Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

If we are talking about informed consent and approval of lethal drugs, we need to know: will there be a commitment to undertake proper research to ensure that patients have accurate information about how the lethal drugs that they want will work, what side effects may occur and what they must do to self-administer? If they opt not for oral ingestion but to use some device, as has been suggested, we also need to know that the work has been done to make sure that the device will maintain deep sedation while they die, rather than risk them reawakening. Will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, state the drugs processes in more detail in the Bill? I am sure that he will say that the types of drugs used are bound to change over time, as they will, but that does mean that we should not state in the Bill what may happen.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that, if we do not pass the Bill, people will continue to self-administer drugs that they obtain from who knows where or, as some of us know, hang themselves or take themselves into a car and use the exhaust pipe? Am I right that the noble Baroness seems to want to add something that is not there now for people who take their lives in the same position?

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

That is a very helpful intervention because the evidence from the places that have gone down this road and changed their legislation is that the unassisted suicide rate does not fall. This does not seem to prevent suicides from happening and these amendments are about people having information. With these amendments, we are not debating whether the Bill passes; we are debating the contents of the Bill and whether it is safe for patients.

Given the problems, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer: is there a plan to relicense drugs that in this country are available only for veterinary use, for the purpose of ending the life of patients here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Sadly, for the noble and learned Lord, I think that there are more amendments that need to be discussed, including one that I have laid. We have all discussed this on the basis that there is no one else in the room. There could be relatives there expressing a wish. We have discussed this on the basis that the patient rises and has capacity. They may not have capacity and there may be relatives in the room with enduring powers of attorney. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, shakes her head, but there are many scenarios in which there is not clarity in the Bill between the moment the drug is administered and the moment of death or it fails. I am afraid that I give the noble and learned Lord notice that I think we will have to come back to this, because the medical profession is asking for clarity.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Can I put it on record that I am not shaking my head? I think it was made clear that the power of attorney could not be used for this purpose.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

This has been another interesting debate. Possibly more important than the speeches that we all made at the beginning has been the last 40 minutes of real debate and interchange with the noble and learned Lord. I am left with the feeling that many colleagues in the Committee feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions and some uncertainties that we may need to return to.

However, I will follow the instructions of the Companion and the Government Whips, and I will not seek to respond in any detail to the many good points raised by noble Lords. I merely wish to remind the Committee that in the debate we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Lawlor, Lady Hollins, Lady Berridge, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady O’Loan. We also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Harper, Lord McCrea, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Lord Wilson of Tredegar and Lord Mawson. What they all had in common was that they were deeply concerned that the definition of informed consent is not strong enough in the Bill and something more needs to be added.

I think that the noble and learned Lord relied on Clause 12(2)(c)(iv). The doctors have to discuss

“the nature of the substance that is to be provided”

and, in Clause 12(2)(d),

“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications”.

However, there is nothing in there to say that they have to discuss the complications with them or the possible side effects. The noble and learned Lord may pick me up on this if I put the wrong words into his mouth, but I think that he said that explaining the nature of the substance could possibly—I think that he used that word—include discussing the possibility of complications and side effects.