Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 844, 903 and 905 in this group, but I first turn the Committee’s attention to the LCM debate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, just did, that took place in the Senedd on 24 February. At the beginning of the debate, Jeremy Miles, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, set out to the Senedd:

“I … wish to be clear about what may happen if the Senedd were to withhold consent today. The sponsors of the Bill have confirmed that, in those circumstances, they would seek to remove clause 42 from the Bill. That would mean the law in England and Wales would change to permit assisted dying, but there would be no powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to implement assisted dying services in Wales or to oversee or regulate such services”.

That clarification is important for the Committee. Throughout the debate, many MSs stated dissatisfaction with how the Senedd was being treated. I apologise, but I will quote several MSs today because I think it is important that they are heard here. One said:

“We are being asked to vote in the dark”,


and another

“we’re … being asked to sign a blank cheque”.

Another said

“we are … legislating with a blindfold over our eyes … This is no way to treat a Parliament. This is no way to treat a nation”.

The Senedd was put in an impossible situation by this Parliament. A vote against this LCM would result in assisted dying services being available only privately, and a vote in favour at least retains some power for the Senedd to shape such services through the NHS in Wales. That was what the vote was about specifically. I thought this was concisely put—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

The reason that the Senedd was voting in the dark was that this Bill had not reached its conclusion in the House of Lords. If it had done so, the Senedd would have been legislating in the daylight.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. However, that is not the case in terms of the practical reason why the Senedd Members raised those points; it is also in relation to the fact that they passed an amendment to this LCM, which I was lately going to touch on, which states that the Senedd “regrets” that this Parliament has not properly considered the

“constitutional implications of this Bill for Wales”.

It is important to note that, yes, they passed the LCM, but they amended it with a point about this Parliament not having done its duty and gone through the implications for Wales in detail. A lot of those in Wales who support the Bill just do not feel that they have had an opportunity to shape this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, and I hope that that clarifies my point a little further.

The point was concisely put by Adam Price during that debate:

“Supporters of assisted dying do not argue for access determined by wealth. Opponents do not argue for a system outside NHS governance in a matter as grave as this … No country’s Parliament should have to stand aside while another decides the terms on which its own citizens live and die”.


He went on to say that he sincerely hoped that the vote was the last time that the Senedd—and other devolved Parliaments—was put in that situation.

The Senedd passed the LCM with an amendment stating, as I just mentioned, that the Senedd:

“Regrets the lack of thorough consideration of the constitutional implications of this Bill for Wales during the legislative process”.


As I just said, the passing of that amendment also showcases that we have failed in our own duty here in relation to those implications.

Amendments 903 and 905 in my name aim to restore an amendment that was agreed in Committee in the other place. The amendment was later taken out on Report without resolving the purpose behind it having been put forward and agreed in Committee. Simply, my amendments would give the Senedd a vote on the final Bill passed here before regulations could be created by Welsh Ministers for the delivery of an assisted dying service in Wales. The reason for this amendment is simple: as I highlighted at Second Reading, although the criminal law is a reserved matter, the legality of assisted dying in this case, and the delivery of such a service, is a devolved matter. Not allowing the Senedd to have a vote nor the opportunity to fully scrutinise and amend this Bill infringes on devolution and disrespects the roles and duties of Members of the Senedd.

Health and social care makes up over half of all spending from the Welsh Government’s budget. Do noble Lords not agree that it is therefore essential that Members of the Senedd are able to scrutinise all health spending? Not allowing Members of the Senedd to shape this Bill limits their ability to do that. The Covid pandemic is the most recent prominent example of how Wales does things differently when it comes to health. This Parliament needs to wake up to this reality and let devolved Parliaments do their job. This matter is an anomaly from a devolution perspective. As in Scotland, this is a fully devolved area. The Scottish Parliament recently had the opportunity to debate and shape its own Bill that could be suitable for Scotland. If the Scottish Parliament has the right, why can this not be the case for Wales?

