Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee stage
Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the House of Commons and the public want the Bill, but the number of amendments and the length of the speeches mean that we have run out of time, so it cannot go back to the Commons. This is bad for democracy. Even more seriously, it is bad for the terminally ill—those mentally competent adults with fewer than six months to live. The Bill would offer them the choice of a more peaceful way out of this life, a way under their control, with friends and family around them, rather than an isolated and often risky suicide. A particular mum of three asked, “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?”

Of course, we never heard from those affected. As my noble friend Lady Hunter said, we on the committee, where we were outnumbered by the opponents to the Bill, were denied the opportunity to hear from those facing deaths or from those bereaved, who had to watch their partner die without this help. As we just heard from my noble friend Lady Blackstone, we heard from the royal colleges, organised groups, professional bodies, social workers, the church, palliative care experts and lawyers—everyone except for whom the Bill was designed.

We have heard in the debates that the amendments are actually about improving the Bill. But I know, and I think that we all know, that some people would never have supported the Bill, even if we had accepted a thousand amendments. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—although she was a Prelate at the time—admitted this at Second Reading, saying that she was going to propose a vote against the Bill at Third Reading. We heard her say today that she is against it in principle, so for some these amendments were not about improving the Bill but because they opposed it in principle.

Had we just been interested in trying to make assisted dying safer for the vulnerable groups, we would not have had 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. We would not have had to consider the idea that some of the very people who needed this—such as those in care homes—would be denied it; that anyone being treated in an NHS hospital would have to leave for a private place with different doctors and carers if they wanted an assisted death; or, indeed, that the intimate private discussions with the panel should take place in public, so that the public can watch people talking about why they wanted to bring their deaths forward. We would not have been told in the amendments that this all costs too much, even though the estimate is the same as what the NHS spends a year after accidents caused by people wearing flip-flops—I kid you not. The cost—

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

Will the noble Baroness confirm that while I have said very clearly that I oppose the Bill and that I would bring it to a vote on principle at Third Reading, I have not in fact tabled any amendments?