Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Jay of Paddington Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for namechecking me earlier, particularly in the same sentence as my noble friend Lord Pannick. I have the unenviable task tomorrow morning of moving the first amendment and the first group at 10 o’clock and, before I come here, I shall certainly have to reflect on the length of the speech that I intend to make. In fact, I have already prepared a speech that will probably not last more than 12 to 15 minutes, which seems to me be entirely proportionate to the huge group that we will be considering tomorrow.

I came here thinking that I would oppose the noble and learned Lord’s Motion, if it was put to the test. However, in fact I have been particularly influenced by the speech of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, who brings great wisdom to this House and, above all, an example of common sense which is heard often among the senior judiciary, in my view—I had to say that, did I not?

I have one stricture, if it is right to describe it as that, to put to the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom I have discussed issues relating to the length of the debates on this Bill. I still believe that we can complete all stages of this Bill in the time that has already been allotted. I believe that if Members of this House were sparing in not making further Second Reading-type speeches, we would achieve that task. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord that we do need a little bit more discussion from his side. I have encouraged him, and there have been meetings to this effect, to look at the main issues on this Bill—I know there are a thousand amendments, but there are about 10 main issues at most—and come and tell us where he is prepared to make concessions, and how we can constructively discuss such concessions. On a Bill like this, if we do not go through that process, actually, the Committee stage becomes futile.

I hope that as a result of this debate—and I will not now vote against this Motion if the opinion of the House is sought—we shall see a more co-operative and speedy approach to the Bill’s Committee stage so that we really can achieve reaching a Third Reading debate.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

My Lords, I was one of the signatories to the email that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to. I was very happy to do that, because although I of course support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his Motion, I additionally think that it is worth reflecting tonight on another aspect of the House of Lords’ reputation in this matter.

I have been involved with this issue in this House for several decades, and the House of Lords has, until now, shown extraordinary parliamentary leadership on this question. We have considered three other Bills apart from this one and we have had two other Select Committees. Personally, I was influenced in understanding the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by going to Oregon with her 20 years ago to look at the state of its situation. We did not agree—we came away with very different perspectives of what we saw—but we were both very much influenced by that. The House of Lords has shown authority, enormous value in its scrutiny and great honesty in its debates. I am very sad that in the last few weeks, which I fear has been partly because of some of the issues that have been mentioned tonight, the House of Lords, instead of being congratulated on its position on assisted dying, which has been the previous situation, has been heavily criticised for the nature of the—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I suggest that noble Lords do not interrupt other noble Lords when they are speaking.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

I do not back away from the phrase “heavily criticised”. I cannot believe that anybody in this House who has at least absorbed some of the media coverage of these debates has not accepted that there has been no general agreement about the positions that have been taken, and more importantly, about the way in which some of those positions have been argued. There are, of course, enormous divisions of opinion, as there have always been, but in this House, they have been—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness absolutely confident that her remarks are pertinent to the Motion and the question of how much time should be allocated to the debate?

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

I hesitate to argue with the noble Lord, but I am trying to make the points about the value of the reputation of this House, specifically in relation to this particular subject—on which over many years we have built up an authority, which I am very sad to see dissipated if there are more time-wasting activities, which other noble Lords have referred to.

I hope that this Motion will be accepted, that we will go through with our very important work, that we will send the Bill back to the Commons in time for it to be appropriately considered there and—it is very important to say—that we regain our reputation for honest, lengthy, astute scrutiny and great authority on this subject.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

I support the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because I remember debates in this House on assisted dying over 20 or 25 years ago—the noble Baroness spoke in them, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We have always taken a great interest in it.

It is very clear that in this House there is a small group who are passionately for assisted dying and a small group who are positively against it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is very difficult to bring them together. The speech that he made today was very similar to the speech that he made about three weeks ago, asking for common sense to prevail and that we should discuss what the amendments should be. I applaud that approach, but it appears that the people moving the amendments do not want that to happen. They do not want the Bill to pass at all. That was very clear in the early debates I remember of 25 years ago. They are just not going to accept amendments; they want the Bill to be blocked.

As we are the second most important debating Chamber in the country, I find it extraordinary that, after the length of time we have taken debating it and listening, we cannot come to a conclusion.

