely, to the point made by the noble Lady Baroness Gerada earlier, what's become obvious is, is that actually the people who are kind of not grounded in reality, who those who support the abstract ideals of the sponsors.
But once amendments try and pin down the practical, specific mechanisms of the bill about how an assisted dying service would operate on the ground, it exposes worrying implications and unintended consequences. So when the Health Minister, Stephen Kinnock, admitted that the government would need to reprioritise spending from NHS budgets to fund assisted dying, I think it's our duty not to stay stumm. We should not be talking it out, but we should be talking about it because we should ask what health services will be cut? Could palliative care get even less money? And when the Royal College of Psychiatry warned that the requirement for members to sit on ad panels would mean taking them away from overstretched, frontline mental health services.
Our job is not to ignore that, but to ask would that mean even longer waiting lists for those who are mentally distressed, or a reduction of those at the coalface of suicide prevention diverted into paying the state, assisting individuals taking their own lives, i.e. not suicide prevention? Such moral dilemmas hint at the fundamental shift in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the. In the. Know well. No one is. Suggesting in this House that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Suggesting in this House that we should, as she puts it, remain schtum. We have fought. We've had 14 days of debate on this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
14 days of debate on this bill. Yeah, such moral dilemmas hint at the fundamental shift in the at the fundamental shift in the raison d'etre of medicine required a system. A systemic shift will be a system. A systemic shift will be needed to change the NHS constitution, to redefine medical treatment. And so I am grateful to this House that whether it's taken 14 days or not, that we heard the noble Lord Lord Stevens warn that the bill's open ended clause 41 would be a Trojan horse clause for a fundamental change to the NHS by the back door.
Yet amendments have been sneeringly described as trivial, over cruel, absurd. But having sat through hours and days of the Employment Rights Bill in this place, I thought, therefore, it was my responsibility to look at the Bill's impact on workers rights. And when I asked about two tier conscience clauses that could leave out junior staff and ancillary workers, such as porters and care workers, if there are no system wide opt in model, the noble and learned Lord Faulkner rather batted my worries away.
However, since my speech on that topic, I've talked to people, prison officers, care staff and even a real life porter who actually thanked me for raising it. All trade union members, by the way, and who said that they changed their mind after the debate because it had made them understand and reconsider the broader impact of the bill. It seems a credit to the committee that it has allowed people outside of this chamber to think about law making beyond soundbites and emotive headlines.
My final word, a comment on who we. The alleged filibusters are. No disrespect, but we're a bit of a ragbag and not an organised ideological collective. I'm actually in awe of my temporary comrades in arms who have treated this process with diligence and moral seriousness. It's lazy and insulting to hear people doing disgust in the media so disparagingly, or the suggestion that all of the amendments were some conspiratorial, conspiratorial. Sort of plot that cynical misinformation and undignified smear.
So when probably, or if any version of assisted dying legislation returns here, I hope that all sides will continue to read the small print line by line, and they will stop smearing each other and maybe work together on bringing through safe, workable legislation if we have to have that legislation at all. My Lords, I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hate. Hater hater. My Lords, I can see three members standing. can see three members standing. We'd all get all three members in if they're all sharpening to the if they're all sharpening to the point or feel sorry for. But we get all four members in if it all be short and to the point. So my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
short and to the point. So my friend Baroness Hayter. Then we'll go to my lovely Baroness Berridge. And then. My. Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. The House of Commons and the public want this bill. But the number of amendments and the length of the speeches mean we've run out of time, so it can't go back to the
And as I think, as the noble Lady Baroness Prentis, so vividly and movingly described earlier, you can feel how people would want to therefore assert control at the end of their life. So I acknowledge that, absolutely. But I want to refute something that keeps regularly being thrown out, this accusation that those of us who raise concerns about the bill don't care about those campaigners, and that we have never or are not listening to the terminally ill, to note the terminally ill are not an undifferentiated identity group with a fixed view.
We sadly will all know people who are terminally ill now, and I can tell you those I know find politicians enthusiasm for assisted dying in preference to an energy going into palliative care or hospices make them feel like a burden. A demoralised and demoralised and dispirited. It does seem to me that some people are determined to imply or undermine the motivations of those of us who put amendments in as though we're all part of some malign Machiavellian plot.
I mean, media reports this week, and by the way, credit to dignity on dying, in dying. I mean, they've got good comms and PR. I mean, their media work is second to none. But the media this week said that the Lords should hang our heads in shame. I just like to say we should actually hold our heads up high because it's been fashionable in politics at the moment to look the other way, see no evil, hear no evil, and so on.
But we were charged with a huge task, a heavy responsibility. If there was to be a law, that would mean that the state and doctors could help end the lives of the terminally ill. How could we pass that law without creating recklessly unsafe legislation? This has not been some tactical coup. As the noble Lady Baroness Hunter implied, the task was to scrutinise the longest private member's bill on record and, by the way, all without guidance from government Ministers.
Beyond the narrow technical comments on legal and operational workability, not safety. Also, we were charged with the task of scrutiny, not just by our intrinsic role here, but because MPs in the elected House told us they were relying on our House to fix a flawed bill, and conversely to. Conversely, to the point made by the noble Lady Baroness Gerada earlier, what's become obvious is, is that actually the people who are kind of not grounded in reality, who those who support the abstract ideals of the sponsors.
But once amendments try and pin down the practical, specific mechanisms of the bill about how an assisted dying service would operate on the ground, it exposes worrying implications and unintended consequences. So when the Health Minister, Stephen Kinnock, admitted that the government would need to reprioritise spending from NHS budgets to fund assisted dying, I think it's our duty not to stay stumm. We should not be talking it out, but we should be talking about it because we should ask what health services will be cut? Could palliative care get even less money? And when the Royal College of Psychiatry warned that the requirement for members to sit on ad panels would mean taking them away from overstretched, frontline mental health services.
Our job is not to ignore that, but to ask would that mean even longer waiting lists for those who are mentally distressed, or a reduction of those at the coalface of suicide prevention diverted into paying the state, assisting individuals taking their own lives, i.e. not suicide prevention? Such moral dilemmas hint at the fundamental shift in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the. In the. Know well. No one is. Suggesting in this House that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Suggesting in this House that we should, as she puts it, remain schtum. We have fought. We've had 14 days of debate on this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
14 days of debate on this bill. Yeah, such moral dilemmas hint at the fundamental shift in the at the fundamental shift in the raison d'etre of medicine required a system. A systemic shift will be a system. A systemic shift will be needed to change the NHS constitution, to redefine medical treatment. And so I am grateful to this House that whether it's taken 14 days or not, that we heard the noble Lord Lord Stevens warn that the bill's open ended clause 41 would be a Trojan horse clause for a fundamental change to the NHS by the back door.
Yet amendments have been sneeringly described as trivial, over cruel, absurd. But having sat through hours and days of the Employment Rights Bill in this place, I thought, therefore, it was my responsibility to look at the Bill's impact on workers rights. And when I asked about two tier conscience clauses that could leave out junior staff and ancillary workers, such as porters and care workers, if there are no system wide opt in model, the noble and learned Lord Faulkner rather batted my worries away.
However, since my speech on that topic, I've talked to people, prison officers, care staff and even a real life porter who actually thanked me for raising it. All trade union members, by the way, and who said that they changed their mind after the debate because it had made them understand and reconsider the broader impact of the bill. It seems a credit to the committee that it has allowed people outside of this chamber to think about law making beyond soundbites and emotive headlines.