I turn to Amendment 844, which would create a new clause to address this exact issue. The amendment would deliver parity between Scotland and Wales on this matter by amending the Government of Wales Act to remove offences related to suicide from reserved matters. This would allow the Senedd, if it chose to do so, to introduce its own Bill on assisted dying. It would allow the Senedd’s health committee to take its own evidence, including from NHS Wales and the Welsh Government’s Health Secretary. Your Lordships will be aware of the list of witnesses who were called to recent Select Committees ahead of this Bill. The chief executive of NHS England was called to give evidence, but there were no representations from Wales. I respect the work that members on that committee carried out; however, would they agree that the Senedd should also be able to take evidence from within Wales and be able to make decisions on the establishment of a new service in Wales for the people of Wales, based on Wales-specific information? Amendment 844 would be the best course of action in order to recognise that this Bill has not been designed with Wales or for Wales and to align Wales with Scotland in making a decision on this matter.

I turn finally to the amendments in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. In the hypothetical scenario that we passed her amendments alone, we would be leaving Wales in a grey area. Wales would be taken out of this Bill, but with no way for the Senedd to legislate on this matter. In this Committee, we must consider the full consequences and where those decisions will then lie. My Amendment 844 would avoid that scenario and ensure that the Senedd had a way of legislating on this matter if it chose to do so.

To conclude, and as I already highlighted at Second Reading, I support people’s right to choose how they die. However, in the case of services being made available in Wales, they must be shaped and designed by the people of Wales. That must be an ability for the Senedd and not for us here in Westminster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

What I am saying is very simple: the proposers of this Bill have not properly taken into account the particularities that the Welsh have put forward so nobly and well by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I never hear from the proposers of this Bill any comprehension or understanding that some other people might have contributions to make. That is why we have had no meaningful changes to this Bill. It is a Bill which is opposed either in principle or in practice by everybody who is supposed to carry it through, and it has now caused real trouble in Wales. I am merely asking the proposers of the Bill to give this House some belief that they really are listening and are not treating our conversations as nitpicking.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to point out that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has in fact tabled amendments and they have not yet been debated because we have not reached them in the Marshalled List. With regard to the very interesting and important discussion about Wales, many of the facts which were quite properly given by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, are related to the devolution settlement itself. That is, quite frankly, a much wider issue than that which we are debating today.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, as a former member of another place who represented 2,900 square miles of Wales, I have the feeling that we are getting into a horrible conceptual muddle in this debate. I feel the phrase “horses and carts” applies to several sentences around what is being debated here. I was one of the advocates of devolution when I was a Welsh Member of the other place and supported it very strongly when it came about, and I absolutely recognise the points that have been made so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. However, after hearing earlier parts of this debate, what I am hearing is that actually the money side of this is not the horse; it is part of the cart.

We have heard Ministers, including my noble kinswoman by the way, repeatedly saying in response to amendments in this debate that this House and this Parliament decide whether we pass this Bill. If the Bill is passed, the Government will have to provide the resources to enable it to work. I apprehend that, if this Bill is passed, if it is given enough time to reach the end of its parliamentary stages, which I think it should be allowed—though I do not support the Bill in principle, by the way—then the money would have to come from somewhere and the adjustment would be made to enable Wales to provide the services required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

We are not going to change the devolution settlement in this Bill—of course we are not. That is not the issue and that is not what is before us. Instead, this comes back to the Government. I entirely agree with the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but we are supposed to rely on the Government saying that, after we pass this, they will deal with the money. That is the problem. I do not believe them. They have to tell us what the money will be and where it will come from. They have to tell the Welsh that the money going to Wales will be increased proportionately so that Wales can deal with it. Until they do that, we cannot make proper decisions. I totally agree otherwise with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 175 and 384, in my name, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her support.

These amendments concern prognosis. We have discussed prognosis briefly in previous debates, but I wanted to raise this in the context of my own experience of cancer and to bring some sort of mathematical thinking to bear on the question. In August 2023, I was diagnosed with stage 4 oesophageal cancer. It was a fatal diagnosis and I was told that I had 12 months to live—18 months, if the character of my tumour qualified for immunotherapy, which it did. I do not need to be congratulated on being particularly brave for sharing this story, since noble Lords will hear, if they stick around, that the story has a happy ending.

Within a week or so of that diagnosis, a friend of mine sent me an article which had been written in 1991 by Professor Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University. Professor Gould was an evolutionary biologist, and he was quite well known because he wrote a number of popularising science books—the sort of thing that sixth-formers and undergraduates would have read widely. He was a well-known and liked figure. The article was about his story. In 1982, he had been diagnosed with abdominal mesothelioma, a fatal condition, and the hospital would not give him a prognosis. When he got back to Harvard, he went straight to the medical library, and he found on reviewing the literature that he had eight months to live.

