Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, the debate on this matter this morning has been enlightening from all sides, with many with many distinctive speeches that will stay with me, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who brought a very personal account, though he is no longer in his place.

We are talking about concepts and words—whether it is encouragement, coercion or pressure. They are in a similar collective of words, and I worry that we are dancing with words a lot in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, brought the word “autonomy” to us this morning, which is very important. I know it has been described earlier in Committee and on the Floor here today. I would be significantly more encouraged and relieved if I could be absolutely sure that autonomy and freedom of action, freedom of movement, freedom of thought and of decision were clear, unambiguous and untainted. I cannot be assured by the Bill, as it stands, as it is weak on the coercion nature.

As I left the Chamber earlier—my wife had arrived— I thought back to the cases of Ruth Ellis and Derek Bentley, which were very significant as they stopped the death penalty in this country. It was a long time ago when the morality and thoughts of this country were in a very different place to today. One might talk about the deterrent effects of the death penalty—which is a whole different debate—but we were willing to put that aside because of the potential of getting things wrong, and we did not want miscarriages of justice. That was so powerful. However, here we are discussing this Bill with lots of suggestions on how we could strengthen the coercion measures and make sure that people are not being pushed towards an early death that they did not want. We are almost flippant about that because the unsaid words are, “They’re old and ill anyway, so they don’t really matter”.

In support of Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, my noble friend Lord Deben—with whom I do not always agree on everything—made a very powerful point. If you were to look at the bell curve of the wealth and status of us in this Committee, we are probably to the left of the public politically, but certainly to the right in terms of wealth and influence as a whole. There is a world of difference between how, if we were to face this, we would be treated—the voice we would have for ourselves and the way in which our families would know they have agency and power to speak—compared with others in society. It could be that the wealthy family would be in a different place, because they could afford the help at home and the support in a care home as necessary.

However, for those in the middle who perhaps have children who work away, which is increasingly likely in this country, the children are feeling guilty. There are lots of cases that have been talked about the real situation of how people feel. In cases of that type there may be no problem of wealth, but problems of support by children and others. The “I don’t want to be a burden” debate would be coming to the fore.

One of our Northern Ireland colleagues mentioned the issue of saying, “Do you know how much this costs the NHS?”. I will be exploring that in greater detail. I think Amendment 3 touched on having an independent person; I have laid amendments for another day examining whether the NHS should be part of this process at all.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that I could be encouraged but I am not sure how we can overcome the facets and dimensions of autonomy and coercion, because people and families are complex. One’s situation in life is complex. Just as we were willing to change a major piece of criminal legislation on the back of two errors, we seem to be not so interested in looking after the vulnerable in this Bill. I wish I could advance an amendment that would satisfy me—a lot of these amendments would make me a little more satisfied—but, no matter what we do, I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in saying that we need to look at this whole area of coercion and pressure all over again. It is absolutely apparent across this Committee that this is the sticking point for many of us, so please try to satisfy us.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in their various ways, the amendments in this group seek to protect those who are terminally ill from being coerced or pressured into a decision to seek an assisted death. One of the most worrying concerns that have been raised by opponents of this Bill is the risk of especially vulnerable people being encouraged or coerced into ending their own life. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, was right about that. For that reason, I do not think the Committee should feel embarrassed about having spent the time on this debate that we have.

As has been pointed out, the Bill already seeks to cover the coercion issue in its existing drafting. However, given that it creates a totally new role for medical practitioners in a situation where a terminally ill person wishes to end their life, in my opinion noble Lords are surely right that a laser focus should be applied to delivering protections designed to prevent any such coercion or pressure.

As a number of speakers have pointed out, coercion can come from anywhere—family members, friends, neighbours, other trusted people in our lives or an institution—and it does not have to be overt. It can and often does take the subtlest of forms. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Deben vividly described situations of that nature. Of course, the vast majority of family and friends of someone suffering from a progressive terminal illness will act in good faith to support their loved one through what is in many if not most cases an incredibly difficult time. However, when framing legislation around a decision as momentous as whether to opt for an assisted death and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, human nature being what it is, it is doubly incumbent on us to look for ways of safeguarding those who might be most susceptible to external pressure.

