Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I rise, after a very heavy day of debate, because it is important to reflect on what I have heard, not only in interactions with colleagues and friends across your Lordships’ House but, more importantly, from the public. They are looking to us to do our role: to scrutinise legislation. I have sat through some fantastic debates, particularly watching the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, on the other side of the argument. However, I have canvassed colleagues on this side of the House—we are not whipped either—and some of their comments are, “I am not supportive of your position, but I am frustrated by the lack of progress”. That is a consistent message across your Lordships’ House and out among the public.

There is a lot of scrutiny on your Lordships’ House at the moment—on what we do, whether we deliver value for money, et cetera. There would be a massive negative reaction from the public, regardless of what side of the argument they are on, if we do not get through this legislation. I join the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in urging the Government and the usual channels to support us, as suggested by the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We owe it to the public, who will be watching us, to do our best to make sure that we do our duty and send this Bill back to the other place for it to do its duty as well.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the idea that this Bill needs extra time. It is entirely unsurprising that that is the case given that, notwithstanding the fact that it is a Private Member’s Bill, it is dealing with such a matter of substance. For example, if you compare the process that was put before the House for the Mental Health Bill—an important but arguably less significant piece of legislation—by the time we got to the Lords Committee stage, we had already had an independent commission, a White Paper, a public consultation, draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. All of that is in effect being done by your Lordships through this process, so it is not surprising we need extra time. The suggestion that, just because this has been introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, democracy requires that we give it less scrutiny than a government Bill is an unpersuasive argument.

It is also the case that, over the first few days of Committee, some pretty significant matters of substance have arisen. We are not going to rehearse them now, but they are around capacity, choice, vulnerable groups and eligibility. While agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the sponsor, that we need to find a way of coming to some judgments on these questions, what process does he envisage for that? The guidance that those who have put down probing amendments in Committee have got back from the Government—precisely because the Government do not want their fingerprints all over this Bill—has been, shall we say, Delphic or elliptical. The phrasing that Ministers have used time and again has been, “If you are contemplating coming back with an amendment such as that on Report, then you will need to do further work to make sure it is fully workable, effective and enforceable”, but then there is no subsequent work to bring that about. If we are going to have a substantive debate on Report, so we can get these safeguards in place, we are going to need to see that.

Finally, I would like to ask a question of the Government. For those of us who have concerns about the interaction between this legislation and the state of the health service, social care and palliative care, it would be very helpful if we could have more clarity soon from the Government on how they see those interactions happening. Yesterday, in the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their detailed modern framework for palliative care until, in effect, after this Bill had supposedly already passed through Parliament, which seems to me a dangerous reversal of the timetable that we require. It would be excellent to hear from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Government how they can help the House constructively engage on Report on some of the safeguards which are, in my judgment, clearly needed.