After about 15 minutes of shock, he began to think about what that meant, and he realised that the prognosis was in fact, arithmetically speaking, a median. All that it actually meant was that half the people in his condition would be dead by eight months and the other half would live longer than eight months. In fact, this median told him nothing about himself; it was an abstraction. To understand his own prospects, he had to look at the underlying data. When he looked at it, he found that quite a lot of people lived quite a long time beyond eight months in his condition. He said that

“all evolutionary biologists know that variation itself … is the hard reality … Means and medians are the abstractions”.

He asked himself, “What do I have to do to be one of those people who live a long time?” Speaking to oncologists, he learned that the universal response from all of them was that the key to survival in cancer was a positive attitude. To quote again briefly from the article,

“those with positive attitudes, with a strong will and purpose for living, with commitment to struggle, and with an active response to aiding their own treatment and not just a passive acceptance of anything doctors say tend to live longer”.

That is how he approached it, and I think we can learn a few lessons from this. I would like to run through what I think they are.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, what the noble Lord says and the article that he cites are very interesting. I am jolly glad that, for some people who have positive attitudes, they live a long time with their cancer. I know from personal circumstances, as do many other people around this Chamber, that we have had loved ones who have had very positive attitudes towards their cancer and they have died.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am not saying—nor was anybody—that a positive attitude on its own is going to save somebody from cancer. Professor Gould also benefited from the fact that he had the best medical treatment, and he went on various experimental courses. That was not my point at all. But people with a positive attitude, as I quoted, tend to live longer. I think that is scientifically demonstrable. I am surprised at the noble Baroness’s intervention.

I think we can learn some lessons from this. First, prognoses are not generally individuated. They are medians drawn from large data sets based on clinical trials. As Professor Gould said, if you get a prognosis of six months, the average person will think that means that they are going to be dead in six months, which, from a scientific point of view, is precisely the wrong conclusion.

Secondly, even when a prognosis is not based on a median but is an attempt by a doctor to give an individual assessment, it is very likely to be wrong. There are well-established studies on this. I will cite just one, which is Orlovic et al in 2023. It shows that, beyond 14 days, a clinician’s prognosis is almost always wrong. It is extremely unreliable. Within that shorter period of a week or two, a doctor and indeed an experienced nurse can very often say, with great reliability, that somebody is not going to last very much longer. But beyond that, an individual prognosis is of very little value indeed.

I think we all accept that for anyone who gets a prognosis, there is a degree of unreliability about it. Nobody believes that a six-month prognosis means exactly six months, or that eight months means exactly eight months, but we have a tendency to think that it is because we do not have enough knowledge—that with a bit more science and research, we could refine that prognosis so that it was more accurate. But as Professor Gould pointed out, the prognosis is merely an abstraction arising from the variability in the data. It is not that we cannot make the prognosis more accurate; it is that—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I just want to clarify that many of these organisations—including five royal colleges, the British Association of Social Workers and all the organisations for and on behalf of disabled people—are neutral on the principle of assisted death, but no external organisation will attest to the safety of the legislation we are discussing today and on previous days. I think that should be of concern to us all.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, many points have been made around the Chamber about disability. The most recent large survey, carried out by Opinium in February 2024 of nearly 11,000 respondents in the UK, showed that 75% of the general population were supportive of the Bill and 14% opposed it. Of those who had a disability, 78% were supportive and 14% were opposed. It is very important to put those figures on the record.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 88 and 89 are in my name. I tabled them based on my experience in my former career as an athlete, where I knew a significant number of men and women who had varying degrees of eating disorder. I probably had disorderly eating behaviour rather than a diagnosed eating disorder. I very carefully managed and adjusted my eating to try to achieve my goals.

As an athlete, you have a number of measurements. You have your skinfolds measured several times a year; the amount of fat you have in your body is measured. Keeping your funding going is dependent on having low results, as well as on your performance measures. I competed in a sport where power to weight was really important. My race weight, as an adult female, was 45 kilograms—about the same weight as an 11 year-old girl. I had to keep to that weight because I had a very expensive chair built around it.

In the process of training, I vomited regularly. I cannot remember a dentist who has not asked me, very directly and with no particular care around me, “Are you bulimic?”, because my teeth show signs of bulimia. If I was, I do not think that would have been the way to address it. I have had a very close friend who became very ill with anorexia. You are in this impossible situation of trying to help, support and guide them through. It is a terrible thing for people to go through.