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would state more clearly in the Bill that the decision to end one’s life must be made independently. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will look favourably on this amendment, as it seems to me in tune with the Bill’s aims and purpose.

The question, though, as posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is whether it is necessary. As far as I can see, in no part of the Bill is there any indication that where a person finds it difficult to make a decision about an assisted death, or where the possibility of an assisted death has not even entered their head, it would be appropriate for their thoughts to be influenced or guided by another individual. Indeed, the Bill contains specific prohibitions on advertisement and promotion, as well as the offences set out in Clause 34 in respect of inducing a person to seek an assisted death by dishonesty, coercion or pressure.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Could I be vulgarly practical about this, because of a point the noble Baroness mentioned, which is the parallelism with the deposit return scheme that got into terrible trouble? I declare an interest as chairman of Valpak. We had to work through that, so it is burnt into me how extremely damaging it was because it was not decided beforehand. I know that we are talking about much greater issues here but, as I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept, this is a really serious issue; it brought about enormous cost and a vast misunderstanding, and it ended up destroying what the Scottish Government wanted to do. It is a very dangerous precedent. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will want to make absolutely sure that we do not have a repetition of something that cost vast sums of money, in both the private and public sectors, and that has undermined an important measure ever since.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments covers two distinct but connected questions. The first question, posed by Amendment 17, is, in my judgment, a very helpful one, because the answer will clarify the role—or lack of role—played by a person’s GP in the process being pursued by that person in seeking an assisted death. It seems to me, from reading the Bill’s provisions, that the involvement of a person’s GP in that process, although very likely, is not legally necessary provided that the patient fulfils all the conditions set out in Clause 1(1). Clarification from the noble and learned Lord would be very helpful.

The second question, posed by my noble friend Lady Fraser’s Amendment 62, is also one that I hope can be answered very simply by the noble and learned Lord. Am I correct that it is implicit in Clause 5 that the preliminary discussion between the patient and the registered medical practitioner need not involve a doctor physically situated in England and Wales and need not be face to face? Equally, am I correct that it is unnecessary to state in Clause 1(3)(b) that the steps set out in Clauses 8 and 19 must be taken

“by persons in England or Wales”,

because Clauses 8 and 19 already explicitly provide for this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I have said, I will keep my comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

On Amendments 17 and 309A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, Amendment 17 is a probing amendment that seeks to establish whether people who are registered with a GP in Scotland but live in England would be excluded from eligibility for an assisted death under the Bill. Noble Lords may wish to note that Amendment 17 would have limited effect as it amends only Clause 1, which is largely descriptive. Without further amendments to Clauses 10 and 17, which contain duties to assess eligibility criteria, Amendment 17 would not impact those criteria and would introduce conflicting provisions.

Amendment 309A would amend the corresponding eligibility criteria in Clause 10 to include a person registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England, Wales or Scotland. It would not amend Clause 17, which contains the assessment by the panel. Therefore, Amendments 17 and 309A would require further consequential amendments to ensure that the Bill is coherent. This would include amendments to ensure that data recording obligations and the associated criminal offences apply to Scottish GPs. These consequential amendments would likely require consultation with the Scottish Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, referred to, in line with the guidance for Private Members’ Bills.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for tabling Amendment 62. The purpose of this amendment is to establish why the Bill requires only the actions set out in Clauses 10 and 11 to be undertaken by people in England or Wales, and not the preliminary discussion under Clause 5. Our understanding is that the reference to the preliminary discussion in Clause 5 is not mentioned in Clause 1(3) because Clause 5(3) already requires that a person wanting to have a preliminary discussion must be in England and Wales. Amendment 62 would require steps under Clauses 8 and 19 to be taken by persons in England or Wales. As drafted, the Bill requires that most of the steps in Clauses 8, 10, 11 and 19 will already have to take place in England and Wales.