My final word, a comment on who we. The alleged filibusters are. No disrespect, but we're a bit of a ragbag and not an organised ideological collective. I'm actually in awe of my temporary comrades in arms who have treated this process with diligence and moral seriousness. It's lazy and insulting to hear people doing disgust in the media so disparagingly, or the suggestion that all of the amendments were some conspiratorial, conspiratorial. Sort of plot that cynical misinformation and undignified smear.
So when probably, or if any version of assisted dying legislation returns here, I hope that all sides will continue to read the small print line by line, and they will stop smearing each other and maybe work together on bringing through safe, workable legislation if we have to have that legislation at all. My Lords, I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hate. Hater hater. My Lords, I can see three members standing. can see three members standing. We'd all get all three members in if they're all sharpening to the if they're all sharpening to the point or feel sorry for. But we get all four members in if it all be short and to the point. So my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
short and to the point. So my friend Baroness Hayter. Then we'll go to my lovely Baroness Berridge. And then. My. Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. The House of Commons and the public want this bill. But the number of amendments and the length of the speeches mean we've run out of time, so it can't go back to the
14:26
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
Commons. This is bad for democracy. But even more seriously, it's bad for the terminally ill, those for the terminally ill, those mentally competent adults with less than six months to live, to offer than six months to live, to offer them the choice of a more peaceful way out of this life, away under their control, with friends and family around them, rather than an isolated and often risky suicide. A particular mum of three said how dare a handful of peers look society in the face and say they care about dying people? How dare they put their particular beliefs above the care and compassion that should be due to those facing an agonising death? And of course, we never heard from those affected.
As my noble friend Baroness Hunter said, we on the committee where we were outnumbered by the opponents to the Bill, we were denied the opportunity to hear from those facing deaths or from those bereaved who had had to watch their partner die without this help. We heard from or we just heard from my my other noble friend from the Royal Colleges, from organised groups, professional bodies, social workers, the church, palliative care experts, lawyers, everyone except for whom the bill was designed.
We've heard in the debates that the amendments are actually about improving this bill. But I know and I think we know that for some people, even if we had accepted a thousand amendments, they would never, ever support this bill. And the right reverend Primate, though she was the prelate at the time. Now the Bishop of Canterbury admitted this in second debate, reading debate, saying that she was going to propose a vote against it at Third Reading. And we've heard her today say she's against it in principle.
So these amendments for some were not about improving it, but because they opposed it in principle. And had we just been interested in trying to make it better for the or more safer for the vulnerable groups, then we would not have to have those amendments referred to that everyone, including a man, should have to have a negative pregnancy test before they could apply for assisted dying, or we would not have to consider the idea that some of the very people who needed this, i.e.
in care homes, would be denied it, or that anyone being treated in hospital would have to leave for a private place with different doctors, different carers if they wanted assisted death of or indeed of the idea that these intimate private discussions with the panel should take place in public so that the public could watch people talking about why they wanted to bring their deaths forward. Nor would we have been told in the amendments that this all cost too much, even though the estimate is the same as what the NHS spends a year on after accidents of people
**** Possible New Speaker ****
wearing flip flops. I kid you not, the cost can I. briefly? Of course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of course. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I just wonder whether the noble Baroness would confirm the noble Baroness would confirm that whilst I have said very clearly that I oppose the Bill and clearly that I oppose the Bill and that I would bring it to a vote on principle in the. In the Third Reading, that I have not, in fact,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading, that I have not, in fact, placed any amendments. It was the in principle issue that I was discussing rather than about amendments. So we. But I take her point completely. That. Sorry, I've jumped now to to costs. The cost is about the same as the cost of accidents after flip flops, and my estimate is. And I've had some better economists than me to check that the cost that. That is estimated for this is about two hours of the NHS spending time.
Now, would we say that we NHS isn't going to spend money on accidents after people wearing flip flops, or going skiing or horse racing or dangerous sports, that we wouldn't come to their need because it was too expensive. So how can we put costs in over this? My Lords, progress could have been faster. It could have been more focussed, it could have even been forensic had we concentrated on the big issues. I apologise to those affected, some of whom are with us today, that we failed in what we should have done.
As my noble friend Baroness Hunter said, we on the committee where we were outnumbered by the opponents to the Bill, we were denied the opportunity to hear from those facing deaths or from those bereaved who had had to watch their partner die without this help. We heard from or we just heard from my my other noble friend from the Royal Colleges, from organised groups, professional bodies, social workers, the church, palliative care experts, lawyers, everyone except for whom the bill was designed.
We've heard in the debates that the amendments are actually about improving this bill. But I know and I think we know that for some people, even if we had accepted a thousand amendments, they would never, ever support this bill. And the right reverend Primate, though she was the prelate at the time. Now the Bishop of Canterbury admitted this in second debate, reading debate, saying that she was going to propose a vote against it at Third Reading. And we've heard her today say she's against it in principle.
So these amendments for some were not about improving it, but because they opposed it in principle. And had we just been interested in trying to make it better for the or more safer for the vulnerable groups, then we would not have to have those amendments referred to that everyone, including a man, should have to have a negative pregnancy test before they could apply for assisted dying, or we would not have to consider the idea that some of the very people who needed this, i.e.
in care homes, would be denied it, or that anyone being treated in hospital would have to leave for a private place with different doctors, different carers if they wanted assisted death of or indeed of the idea that these intimate private discussions with the panel should take place in public so that the public could watch people talking about why they wanted to bring their deaths forward. Nor would we have been told in the amendments that this all cost too much, even though the estimate is the same as what the NHS spends a year on after accidents of people
**** Possible New Speaker ****
wearing flip flops. I kid you not, the cost can I. briefly? Of course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of course. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I just wonder whether the noble Baroness would confirm the noble Baroness would confirm that whilst I have said very clearly that I oppose the Bill and clearly that I oppose the Bill and that I would bring it to a vote on principle in the. In the Third Reading, that I have not, in fact,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading, that I have not, in fact, placed any amendments. It was the in principle issue that I was discussing rather than about amendments. So we. But I take her point completely. That. Sorry, I've jumped now to to costs. The cost is about the same as the cost of accidents after flip flops, and my estimate is. And I've had some better economists than me to check that the cost that. That is estimated for this is about two hours of the NHS spending time.
Now, would we say that we NHS isn't going to spend money on accidents after people wearing flip flops, or going skiing or horse racing or dangerous sports, that we wouldn't come to their need because it was too expensive. So how can we put costs in over this? My Lords, progress could have been faster. It could have been more focussed, it could have even been forensic had we concentrated on the big issues. I apologise to those affected, some of whom are with us today, that we failed in what we should have done.
14:31
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good Lord. >> My Lords, I recognise that this is a day of disappointment. I'm keenly aware of those for whom they keenly aware of those for whom they viewed this law to be the solution to their plight, but also those for whom the clear failures of proper provision of palliative services will not be solved any time soon. And for those living with disabilities or with children with disabilities who struggle to access healthcare today, I recognise also there is disappointment for many in their perception of their Parliament.
I have in my 15 years here, witnessed the best of parliamentary legislating. As I sat on the Joint Committee scrutinising the Mental Health Bill after an independent review, a White Paper and government response. But, my Lords, in my 15 years this is not the best. And I have said numerous times in committee that the Private Members bill process is being asked to replace Pre-legislative scrutiny, and it cannot do that. So there is no surprise that huge concerns remain.
I will briefly just speak of two experts or examples. It was three, but I'm mindful of time that could have been dealt with if they'd have been pre-legislative scrutiny. Firstly, the consultative consultative palliative care expert Jamila Hussain said to The Guardian newspaper on the 18th of May 2025. She said I am deeply concerned about the provision that there is no requirement to inform family or next of kin until after the assisted death has occurred. This led me, my Lords, to then think that there could be children being that next of kin, who would be the person first informed, and then also to the question of children as interpreters.