That is why I find it slightly extraordinary that we are still having to deal with these questions today in the Chamber, because the danger of this Bill to people with eating disorders was first raised on 30 October 2024. Eighteen experts, including leaders of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ eating disorders faculty, signed a letter to the BMJ saying that the Bill

“fails the public safety test”.

Since then, the issue has been pointed out in oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee by Chelsea Roff, it was discussed in Committee in the other place, the Bill has been amended with support from the Commons sponsor on Report and the issue was raised by a coalition of eating disorder charities in two open letters and by the Complex Life and Death Decisions group at King’s College London. However, I think it still has not been resolved—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, presumably agrees, because he has tabled an amendment in this group to fix the issues.

Last week, we discussed in-person assessments and several noble Lords noted that the honourable Member for Spen Valley, Ms Leadbeater, had identified Zoom consultations as a potential problem and said she was considering an amendment, but the issue had never been resolved. Something analogous has happened with eating disorders. Everyone knows that there is a problem, but nobody has found a way of fixing it. This is significant, first, because it shows why this whole process is taking longer than it might have needed to, and, secondly, because it is unclear how the sponsor wants us to interpret Amendment 87.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)]

My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will forgive me for intervening at this stage. I know we are all in a hurry, and I have not got my name on any of the amendments—yet. Noble Lords will know that I have been away for over six months because of an accident on the high seas, when I found myself hurled across the room by a wave. I broke my leg, I dislocated my shoulder, and I had all sorts of internal injuries. I spent the next six weeks in St Thomas’ Hospital, instead of here talking about the Bill. I do not know quite where I would have rather been, but I am here now. I hope noble Lords will forgive my late interventions having not been at Second Reading, but I am jolly pleased to be back, and thank noble Lords for their welcome, which has been very nice.

I want to say something very briefly about burden and motivation. We all know that burden is one of the primary reasons for people to seek an assisted death. That is not only in the conversations I have had here, but we know it is the primary reason throughout the world. Burden is real. It is why, in another life, I set up the organisation the National Centre for Independent Living, because I realised there were hundreds of disabled people living in institutions or in their mum and dad’s back room, basically just surviving, not living.

I also campaigned for a law called the direct payments Act, with which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, will be very familiar. That allowed severely disabled people to employ their own personal assistants, so that they would no longer be a burden on their families. No one wants to rely on their families or their spouses. I certainly do not want to have to rely on my husband to get me up in the morning or to put me to bed at night. I am his wife: he is not my carer; he is my husband. And that is a good relationship.

There is an answer to burden, and it is good social care support. Good infrastructure or technology allows you to be independent and not to be a burden on others, but to begin to plot your life as you want it to be. I know this because I have helped hundreds of disabled people to do it. Some of them had progressive conditions and would not live for long, but the lives they had for those years were good lives—good months and good weeks.

I am not saying that it is always the answer, but we surely must find out from anybody who is asking for their life to be ended, “What are your reasons? Is it because you do not have adequate social care? Is it because you cannot get out of your house, because nobody from the local authority has come to build you a ramp?” For disabled people, people with terminal illnesses and people with progressive conditions, these small things can make the difference between them wanting to die and them not wanting to die.

I know this, because they have told me. Many disabled people come up to me and say, “Jane, you know, I love my independent living and I love my direct payments. If that was taken away and I was forced to go into an institution against my will, I do not know what I would do. I would probably ask for an assisted death”. They were not joking. It is the truth. We should all think about motivation and that is why I support this suite of amendments. We have not really grasped that nettle.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I too warmly welcome the return of my noble friend Lady Campbell—the most extraordinary person and advocate for disabled people and so many more in our societies. I just remind the Committee that, in all these discussions about burdens and people who have had a stroke— I am terribly sorry that the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had a stroke—we are talking about six months for somebody who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness. We should reflect on and remember that in all our deliberations on the Bill.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I may just build on that, because the noble Baroness is quite right that it is six months. This is absolutely about choice, and behind that choice is the person’s motivation. Of course pain is a very valid reason, but it is not the only reason as, again, research has shown. For lots of people it is about the loss of dignity. For others, it is about the loss of control of bodily functions or about losing autonomy. It is about being less able to engage in enjoyable activities.