In addition, Amendment 62 would have the effect that, when the Secretary of State makes regulations under Clause 19, the Secretary of State must be in England and Wales at the moment they sign the regulations. This could lead to the regulations being improperly made and challenged should the Secretary of State not physically be in England or Wales at the time of signing the regulations. This raises a practical issue of workability, as I am sure the noble Baroness understands.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, relating to Scotland and guidance that the Government have provided to the sponsor, as I am sure noble Lords will understand, and I have reiterated, we are providing technical and workability support to the sponsor on devolution issues, including those that have been raised. This is an evolving situation that will continue throughout the passage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I will speak to these amendments because I want to make a new point. A very vulnerable population that we must continue to remember is the prison population. Although we will deal with the prison population more fully in the group coming up, we must remember that this Bill currently does not exclude prisoners from being eligible. That means we must consider how each issue is likely to play out in a prison setting.

As we have heard extensively, these amendments deal with two main issues: first, access to primary care; and, secondly, how well that primary care physician knows the details of your medical history. The first is very closely related to inequalities and making sure that those who have worse access to care are not more likely to choose assisted dying. The prison population are therefore a key group that must be considered, since their health and access to healthcare are worse than that of the general population. That is evidenced by the recently published report by the Chief Medical Officer.

That report also highlights access to healthcare for those in prison. There is no automatic or compulsory enrolment of prisoners into primary care on the prison estate. Over 20% of the prison population do not complete registration on arrival. For those who do, the service is often slow or inaccessible. According to the Nacro report on physical health in prison, two in five prisoners waited for a month or longer for a GP appointment and one in 13 never got one. According to the Chief Medical Officer’s report, one in three prisoners does not have their full electronic health record available to prison healthcare staff. These are not just statistics. When I visit and talk with prisoners about their well-being and purpose, access to healthcare is always spoken about.

Briefly, I do not believe that the issue of how well a primary care physician knows your medical history has been sufficiently considered from a prison context. If a GP may be the person to conduct a preliminary discussion to consider a person’s application for an assisted death, how will they do that safely with incomplete information about their patient’s health record? We must question eligibility along these lines. Before we talk about the next group of amendments, I hope that there will be important safeguards for prisoners on the issues raised in this group.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has already been very helpful in the undertakings and clarificatory comments that he made earlier in the debate, so I shall be very brief. In following up those comments, I will return to the question that I raised on the previous group. The Bill seems consciously to steer clear of insisting that a person’s GP must always be involved in the process being pursued by that person in seeking an assisted death, other than the GP having a duty to note in the patient record that the preliminary discussion has taken place. The entire process, in other words, could be conducted by the patient in conjunction with hospital-based medical consultants.

Do I understand correctly that the noble and learned Lord is willing to look closely at ways of making sure, by whatever means, that the crucial judgments made by clinicians about a patient’s capacity, about coercion and about that person’s settled wish to end their life are firmly and soundly based? The route to achieving that may well be the GP practice and the multidisciplinary team within it, but, as we have heard, that source of information may not be practical or useful in every case. Will the noble and learned Lord therefore ensure that he will consider more generally in the round possible safeguards that will forestall the possibility of superficial or cursory assessments being made—especially, perhaps, assessments by hospital consultants, who may have enjoyed only a brief acquaintance with the patient?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on proposed safeguards relating to general practice. I will keep my comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. On that basis, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the operational workability concerns in relation to Amendments 19, 20, 21, 29, 30B, 265A and 443A.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

Oh, absolutely: I think pressure is something incredibly important that we have to assess. Certainly, from the huge number of disabled people I have spoken to, pressure comes in many different ways, and it is very difficult to detect. If we do not take that seriously, I think people will be coerced into thinking that this is their only option, rather than that they have a range of options. That is picked up in some of my other amendments, but I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention.

We talked about the equality impact assessment. We need to look at the impacts on the Crown Court, on health and education committees and on children with SEND, and I think we probably need another version of the equality impact assessment to enable us to make the best decision on the way forward for the Bill. I am minded to support my noble friend Lord Carlile, because I think that what he proposes is much better than the panel currently in the Bill.