So I laid amendments to that regard. The latter amendment about interpreters was the subject of enormous criticism on social media. But this was not, in the words of the noble Lady, Lady Andrews, a bureaucratic amendment. It was not procedural obstruction for the noble Lady, Lady Hunt. It was an important amendment. And it wasn't until the select Committee of your Lordships House that we first. The. The Parliament first heard from the Children's Commissioners about the impact on children. Although outside the scope of the Bill of the Societal Change.
We were going to introduce. My second instance or expert is, of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Faulkner. I have enjoyed the intellectual engagement in those meetings and I'm grateful for them, and particularly the meeting that was held with Professor Alex Ruck-keene KC on the nuances of the Mental Capacity Act, down to the detail of decided case law. But when discussion came to the Mental Health Act, we got back to the basic outline principles that the Mental Health Act is not based on capacity.
You can be detained under the Mental Health Act and repeatedly, but still had capacity. It was clear to me leaving that meeting that we'd gone from nuanced detail to basic principle, and that we needed to have looked at the interconnection of the Mental Health Act. And this bill before we started. But, my Lords, I will conclude where I began with the different views of the world, which was also the subject of a meeting with the noble and learned Lord. He came from a place of individual autonomy and choice when beginning to legislate.
But as I outlined at Second Reading, that is an anathema to many people who live in close community, whether that's geographical in the North East or within a faith community. I think, my Lords, there is disappointment, as other noble Lords have outlined for some people of faith, that their motivations and views have been used so casually and negatively in the media campaign. I note never by the noble and learned Lord in my meetings. It's interesting that Professor John Lennox, emeritus professor of mathematics from Oxford, said in Westminster Hall in June of last year and he quotes with an unusual source.
Polly Toynbee, he said, was spot on when she wrote in the Guardian Every day in Parliament fundamental different worldviews do battle. Politics is all about the clash of moral universes. So atheists, end of quote. So atheistic, materialistic, secular, humanist, Judeo-Christian, liberal and now neo liberal viewpoints are all welcome. And I would hate to think what William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King would think if it were otherwise away. For two final practical points away from your Lordships House, the Noble and learned lonely lady, Lady Baroness lady Hale, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth are going to do a debate on the principle of this bill on intelligence squared.
And I have to say that if this view of the involvement of religious motivations is shared by the noble and learned Lord, I would love to see him on a platform of that scale to discuss his views and intellectual engage properly on that issue, which is key to our liberal democratic society. The second point is just to reiterate that the private members bill process the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Carlile and the noble Lady, Lady Butler-sloss, has not served us well, and I'm sad to see the polarisation and polemic nature of many of our debates.
I do hope that we can find a way to look at what has happened with this bill to prevent it happening ever again. My final point is just to do generally with the law, and I do hear the comments from my friends, noble Lord, Lord Dodds. But for the parents of disabled children, when they're not around, we have not spoken sufficiently of how the law protects what they feel they're
**** Possible New Speaker ****
left with when they're gone is the law will protect their children. My Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord. My my, my Lords, my Lords, my, my Lords, my Lords. We have now been debating this issue for just been debating this issue for just short of 4.5 hours. It is my intention to bring to a close at intention to bring to a close at around 3 p.m. both the government opposition Front Bench indicated to opposition Front Bench indicated to me they wish to make contributions, so after Baroness Lawlor we should be looking to bring proceedings to a close.
I close maybe one more after Baroness Lawlor, but then we want to hear from the front benches and then we need to hear from the noble Lady Baroness Coffey and my noble friend Lord Falconer. Adjourning around 3 p.m.
I have in my 15 years here, witnessed the best of parliamentary legislating. As I sat on the Joint Committee scrutinising the Mental Health Bill after an independent review, a White Paper and government response. But, my Lords, in my 15 years this is not the best. And I have said numerous times in committee that the Private Members bill process is being asked to replace Pre-legislative scrutiny, and it cannot do that. So there is no surprise that huge concerns remain.
I will briefly just speak of two experts or examples. It was three, but I'm mindful of time that could have been dealt with if they'd have been pre-legislative scrutiny. Firstly, the consultative consultative palliative care expert Jamila Hussain said to The Guardian newspaper on the 18th of May 2025. She said I am deeply concerned about the provision that there is no requirement to inform family or next of kin until after the assisted death has occurred. This led me, my Lords, to then think that there could be children being that next of kin, who would be the person first informed, and then also to the question of children as interpreters.
So I laid amendments to that regard. The latter amendment about interpreters was the subject of enormous criticism on social media. But this was not, in the words of the noble Lady, Lady Andrews, a bureaucratic amendment. It was not procedural obstruction for the noble Lady, Lady Hunt. It was an important amendment. And it wasn't until the select Committee of your Lordships House that we first. The. The Parliament first heard from the Children's Commissioners about the impact on children. Although outside the scope of the Bill of the Societal Change.
We were going to introduce. My second instance or expert is, of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Faulkner. I have enjoyed the intellectual engagement in those meetings and I'm grateful for them, and particularly the meeting that was held with Professor Alex Ruck-keene KC on the nuances of the Mental Capacity Act, down to the detail of decided case law. But when discussion came to the Mental Health Act, we got back to the basic outline principles that the Mental Health Act is not based on capacity.
You can be detained under the Mental Health Act and repeatedly, but still had capacity. It was clear to me leaving that meeting that we'd gone from nuanced detail to basic principle, and that we needed to have looked at the interconnection of the Mental Health Act. And this bill before we started. But, my Lords, I will conclude where I began with the different views of the world, which was also the subject of a meeting with the noble and learned Lord. He came from a place of individual autonomy and choice when beginning to legislate.
But as I outlined at Second Reading, that is an anathema to many people who live in close community, whether that's geographical in the North East or within a faith community. I think, my Lords, there is disappointment, as other noble Lords have outlined for some people of faith, that their motivations and views have been used so casually and negatively in the media campaign. I note never by the noble and learned Lord in my meetings. It's interesting that Professor John Lennox, emeritus professor of mathematics from Oxford, said in Westminster Hall in June of last year and he quotes with an unusual source.
Polly Toynbee, he said, was spot on when she wrote in the Guardian Every day in Parliament fundamental different worldviews do battle. Politics is all about the clash of moral universes. So atheists, end of quote. So atheistic, materialistic, secular, humanist, Judeo-Christian, liberal and now neo liberal viewpoints are all welcome. And I would hate to think what William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King would think if it were otherwise away. For two final practical points away from your Lordships House, the Noble and learned lonely lady, Lady Baroness lady Hale, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth are going to do a debate on the principle of this bill on intelligence squared.
And I have to say that if this view of the involvement of religious motivations is shared by the noble and learned Lord, I would love to see him on a platform of that scale to discuss his views and intellectual engage properly on that issue, which is key to our liberal democratic society. The second point is just to reiterate that the private members bill process the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Carlile and the noble Lady, Lady Butler-sloss, has not served us well, and I'm sad to see the polarisation and polemic nature of many of our debates.
I do hope that we can find a way to look at what has happened with this bill to prevent it happening ever again. My final point is just to do generally with the law, and I do hear the comments from my friends, noble Lord, Lord Dodds. But for the parents of disabled children, when they're not around, we have not spoken sufficiently of how the law protects what they feel they're
**** Possible New Speaker ****
left with when they're gone is the law will protect their children. My Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord. My my, my Lords, my Lords, my, my Lords, my Lords. We have now been debating this issue for just been debating this issue for just short of 4.5 hours. It is my intention to bring to a close at intention to bring to a close at around 3 p.m. both the government opposition Front Bench indicated to opposition Front Bench indicated to me they wish to make contributions, so after Baroness Lawlor we should be looking to bring proceedings to a close.
