Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Friday 27th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I honestly do not think that these are difficulties. There is absolute clarity in the Bill as to what the legal position is, and it is a very wide exception. It is more than sufficient to give protection to people who do not want to participate in the provision of assistance under the Bill. Pushing it wider and wider simply gives rise to uncertainty. The key thing is that there should be certainty and sufficient width, and I believe that is what Clause 31 has done.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I do not think that the noble and learned Lord spoke to his Amendments 422, 423 and 888. It is possible that he could do that in another group at a later date, but I wanted to clarify whether he would make sure that he does that.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Amendments 422 and 423 are to create a regulatory power to allow co-ordinating doctors or independent doctors when they step down in certain circumstances not to have to give notice; for example, if they are too ill. It is a practical drafting change.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, in this group I have tabled 28 amendments and signed another one. Most of them are connected to the fact that I do not believe the Bill should apply to Wales. We had something of a debate on the first day in Committee, but I was conscious at that point that we did not want to spend the entire first day debating Wales and that we would come back to the legal importance of aspects of this Bill in regard to that. I will of course not speak to every single amendment because a lot of them are just on that theme, but it is an important theme.

I am conscious that, since we debated, the Welsh Senedd has voted for the legislative consent Motion. I remind the Committee that at no point was the Welsh Senedd invited to vote on the principle of legislating for assisted dying, because a change in criminal law would not be within its purview. However, in this group, with amendments tabled by other Peers, there is an opportunity for us to consider—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

It was asked to vote on the principle of whether this should be dealt with by the Welsh Senedd, because one of the amendments to the Motion for legislative consent was that it believes that

“Wales should have full powers to choose to legislate or not regarding the legality and implementation of assisted dying services, as is the case in Scotland”.

That was beaten by 25 to 13.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The Welsh Senedd’s legislative consent Motion was not about whether it could accept or reject the Bill. People perceived a threat, although I appreciate that this is not what Kim Leadbeater or the noble and learned Lord will have suggested. This perceived threat, explicitly put in a letter by the sponsors of the Bill, was that if the Welsh Senedd rejected the legislative consent Motion, various clauses—particularly Clause 42—would be removed from the Bill, which would effectively remove any involvement of the Welsh Senedd in how the Bill would be put into effect in Wales.

Even then, the Welsh Health Minister voted against that, as did the First Minister of Wales, and they continued to say they felt the Bill was unsafe. I do not want to get into a rehearsal or a repeat of what happened in the Welsh Senedd—but it did vote. Interestingly, the Government have to deal with another issue where the Welsh Senedd voted down a legislative consent Motion on the Crime and Policing Bill, but that is not a debate for today.

Here we are into an important part of the Bill, where the UK Government can override any decisions made by the Welsh Government and the Welsh Senedd. That is particularly singled out in aspects of Clause 42. I have co-signed Amendment 764 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which seeks to address that by removing certain powers in that regard so that the UK Government cannot determine what happens in Wales. Since the introduction of the Bill a very long time ago, this has evolved into basically a health matter. It is certainly how the Bill’s promoters have tried to shift this. That is why I feel so strongly about it, as I set out on our first day in Committee.

I will turn briefly to some of the amendments we are debating today. Amendment 736 would amend Clause 40, which suggests that guidance “may relate to matters” for Welsh Ministers. Coming from a UK Minister, that is not right. The Welsh Government, working with the Welsh Senedd, should determine that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has tabled Amendment 844 to effectively shift this to become a decision entirely for the Welsh Senedd. There is certainly merit in considering that, and I am sure she will set that out later. Even further, I strongly support her Amendments 903 and 905, which have been signed by others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Let me just finish my sentence, then of course I will come back to the noble and learned Lord. So far, the UK Government have refused to share any correspondence or to say which of these clauses should be devolved or which should come under a legislative consent Motion. That is why it has been rather unsatisfactory.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is saying it is a breach of the Sewel convention. The Sewel convention is that if you legislate in a different legislature from that which would be normal—the Senedd, in this case—you need the consent of the Senedd. The Senedd gave its consent in the legislative consent Motion, so perhaps the noble Baroness could explain why it is a breach of the Sewel convention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