Mindful of time, I will leave my last comment to the Medical Defence Union, the leading indemnifiers of UK doctors, which gave evidence to the Commons Bill Committee:

“The involvement of the judiciary is essential. Its absence leaves doctors unduly exposed. Media reports suggest that an alternative safeguard is being mooted”—


noble Lords should understand that this was the context when the evidence was given—

“No ‘independent panel’, however so constituted, can replace the legal authority of a course of action sealed and ratified by a judge. Doctors deserve that certainty when relying upon this Bill to provide the very best for their patients at the most delicate moment of their duty of care”.


This is one group we have not really heard a lot from, and we should be minded of its role in the system as well.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as sizeable as this group of amendments is, the key proposals embodied within it can be described in relatively brief terms. The Committee therefore owes its gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for having given exactly that kind of helpful summary in his opening speech, which set our debate going on a good track. In thanking him for that, what has emerged most clearly to me in this debate is the far-reaching nature of the change to the architecture of the Bill represented by his proposals. In addition, were his proposals to be adopted in their totality, they would, as I read them, have the effect of simplifying very considerably the procedures required to bring about an assisted death.

In combination, those two consequences inevitably open up a range of questions, as we have heard, about how these proposals would work, not just in theory but most particularly in practice. We have, for example, heard questions about the capacity of the family court, about its funding and about the extent of the opportunity costs which the family court would need to sustain. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier gave us considerable reassurance on some of those issues, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, himself. However, the questions that have been asked are of fundamental significance and I think the Committee should hear from the Minister how the Government view the practical effect of the proposals and their workability.

On the principle of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we have heard some powerful points in their favour: for example, the established powers vested in the court; the analogous decisions which courts already have to make; the ability of the court to arrive at a reasoned judgment and to be a court of record; the fact that the court-based appeal system is well understood; and indeed the level of public confidence which the court already enjoys.

I would venture to add another, which is that the role for the court envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would be a substantive judicial role, in contrast to the role originally envisaged in the first iteration of the Bill. That came over to me, at least, as more of a tick-box exercise than an exercise of judicial judgment.

However, what I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, are his views on the strand of this debate brought out most ably by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lady Berridge and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier: how he has assessed the merits of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in comparison to the proposals set out in the Bill. He is on record, some years ago, as having favoured a court-based approach in this area of the law. If his view is that, on balance, he now favours the panel process, as set out in the Bill, what considerations have led him to that conclusion?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall respond to the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Coffey. Some of your Lordships may be aware that I know the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very well. Indeed, the convention of this House is that I refer to him as “my noble kinsman”. This has given rise to a number of jokes outside this Chamber, but there is a serious point to be made here. I reassure your Lordships that this has no effect on the Government’s neutral analysis of the workability of the amendments in question, and although I have the advantage of having advance notice of my noble kinsman’s position, I have engaged with him as to the Government’s response in no different a way from the way I would with any of your Lordships.

As this is the first time a Minister from the Ministry of Justice has spoken in this debate, I reiterate what has been said on many occasions by my noble friend Lady Merron: the Government’s position is that it is a matter for Parliament to decide the policy which underpins this Bill. It follows that I will not be providing a government view on the merits of any of the amendments, nor will I make any observations in a personal capacity.

I will, however, deal with the question asked by a number of your Lordships as to whether the Government would deliver this, were the will of Parliament to be that the general principle contained in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, were to be adopted. The answer is that, given our current workload, it would of course be challenging; I say this because I am in fact the Family Justice Minister, as well as the Lords Minister. But if it is the will of Parliament, then we will work with the judiciary to make sure that we have the resources in place to deliver what Parliament has decided.