I close maybe one more after Baroness Lawlor, but then we want to hear from the front benches and then we need to hear from the noble Lady Baroness Coffey and my noble friend Lord Falconer. Adjourning around 3 p.m.
14:38
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
Baroness Lawlor my Lord. noble and learned Lords amendment this morning asks us, when we note the progress of scrutiny today to recognise the recommendations and findings of the both House of Lords committees that. On the Constitution and that on delegated powers and regulatory reform and the Constitution Committee is was very concerned and is very concerned at the fact that as a private member's bill, this bill has not had the same kind of pre-legislative scrutiny debate.
It hasn't been in a manifesto. It hasn't had the the discussion or indeed the attention which a government bill would have. And indeed, it points out, and we know this to be the case, that the impact assessments which have been mentioned this morning reached the House of Commons only after the Committee stage was concluded on the first day of the report on the 16th of May, 2025. And then it had two more days of report. So just over a month from the Third Reading, which took place in the Commons on the 20th of May, and in the words of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny is therefore significantly less than we would expect to see for an equivalent government Bill.
This is especially concerning given, given the subject matter of the Bill, and I would also, in response to many people who have drawn attention to the fact that we've spent a lot of time scrutinising the one of the bold print recommendations in the Constitution Committee's report is that not only does the House of Lords play an important role in the legislative process, it is constitutionally appropriate for the House to scrutinise the Bill and, if so minded, vote to amend it or indeed reject it.
And I shan't go go into that point any more. But I think it's therefore wrong of protagonists of the Bill to denounce the process of scrutiny, such as we've been doing, and of. And to accuse people trying to amend the bill and make it better and safer, and indeed, constitutionally bring it up to the standard of a government bill which has, as has already been said, had all that time. And so we, we, I, I don't like the fact that reports have been given to the media suggesting that because in my experience in the House of Lords and I haven't been here very long, but people have been given a lot of time, including to government bills, and the governments of both complexions have been bending over backwards to be polite and take account of what what members have tried to do.
And and apart from that, I only mention one other point, which is the one on from delegated powers and delegated powers. There are many of them. We've heard today that there are 42 delegated powers in the bill, and this is a particular problem. And I'll just mention one instance of a Henry the Eighth power, which is worrying. And it's it's just a technical one. And and but I was glad that the noble Baroness Baroness Hollins, whether I supported hers for clause 27 or later on, I had my own on on clause 37.
These are to protect and regulate the supply of drugs which are designed to bring about death, and they're called approved substances. In the bill in clause 27, we're not given any detail about the substances, no list and nothing else, but just the meaning of an approved substance. Now, without any details other than the meaning of a drug or other substance specified in the regulations in clause 27 referred to again in another section 37. For more about the powers to make provision on these.
These substances as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee notes, will be inherently dangerous and indeed necessarily lethal, what happens if someone has taken the substance but changes their mind? How rapidly would it work? Is it reversible and how? What would the side effects be? Bringing up? Such points as these may seem to protagonists of the bill a matter of time wasting and obstruction, but they should remember that this bill will give Ministers and often officials really, as advisers, power to make laws, very serious laws about regulation and determining safety, which we debate every day of the week.
In every other bill that comes our way. And we take a great deal of time, whether it's the environment, whether it's anything else. And so it's very important that these matters are debated and gone into, and there are answers, and that it is on the face of the bill, as both committees want. And so with that, I do beg the noble Lord to regard the good faith with which people
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have tried to make his bill a better bill. My Lords, I know that we've had
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I know that we've had over 4.5 hours debate. I want to bring to close as soon as I can. After 3:00, I'm going to call three After 3:00, I'm going to call three more speakers from the backbenches, and then we're going to go to move to going to go here, there for the opposition opposition frontbench. opposition opposition frontbench. We're going to have three more, but very briefly, contributions. We will have the Lord Cashman. Then will have the Lord Cashman. Then we'll have the noble Baroness Falkner, and then we'll finish up with my friend Baroness Jay, the lead formerly of the House of Lords, benches.
It hasn't been in a manifesto. It hasn't had the the discussion or indeed the attention which a government bill would have. And indeed, it points out, and we know this to be the case, that the impact assessments which have been mentioned this morning reached the House of Commons only after the Committee stage was concluded on the first day of the report on the 16th of May, 2025. And then it had two more days of report. So just over a month from the Third Reading, which took place in the Commons on the 20th of May, and in the words of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny is therefore significantly less than we would expect to see for an equivalent government Bill.
This is especially concerning given, given the subject matter of the Bill, and I would also, in response to many people who have drawn attention to the fact that we've spent a lot of time scrutinising the one of the bold print recommendations in the Constitution Committee's report is that not only does the House of Lords play an important role in the legislative process, it is constitutionally appropriate for the House to scrutinise the Bill and, if so minded, vote to amend it or indeed reject it.
And I shan't go go into that point any more. But I think it's therefore wrong of protagonists of the Bill to denounce the process of scrutiny, such as we've been doing, and of. And to accuse people trying to amend the bill and make it better and safer, and indeed, constitutionally bring it up to the standard of a government bill which has, as has already been said, had all that time. And so we, we, I, I don't like the fact that reports have been given to the media suggesting that because in my experience in the House of Lords and I haven't been here very long, but people have been given a lot of time, including to government bills, and the governments of both complexions have been bending over backwards to be polite and take account of what what members have tried to do.
And and apart from that, I only mention one other point, which is the one on from delegated powers and delegated powers. There are many of them. We've heard today that there are 42 delegated powers in the bill, and this is a particular problem. And I'll just mention one instance of a Henry the Eighth power, which is worrying. And it's it's just a technical one. And and but I was glad that the noble Baroness Baroness Hollins, whether I supported hers for clause 27 or later on, I had my own on on clause 37.
These are to protect and regulate the supply of drugs which are designed to bring about death, and they're called approved substances. In the bill in clause 27, we're not given any detail about the substances, no list and nothing else, but just the meaning of an approved substance. Now, without any details other than the meaning of a drug or other substance specified in the regulations in clause 27 referred to again in another section 37. For more about the powers to make provision on these.
These substances as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee notes, will be inherently dangerous and indeed necessarily lethal, what happens if someone has taken the substance but changes their mind? How rapidly would it work? Is it reversible and how? What would the side effects be? Bringing up? Such points as these may seem to protagonists of the bill a matter of time wasting and obstruction, but they should remember that this bill will give Ministers and often officials really, as advisers, power to make laws, very serious laws about regulation and determining safety, which we debate every day of the week.
In every other bill that comes our way. And we take a great deal of time, whether it's the environment, whether it's anything else. And so it's very important that these matters are debated and gone into, and there are answers, and that it is on the face of the bill, as both committees want. And so with that, I do beg the noble Lord to regard the good faith with which people
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have tried to make his bill a better bill. My Lords, I know that we've had
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I know that we've had over 4.5 hours debate. I want to bring to close as soon as I can. After 3:00, I'm going to call three After 3:00, I'm going to call three more speakers from the backbenches, and then we're going to go to move to going to go here, there for the opposition opposition frontbench. opposition opposition frontbench. We're going to have three more, but very briefly, contributions. We will have the Lord Cashman. Then will have the Lord Cashman. Then we'll have the noble Baroness Falkner, and then we'll finish up with my friend Baroness Jay, the lead formerly of the House of Lords, benches.