Yes, sometimes it is about feeling a burden, inadequate pain controls or financial concerns as well, but that shows that it is a complex area. On average, people gave three or four different reasons or motivations. It is not for us to assess what a valid or invalid motivation is. We should be considering whether there is any coercion in those decisions but, beyond that, it is absolutely about choice. Recognising choice is about people having their own motivations behind this. It is not for us to decide whether they are valid or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I agree with what has been said. I agree with the need to avoid euphemism. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, raised the point, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, came back to it, that some will object to the phrase “commit suicide”, but I will make a stronger case on that point.

With regard to many cases of suicide, these reservations would be justified. “Commit” implies clear intention by the person concerned to take his own or her own life, but, as we have heard throughout this debate on the Bill so far, suicide can be the result not so much of firm, clear intent, but of the perpetrator sliding inexorably into hopelessness about the circumstances of their life or being confronted by a lack of help. If the inability to cope with such misfortune leads to depression and then suicide, I agree that it is misleading to talk of committing suicide, but the cases envisioned in this Bill are quite different. As the Bill makes clear, the person must have a clear, settled and informed wish to commit suicide. Here, then, “commit suicide” is indeed the appropriate phrase.

Moreover, the phrasing in the Bill, in terms of assistance to end one’s own life, carries, as has been said, a risk of confusion between what the Bill proposes—the deliberate action to bring life to an end—and the normal practice of doctors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned earlier, which is to ease suffering and sometimes to use palliative measures that might, although this is not their aim, shorten life. The advocates of the Bill have often spoken in a way that blurs this distinction. It is important that the phrasing of the Bill guards against such confusion.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will have heard this before, as will have many others, but the fact of the matter is that the Bill talks about assisted dying. “Dying” tells you what it is all about, so I do not think that we need to have the word “suicide”. I say this because I have spoken with the families and loved ones of people who wish to have an assisted death; those who wished that their loved ones had had an assisted death, because they could see the suffering endured by the person who died and the people who were caring for them; and those who are left behind. I have had many conversations and those people all feel strongly that those who want to have an assisted death are not committing suicide; they want to regain some control and want to live for the last few months of their life with some comfort. Just because they ask for an assisted death does not mean that they are actually going to fulfil that, but it gives them and their families comfort. So, please, can we not talk about suicide? We are talking about dying and that is absolutely fine. I do not wish for the people who are already suffering or the people who are caring for them to have more distress in their lives.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I find it strange that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, should be making the argument that the word “dying” tells us all that we need to know. If that were so, we would not need the Bill. The Bill is about a very specific thing, which is choosing to end your own life and getting help with it. The importance of clarity and frankness in language in the making of law is very great. It must be distinguished from perfectly legitimate what I shall call political language.

Take, for example, the right to life, which is one side of the argument in another matter, and the right to choice. Those are both perfectly good phrases about the subject of abortion, but they were not suitable phrases for law. When you talk about law, the word that should be used is “abortion”. That is what is actually happening. I am not saying that there is any dishonesty here, but it is inappropriate for the making of law.

I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said about possible ambiguities and misunderstandings. I give an example, which is nothing whatever to do with assisted dying, but it just illustrates the point. As we ran up to the 1983 general election, Labour had a policy of unilateral disarmament. The Tories were against unilateral nuclear disarmament and attacked it. Somebody wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph saying, “I do not think people know what the word ‘unilateral’ means, and if you call it ‘one-sided disarmament’, people will understand what this is about”. The Tories seized that, suddenly changed all their propaganda to talk about one-sided disarmament and the polls shifted very dramatically against one-sided disarmament. The importance of normal English is very significant. Again and again, we can see public confusion, which must be avoided, about what is actually proposed in the Bill.

Finally, there is a contradiction in the arguments made by supporters of the Bill—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was in this situation. Since the greatest thing that is being argued for by supporters of the Bill is autonomy, it is important to have a word or phrase that embodies that autonomy and shows who is making this decision and whose agency it is. The phrase “committing suicide” exactly establishes the agency and exactly shows the autonomy. It is contradictory to advocate for autonomy and then to take refuge in euphemism.

