Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

That, in order to allow the House to complete its scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and return it to the Commons in reasonable time before the end of the current parliamentary session, further time should be provided for consideration of the Bill.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very aware that this is the last business we will consider today, so I shall keep my remarks brief. The assisted dying Bill commands strong views, both in favour and against, and is of huge public interest in terms of not only its content but its progress through our Parliament—and not least how we in this House conduct our scrutiny of it. Over 1,000 amendments in Committee have been tabled, arranged into approximately 84 groups. So far, we have spent in total some 32 hours in this House scrutinising the Bill, and we have another 50 hours scheduled. However, in four days of Committee—about 17 hours—we have considered only 10 groups. If we continue at the rate we are going, this House will fail to complete the process of scrutiny. We will reach no conclusions on the Bill as to how it should be amended or whether it should return to the Commons. Instead, the Bill will fail through lack of time—this despite the fact that it came to this House in June of last year after extensive scrutiny in the Commons and received in this House an unopposed Second Reading after a two-day debate with 110 speakers.

Many Members of the House, from the newest to the most experienced and on both sides of the substantive issue of assisted dying, have expressed the view to me that it would be wrong, and would significantly damage the reputation of this House, if we failed to reach conclusions on the Bill. I strongly agree with that. We should not allow our justified reputation for high-quality scrutiny to be tarnished by failing to reach conclusions on this Bill.

The purpose of my Motion today is to give the House the opportunity to express a view on whether your Lordships want this House to complete its scrutiny and, if the Bill passes Third Reading in this House, to send it back to the Commons in time for it to complete all its stages before the end of this parliamentary Session. To achieve this, I believe that we have to undertake our scrutiny role in the normal way that we do. We need to work co-operatively so that we can focus the time we have on the key issues, in order to reach agreement wherever possible on amendments to the Bill, and then decide whether to send the Bill back to the Commons.

This House works best when we work together, exercise self-restraint and undertake scrutiny that reaches conclusions on legislation. For self-regulation to retain respect—and I most certainly believe it should continue—this House has to be effective in reaching conclusions.

The Government are neutral on this Bill and will, I know, remain so. As sponsor of the Bill, I am grateful for the time that has been made available so far for consideration of it. But, as I have said, if we continue at this pace, we will fail in our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill.

If the Motion passes, I would hope that all sides can be brought together through the usual channels to achieve a reasonable, informal but effective process to complete the passage of the Bill through this House—taking into account, of course, the needs of the House staff. This remains a Private Member’s Bill, and extra time should not involve any time that would otherwise be for government business.

The approach to scrutiny I am suggesting, which is normal in our House, is the way we can fulfil our role as a revising Chamber and reach conclusions. This does not lead to chaos. The House would have to agree to an amendment like this in each case. The key thing is the approach we take to scrutiny. More time may be required, but the mutual agreement we reach on how we do things is key to the solution.

Before I close, I emphasise that the form of the Motion has been drafted to ensure that it does not preclude the possibility of a negative vote at Third Reading. My personal view is that, for constitutional reasons, this would be the wrong thing for this House to do, but it is not excluded by the Motion. My aim with the Motion is to get to Third Reading, so that we can reach a decision on the Bill and, if it passes that stage, ensure that it has time to complete its later stages in Parliament. The Government Chief Whip has made it clear to me—I completely agree with this—that if the Motion passes, the normal sitting hours for tomorrow will not be affected in any way.

Whatever colleagues’ views are on the Bill, I invite all noble Lords to support the Motion and thereby express the view of this House that it wishes to complete its scrutiny of the Bill, reach conclusions and thereby fulfil its responsibilities as a revising Chamber. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

My Lords, after the Leader of the House has spoken, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who is taking part remotely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Gove, asks: how much extra time? The answer surely is that that depends on what progress we make tomorrow and next week. Can I simply say this? There are many difficult issues posed by this Bill, but this Motion is not difficult at all. We are simply being asked to vote that this House believes that extra time should be granted to the extent required to ensure that we can come to a conclusion, whether it is in favour of this Bill, whether it is against this Bill or whether it is that the Bill should be amended. Let us get on and approve this Motion.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we have exhausted the debate. There is widespread support for this Motion, and for that I am incredibly grateful. Can I say just one thing? What this Motion, if passed, means is that the House is saying loudly, clearly and, I hope, unanimously that our job is to get to the end of the process of scrutinising the Bill.

I shall answer just two or three particular points that have been made. What is at the heart of it is the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. What will we do and how long will it take? I agree with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We need to craft informally a process that ensures that we get to the end of the process.

The Leader of the House was kind enough to say that, if this Motion were to pass, the usual channels would, in effect, convene a meeting and we would then seek a way forward. I have to say I am incredibly attracted to the things that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said: not his opposition to the Bill, I hasten to add, but to the proposition that there are—and this number may be wrong—about 10 crucial issues in relation to this Bill. Let us immediately try to identify what those 10 or so issues are and then reach a process by which we go through them. To the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that has been his position all along. He very helpfully led us to an identification of those 10 issues and we tried to do a grouping that reflected that, but it did not command support. I think we should look at that again.

