Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Even if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, thinks that our concerns are misplaced, given that he agrees with our contention that this question should be put beyond doubt, I argue that he should accept these amendments. Alternatively, if they are technically faulty—which I accept they might be, given that we do not have all the drafting support that he and the Government have—if he can come forward with some better drafted amendments to deal with that concern, on an issue on which there is agreement, that would be very welcome and would enable us to make progress. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to address this group of amendments in that spirit, which is the spirit in which I know they are intended.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I very strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. I would just like to correct something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said in his email yesterday, I think. I am extremely anxious to get this Bill through to Third Reading, but I profoundly dislike it, and I never said that I wanted to get it right the way through to the House of Commons. I just wanted to put that right.

I doubt the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that judges would be moving the goalposts. I think he is in a different world from me. Having been a judge, I do not remember ever moving the goalposts; it is only when the law is uncertain that judges, from time to time, have to come to decisions.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness and, of course, I defer to her knowledge of the law. The point I am making, which I think is the same point, is that we should make sure that the legislation is absolutely clear, so that there is no risk of that. The other issue, of course, is that so much of this legislation is not in statute but left to regulations, which are much easier for judges to challenge than primary legislation.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am not at all sure that they are. If Parliament has passed regulations or primary legislation, judges apply it; they certainly do not try to move the goalposts. That is the only point I am making.

The last point I want to make is that as the recipient of a lasting power of attorney, which is in the hands of my children, I certainly do not want them to decide when I die.

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the point about lasting power of attorney that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has made and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, has reinforced, but I also want to look at it another way round. The fear—which is a very justified fear—is that the power could be abused in the case of assisted suicide, but I also think it is important to look at it from the point of view of the person who has given the lasting power of attorney.

Many noble Lords will have lasting power of attorney—I declare that I do myself—and it carries certain responsibilities. One thing that surprised me when I first got lasting power of attorney was that I might be asked to take a view about whether a “do not resuscitate” order should be given. Of course, that was an intimidating responsibility and something that I needed to establish with the person concerned. I understand why it had to happen, but it was pretty difficult and anxiety-inducing. Imagine if we who possess lasting power of attorney had some responsibility to take a view about whether the person over whom we have those powers should have an assisted suicide. It would seem a very unpleasant responsibility, and therefore it is important that both sides—the person who transfers the powers and the person who receives those transferred powers—should be quite excluded from this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Might I respectfully suggest to the Committee that we now hear from the Front-Bench spokesman so that we can finish this line of amendments by 5.30 pm?

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

It may be helpful for the Committee if I simply read, very briefly, for the assistance of considering this amendment, what the former Chief Coroner of England and Wales, Justice Teague, said about the background to the decriminalisation of suicide when giving evidence to the Select Committee. I think the Committee would want to consider it. He said that

“the reason the change was made was not a change in the public policy towards suicide; it was a change in the criminal law to decriminalise it, because the situation had developed where you could not effectively prosecute the person who successfully committed suicide. What the law was doing was prosecuting people who failed. It was manifestly improper and unjust that people should, in effect, be punished for failing to achieve suicide, but it was always made clear at the time of the debate in Parliament that it would remain an offence to assist a suicide, and that it would be the policy of the law that suicide was not something to be approved of”.

In that context, the Committee may wish to consider whether, given that the act being considered here is the assistance of a suicide, it should be plainly named as such, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, proposes in his amendment.