This is a large group of amendments, and it is the Government’s view that—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

I would like to provide a brief clarification on the back of what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said about the points raised by Ms Leadbeater’s comments about feeling uncomfortable. It came from a report on ITVX on 6 March 2025. An assessment was taking place with Dr Jess Kaan. I believe family members were there, and then she asked the patient’s family to leave the room so that she could privately ask the patient whether it was a settled wish. The patient said yes, it was. I quote directly from the ITV website:

“For Kim Leadbeater, the virtual consultations did not make for comfortable viewing—she says it has made her think about adding an amendment to make clear that consultations with doctors cannot be done via video call and that they should be done in person”.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in the interests of time I do not propose to summarise the many points and questions that have been raised in this debate. However, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 320A in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson. The amendment seeks to set the presumption that the first assessment by the co-ordinating doctor

“must be undertaken in person, except in circumstances where this is not reasonably practicable”.

It is plain from everything that we have heard in the debate that the first assessment is a pivotal moment in the process set out in the Bill. It is the point at which a co-ordinating doctor must satisfy themselves not only of the diagnosis and prognosis but of the patient’s capacity and will and, crucially, the absence of coercion or pressure, as set out in Clause 10. These are human judgments that depend not simply on what a patient says but on the way that they say it, on physical cues and on the broader context in which the conversation takes place.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in particular, as I did to other noble Lords, and an in-person assessment undoubtedly allows a clinician to observe matters that may not be apparent on a screen—for example, who else is present in the room, whether the individual appears comfortable speaking freely or whether there are signs, however subtle, of hesitation or external influence. At the same time, I suggest that we need to be patient-focused as well as doctor-focused, which is why my noble friend’s amendment seeks to recognise practical realities. There will surely, from time to time, be circumstances, perhaps in late-stage illness when a person may be in acute distress, where an in-person assessment is genuinely not possible. The reasons for that could be several, but in those cases we need to ask ourselves whether a live video and audio link would be preferable to a delay, or even a complete exclusion from the process.

I emphasise that the amendment is a probing one. If we decide that provision should be made for certain cases then that would surely be a classic area for guidance or codes of practice, but the key test in every instance would be what is reasonable in the circumstances. My noble friend wants to be clear that this amendment is about setting the right default for arguably the most consequential clinical judgment in the entire scheme of the Bill, while preserving professional discretion in response to the needs of the patient where circumstances require flexibility.

I have deliberately spoken in general terms when talking about what might not be reasonably practicable. The question is really the one posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: how rigid do we wish the Bill to be in prescribing how the system should work? I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, could set out his vision of how this mechanism will work in practice and how he will ensure that the safeguards that we all want to see can still be maintained if an in-person assessment is not possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As ever, I will limit my comments to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

First, I draw the attention of the Committee to operational workability concerns about Amendments 60 and 65. Under Amendment 60, professionals delivering the service would be responsible for checking whether the person was in England or Wales on multiple occasions before carrying out their duties, even if it had been confirmed that the person was ordinarily resident in England or Wales. That would place a significant burden on professionals delivering an assisted dying service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, this is a really interesting group of amendments, and it has probably raised more questions for me than it has answered. When we talk about injury, I immediately think about people who have had a spinal cord injury and who have become a quadriplegic or a paraplegic.

By the very nature of my former career, I know a lot of wheelchair users who have been through various compensation cases. Luckily, these days the survival rate for someone with paraplegia or tetraplegia is very high. We also have to take that into account. I had not thought before about the impact on anyone who has been in the military. I know quite a few people who are injured through the military. Generally, the public are very supportive of the military and what they have gone through, and we would not want any unintended consequences for them.

When I was looking at conditions such as asbestosis, and others that have been debated on this group, it became very clear that in many cases these conditions present quite late and treatment is then very difficult, and many patients die before the compensation claim has gone through. We have talked before about coercion, and I know that Ms Leadbeater has said in various debates and comments that she is concerned about people being coerced not to end their life.

This is a situation where I could see this happening. If you go online and google asbestosis compensation or spinal cord injury compensation, a plethora of websites come up straightaway with calculators, so that you can have an indication of how much you could possibly gain. I had a look; it goes from a couple of thousand pounds for a back injury—which obviously would not account for this—up to £493,000 for someone with quadriplegia. The figures given as a range for asbestosis were £50,000 to £1 million. That is a life-changing amount of money for many families in this country, and it will colour the decisions they make.