I do not believe that the Front Benches are listening to the country at all about this. The country on the whole does not follow most of our debates on minor legislation, but people do know that we are being subjected to a filibuster in this House by a relatively small number of Members. It goes back to those early debates. The main argument against assisted dying, way back 25 years ago, was the sanctity of life. That has virtually disappeared, apart from the fact that two bishops mentioned it at Second Reading.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Jay of Paddington Excerpts

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)]

Let me help the House because I know there has been some confusion. The Leader of the Opposition and I have had an exchange about this. I understand the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is asking, but she is quite wrong in her summary of the position. My noble friend Lady Warsi is a government Minister; therefore she sits on the Front Bench, and by convention those who sit on the Front Bench speak at the Dispatch Box. That is the position. While there is no collectively agreed position on the overall policy in the Bill, there is a government position on much to do with the Bill. For instance, on questions about our relationship with the EU, Gibraltar and referendums, there is a government position. From that point of view, having a government Minister available to answer questions to do with government policy, advised as appropriate, is absolutely the right thing to do. It is also perfectly in order for my noble friend, or any other Minister from across the coalition, to offer an opinion—as a Conservative, in the case of my noble friend—as an individual. My noble friend is completely entitled to do that. Any Minister in our proceedings can do that so long as they make it clear when doing so that that is what they are doing. When my noble friend Lady Warsi speaks on behalf of the Conservative Party alone, which is a distinction that my noble friend Lady Falkner drew earlier, she will do that and be absolutely clear about it. That is the position.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene because, unfortunately, for various reasons, I could not be here last week. I have, however, read the debate. I have the privilege of chairing the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, and when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, say earlier that he was surprised by the number of constitutional matters that seem to arise—because the House seems to be taking up so many different things on a rather ad hoc basis—I had to agree. Surely the position that my noble friend Lady Symons has just raised about collective responsibility, which is what this is about, is central to the way that we conduct business in this House. If, as the noble Lord says, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who is representing her party in this matter, should not sit on the Front Bench because she is not a government Minister, surely the appropriate constitutional arrangement in terms of collective responsibility would be to have a Minister from the Liberal Democrats share the responsibility with the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The noble Baroness sums up the position quite well in the sense that if there were a Liberal Democrat Minister who wanted to speak from the Front Bench, that would be perfectly proper.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

I am sorry to intervene again, but has an approach been made by the Foreign Office, or indeed by the Leader of the House, to inquire whether anybody would wish to do that?

[Baroness Warsi]

I can inform the House that officials provide the same level of support and the same information to Ministers from both coalition parties.

Financial Provision for Members

Baroness Jay of Paddington Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made a straightforward case for the attractions of this in that it removes ambiguities with which many Peers have felt uncomfortable. Although they believe that they were on the right side of the line, they felt that they still had to explain themselves and to justify the position that they had taken. At a stroke, those ambiguities are removed. It is my assessment, with a little help from the House authorities, that this is cost-neutral. Potentially, there will be an added advantage of a reduction in the cost of the bureaucracy should we have had a more complex system of expenses.

Travel expenses will continue to be paid as before, although my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his committee make one or two suggestions on the SSRB’s report. There is already a different column for the declaration of travel expenses. I agree with the noble Lord that it is sometimes unfair that, because a Peer’s travel expenses are very high because they come from the far-flung parts of the United Kingdom, that puts them at the top of the list of those who have claimed expenses. Every year, we urge the media when they report on these things to take the travel expenses firmly into account. As the noble Lord has seen, they do not always listen to what I regard as wise advice.

Staff will be paid for by Members out of whatever resources they have, including the new £300 allowance. It will be up to Members to decide how best to do that over the year. There will be no extra or additional secretarial allowance paid during sitting days or recesses.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about good employment practice with members of personal staff, particularly secretaries, who cannot be laid off in terms of good employment practice for three months in the summer and then reappointed. There may be something to be looked at further than that. On a broader point, has the noble Lord considered that, in pursuing the question of House of Lords reform and the endless question of how to deal with those Members of the House who are already here, if we abandon, as he is proposing, an expenses regime, one of the issues in principle about getting people to retire or asking them to leave will be overcome because there will be no reason why, in principle, some sort of pension should not be paid to them?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is typical of the noble Baroness to raise such a deeply controversial subject in the manner that she has. Tomorrow, we will spend many hours discussing all these issues. No doubt, the question of transition will come up. The noble Baroness, with all her experience, has spotted that in terms of transition there is a real difficulty about how we move from one House to the other. I can assure her that these issues are uppermost in our minds.