14:44
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
Thank you, my Lords. I thank the >> Thank you, my Lords. I thank the Chief Whip for the opportunity to speak, and I will speak briefly. I speak, and I will speak briefly. I spoke at Second Reading and at Committee stage. I didn't mention them, but I will mention now that 12 years ago I watched my husband of 31 years die a slow and agonising death. When death came, it made absolute sense to him and gave him peace to me, death makes no sense, but when I face it, I want to have the death of my choosing, as indeed my friend Elise Burns does, who is facing her grade four cancer and is in your Lordships house this evening.
I also remember my dear friend June Brown, who implored me to get her to a country where she could die with dignity and the death that she wanted. So I deeply regret, my Lords, that we have not passed this necessary and I believe, important. Bill, we have not fulfilled the humane wishes of those who seek the right to choose how they die. But, my Lords, I honestly believe that we have fulfilled the wishes of those who believe that this House should be radically and drastically reformed.
I also remember my dear friend June Brown, who implored me to get her to a country where she could die with dignity and the death that she wanted. So I deeply regret, my Lords, that we have not passed this necessary and I believe, important. Bill, we have not fulfilled the humane wishes of those who seek the right to choose how they die. But, my Lords, I honestly believe that we have fulfilled the wishes of those who believe that this House should be radically and drastically reformed.
14:46
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Crossbench)
I declare an interest as past chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which ended on the 1st of December last year. I say that because it is pertinent to the remarks I'm going to make today. I gave evidence to the Select Committee in the other place as long ago as 2024, while the Equality Human Rights Commission took a neutral position on the principle of assisted dying, it found several flaws with this particular bill.
After we started proceedings on the bill on the 22nd of January this year, I, with the support of 60 or so other peers of this House, wrote to the noble Lady, Baroness Merrin, asking for a revised impact assessment and equality assessment because the original one was by now so out of date and so much new information had come to light during our deliberations. The bill itself had changed so enormously from when it was first stable, that we thought it was important that we get more up to date assessments of what the government thought the impact of the bill would be.
Lady Merrin very generously wrote back to me very quickly on the 29th of December, and she recognised that these were really important considerations. But she. But she declined a revised impact assessment, but promised that once the bill became an act, then the government would review all of the impacts of the bill. In other words, my Lords, we were being asked to legislate blind and to move amendments without knowledge of what the impacts might be. That's an essential requirement of an Act of Parliament primary legislation.
We were asked to legislate blind, and I think while I understood the government's position and its own neutrality, but that has been the effect of where we have been, and it may well be one of the reasons we've had so many amendments that some noble Lords find a time wasting. I want to turn to one important in my final observation. I'm not going to speak for long, but I want to impress upon the state the responsibility that we have when the state is asked to sanction, indeed assist in the taking of life rather than saving it.
Forgive me. I meant to say I want to impress upon this House, not impress upon the state so. And it's. This is particularly so when we've had so many other jurisdictions who appear to us today to have stretched the ethics of what that where that balance should lie, that may not have been where they started out, but that's where they find themselves decades later. And I believe that it's right that we in the UK, with our particular constitutional arrangements, do take care and apply due diligence that careful scrutiny seeks.
If we have people who find that the level of their suffering is so intolerable, I completely accept that. Perhaps we should think of a way of death for those people. I only say that to Re-emphasise what Baroness Campbell said now seems an aeon ago, but if only a few hours earlier. And she said autonomy without protection is not freedom. It is a risk. My Lords. I'll go further. It is a risk that we as legislators should not in good conscience, allow to pass to be exploited by the unscrupulous.
I believe we've discharged our duties. But that is not to say that this should be the final word on this most difficult and contested ethical issue, and I hope the proposals will take note of the good faith we've all employed and try better next time, as I believe they may well be entitled to. My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I was a member of the House when we looked at the
After we started proceedings on the bill on the 22nd of January this year, I, with the support of 60 or so other peers of this House, wrote to the noble Lady, Baroness Merrin, asking for a revised impact assessment and equality assessment because the original one was by now so out of date and so much new information had come to light during our deliberations. The bill itself had changed so enormously from when it was first stable, that we thought it was important that we get more up to date assessments of what the government thought the impact of the bill would be.
Lady Merrin very generously wrote back to me very quickly on the 29th of December, and she recognised that these were really important considerations. But she. But she declined a revised impact assessment, but promised that once the bill became an act, then the government would review all of the impacts of the bill. In other words, my Lords, we were being asked to legislate blind and to move amendments without knowledge of what the impacts might be. That's an essential requirement of an Act of Parliament primary legislation.
We were asked to legislate blind, and I think while I understood the government's position and its own neutrality, but that has been the effect of where we have been, and it may well be one of the reasons we've had so many amendments that some noble Lords find a time wasting. I want to turn to one important in my final observation. I'm not going to speak for long, but I want to impress upon the state the responsibility that we have when the state is asked to sanction, indeed assist in the taking of life rather than saving it.
Forgive me. I meant to say I want to impress upon this House, not impress upon the state so. And it's. This is particularly so when we've had so many other jurisdictions who appear to us today to have stretched the ethics of what that where that balance should lie, that may not have been where they started out, but that's where they find themselves decades later. And I believe that it's right that we in the UK, with our particular constitutional arrangements, do take care and apply due diligence that careful scrutiny seeks.
If we have people who find that the level of their suffering is so intolerable, I completely accept that. Perhaps we should think of a way of death for those people. I only say that to Re-emphasise what Baroness Campbell said now seems an aeon ago, but if only a few hours earlier. And she said autonomy without protection is not freedom. It is a risk. My Lords. I'll go further. It is a risk that we as legislators should not in good conscience, allow to pass to be exploited by the unscrupulous.
I believe we've discharged our duties. But that is not to say that this should be the final word on this most difficult and contested ethical issue, and I hope the proposals will take note of the good faith we've all employed and try better next time, as I believe they may well be entitled to. My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I was a member of the House when we looked at the
14:50
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Labour)
original bill, introduced by the noble and late Lord Lord Joffe in noble and late Lord Lord Joffe in 2005. I've also been the leader of this House, and over the decades I this House, and over the decades I have never, never. My Lords, experienced quite the extraordinary exploitation of the procedure. exploitation of the procedure. Sometimes rather, one could almost say, relaxed procedures of this House which have been used on this House which have been used on this bill. I've been through, and I thought today, for example, we were perhaps going to start again dealing with the 1999 House of Lords Reform Act.
I've been through all of the convolutions of Brexit, but never. And I repeat the word never, and I repeat the word exploitation. Have I seen the way in which the relaxed procedures of this House have been negatively exploited? And I think that is something which we do need to return to. And I echo the concluding remarks of the noble Lord Lord Cashman, but it is on the content and quality of some of the topics of the amendments. We've seen the hundreds of amendments that I have a very big concern, and that has been about the way in which, as many noble Lords have referred to in the course of this afternoon's debate.
They have ignored the concerns of the people for whom the bill is directed terminally ill adults. My noble friend Lady Bird asked for examples of the way in which our lack of compassion had been demonstrated. In the interest of time. I won't go into any in particular, but I would refer her to the February the 27th discussion in committee, when we spoke to some hours about the composition and the structures of the Commission, assessing people's ability to take assisted dying, there was enormous emphasis on the activities of the commissioners, on their convenience, etc.
and scant regard was paid to the concerns of those people for whom this service was being offered. Those who might be frail be bedbound be concerned about their personal and emotional situation. We dealt almost exclusively with bureaucracy and administration, and that has, frankly, been the tone of so much of the debate. But I want this afternoon, just to refer briefly, and I am aware of the Chief Whip sitting there with his stopwatch. I want to refer briefly to the other major omission, I think, which has been there's been a very concerning in our discussions, and that is about the lack of any sort of detailed discussion about the international evidence, the international experience of assisted dying.