It is a breach because I believe a threat was made to Welsh Senedd Members that if they did not vote for the legislative consent Motion, the entire removal of Clause 42 would be put forward in an amendment by the sponsor of the Bill. That is in a letter that was sent by the sponsors of the Bill to the First Minister, then shared with the Senedd Members. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord may not think it was a threat, but I am suggesting to him that it was perceived as a threat, which then affected the decision of several Senedd Members.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am totally confused by this speech. The complaint being made by the noble Baroness is that this should be dealt with by Wales. We took the view that if the legislative consent Motion did not go through—that is, the Senedd did not consent to it being dealt with here—it would be dealt with by Wales. The noble Baroness is now complaining that we are complying with the rules of devolution and legislating here, as the Senedd has agreed.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am conscious that we have probably exchanged views enough. There is a clear breach of the Sewel convention. It is not usual for the UK Parliament to vote on such matters. I do not want to get into further exchanges, but I have spoken to Senedd Members and they believe—I do not want to use an inflammatory word—there was a perceived threat of this being imposed without their say. That is also why, as I repeat, the Health Secretary for Wales and the First Minister of Wales both voted against the legislative consent Motion. That, to me, is extraordinary in itself. I will not go into all the details on that, but it needs to be considered carefully as we continue to debate this group.

As I say, we covered a lot of these issues on day one, so it is not my intention to extend debate. It is useful to switch to other noble Lords who have tabled, in particular, amendments regarding the Government of Wales Act. I am grateful to those Peers who have signed some of my amendments in terms of the shift of power to the Welsh Senedd on this. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is right.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, we have covered quite a range of issues. I had intended for this to be about the decision-making process. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to Groundhog Day; it has not been Groundhog Day as far as I am concerned. On the very first day, there was an opportunity for the Government to set out a bit more. People have talked about how it would have been better if this was a government Bill. Actually, if the Government had answered a lot more questions, and had not blocked freedom of information requests to understand what is going on between the sponsor of the Bill and some of these devolution issues, we could have had more progress.

I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who agreed on the first day that we would not cover every single issue about Wales. This was done very deliberately, so that we could have a proper, detailed debate about the governance structure applying in this case.

I have already set out that I would be inclined to support many of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to transfer some of that decision-making. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, on the issue of smacking, that has already happened. I did not think that it would be that different or that radical for the issue of assisted dying also to be considered a competence to be passed across to the Welsh Senedd and Welsh Government.

The suggestion has been that I am just trying to disrupt this happening in Wales. It is more about the governance, and that is why we have returned to it at this point. I remind people that, on day one, there was an opportunity for the Government to set out matters and also to consider some of the cross-border issues that were referred to.

I also point out to the Committee that it was decided last week that we would finish the debate early. Nobody had spoken to me about moving the group to today. I feel that we could have covered quite a lot of the issues before 6 pm last week, but that was a decision made by the Government Front Bench without consultation. That is why we have ended up where we are and probably the debate has been a bit longer. However, this is still, frankly, an unsettled issue, an uncomfortable issue. I still strongly support that we should consider transferring this to the Welsh Senedd for the future. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am obliged. Assisted dying feels quite pacific in comparison with the debate we have just had. This is my amendment, which I do not intend to press. It is the product of discussions with the BMA. It was tabled in Committee in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It was withdrawn in Committee because the Isle of Man Government, who have passed a Bill to deal with assisted dying, said they did not want it to be tabled before there had been discussions with them. There have now been discussions between the BMA and the Isle of Man Government and they are content for it to be tabled.

This amendment seeks to provide protections for doctors with patients who live in the Isle of Man or Jersey, where assisted dying Bills have been passed but have not yet received Royal Assent. It is common, for example, for some people resident in the Isle of Man to have doctors in the north-west of England. Those doctors may well give a diagnosis or a prognosis in writing, which might then be used in an assisted dying process in accordance with the laws in those two other jurisdictions. Amendment 426A says that if a doctor does such a thing and they are participating in a process which is strictly in accordance with the law