It is slightly strange, because we talk about someone being a burden, but people will make a different decision because they are thinking of their children and grandchildren and protecting them for the rest of their lives. So a lot of clarity is needed to make sure that coercion does not go either way. I would be very interested in understanding what the noble and learned Lord intends to do to offer greater clarification for this group of amendments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, my noble friend Lord Harper’s Amendments 70 and 78 seek to expand the definition of terminal illness beyond illness or disease to include terminal injuries. If this amendment were accepted, it would enable those who have suffered terminal injuries through military service or industrial accidents, for example, to access assistance under the Bill.

It seems to me that these amendments are helpful in at least two ways. First, they raise the question of how we should define a terminal illness or disease. If a person has been injured and has a prognosis of six months, should that person be described as terminally ill for the purposes of the Bill? I suggest that this is not just a question for the noble and learned Lord; it is also one of relevance to Ministers. As we have said on previous occasions, it will be state-run services that deliver assistance, and Ministers will need to be clear on what constitutes terminal illness.

Put another way, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, rightly said, an injury is legally distinct from an illness, why should people with six months to live for reasons other than an illness or disease be excluded from the scope of the Bill? My noble friend Lord Blencathra argued that adding injury to illness would be a slippery slope. I need to reflect on that. I was not wholly convinced by what he said, because there is a moral case around an injured terminally ill person that we need to resolve. By the same token, if the question remains open, are we happy that it will be left to the courts to expand the definition of illness, if that is what the court decides? One could envisage that happening.

The second way in which the amendments are helpful is the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst’s Amendment 829, which seeks to address a specific problem caused by the interaction between this Bill and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Having listened to both my noble friends, I share their concern. As Amendment 829 rightly implies, it may not be possible to resolve this through a simple amendment to this Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether the Government accept my noble friend’s argument that if the rights afforded to bereaved relatives under the 1976 Act are to be preserved within the terms of this Bill—as surely is equitable—it will depend on the Government to identify ways in which that can be achieved in a legally and politically acceptable way.

Perhaps Ministers and officials could look at this between Committee and Report, and advise the noble and learned Lord, the Bill’s sponsor, so that we can resolve the problem before the Bill gets any further.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 107 and just wish to ask a few questions regarding the amendment. Along with my noble friend Lady Coffey, I note that when the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, brought forth his “bring back the judge” amendments, the MCA exited the Bill under that requirement. In relation to the MCA, it was useful to hear the eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer because, when you have someone so familiar like that, it would be useful for us to know when they last did an MCA assessment. She put that very eloquently.

In relation to the comments made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—this is something that again arose in a previous group—on the different statutory regimes of the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act, these are not, even now, separate. I served on your Lordships’ House’s Select Committee on the Mental Health Bill, and one of the first things that we had to look at was the situation in Northern Ireland, where the choice was made to fuse these parts of the law. That was not part of the independent review by Sir Simon Wessely, but it would have been one of the options at that time, because there is an overlap between the jurisdictions.

I know that the Minister said, on the previous group, that if she is silent, that is okay, but I ask the noble and learned Lord to invite the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to the meeting that is planned for next week with Alex Ruck Keene KC, because at the moment it is not clear that we have patients under one regime and patients under another regime. When you are detained under the Mental Health Act, one of the bases of that, when you potentially want to take your own life, is that you are under the prevention of suicide regime, with psychiatrists and clinicians there. But under this Bill, obviously, you are not, so the clinicians are asking for that clarity. I hope that we will be able to come back to your Lordships’ House after the meeting next week with that clarity. I also hope that the sponsor of the Bill could outline this.