And I remind the House that there are now over 30 jurisdictions in the world that have satisfactorily introduced ways to give their citizens the choice of an assisted death. These places include our close neighbours in Western Europe, major Commonwealth countries, excuse me, and American states, plus the state of including the capital city of Washington and the District of Columbia. Now, some of those jurisdictions have voted very recently to establish new systems. Excuse me. I'm just going to cough briefly.
But in the western state of Oregon, which the select Committee on which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman and I sat some years ago, we visited. We visited Oregon to establish the realities of the situation. Assisted dying has been in place for nearly 30 years. I have no doubt that there have been some difficulties. Thank you and some mistakes. As these different places have developed their own plans. There always are. When major changes in social policy are introduced on anything but. My Lords, no assisted dying laws have been repealed.
None of them have been challenged at that level. There's been no collapse in palliative care. Indeed, with proper choice at the end of life, palliative care has often been improved and that is certainly the case in the state of Oregon. I think to disregard or distort international experience, as the debates in this House have done recently, to suggest, as has been suggested, that only the Westminster Parliament can produce a legally proper system is, in my view, dangerously form of arrogance.
In conclusion, my Lords, this is the fourth assisted dying bill that I've taken part in, and there have always been profound differences of principle, but of none of the others was that the atmosphere of unpleasant tension and antagonism at a personal level which has really characterised recent sessions. Indeed, ten years ago, when my noble friend Lord Faulkner introduced his similar earlier bill, the Times newspaper reported our proceedings extolling the serious, calm authority of the debate congratulating the House of Lords on its deliberations.
A demonstration of Parliament at its best. I very much regret that we have today to take note that the current proceedings have greatly damaged the reputation of the House, and I can only hope, like other noble Lords, that when a future assisted dying Bill returns and it most certainly will, the issue of choice for the terminally ill will be both constitutionally and compassionately considered by this unelected second chamber.
I've been through all of the convolutions of Brexit, but never. And I repeat the word never, and I repeat the word exploitation. Have I seen the way in which the relaxed procedures of this House have been negatively exploited? And I think that is something which we do need to return to. And I echo the concluding remarks of the noble Lord Lord Cashman, but it is on the content and quality of some of the topics of the amendments. We've seen the hundreds of amendments that I have a very big concern, and that has been about the way in which, as many noble Lords have referred to in the course of this afternoon's debate.
They have ignored the concerns of the people for whom the bill is directed terminally ill adults. My noble friend Lady Bird asked for examples of the way in which our lack of compassion had been demonstrated. In the interest of time. I won't go into any in particular, but I would refer her to the February the 27th discussion in committee, when we spoke to some hours about the composition and the structures of the Commission, assessing people's ability to take assisted dying, there was enormous emphasis on the activities of the commissioners, on their convenience, etc.
and scant regard was paid to the concerns of those people for whom this service was being offered. Those who might be frail be bedbound be concerned about their personal and emotional situation. We dealt almost exclusively with bureaucracy and administration, and that has, frankly, been the tone of so much of the debate. But I want this afternoon, just to refer briefly, and I am aware of the Chief Whip sitting there with his stopwatch. I want to refer briefly to the other major omission, I think, which has been there's been a very concerning in our discussions, and that is about the lack of any sort of detailed discussion about the international evidence, the international experience of assisted dying.
And I remind the House that there are now over 30 jurisdictions in the world that have satisfactorily introduced ways to give their citizens the choice of an assisted death. These places include our close neighbours in Western Europe, major Commonwealth countries, excuse me, and American states, plus the state of including the capital city of Washington and the District of Columbia. Now, some of those jurisdictions have voted very recently to establish new systems. Excuse me. I'm just going to cough briefly.
But in the western state of Oregon, which the select Committee on which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman and I sat some years ago, we visited. We visited Oregon to establish the realities of the situation. Assisted dying has been in place for nearly 30 years. I have no doubt that there have been some difficulties. Thank you and some mistakes. As these different places have developed their own plans. There always are. When major changes in social policy are introduced on anything but. My Lords, no assisted dying laws have been repealed.
None of them have been challenged at that level. There's been no collapse in palliative care. Indeed, with proper choice at the end of life, palliative care has often been improved and that is certainly the case in the state of Oregon. I think to disregard or distort international experience, as the debates in this House have done recently, to suggest, as has been suggested, that only the Westminster Parliament can produce a legally proper system is, in my view, dangerously form of arrogance.
In conclusion, my Lords, this is the fourth assisted dying bill that I've taken part in, and there have always been profound differences of principle, but of none of the others was that the atmosphere of unpleasant tension and antagonism at a personal level which has really characterised recent sessions. Indeed, ten years ago, when my noble friend Lord Faulkner introduced his similar earlier bill, the Times newspaper reported our proceedings extolling the serious, calm authority of the debate congratulating the House of Lords on its deliberations.
A demonstration of Parliament at its best. I very much regret that we have today to take note that the current proceedings have greatly damaged the reputation of the House, and I can only hope, like other noble Lords, that when a future assisted dying Bill returns and it most certainly will, the issue of choice for the terminally ill will be both constitutionally and compassionately considered by this unelected second chamber.
14:56
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
The Front Bench. >> My Lords, this has, I think I can say, without qualification, proven to be one of the one of the most contentious bills which has most contentious bills which has come before your Lordships House in this session. Perhaps, indeed, in any session. One of the reasons why it's been so contentious is that it is so important. No one can deny that this bill, if passed, would result in a profound change in the relationship between the individual and the state.
And it is therefore obviously a very important bill. The fact that it is such an important bill has meant that noble Lords across the House, whether for or against the principle of assisted dying, have taken the scrutiny of this Bill very seriously, as they rightly should. And I would suggest that there is both a general and a specific reason for that. The general reason is obvious. It's part of our unique constitutional role to scrutinise legislation in detail. That is why we are here.
It's why our procedures are both substantively and essentially different from those of the House of Commons. I'm not going to get into whether they're better or worse, but they're certainly different. The specific reason is that many MPs voted for this bill, not only in the knowledge, but also on the express basis, that it would be properly scrutinised here. Indeed, it was noted by several noble Lords speaking in our Second Reading debate, including in my own speech, that some members of the House of Commons voted in favour of the legislation because they supported the underlying principle of the Bill, trusting that this House would undertake the heavy task of detailed scrutiny in due course.
And let me make this point. Detailed scrutiny is separate from the question of the principle underlying the bill. You can be for or against the principle of assisted dying, and you can be for or against this bill. But they're not the same thing. Now, I know that there are some noble Lords who are and will always be against assisted dying on principle. Some of them have made that clear in their speeches. They would therefore be against any legislation which legalised assisted dying.
But there will be others, and perhaps many, who are not against the principle of the Bill, but are nonetheless anxious to ensure that we pass a bill which is safe, contains proper protections and, importantly, is actually workable in practice now, whether one is for or against this bill. I do consider that it is regrettable that your Lordships House has not been able to reach a conclusion on it, one way or the other. I feel uncomfortable that this bill has run into the sand, rather than being either sent back to the House of Commons in an amended form, or to have been voted down, I would have preferred either of those options to where we have actually ended up, that the bill will simply be lost when the session ends.
Now, the primary reason many will say for the large number of amendments is the large number of questions which this bill, as drafted, left open. A number of the amendments did raise really complex issues. Those of us who have been at the all the committee days will will know that. And it's understandable that there were a large number of amendments, some designed to affect change. Some were probing amendments designed to introduce greater clarity. But regardless of how many amendments there have been, whether or not to legalise assisted dying is clearly a question which the public would like Parliament to answer.
We are told that the public is in favour of assisted dying, although I would note that the public is always polled on the principle and not on a detailed provisions of an actual bill, but I think it's obvious to all of us that the public do think that Parliament ought to be able to come to an actual decision on this point, one way or the other, but that is a complex and weighty question, which I would suggest requires careful consideration and consultation.