“in Scotland or the Crown Dependencies”,

And, obviously, Scotland voted against assisted dying yesterday, but the principle is that they will not be breaking the law in this country—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Can I finish my explanation, then hear from the Minister and then take it from there? I have had a very useful discussion with the Minister, who said that the Government took the view that the amendment was premature before Royal Assent in relation to the two jurisdictions, and I accept that. She said that once Royal Assent was given, the Government would consult with Jersey and the Isle of Man Governments and other relevant parties about what the Government would then do. She gave no commitment as to what the Government would do, but I am content with that approach. There will obviously be some degree of urgency, depending on how long it will take for the other jurisdictions to introduce assisted dying, but if the Minister were to confirm that that was the position, and that is what she explained to me, I would be content with that explanation.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I did not quite hear at the start. Can I just confirm that this amendment was not tabled at the request of the Isle of Man Government?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is correct. It was tabled after discussions between the BMA, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and me, and it was withdrawn because the Isle of Man Government wanted more consultation.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Can I just finish so that questions can be asked at the end? The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, tabled Amendment 921ZB about King’s Counsel. The choice of who should be within the legal grouping is for the sponsors, not the Government. My noble friend Lady Levitt is right when she says that it is a question for me, not the Government. The Government are not saying that it is unworkable. They are saying that it is for the sponsor to decide. The choice of King’s Counsel and specified judges or former judges is to provide a wide enough pool from which to draw legal advisers.

As far as King’s Counsel are concerned, we think that by becoming King’s Counsel they have proved that they have sufficient quality to be the chair of such a panel. It is intended to mean King’s Counsel from England and Wales. I do not think it allows for people from other jurisdictions, but I will check, and if it does allow for other jurisdictions, I will restrict it to England and Wales because that is the intention.

In her Amendment 932A the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, suggests that it should not necessarily be the lawyer who chairs the panel. The reason why the lawyer is put in the driving seat as the chair is because the panel has to comply with the duties imposed on it by the statute. Lawyers are certainly not necessarily the best chairs, but putting a lawyer in the chair will make sure that the panel focuses on its legal requirements. Those are my limited comments on the whole thing. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, had a question for me.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

One of my questions has been answered by the noble and learned Lord in his comments, but I want to briefly go back to Amendment 483C. The amendment is about pre-recorded audio or video material for the purposes of subsection (4). The noble and learned Lord has said that if a co-ordinating doctor is off ill, there are other provisions through medical exceptions. There is also provision in the Bill for the co-ordinating doctor to delegate any of their functions, but I am going back to the concept. For someone who is near the end of their life, why is it that any other doctor, witness or proxy should be allowed to have pre-recorded audio or video material? I want to get an understanding of that.

Separately, I think there was a slip of the tongue earlier by the noble and learned Lord. He said that the default was that the panel would be expected to sit in private but that there was then allowability for it to sit in public. I know he did not mean that, and he later said that the default was to sit in public. I want to clarify something about Amendment 933A. My amendment suggests that the only bit in private should be the interaction with the applicant. Could he explain why, if somebody has requested for that to be in private, all the other interaction should not continue to be in public?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s first question, Clause 17(5) says that:

“Where the panel considers it appropriate for medical reasons, it may make provision for the use of pre-recorded audio or video material for the purposes of subsection (4).”


Subsection (4) relates to all of the material that the panel is dealing with. Subsection (5) is saying that the panel can use pre-recorded audio material if it thinks it is appropriate. I think it should be given that direction—I cannot see any reason why the panel should be restricted in relation to that.

Turning to the privacy point, paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 says that:

“Panels are to determine referrals in public”—


so the default is that it is in public, not private—but that

“this is subject to sub-paragraph (2)”,

which says that a panel can sit in private if that is what the person wants. The question from the noble Baroness was, basically, why should everything then be in private. It is because everything is about the patient. The whole thing is about the patient. If I want the circumstances of my illness and why I want an assisted death to be private, I should have that option. It is unrealistic to say that we can chop this up into the bits that are about the patient and the bits that are not.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord did not speak at all to his Amendment 480 in this group. Is he planning to address it later in group 3? I am conscious that he did not particularly address my amendments, but I assume it is because he disagrees with them, which I understand. However, Amendment 480 has not been talked about at all. It is okay if he wants to address it in group 3.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise. I will talk about it in group 3.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is a very valid point in relation to this particular amendment. The reason I think some sort of regulatory process from the Secretary of State—a code of practice or something similar—is better is that you can give much more detail and many more examples. You should not be relying on just a particular two-word legal test.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this has been quite a revealing debate in many ways. In trying to go with the spirit of getting on with the Bill, I could have easily broken that group into just consideration about what should be physically in the country and what should be face to face. However, I thought bringing that debate together could have been, and has been, of benefit to your Lordships.