Women’s Health Strategy

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This is a very important point. The 10-year health plan restated the aim of eliminating cervical cancer by 2040 through the improved uptake of cervical screening and HPV vaccination. To the specific point, which is such an important one, in June—not many months ago—we announced that screening providers can offer home testing kits to underscreened individuals in the exact groups that the noble Lord refers to. I believe this will help tackle deeply entrenched barriers that keep some people away from life-saving screening. I am sure the whole House will reflect on the wise words and advice of His Majesty the King in imploring us all to take up the screening opportunities that there are. I certainly agree with that.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, women over the age of 50 are particularly susceptible to fractures as a result of osteoporosis. The Government have announced that they are going to have fracture liaison services throughout the country by 2030. I wonder whether, as part of the women’s health strategy, the Government could begin the rollout of the fracture liaison services urgently.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As my noble friend rightly observes, the Government have committed to rolling out fracture liaison services across every part of the country by 2030. We already expect musculoskeletal services to be fully incorporated into integrated care planning and decision-making. I am also glad that, since 2022, NICE has recommended two new drugs for treatment. The women’s health strategy will look at what gaps there are in the original strategy, but this is one area in which progress is already committed to.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly understand the noble and right reverend Lord’s point. The offer we made—which covered a number of the areas that the noble and right reverend Lord referred to, plus more—is not applicable because it was not accepted. We put it forward, developed it further and did all we could that was realistic. The noble and right reverend Lord asked whether it is funded, but I will change the tense of his question: it would have been funded, but the offer was rejected and therefore is no longer on the table. That is why it is not going ahead.

On waiting lists, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, we have proved that we can maintain a near full programme of elective work, with 95% of planned care being maintained—and, again, let us pay tribute to the NHS staff who have done that. But let us not suggest that there are no effects. It affects the staff who step in to cover for their colleagues. We have an NHS in desperate need of reform. We are turning it around, but these strikes get in our way. As I mentioned, we cannot underestimate the amount of effort, finance, direction and morale—the list could go on—that these strikes take up. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for raising those points.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the outrage, fury and frustration about this industrial action. My noble friend the Minister and others around the Chamber are absolutely right to pay tribute to the workforce, and I give a particular shout-out to nurses. We are always focused on doctors—I hope noble Lords present who are doctors will forgive me—but nurses do a splendid job, and too often we forget that they work for relatively little pay as well.

I was glad that when the Secretary of State was negotiating, he was talking about the training places, because the training bottleneck is absurd. I know many brilliant young resident doctors who are so frustrated and have a terrible deal, so I urge my noble friend to pass on to the Secretary of State my view that, when he is next around the negotiating table, training places should be there in the negotiations.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend rightly refers, as I did earlier, to the training bottleneck. The Secretary of State was glad to acknowledge the need to tackle training. While he felt that there was no point on pay to be accepted, he certainly felt that the BMA resident doctors committee had a good point on jobs. To be honest, that is why it is so disappointing to be where we are today.

I will pass on my noble friend’s generous comments to the Secretary of State. He offered to introduce emergency legislation in the new year to prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant experience of working in the NHS in speciality training posts. That would have made a huge difference, but it has been rejected. He also offered to increase the number of training posts over the next three years, from the 1,000 that was originally announced to 4,000, bringing forward 1,000 of those training posts to start next year—that would have made a huge difference. I could go on, but I have made my point.

I agree with my noble friend’s point about acknowledging the role of nurses. In fact, if my noble friend will allow me, I will go further: we are talking about the whole healthcare team. That is another point to the issue on pay: while the BMA doctors committee continues to press for a pay deal far in excess of anything that anyone else is getting, the impact across the NHS, both on staff and on services, continues to be under threat—and we cannot allow that.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 16. I also support Amendments 16A, 114 and 114A because the very general definition in Clause 1 of a terminally ill adult who has the capacity to take their own life does not contain any consideration of those who have been deprived of their liberty under Section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act. It is an unfortunate reality that many of those detained in hospitals or care homes are detained because they lack the capacity to make a decision about their own care or treatment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, in such circumstances it is surely axiomatic that there should be careful consideration of cases involving individuals subject to a DoLS.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, even assessing the capacity of someone with dementia or another neurological condition, for example, can be profoundly difficult. This is not just because of the frequent fluctuation of both capacity and the extent to which any identified capacity enables the making of a particular decision; a medical practitioner or social worker who meets a person for the first time may be misled as to the capacity they actually have. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists noted in its written evidence,

“an assessment of a person’s mental capacity to decide to end their own life is an entirely different and more complex determination requiring a higher level of understanding”

than in other assessments of capacity.

In the 1997 case of Re MB, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said:

“The graver the consequences of the decision, the commensurately greater the level of competence required to take the decision”.