And ultimately, I would suggest only the government is in a position to organise this. Only the government is in a position to determine what would be a workable system for delivering assisted dying. One of the persistent problems in committee has been that we've often been in the dark as to whether what we've been debating is actually workable. In practice, only the government could tell us and the relevant Minister on duty was invariably unable to say. And let me be clear, I am not blaming any of the Ministers on duty.
They've all done their best. But I do blame the process. We have been using a process which I would suggest is unsuitable for the task at hand. I listened carefully, as I always do, to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton said about why this has to be a private member's bill, but a government choosing to take this issue forward would not require that government to take a formal position for or against the principle, but rather to take a position to have a commitment to work with parliamentarians on both sides of the argument to produce a bill which, in due course could be sent to a joint committee for pre-legislative scrutiny, as suggested.
If I may endorse respectfully by the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss and then introduced to Parliament and subject to a free vote on the Bill itself. Now, I'm not going to detain the House further. I wanted to give a 5 to 6 minute speech, but I do hope that both the noble Lady, the Minister and the noble Lord, the sponsor, will take what I've said from this frontbench in the constructive way it's meant, and they and others will consider carefully how this Bill has progressed and not progressed before taking any further steps in the coming session.
And it is therefore obviously a very important bill. The fact that it is such an important bill has meant that noble Lords across the House, whether for or against the principle of assisted dying, have taken the scrutiny of this Bill very seriously, as they rightly should. And I would suggest that there is both a general and a specific reason for that. The general reason is obvious. It's part of our unique constitutional role to scrutinise legislation in detail. That is why we are here.
It's why our procedures are both substantively and essentially different from those of the House of Commons. I'm not going to get into whether they're better or worse, but they're certainly different. The specific reason is that many MPs voted for this bill, not only in the knowledge, but also on the express basis, that it would be properly scrutinised here. Indeed, it was noted by several noble Lords speaking in our Second Reading debate, including in my own speech, that some members of the House of Commons voted in favour of the legislation because they supported the underlying principle of the Bill, trusting that this House would undertake the heavy task of detailed scrutiny in due course.
And let me make this point. Detailed scrutiny is separate from the question of the principle underlying the bill. You can be for or against the principle of assisted dying, and you can be for or against this bill. But they're not the same thing. Now, I know that there are some noble Lords who are and will always be against assisted dying on principle. Some of them have made that clear in their speeches. They would therefore be against any legislation which legalised assisted dying.
But there will be others, and perhaps many, who are not against the principle of the Bill, but are nonetheless anxious to ensure that we pass a bill which is safe, contains proper protections and, importantly, is actually workable in practice now, whether one is for or against this bill. I do consider that it is regrettable that your Lordships House has not been able to reach a conclusion on it, one way or the other. I feel uncomfortable that this bill has run into the sand, rather than being either sent back to the House of Commons in an amended form, or to have been voted down, I would have preferred either of those options to where we have actually ended up, that the bill will simply be lost when the session ends.
Now, the primary reason many will say for the large number of amendments is the large number of questions which this bill, as drafted, left open. A number of the amendments did raise really complex issues. Those of us who have been at the all the committee days will will know that. And it's understandable that there were a large number of amendments, some designed to affect change. Some were probing amendments designed to introduce greater clarity. But regardless of how many amendments there have been, whether or not to legalise assisted dying is clearly a question which the public would like Parliament to answer.
We are told that the public is in favour of assisted dying, although I would note that the public is always polled on the principle and not on a detailed provisions of an actual bill, but I think it's obvious to all of us that the public do think that Parliament ought to be able to come to an actual decision on this point, one way or the other, but that is a complex and weighty question, which I would suggest requires careful consideration and consultation.
And ultimately, I would suggest only the government is in a position to organise this. Only the government is in a position to determine what would be a workable system for delivering assisted dying. One of the persistent problems in committee has been that we've often been in the dark as to whether what we've been debating is actually workable. In practice, only the government could tell us and the relevant Minister on duty was invariably unable to say. And let me be clear, I am not blaming any of the Ministers on duty.
They've all done their best. But I do blame the process. We have been using a process which I would suggest is unsuitable for the task at hand. I listened carefully, as I always do, to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton said about why this has to be a private member's bill, but a government choosing to take this issue forward would not require that government to take a formal position for or against the principle, but rather to take a position to have a commitment to work with parliamentarians on both sides of the argument to produce a bill which, in due course could be sent to a joint committee for pre-legislative scrutiny, as suggested.
If I may endorse respectfully by the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss and then introduced to Parliament and subject to a free vote on the Bill itself. Now, I'm not going to detain the House further. I wanted to give a 5 to 6 minute speech, but I do hope that both the noble Lady, the Minister and the noble Lord, the sponsor, will take what I've said from this frontbench in the constructive way it's meant, and they and others will consider carefully how this Bill has progressed and not progressed before taking any further steps in the coming session.
15:02
Baroness Merron (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Merron (Labour)
My Lords. >> As noble Lords are very aware that the government does remain neutral on this Bill and on the principle of assisted dying. This principle of assisted dying. This is a private member's Bill and it is not government legislation on issues of societal change. As we've discussed, private members bills have long been a vehicle to handle matters of sensitivity and important matters of conscience, as is in this case. As I made clear during my remarks during Second Reading and throughout Committee stage proceedings, my role alongside that of my noble friend Baroness Levitt, has been to help ensure that if passed, the bill would be technically and legally workable.
So, my Lords, 16 sitting Fridays were allocated for debate on this bill and as my noble friend the Chief Whip has said consistently, it is for the sponsor of the Bill and your Lordships House to determine how to use that time. My Lords, we know that assisted dying is an emotive topic and we do recognise that there are deeply held views on all sides of the debate. We have spent many hours debating this important matter and whilst noble Lords across the House have often differed on matters of principle and policy, there is, I believe, a desire in your Lordships House to do the best for people at the end of their lives, at their most vulnerable.
So, my Lords, 16 sitting Fridays were allocated for debate on this bill and as my noble friend the Chief Whip has said consistently, it is for the sponsor of the Bill and your Lordships House to determine how to use that time. My Lords, we know that assisted dying is an emotive topic and we do recognise that there are deeply held views on all sides of the debate. We have spent many hours debating this important matter and whilst noble Lords across the House have often differed on matters of principle and policy, there is, I believe, a desire in your Lordships House to do the best for people at the end of their lives, at their most vulnerable.
15:04
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
My Lords. >> This has been a really helpful. >> Debate. >> As perhaps. >> I'm quite sad we didn't get to any committee at all, but never any committee at all, but never mind. And I'm conscious that in a session where actually eight private members bills have become Acts of Parliament, I do want to place on record my thanks to the Ministers, but also particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, who stepped in a lot of the time for the Ministers, and I'm grateful to her for that.
According to the information provided by the House of Lords to me they could only give me information. Chose to till the end of February, 651 peers have turned up on one of the Fridays at which this bill has been considered. 87 of us have turned up for every single Friday, and 16 of those have spoken. Today, 516 people attended at least one day of Second Reading and 327 at both. There certainly has been interest in this bill, but also, I'm sure, and I appreciate frustrations on both sides, that perhaps we could not have made more progress in that time, particularly the 13 days of committee recognising we didn't actually go into committee today.
One of the things that I think is important to consider are how we address more quickly, and I don't just mean brevity of speech. I'm actually back on day one of committee, the noble and learned Lord Falconer of Thoroton thanked me for my brevity in my speech when we did that first. But it's to see how we can, perhaps more quickly, particularly on private member's bills, address things like the D. P c report. And I'm conscious that the noble Lord Pannick referred to several things in there.