One thing that has come up, and the noble and learned Lord has recognised, is that the concept of face to face being largely default has been well received. There have been a few other issues, though. In her contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, gave a series of examples where, I have been informed by barristers, it would be required for clinicians to conduct home visits.

I was particularly struck by several speeches: I am not going to repeat them all. The noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, spoke about something as straightforward as a will, and certainly the legal protections are there.

Going forward to Report, I am clear that I believe that a lot of the operation and activities of these panels should happen in this country, rather than the psychiatrist, the KC or whoever being abroad in Tenerife—never mind anybody else. I think it is not sufficient to rely simply on statutory guidance. I gave the example last week when we talked about Montgomery: the GMC only changed their guidance, as was referred to, five years after the legal ruling. It did not happen straight away. The other thing about statutory guidance is that it does not have to come to Parliament; it is simply what the Minister can put out. For me, there are deficiencies in that approach, although I understand the flexibility. The whole point is that—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Whether it has to come to Parliament depends on the provisions, does it not?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

As it stands, there seems to be a variety around the Bill on whether or not there is that 40-day pre-laying. It just seems to vary. Standard legislation would not require it, unless Parliament or the Government inserted that specifically into the Bill.

Overall, there is still a lot to be discussed. I would like to seek a meeting with the Minister on the response that somehow Article 8 is engaged, linked to Article 14 and how Amendments 60 and 65 in particular are not operable in that regard. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 60.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am going to do my best.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I was struck by the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, about fake voices. That is an interesting thing for us to consider.

Yes, my amendment was quite blunt, but we once had a briefing—sorry, it sounds like I am going to name drop—at the Cabinet table; we had a whole session on it, telling us that artificial intelligence had learned to lie. A classic example is “I am not a robot”: artificial intelligence will, in effect, just press the element that says, “I’ve got accessibility issues”, and if you do that, you do not have to do any more verification. There is a whole series here. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, referred to an article. It is worth reading AI and Ethics Volume 5 from last year.

I wondered if the Minister might raise—I hoped that she would—the commission by the MHRA, which was started last year, specifically considering artificial intelligence. If she has not already, I think it would be worth while sending an instruction to the MHRA to start considering this aspect.

Ultimately, although I appreciate that there are noble Lords who do not want us to talk about the detail of how this might work, I think it is critical that we as parliamentarians set out for the future of any potential guidance, SIs or whatever legal rulings what we expect or how we expect this Act to deploy.

There is no doubt that algorithmic bias is a concern. That is why, although I do not entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that we might not revisit an amendment on Report referring to AI, I thank noble Lords for this debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

May I see whether the noble and learned Lord can give me an answer on the idea of having the principles in the GMC guidance? They have come in only as a result of the Montgomery ruling in the court.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

On the first point—the reference to the immunity in respect of civil suit—I will check this but I think the immunity is with respect to criminal proceedings.

I was so distracted by the penetrating question from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that I did not quite take in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. If she would be willing to repeat it, I would be very grateful.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I was cutting across, perhaps. I think the noble and learned Lord recognised my concern, in Amendment 188A, that I wanted stuff that is in case law now to be firmly included in the Bill, because, as I pointed out to the Committee in response to somebody else, the GMC guidance changed only as a consequence of that ruling. For me, that is really important to how we make sure that patients are at the heart of this.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting, but I think there is a profound misunderstanding. Let us look at Clause 8, because the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is making a very important point. Jess Asato was incredibly keen to specify that training in respect of

“domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse, is mandatory”.

Clause 8(8) says:

“The regulations must provide that the practitioner must have had training about the following”,


and paragraph (d) says “domestic abuse”. Subsection (10) says that training on domestic abuse must include

“training in respect of … coercive control and financial abuse”.

That was the point that Jess Asato was keen to establish.

Noble Lords will see at the top of page 41 of the Bill that the definition of domestic abuse

“includes behaviour that is controlling or coercive or … economic abuse”.