It is so important for the House to come to the right conclusion. If we pass this Motion now, we will send a signal that our job is to craft a structure that means that we can get through the Bill.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

I have listened to all that the noble and learned Lord said and I agree with the various statements which have been made about the duty to scrutinise, but I have also listened to those who have said that he has not responded to any of the amendments, apart from that on age. The issues are identified. Can he tell the House how he will respond in a positive manner, as Members on the Front Bench normally do when we are discussing Bills?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a perfectly fair question. I have quite scrupulously, as we have gone through the amendments in Committee, indicated which I accept or in principle accept; for example, in relation to 18 to 25 year-olds. Subsequent to that, we have had meetings, and I have gone through in some detail how we should deal with that, and we have reached agreement at those meetings in principle as to what to do. I am very grateful to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is nodding in relation to that.

In addition, for example, I have indicated that I am in favour in principle of some special protection for those who have suffered from a deprivation of liberty. I have also indicated—and I do this just by way of example—that in relation to multidisciplinary teams looking after people who are grievously ill or terminally ill, we should think of some way of incorporating their role into the Bill. It is obvious that I am not doing it enough, but I feel I have responded in some detail in relation to individual points. I have also indicated where I do not accept amendments. However, I am listening, and I need to improve in relation to that, because many people are saying that I am not responding adequately; but that will need to be part of the process that we adopt.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks me to respond. I do not know if she was here at the beginning, when I first commented, but I was very clear that the House will be making a decision on what it thinks. If the House makes a decision that it wishes to have extra time, then it will be a matter for discussion in the usual channels to see if that is available. That is not a new procedure. I was also very clear that it is not open to the Government to provide government time for this Bill; this is a Private Member’s Bill. But the usual channels, both government and opposition, and all parties, will listen to what the House has to say and reflect on that.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with every single word the Leader said. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am honoured to follow a characteristically measured and thoughtful speech from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. With all of us, I look forward with genuine expectation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, and with real sadness I await the valedictory speech of my noble friend Lady Quin, who has made a substantial contribution to Parliament over many years. She will be missed.

The issue in this debate is not whether the remaining 88 hereditaries currently in your Lordships’ House have made a worthwhile contribution to this House; they have. They have our genuine respect and affection and therefore their leaving will be a source of sadness. The issue is whether the 796 families in this country with a right to a hereditary peerage should continue to have exclusive access to 10% of the places in the second Chamber of our country’s legislature. The answer is no.

The principle is no longer defended, not even by those who oppose the Bill. Instead, other grounds of opposition are advanced. First, some, including the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who speaks after me, oppose it because it would lead, he says, to a wholly appointed House. This argument necessarily seeks the continuation of the by-election process. This is the equivalent of a subset of a closed club electing Members of the legislature—with the possible distinction that clubs such as the Garrick have a more progressive policy towards women than the hereditaries. If it comes to a choice between the appointer being the hereditaries or the democratically legitimate Prime Minister, I prefer the Prime Minister.

Secondly, from the opposite end of the scale, come the Conservatives who say that kindness and the good working of this House favour abolishing the by-elections and letting the hereditary principle wither over time. It would, happily because of our personal affection for the 88 but unhappily from the point of view of sensible constitutional change, take a very long time for the withering to occur—47 years for the last to go, on average life expectancies. After 20 years, a little more than half would have gone.

The 88 include six Deputy Speakers and 24 of the 88 have Front-Bench experience. We have heard from the excellent Convenor of the Cross Benches, who is also hereditary. The removal of the 88 would reduce the size of the House from 806 eligible Peers to 718. Over 300 of the life Peers who would remain have Front-Bench experience. There are 420 places on Select Committees, of which 24 are currently filled by hereditaries. Their replacement would mean that there would be losses, but they are replaceable and the exclusive right of entry would be brought to an end. There are plainly exceptional contributors among the 88 whom it would be invidious to name. For those who are party Peers, it will be for their party to decide whether their contribution should be retained by their appointment as a life Peer; and, for the Cross-Benchers, whether they or some of them return as life Peers will be a matter for the Prime Minister and HOLAC.

Thirdly, it is said that the removal of the hereditaries should await all the other changes which would occur to this House. History tells us that that is an excuse for no change. The principle is established that the hereditaries should go. It is right. It was the only immediate change promised in the manifesto; we should act.

Finally, reliance is placed on the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine. In accepting the preservation of the 92, he said that they would go only when there had been full-scale reform of this House. It is explicit that his commitment envisaged immediate full-scale reform. In 2003, the Commons refused to accept any proposal for compositional reform and in 2012 the Commons again refused to progress that full-scale reform. The justification for retention had gone by 2003, certainly by 2012. Our Parliament is not a private club where membership can be determined in perpetuity by commitments now expired and made in a different time. Now is the time. For the sake of the hereditaries and for the sake of this House, we should not prevent their removal. Let us recognise their achievement and accept that it is time for them to go.