Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 22, 308 and 347, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Amendment 22 rightly seeks to exclude serving prisoners and those detained by a hospital order from accessing assisted dying under the Bill. As we have heard, the Bill speaks the language of choice, autonomy and settled intention, yet this group are, in effect, the group least likely to have choice, autonomy and settled intention. Nevertheless, these are men and women living in overcrowded, often violent environments, cut off from family contact and support networks, access to services and meaningful work—those things that provide a context for someone’s life. Many are traumatised, mentally ill or struggling with addiction.

Prisoners, as we know, are an exceptionally vulnerable population. In a report published in July this year, the Prison Advice and Care Trust—PACT—warned of the mounting mental health crisis in prisons, where mental ill health is the norm and not the exception. It goes on to note that rates of self-harm in prisons have more than trebled in the last decade, from nearly 26,000 in 2014 to just over 79,000 in 2024, and reflects that recent data shows that, among prisoners, 56% of men and 74% of women report having mental health problems. In the year to June 2025, government statistics show that there were 86 self-inflicted deaths per 1,000 prisoners.

Behind these statistics lies a culture that breeds hopelessness. It is into this context that we are proposing to make serving prisoners eligible for an assisted death. I am deeply concerned that, terminal illness aside, if you design a scheme in which a person’s own sense of despair may well be a key trigger, and there is no requirement for asking someone what their motivation is for engaging in this act, those who feel most hopeless will be the most susceptible. By any objective measure, prisoners are perhaps among the most hopeless within our society.

I note that in response to a question during the Select Committee evidence sessions, the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman KC, MP, commented that, as we have already heard, this is a policy choice on which “the Government is neutral”. But she went on to say that much will depend on its interaction

“with the wider prison regime and some of the challenges that lie therein”,

and that there would be a need to ensure that the Bill operates in a way that

“does not lead to abuse or is not misused”.

I would like to learn from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, precisely how he intends to ensure that this is not misused within the prison system.

I wonder whether the Minister and indeed the noble and learned Lord have considered the 2021 Hospice UK report Dying Behind Bars. The authors note that

“up to 90% of older incarcerated people have at least one moderate or severe health condition, with over half having three or more”.

I have great sympathy for the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox; clearly, the state has already taken from these individuals their liberty as a punishment to protect the public. The state is of course also responsible for the delivery of healthcare within prisons. In such an imbalanced power dynamic where the state has such overwhelming power, the shift this legislation represents as drafted, whereby the state may say to a prisoner who otherwise meets the eligibility criteria, “We will help you die”, is a profound challenge. I am concerned that if we fail to exclude prisoners from the remit of the Bill, we risk undermining the comprehensive suicide prevention programmes operating in our prisons.

Providing access to assisted dying in prison sends a chilling message that where the state has failed to provide adequate care, resources or meaningful autonomy, its final offer is death, which is why I support this amendment. I am conscious of time, though, so will speak only briefly in support of Amendments 308 and 347 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

Noble Lords will perhaps be aware that I ran community projects for homeless people for the better part of two decades. I will not repeat what others have said, but the complexity of the lives of people who are homeless cannot be overstated, and I am deeply concerned that the Bill fails to account for their specific needs and risk factors. People experiencing homelessness already face significant obstacles to accessing the healthcare they need. The NICE guidelines for integrated health and social care for people experiencing homelessness note:

“Barriers to access and engagement with preventive, primary care and social care services can mean that problems remain untreated until they become very severe and complex”.


It seems entirely reasonable to reflect the complexity of the lives of people experiencing homelessness, as the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness aim to do.

I accept that the legislation is based upon the premise of autonomy, but autonomy is not absolute, and we do not live as isolated individuals. It is reasonable and appropriate to ensure that this legislation is as safe as possible, with vulnerable populations in mind. To that end, I also strongly support Amendments 308 and 347.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, before we proceed, I will just say that we are getting to the point where we should begin to think about Front-Bench replies to this group of amendments so we can finish at around 3 pm. I do not want to break mid-group because that, of course, is very difficult for the House, Members and the clerks, as it will have to be recorded. Perhaps your Lordships can just bear that in mind, as I am conscious that the time now is nearly 2.40 pm.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make a practical point. It is obvious that this will be the first Act in relation to assisted dying. Clearly, it is unjust because it does not deal with people with motor neurone disease and so on. Why does the House not accept that the issue of prisoners should be in the next Bill and not the present one?

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 23 and 24 not moved.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have completed four groups of amendments today, which in my opinion is still slow progress. It means that, in four days of Committee, we have completed only 10 groups of amendments. Before we return to Committee in the new year, I think that all noble Lords should reflect on that fact.

The one thing I have achieved today is a run on copies of the Companion. There are now only two copies left in the Printed Paper Office. I draw to the attention of the House page 15, pararaph1.54, which makes clear that:

“The House does not recognise points of order”.


We are a self-regulating House. This is the reason why we say “My Lords” in the House and do not address either the noble Lord on the Woolsack or the noble Lord at the Table. Being a self-regulating House is something we all treasure, but it does call for some self-regulation by all noble Lords.

I will talk again next week to the usual channels. I will also email all noble Lords, to their parliamentary email accounts, with the various references, relevant paragraphs and page numbers. I can recommend chapter 8 as very good festive season reading.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I want to ask a question about timing. I have read that, somehow, in the calculation of time allocated for Committee, it is expected that we would have one and a half times the number of Committee hours on a Bill than the other place. My understanding when I was in the usual channels was that we tried to provide, roughly speaking, the same number of Committee hours in your Lordships’ House as they do in another place. I wonder whether the noble Lord could clarify that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I can confirm that I had never heard of the one and a half days figure until I saw the letter that arrived yesterday. We are a self-regulating House. There is no formal algorithm that we use for Committee days. I talk to the usual channels to try to get agreement on the number of Committee days; sometimes I am successful, and sometimes not. There is no formula or algorithm that we use, so I do not recognise the one and a half days comment that was made in the letter circulated yesterday.

House resumed.