What is happening here is not a watering down of any of that. It is simply avoiding duplication between Clause 8(10) and the wide definition of domestic abuse in Clause 56. I understand why the noble Baroness might be confused about it, because it is slightly complicated, but that is the intention. It is not for one second to water down any of the protections.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I am confused at all. I know what Jess Asato tried to get into the Bill to give her assurances, and that something has changed. I had moved on to talk about the amendment from Jack Abbot, which was very important.

The issue of illness is an example of where the Government said they had worked with the Bill’s sponsor. The challenge of this group—I am thinking about what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said earlier—is that we are covering multiple issues on the basis of drafting changes. I would rather get into the substance of some of this when we get to later groups. However, Clause 14 says that, in the very unlikely circumstances that the doctor who agreed to give a second opinion “dies” or “through illness” is unable to continue, the person has the right to seek a second opinion elsewhere. My point is about removing “through illness”, which was specifically included the Bill. I am trying to understand why the noble and learned Lord is seeking to do that. I have already heard him say that you can just find another doctor, but I am particularly keen to hear from the Government their view, because they worked with the Bill’s sponsor in the Commons to get this phrasing about illness in.

The sponsor’s Amendment 416 is to do with independent doctors and Commons Amendment 459, and there is more than one reference to this issue. There was significant debate when Sarah Olney introduced her amendment in Committee in the Commons seeking to reduce the possibility of abuse by making sure that the second independent doctor has available the reasons why the first independent doctor concluded that the person was not eligible. My interpretation of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is that that goes away and there will not be two reports, and the amendment speaks further about aspects of the reports.

This amendment brought attention from other MPs. Lewis Atkinson talked about recognising that the provision of five different touchpoints of assessment—I appreciate the effort that has gone into trying to bring in safeguards around these matters—is one of the strengths of the Bill and that each assessment should be done in a way that can be progressed with more information. On the Bill’s record-keeping provisions, the assessment should become increasingly informed throughout the process, and therefore there should be an opportunity for a lot of those things to be shared with the panel, as the Bill proposes. Kim Leadbeater said that she was minded to support Sarah Olney’s amendment, but, again, some of those changes are being taken out.

I am not entirely clear about Amendment 417. I somewhat understand the disability definition, although there is only one reference to Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 anywhere.

This group of amendments needs careful scrutiny as we go through the different groups for later discussion. One of the aspects that we need to make sure of is that the extensive concessions made in the other House do not all of a sudden, through just a few changes here and there, go away. In fact, as we know, in this House we are even considering what further safeguards there could be. One of my reasons for rising today was to bring this to the attention of the Committee. I am not suggesting that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has done this in bad faith. He may well think that this is just being more efficient, but the extensive debate and the support in the other place—indeed, the support of Kim Leadbeater—for several of these amendments as they were originally drafted mean we should be asking him to think again. We will get into some of the detail in the debates on future groups. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that it is the Equality Act, not the disability Act; I apologise for that. If we were to restrict it to that, we would restrict it to a particular thing, and we think that it should be wider that. Again, we can talk about that at the ever-expanding meeting.

On Amendment 416, the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, was particularly exercised by the fact that the second doctor would not see the report of the first doctor; he would have some degree of problem with that. The noble Lord will know that, where a second doctor is brought in—where a referral is made to a new practitioner—the co-ordinating doctor must provide the new doctor with a copy of the previous report. If the new doctor is satisfied as to all the matters mentioned in Clause 11 on capacity et cetera, he or she then has to say why he or she disagrees with the previous doctor. The noble Lord’s legitimate sharpness in relation to that point was based, I think, on an improper understanding of Amendment 416, which will allow this to happen only once the new doctor sees the report of the previous doctor.