Capacity assessment is not a precise science. The unique context of this Bill makes taking a cautious approach appropriate. It is common sense that there is a likely correlation between incapacity in one area, so extreme that the state must deprive the person of their liberty, and incapacity to decide whether to end one’s own life. People whose incapacity for basic decisions is so severe that they are deprived of their liberty are the most vulnerable members of society.

I want to give your Lordships a brief example. I was aware of a woman in her late 80s who had been assessed and was subject to a DoLS. She objected to it and appealed against it. Intellectually, she was enormously able, possessed of considerable social skills despite her dementia. She was able to persuade those dealing with her appeal that she had capacity despite the very real concerns of her family, who knew the extent of her incapacity. The DoLS was lifted and she went back to her own home. Shortly afterwards, she was found playing golf in the road in her pyjamas at two o’clock in the morning. She was going to the supermarket at 4 am. She was leaving the door unlocked all night for her husband and cooking his dinner every night; he had died some 20 years previously.

That lady was my mother. She certainly would not have understood a suggestion that she should opt for an assisted death. The DoLS was subsequently reinstated. This is not an unusual situation. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rejects these amendments, how does he consider that such vulnerable individuals can be protected from making this final decision, although they may not understand exactly what they are doing?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, forgive me. What the noble Baroness is saying is extremely interesting, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has already said that he will seek a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and all other noble Lords who are interested in this. He is not rejecting the amendments; he is willing to enter into a discussion.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful intervention, but we do not know what the outcome of that meeting will be. I think I have the right to make my remarks.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

It will depend on the circumstances. If, for example, the doctor had a very severe doubt about whether somebody was being coerced, I would expect them to ask very many questions about their domestic circumstances. Suppose, however, it was somebody who was clearly not, on the face of it, at the slightest risk of coercion—a person of 60 in the full flush of his or her pomp, as it were—and who had said, right from the outset, “I can’t bear the thought of this illness”, and the idea that this person has been coerced is not really plausible, then I would expect the doctor to be asking different questions from the sorts of questions that they would be asking if the circumstances of somebody’s home life were completely different. It would obviously depend on what you knew as the doctor, or had found out as the panel, about the circumstances of the individual.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting my noble and learned friend, but I just point out that the BMA itself is very clear that the doctors should be able to make their own judgment in all these cases.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

As I understand it, Amendment 222, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would establish a specialist service to provide psychological assessment and support and then bereavement support for those seeking an assisted death. My noble friend Lady Merron has indicated the difficulties in relation to that. On the question of a psychological assessment, the position is that some work has been done abroad in relation to this. California introduced, in addition to what was required by the law in a particular part of California, a psychiatric assessment for everyone who wanted an assisted death but concluded that that was not necessary because the numbers of psychiatric assessments were producing nothing. It was only where special requirements were required that suggested it was a good thing. So I respect the suggestion but I do not think it is necessary.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. I'm grateful to Kim Leadbeater for her work, and to advocates such as my courageous friend Esther Rantzen. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Berger for showing us a way forward, in terms of a committee, and for setting out a clear timetable.

While I warmly welcome the compassionate and moderate tone of last week’s debate, from which we learned a lot, like my noble friend Lady Thornton, I was dismayed at the conflation made by some of suicide and assisted dying. This is not just about careless language; it is actively damaging to people who are already suffering. Let us be clear: people who choose assisted dying are not suicidal. They are dying and they want to regain some choice, control and dignity where it has otherwise been stripped away. We should hear the views of terminally ill people, some of whom had a letter published in the Independent this week:

“We are not suicidal – we want to live, and to make the most of the time we have left with the people we love. But we are dying and we have no choice or ability to change that … We are not seeking to make a choice between living and dying but between two kinds of death … To equate choice and control over the timing and manner of inevitable and imminent death with suicide is deeply insensitive to those of us facing this position”.


Australia’s leading suicide prevention organisations have warned that confusing these terms can delay access to suicide prevention services for people in distress, and complicate or delay care for people with terminal illness who are seeking an additional choice at the end of life. When in 2021 I asked the Government to provide data on the number of people who take their own life every year, I did so because this debate needs to be guided by evidence and the lived experience of dying people and their families. The best available evidence estimates that around 300 terminally ill people end their own life at home every year in England. These deaths are recorded as suicides, but it is clear from talking to and listening to bereaved family members that these are not people who wish to end their own life but people who are taking drastic and often violent steps to control an inevitable and imminent death.