And of course, I do know that the noble and learned Lord Fox has acted on some of those, perhaps not to the satisfaction of the committee, but they're certainly still, in their second report remain three clauses which the Committee felt should be removed from the Bill. And in fact, it was the noble Baroness Finlay, the noble Lords, Goodman and Rooker and myself, who'd done quite a lot of work on trying to address the issues of the D. P c report in their recommendations, including coming up with a potential for others.
In that regard, my Lords has only been at one point today that I thought Standing Order 31 might need to be invoked, and I think we should reflect that. We have been able to do this even at times. It's got a bit tense, but I want to assure the House that I can honestly say I've been working on spreadsheets, trying to get more groups together and try and get get through. And actually, I've been surprised that sometimes we haven't got through that many groups on a Friday when I've been encouraging people to make progress, because I think it's important that we do.
But I've no doubt that, as I say, a lot of this has been done with great sincerity. But with that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it Your. amendment.
According to the information provided by the House of Lords to me they could only give me information. Chose to till the end of February, 651 peers have turned up on one of the Fridays at which this bill has been considered. 87 of us have turned up for every single Friday, and 16 of those have spoken. Today, 516 people attended at least one day of Second Reading and 327 at both. There certainly has been interest in this bill, but also, I'm sure, and I appreciate frustrations on both sides, that perhaps we could not have made more progress in that time, particularly the 13 days of committee recognising we didn't actually go into committee today.
One of the things that I think is important to consider are how we address more quickly, and I don't just mean brevity of speech. I'm actually back on day one of committee, the noble and learned Lord Falconer of Thoroton thanked me for my brevity in my speech when we did that first. But it's to see how we can, perhaps more quickly, particularly on private member's bills, address things like the D. P c report. And I'm conscious that the noble Lord Pannick referred to several things in there.
And of course, I do know that the noble and learned Lord Fox has acted on some of those, perhaps not to the satisfaction of the committee, but they're certainly still, in their second report remain three clauses which the Committee felt should be removed from the Bill. And in fact, it was the noble Baroness Finlay, the noble Lords, Goodman and Rooker and myself, who'd done quite a lot of work on trying to address the issues of the D. P c report in their recommendations, including coming up with a potential for others.
In that regard, my Lords has only been at one point today that I thought Standing Order 31 might need to be invoked, and I think we should reflect that. We have been able to do this even at times. It's got a bit tense, but I want to assure the House that I can honestly say I've been working on spreadsheets, trying to get more groups together and try and get get through. And actually, I've been surprised that sometimes we haven't got through that many groups on a Friday when I've been encouraging people to make progress, because I think it's important that we do.
But I've no doubt that, as I say, a lot of this has been done with great sincerity. But with that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it Your. amendment.
15:07
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Labour)
Be withdrawn? >> Amendment is by leave withdrawn. >> My Lord. Special thanks today to those who shared personal experiences with us, in particular experiences with us, in particular the Lord Markham, the right Reverend Bishop of Newcastle, the Baroness Hollins, the Baroness Prentis, the Baroness, the Baroness Grey-Thompson, Lord Dobbs Lord Dobbs, and the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Cashman. Could I single out the Baroness Prentis speech, which was, for everybody, an incredibly impressive and moving speech? And can I also can I also say how welcome she is back here
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and she has the warmest possible embrace from the House. Amen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. Could I also mention a little Lords point? There was a moment where we heard from the Baroness Rafferty, who had been the Rafferty, who had been the president of the Royal College of Nursing. We then heard from the right Reverend prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had Archbishop of Canterbury, who had been the chief nurse of England and Wales, and sitting on the Woolsack. Well, that was going on with Well, that was going on with Baroness Watkins, who was a distinguished professor of nursing herself.
So it's an indication of the depth of knowledge that we have in this House. Can I not say the normal thing which what a great debate it's been, honestly, it's been horrible, this debate. And the reason it's been horrible is that unlike almost every other debate I've ever participated in, there's been quite an edge, particularly from the opponents of the bill. I'm not going to say that it should be us who end. It should be. It should be the people from outside the house, and their views should be taken into account.
I quote the words of the much missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, when ever we behaved badly, always said, remember, there are people out there who are watching. Can I take three voices? First of all, Elsie Burns, who is in who is in the gallery today? She has terminal cancer. I would love piers to look me in the eye and tell me why me and my friends and anyone with terminal illness don't deserve to die with dignity and have the choice to die as they choose without pain.
Nat die who? All of us. I think maybe both. This. Both sides of the house met regularly during the course of the bill. Who died a few weeks ago, that died. Sister Becky said. I feel betrayed by the system, really, that people are kind of able to serve their own agendas rather than being representative of the people in the general population. Finally, Dan Tuttle's sister, Kate Dan Tuttle, got a very aggressive form of cancer. And at the very end of his life went in conditions of quite considerable distress to Dignitas in Switzerland.
And his sister Kate says this bill, running out of time is a complete travesty for the people of the UK. It will mean that the views of the people of England are not being properly represented by the people trusted to do so. It means the British
**** Possible New Speaker ****
people have been let down. My Lords, I beg leave to to withdraw my amendment. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Is it your Lordships. Pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdrawn. Thank you. Control your emotion. With the leave of the House, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the leave of the House, I withdraw my motion to commit the to to move the House into committee. Is it your pleasure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your pleasure. That this amendment, the motion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be withdrawn? Yes, it is. Lord Pack to move the House to now adjourn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and she has the warmest possible embrace from the House. Amen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. Could I also mention a little Lords point? There was a moment where we heard from the Baroness Rafferty, who had been the Rafferty, who had been the president of the Royal College of Nursing. We then heard from the right Reverend prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had Archbishop of Canterbury, who had been the chief nurse of England and Wales, and sitting on the Woolsack. Well, that was going on with Well, that was going on with Baroness Watkins, who was a distinguished professor of nursing herself.
So it's an indication of the depth of knowledge that we have in this House. Can I not say the normal thing which what a great debate it's been, honestly, it's been horrible, this debate. And the reason it's been horrible is that unlike almost every other debate I've ever participated in, there's been quite an edge, particularly from the opponents of the bill. I'm not going to say that it should be us who end. It should be. It should be the people from outside the house, and their views should be taken into account.
I quote the words of the much missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, when ever we behaved badly, always said, remember, there are people out there who are watching. Can I take three voices? First of all, Elsie Burns, who is in who is in the gallery today? She has terminal cancer. I would love piers to look me in the eye and tell me why me and my friends and anyone with terminal illness don't deserve to die with dignity and have the choice to die as they choose without pain.
Nat die who? All of us. I think maybe both. This. Both sides of the house met regularly during the course of the bill. Who died a few weeks ago, that died. Sister Becky said. I feel betrayed by the system, really, that people are kind of able to serve their own agendas rather than being representative of the people in the general population. Finally, Dan Tuttle's sister, Kate Dan Tuttle, got a very aggressive form of cancer. And at the very end of his life went in conditions of quite considerable distress to Dignitas in Switzerland.
And his sister Kate says this bill, running out of time is a complete travesty for the people of the UK. It will mean that the views of the people of England are not being properly represented by the people trusted to do so. It means the British
**** Possible New Speaker ****
people have been let down. My Lords, I beg leave to to withdraw my amendment. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Is it your Lordships. Pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdrawn. Thank you. Control your emotion. With the leave of the House, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the leave of the House, I withdraw my motion to commit the to to move the House into committee. Is it your pleasure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your pleasure. That this amendment, the motion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be withdrawn? Yes, it is. Lord Pack to move the House to now adjourn.