In the light of my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which was right for us to have, I will not move my amendment. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was kind enough to indicate that she will withdraw her amendment to my amendment, because the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, thinks his drafting is better, we will have to wait and see what happens on Report. Do not hold it against me when I come back with the same amendment on Report.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his extensive responses. They reflect that “ensure” and “take reasonable steps” are actually different in law compared with what is expected. I am grateful to him for saying that he will not press his amendments in Committee and that he will allow us the opportunity to meet him and others to discuss some of these issues, where we think the provisions go beyond what might be considered legal drafting. I am slightly concerned that the Government did not reply to one particular aspect, but I will take that up separately with the Minister. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw—

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might take the opportunity to respond to the point I put to him on confirming the drafting of that amendment. He must have overlooked it.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is in the notes, but I will write to the noble Lord on that.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am surprised to hear that. I will make inquiries, but I am almost sure that that will not be the case with this.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, gave us an interesting tour d’horizon of the law and said how “ordinarily resident” applies in various areas. “Ordinarily resident” means the same thing in all those areas. For the reasons I have already given, I do not think it will prove a difficult thing to apply in practice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his endorsement of the approach to “ordinarily resident”.

The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked me a number of questions, such as about the citizen who was ordinarily resident here and then went to live abroad—I think that was the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. If a person decided that they were going to move to Spain and live the rest of their days there, then when they become ill they wanted to come back and have an assisted death, under the terms of this Bill they would not be eligible because they would not have been ordinarily resident in this country for 12 months—this country being England and Wales.

The noble Lord’s second question was about somebody from Northern Ireland who comes here and asks for an assisted death. Again, they would not be eligible because the assumption under his question was that that person’s ordinary residence was in Northern Ireland. His third question was about why opinion is not satisfied. It seemed to us that opinion is enough in relation to this because it would be done basically by asking a number of questions and you would assume that the answers that you had would be honest.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I notice that the noble and learned Lord has taken interventions. I do not believe that he has addressed my issue about the risk of tourism. He has used interchangeably during his explanations “permanently” and “ordinarily resident”. No distinguished lawyer here has countered the view that you can be ordinarily resident in more than one country at the same time. We have the broader issue that case law and NHS guidance can change this. It really needs revisiting. Will he try to address my issues about tourism and this Bill?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I honestly think that is a smokescreen. The Bill says, in a way that the law has recognised time and again—because this Parliament has to make choices from time to time about who gets benefits—that the benefits of the Bill should be given only to those who ordinarily live in this country. That phrase has not given rise to problems. The courts understand it, doctors understand it and the panels will understand it. If we in this Parliament cannot say that we will give rights only to those who are ordinarily resident, which is a phrase that means something, we will never be able to determine who is entitled to our rights. I say, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that what we are trying to do in the Bill is clear. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to withdraw her amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I think I answered that; the noble Lord may not have been satisfied with my answer, but I did answer it by saying that people have to be satisfied that the decision is voluntary and without coercion. If they do not know, because they cannot read adequately the community, they could not be satisfied.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord has just made a point about the risk of coercion and referred to a psychiatrist. It would be very helpful to understand what clause in the Bill he is referring to, because Clause 12(6)(b) is only about the capacity of the person; it is not talking about coercion. I am also conscious that capacity is on the balance of probabilities anyway. It would be useful to understand which clause he believes referral would be in, on the grounds of coercion.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I will come to that in a moment, because I have to get through the amendments—we have to make progress a bit. However, I completely understand the question.

Amendment 50 is from the noble Lord, Lord Evans. He basically said that when anybody tries to behave badly, trying to coerce or pressure somebody into making the decision to have an assisted death, that should be sufficient to bar it for ever, even if it had no impact whatever in relation to it. I see the force of that; I think it would be a wrong amendment, for the following reasons. Somebody—a doctor—might go over the line, but it is absolutely clear that the person definitely wants an assisted death. I do not think they should be barred from doing that because they are concerned about what might happen to the doctor or to the person they love if it is absolutely clear that they have not been coerced or pressured into it.

On Amendment 52 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, she is saying that somebody should not be subject to or at risk of coercive control. Everybody agrees that the person who is adopting the assisted death should not be subject to coercive control. If they are at risk, I would expect the two doctors and the panel to investigate that fully and, if they are not satisfied that the person is reaching a decision of their own, plainly an assisted death cannot go ahead. But I think we are all on the same page in that the risk has to be properly investigated and a conclusion reached.