I am surprised that we are still talking about this, because the Royal College of Psychiatrists has been raising this issue since November 2024. If we had had the amendments that could deal with its concerns, they could have truncated the debate. We had this discussion in relation to the advertising amendments. With the concerns from professional bodies, why do we not have amendments at this stage of the Bill, even though the noble and learned Lord said that amendments would be forthcoming? A year or more has gone by since these concerns were raised. I hope that he will be able to clarify why that is, at this stage. It is imperative that we see these amendments in Committee.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister rises to speak, I have a question for her about workability arising from one of the amendments included in this debate. In his Amendment 581A, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst posed a specific question on capacity at the moment when a person is given the substances with which they will take their own life. He is surely right that at that critical moment appropriate safeguards are needed where, for any reason at all, there is doubt about the person’s capacity—for example, where there is a history of fluctuating capacity. The doctor should clearly know how to respond to that situation. Can the Minister say whether she believes that the situation that my noble friend has described would require specific guidance to be issued by the Government over and above guidance already issued under the Mental Capacity Act?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on mental capacity and eligibility. As usual, I will keep my comments limited to those amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. Indeed, if I do not refer to an amendment, clearly that is not the case, as was just suggested.

I wish to make a point to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who asked about consideration about compliance with ECHR. It is probably helpful for me to re-establish the consideration about that. It is the role of the Government—this is what I am doing—to highlight where there is a risk of issues in respect of the ECHR. However, it is for the House to decide whether policy choices might create a risk and whether that amount of risk is acceptable or not. The other thing, if it is helpful to the noble Baroness, is that, if it is found that primary legislation is incompatible, there could of course be a declaration of that incompatibility. It would not invalidate legislation. That is probably the main point that I want to emphasise, but this is ultimately a matter for decision by the House.

Amendments 117 and 892, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would remove Clause 3 and insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations that establish an alternative framework for assessing and determining capacity, based on a psychological assessment, rather than reliance on the Mental Capacity Act. How to make that assessment on capacity—noble Lords have referred to this—is a policy choice and is therefore a matter for Parliament. However, as drafted, Amendment 117 uses a number of undefined terms such as “validated, standardised instruments” and “evidence-based methodology”, which, without further clarification or definition, are likely to create workability concerns. Amendment 892 would mean that the majority of provisions under the Bill could not come into force until the regulations under Clause 3 were made. This would make the backstop provision in Clause 58(4) ineffective.

I turn to Amendment 108, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. It would introduce a departure from the MCA framework by linking a lack of capacity in one area, to consent to care and treatment arrangements that amount to a confinement, to lack of capacity around another decision, the decision to end one’s life. This could create confusion and require additional guidance and training for practitioners.

It appears that Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thomspon, would introduce a separate specialist capacity assessment process for adults with a learning disability. This departs from the MCA framework, which requires proportionate, decision-specific assessments, rather than separate processes for particular groups. Operationally, this could create significant training and resource demands, as specialist assessors would need to be identified. The Committee may wish to note that the amendment restricts any publicly funded provider from undertaking the mental capacity assessment, which would mean that individuals with learning disabilities would have to self-fund the assessment from a private sector provider. There are also technical drafting issues, including a lack of definition for “learning disability” and other terms such as “relevant professional regulator”, which could lead to uncertainty in how the legislation is applied.

Amendments 117, 892, 108 and 119 would all involve introducing differential treatment, by treating different groups of people differently. As such, they could give rise to legal challenge on the basis of ECHR obligations, specifically Article 14, which prohibits discrimination when read with Article 8. Any differential treatment, as I said more broadly earlier, would need to be objectively and reasonably justified in order to comply with ECHR obligations.

I turn to Amendment 235 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The effect of this amendment is that certain groups of people would not be able to make a valid first declaration, as the noble Lord said. This could exclude people with learning disabilities, mental disorders, as per Section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and autism from accessing assisted dying. An individual who may experience substantial difficulty in understanding processes or communicating their views, wishes or feelings would also be excluded under this amendment from accessing assisted dying. The definition of “mental disorder” in the Mental Health Act is extremely broad and will include those with conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, anxiety and sleep disorders. The Committee may wish to note that these groups would be excluded, even if their condition had no impact on their ability to fully understand the relevant information.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to address the issue of mission creep. I have tabled amendments that come so late in the procedure that I do not think we will ever reach them, but I am concerned that the Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, will morph into something entirely different from what we have all voted on.

