Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Kamall

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Indeed, and in fact many classical liberals and libertarians understand the individual’s role in a wider society. But that is not the basis of this debate, and I digress too much. I will return to the group of amendments.

I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, understands the concerns of those who have raised issues about minority communities and people being stuck in the system. But I also know that he has already made his view clear about the principle of seeking to exclude some of those other principles—if I am incorrect, I am sure he will correct me. So I suspect that, given the strength of feeling, we will return to these amendments on Report.

Given that—I understand that the Minister may not be able to answer all the questions now and we accept that he or one of his colleagues will write to us—we have to understand how the Government envisage how a person’s motivation beyond their terminal condition could be established. That is the crux of the matter. How do you establish that if you can justify it only on the grounds of terminal illness, not other motivating factors?

For example, what work, if any, have the Government or NHS England done to try to understand that? One assumes they may have to draw up guidance for this one day. Have the Government, or anyone in government, looked at how other countries have handled this issue, whether they do handle this issue, and what would have to change? We spoke earlier about the foundations of the National Health Service and what might have to change in guidance for many of the practitioners. Indeed, what training would be required?

As my noble friend Lord Deben has often said, this goes way beyond just the Bill. It will affect the Department of Health, the practitioners and the legal system. These are questions we need the Government to answer. They can still take a neutral position, but they have to understand that noble Lords seek to understand the implications here for government, the costs to government, and how that will change.

I understand these questions are in depth and recognise that the Minister may feel it is slightly unfair. I do not expect all the answers now. But it has been a constant theme throughout the debate and the many days in Committee that we need better answers from the Government. That is not a party-political point; it is purely that we want to see the implications of this on government: what extra costs there will be, what guidance will have to change and, however the Bill finally turns out, and in whatever form it reaches the statute book, how the Government will deal with that. I suspect that, for many noble Lords who are torn the Bill, that might be the deciding factor on how they vote at the end of the day.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their considered contributions on the motivation for assisted dying. Before I go into the meat of my comments, I join the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in thanking the House clerks and staff for all their efforts and dedication in allowing us to sit for longer on a Friday to consider these weighty issues properly.

I also share the noble Lord’s comments about our wider motivations across the House, and about generally in politics wanting a better society. For what it is worth, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that, indeed, no man is an island. Whether that makes me a classical liberal or not, I am not sure—probably not.

These amendments seek to amend the eligibility criteria for assisted dying, to require that the person’s wish to end their own life is due to their terminal illness rather than to other reasons. I will keep any detailed comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

Amendments 320ZA and 332AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seek to prevent people being eligible for an assisted death if they are motivated by non-medical factors such as loneliness, poverty or lack of services. There are various workability issues with these amendments, which I will briefly outline to aid noble Lords’ consideration. First, it could be challenging to establish whether someone is seeking an assisted death as a result of specified factors, given that a person’s motivations could be complex. Furthermore, a wide range of factors could be deemed as non-medical, given that the term is not defined and the list given is non-exhaustive. It is also unclear how the patient or doctor are meant to proceed if these factors are present.

I raise no major workability issues with the other amendments in this group, which are rightly a matter for your Lordships’ House to decide. However, I would like to set out their potential effects, which noble Lords may wish to consider. The amendments would require a person’s terminal illness to be a motivation for them seeking an assisted death, but, as drafted, they do not require it to be the only or primary motivation. It is arguable that every person seeking an assisted death under the Bill would be doing so in some way because of their terminal illness, so it may be that, in practice, the amendments would not impact on who is eligible.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked me some questions. I would push back on his first question around how the Government envisage a process or system for establishing motivation beyond condition: we genuinely think this is a policy decision, and that is one for my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, the Bill’s sponsor, and those others who support the Bill. On his question about any work or research that NHS England has undertaken, I do not have that answer at my disposal, but I am very happy to take it back and write to him.

Finally, I would just like to mention that none of the amendments in this group has had technical drafting support from officials, so the way they are currently drafted means that they may not be fully workable, effective or enforceable.

Plant-based Diet

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Kamall

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. As she suggests, the farming road map is part of a package of land-based strategies being published by Defra, which will include the food strategy. It will set out what is needed to restore nature, address climate change and support the production of healthy and sustainable food. The land use framework to which she referred will express the land use implications of these objectives and how the Government intend to manage trade-offs between them. The road map itself will describe how the farming sector will be supported to deliver land management and land use changes. I can say that it will be published in due course.

My noble friend mentioned the sustainable farming incentive. This pays farmers and land managers to carry out actions that support the sustainable production of food and boost farm productivity and resilience while protecting and enhancing the environment. I am pleased to say to your Lordships’ House that the SFI now has more than 39,000 multi-year live agreements, and is not only delivering sustainable food production and nature recovery for today and the years ahead but putting money back in farmers’ pockets.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, a number of elite athletes follow a plant-based diet, and some of the wealthier ones are investing in companies that produce plant-based foods, but we know that not all plant-based foods are necessarily healthy. For example, some plant-based burgers or sausage rolls have been found to have higher levels of sodium or salt than their meat-based equivalents. This can be very confusing for consumers, especially those who want to eat more healthily. Are the Government satisfied that consumers wanting to switch to a plant-based diet have enough information to understand which plant-based foods are healthier and which are not? If not, who do the Government think is responsible for ensuring that consumers get the appropriate information they need to make an informed choice?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and his observations. Speaking personally, I find that we are eating far more of a varied diet at home, and indeed often plant-based and purely vegan meals. That is generally generated by the desire of my teenage daughters to live a healthier lifestyle, even if they are not particularly my objectives. The noble Lord makes a point about the way that, through the food strategy and the Eatwell Guide, we are trying to ensure that people have a clear understanding of what a healthy, balanced diet looks like and can be accessed, whether that includes meat and dairy or, indeed, a purely plant-based approach. It is important that consumers of all ages can access that information, which is being promoted as part of the food strategy.