There is absolutely no evidence that assisted dying undermines or runs counter to effective suicide prevention strategies, nor is there evidence to suggest that legalised assisted dying leads to a shift in attitudes towards suicide. Figures from Victoria in Australia show a slight decrease in suicide rates since it introduced assisted dying.

In 2021, at Second Reading of the Assisted Dying Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I said:

“The current blanket ban on assisted dying does not eradicate demand for choice at the end of life; it simply forces people to take matters into their own hands in loneliness and in fear”.—[Official Report, 22/10/21; col. 495.]


Those words remain true today. We continue to hear of dying people taking their own life and we continue to hear about the devastating impact this has on their families. It is time to change the law.

I am a humanist. I respect those who believe in the sanctity of life and I subscribe to many of their values, but this Bill will not compel anyone to act against their conscience. It provides agency and choice for people who are near death, with the ability to decide how they spend their final days—whether they have faith or no faith. I am confident that the scrutiny of the Bill will be as robust in your Lordships’ House as it was in the Commons. We will do our work with compassion and diligence, improving the Bill, including by making anorexia outwith the Bill. But we must always be mindful of our duty to respect the primacy of the Commons.

Prostate Cancer

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate, understanding that when men have prostate cancer and when they die, their loved ones also suffer. I welcome the review by the national screening committee, and I look forward to its conclusions. But in parallel, there must be change in the guidance given to GPs to ensure that men at the highest risk are informed of the risk and offered a PSA test.

If the screening committee decides to recommend targeted screening, which I fervently hope that it will, it will take years to implement. It is crazy that current NHS guidelines prevent GPs discussing the disease with those who are most likely to have it, and late diagnosis of incurable cancer. The system benefits men who are aware of the issue and able to interact with doctors, entrenching biological and societal inequalities. It cannot be right that it is awareness, not risk, that determines who gets tested. This exacerbates inequality and leads to death. Surely, if a GP is in front of a black man or a man with a family history of the disease, they should say, “Have you thought about a test for prostate cancer?” The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others rightly say that PSA tests are not always accurate. Yes, we need better tests, but, in the meantime, we have PSA tests, so let us use them, because targeted testing saves lives.

Raising awareness is critical. and I pay tribute to the wonderful work of charities such as Prostate Cancer UK, with its great campaigns and whose badge I usually wear. I urge the Minister to work closely with those charities and to embrace the research they are undertaking all the time. I look forward to a positive response from her.

Draft Mental Health Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As noble Lords discussed during the Health and Care Bill, prevention is crucial. One thing I became aware of when I became a Minister was, when talking to the NHS and others, how they want to move away from purely curing to prevention. In response to the noble Baroness’s specific question, I commit to write to her on the exact allocation of that, but there is one area that plays an incredibly important role. We know, for example, looking back on the crisis, that when we did not know how long it would last, that created a lot of uncertainty. Uncertainty is very unbalancing for people, and it is a huge factor in them having mental health issues. Clearly, one of the issues that came up during the Bill was the use of civil society organisations, social prescribing, music and art therapy, but also conversations—people being able to talk to someone about the issue they are facing and feeling they are not alone. Clearly, that is something we have looked at, in terms of prevention, but in response to the specific question I commit to write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that prevention will be part of the new 10-year mental health strategy—or I hope that it will be—and also part of the 10-year suicide strategy. My noble friend asked when we might expect to receive a copy of that strategy, because of the exponential need, which the Minister has recognised, especially in relation to young people. I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register. I urge the Government to produce that strategy as soon as possible.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Clearly, there are a number of different facets to mental health and what we are looking at, but suicide is one of those areas. In fact, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met a very well-known anti-suicide charity, or support group, the other day, to talk about this specific issue. It is a tragedy; we must do all we can and treat it with the same urgency that we would any other major killer. We know about the high percentage of male suicides and what proportion that is of young men’s deaths. We are looking at the drivers linked to suicide, including those that were not necessarily reflected in our previous strategy, such as gambling, domestic abuse and online safety.

We are engaging widely to shape our plan. We have announced a number of commitments for that plan, including a best practice guide, safety plans, et cetera, by early next year. I do not have the exact date yet, but I keep being told it is soon. That is not very helpful, I know, but I will try to get more information for the noble Baroness.