Amendment 57A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, says you should not be allowed to have an assisted death if someone has been

“prompted to consider ending their own life”—

presumably in the context of assisted death—by any professional person. Clause 5 leaves it to the judgment of the doctor as to whether they raise the question with the patient. If they raise it, they have to raise it under Clause 5 in the context of the treatment available to the patient and all other options available, including palliative care. I do not think that if a doctor, or indeed any other professional person, makes a judgment that it would be sensible to raise it, that should thereby debar the person from having an assisted death. The noble Baroness wants to intervene. By all means let us prolong the debate if it is a new point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

With the greatest respect, the noble Baroness has missed the point. If, for example, a person says to the doctor, “I’m not telling you things”, the doctor can never be satisfied. That is the protection.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Would the noble and learned Lord write to me with the answer to the question I asked earlier?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Of course, and I apologise for not answering it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am not sure the noble Lord has quite understood what I have said. It is for the regulations in so far as they deal with the Welsh health service to be delivered by Welsh Ministers, so it is quite inappropriate for us to put them in this Bill.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was brief at the start because I wanted to give the Minister the chance to be transparent for the benefit of this House. I am sorry to say that I hope that the letter will give that, but I am concerned that it will not. The reason I say that has been well explained in the discussions in the Welsh Senedd. In the supplementary to the latest legislative consent memorandum, it says:

“The UKG has not confirmed their position as to whether they believe the consent of the Senedd is required for this Bill as amended at the House of Commons Report stage but have acknowledged that some clauses do”.


When will the Government share with this House what they think is devolved and what is reserved? Why are they reluctant to do so? This is what I am struggling to understand. I have been asked outside this Chamber why am I bothered about Wales. I care about Wales anyway. It may not be widely known, but I went to school in Wales, I have family in Wales and both my parents are buried in Wales. But I would say that I am also here as a legislator.

Having been an MP, a Minister and a Cabinet Minister, I am used to being taken to court on details of legislation, and to the back and forth with devolved Administrations. I am not doing this simply to try to be awkward; we are trying to define the legislation. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in the Welsh Senedd believes that Clause 1 should be devolved. To give another example, people might be aware of the issue of smacking. Basically, Wales was able to use its child welfare powers and then made a request. We will come on to this later in the debate about amending the Government of Wales Act, I think. If we recognise that the only context under this Bill in which there can be help with assisted death—assisted suicide—has to be healthcare settings then surely there is something there about the Welsh Senedd having the opportunity, through later amendments, to make that determination in the first place.

I mention that now because my noble friend Lord Markham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said we should be deciding the principle of whether this Bill should be seen in that regard. Actually, recognising the whole, I am strongly of the view that this should be taken out of this Bill through an amendment to the Government of Wales Act. That is to some extent why I put tabled this. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s position on Clause 1? I would be very happy to have an answer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on whether he believes that. The Welsh Parliament certainly does.

Further, will the Minister put in the Library the minutes of the meetings so we can understand what is happening between the two Governments about the practicality and legality of this aspect of the Bill? I know that Ministers will, understandably, often say that it is all legally privileged. Those of us who have been in government know that you tend to get small aspects of legal privilege and lots of policy content in regarding and summarising, which is not legally privileged. That is where I hope that we can get this transparency from the Minister and, if necessary, the sponsor—I do not quite understand this; it is one of the most complicated Private Members’ Bills I have ever seen—and, actually, just an answer to whether Clause 1 is reserved or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I was hoping to get an answer; we can speak more than once in Committee, because we are trying to understand. Otherwise, later days in Committee and Report could become quite painful. I hope to get an answer from the Minister today.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I have been absolutely clear that, in so far as Clause 1 affects a change to the criminal law, it is reserved. In so far as implementation of it by the health service is concerned, that is a matter for the Welsh Government, not the Bill. If there is any lack of clarity in that answer, let me know.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I would be grateful if any advice that has been given to the noble and learned Lord by officials is shared with the Committee. It is helpful, when determining legislation, to understand that, and it would be especially helpful if the Government, who have said they are getting involved only on legality and practicality, were to express their view. They will not even tell the Welsh Government what their view is, and that is very concerning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I want very briefly to put on record that Professor Sir Chris Whitty is not the Chief Medical Officer for England and Wales, but for England only. I will wait for another time for the answer to the question I asked about power of attorney to be given, ideally by the Minister.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I will answer that one. No, you cannot do it by power of attorney. You have to do it yourself.