Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Scott of Needham Market

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Scott of Needham Market

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

In this group, which is group 3, there are a number of amendments put forward by me but also two amendments put forward by Back-Bench Peers that are in the same sort of area. These are drafting changes. If anybody objects to any of the drafting changes, I will not move them when the time comes. If there is no objection, I will move them as long as there is going to be no vote at this stage.

Can I just go through them very quickly? Amendment 6 makes it clear that the person, who has to be over 18, has to have the preliminary discussion referred to in Clause 5, and it is making clear something that I say is already explicit in the Bill. Amendments 8 and 9 in the names, respectively, of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, seek to make explicit the same thing, and I hope they will accept that I am giving effect to what they are saying in relation to that.

Going on to another topic of drafting changes, Amendments 290, 366 and 931 in this group get rid of a duplication issue. Everybody wants domestic abuse to refer to coercion and control, and financial abuse. That has been achieved by incorporating the definition of domestic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. In some parts of the Bill, as it is currently drafted, we have left in the wider definition of domestic abuse, which is now duplicative because of bringing in the definition of domestic abuse that is at the top of page 1 of the Bill; so Amendments 290, 366 and 931 remove the duplicative effect.

Amendments 332, 417, 418, 419 and 425 deal with the situation where the doctor—one of the two doctors who has got to give the assessment—cannot or will not continue to act. As currently drafted, you can get a replacement doctor only if the doctor who will no longer agree to act or cannot act has either died or suffered illness. These amendments delete the word “illness” and simply provide for a mechanism where, if the doctor cannot or will not continue to act, you can get a new doctor.

On Amendment 405, Clause 12(5) requires that the doctors who are doing the assessment make sure that there is appropriate adjustment for language and literary barriers. I am putting forward a new draft that is clearer but does not in any way change the sense.

Under Amendment 413, where a doctor has a doubt about something and is one of the two assessing doctors, he has to get a second opinion on the clinical diagnosis for the person. In relation to the second doctor, the Bill said that, if he had a doubt, he could rely on the opinion obtained by the first doctor, but that seems to us to be illogical. If the second doctor has a doubt, even after reading that opinion, he should get an opinion of his own, and that is the effect of Amendment 413.

Amendment 416 is the final drafting amendment. It redrafts Clause 13(3), which deals with the situation where the second doctor has said no, he does not think the conditions are satisfied. In those circumstances, you can get another doctor to come in. We have redrafted Clause 13(3) to make it clear that, if the second doctor says yes, he has to give explicit reasons why he is disagreeing with the first second doctor. I commend these drafting changes and beg to move Amendment 6.

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

My Lords, I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment 6 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 9 by reason of pre-emption. We now come to Amendment 7, which is an amendment to Amendment 6.

Amendment 7 (to Amendment 6)