I have a confession to make. I voted in the early 1980s for amendments to Lord Steel’s Abortion Bill, which went through at that stage. One of the concerns we had with that Bill was that it would morph into abortion on demand, and abortion on demand was not what we voted for in Parliament. We therefore have to be reassured that this Bill will not do the same thing. I am very concerned that, if it morphed into a euthanasia Bill, we would have a consultant in geriatrics walking through a ward saying, “I want to see those three people in those beds dead by the morning because there’s a bed-blocking issue”, and so forth. I am sure that nobody in the House wants to see the Bill become a euthanasia Bill.

Can we have an explanation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about what happened to the Abortion Bill and why it morphed, without Parliament having any input whatever, into abortion on demand? I am concerned that it might happen with this Bill as well, under the commissioner whom we are talking about. What checks can Parliament have to ensure that the Bill does not go down the same road as the Abortion Act?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to the amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. His Amendment 913A seeks to probe an issue raised by a number of noble Lords in this debate: namely, the means by which the assisted dying commissioner may be held accountable. As the Bill is drafted, and as we have heard, the commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minister. In his amendment 124, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier would have them appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. The point that the amendment addresses is that, whoever appoints the commissioner, there ought to be a clear accountability mechanism and a process whereby concerns about the conduct of the commissioner can be investigated in response to formal representations. My noble friend suggests that representations might be made to the Prime Minister, but I would be very interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord what thought he and his co-sponsor have given to the way in which the commissioner will be held to account.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, given the size of this group and the need to keep my remarks within the speaking limit, I have taken a rather different approach to the structure of my speech, which I hope your Lordships will find helpful. Rather than going through the amendments thematically or in chronological order, I will structure my speech by first setting out some observations about the legal implications of some of the amendments. Then, I will outline what the Government see as operational workability issues presented by some amendments and, finally, I will turn briefly to drafting considerations. Essentially, I will be flagging issues by theme, but if your Lordships have any further questions relating to the workability of any amendments, I will be very happy to write to set out the Government’s views in more detail and place a copy in the House Library. I will not comment on all the amendments. If I say nothing about a particular amendment, it is because the Government have no concerns.

As my noble friend Lady Merron, the Health Minister, and I have set out many times, the Government’s position remains that it is for Parliament to consider the policy, so I will not be providing a government view on the merits of any proposed changes or make any observations in a personal capacity.

In other debates on the Bill, your Lordships have asked how the Government plan to implement it. I will set this out at the outset. The Government have not undertaken any detailed implementation work that would precede the parliamentary process. Should Parliament pass the Bill, the Government will then undertake detailed work to develop a delivery model, which would involve engaging with stakeholders and delivery partners, including the judiciary. To answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, this relates also to NHS England and providers, although your Lordships may wish to note that the Bill does not specify where the provision of assistance may or may not take place.

A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord McCrea, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the role of the Prime Minister. I remind the Committee that this is a Private Member’s Bill, so the proposal to designate the Prime Minister as the person who is to appoint the voluntary assisted dying commissioner was made by the sponsor, not the Government. It has nothing to do with the Government. It is up to noble Lords whether they wish to retain that provision.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked me to confirm whether the standards in the Cabinet Office governance code would be adhered to. If it is the will of Parliament that the Prime Minister is the person who is to appoint the commissioner, the standard recruitment arrangements for prime ministerial appointments will be followed. These are made through an open, regulated appointments process, which includes selection by an assessment panel containing an independent member. Whether or not the Select Committees are involved will be a matter for the sponsor. The reason I shook my head at the noble Lord, Lord Harper—I meant no discourtesy to him as I did so—was that I thought, and continue to think, that it is a shame that he did not pass by the opportunity to make a party-political point, when, for example, his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was assiduous in ensuring that he did not. I felt it did not help and was not constructive, but I did not mean it discourteously.

I turn to the first of the three groups in my speech, on legal considerations and, specifically, the compatibility of some proposed amendments with the European Convention on Human Rights. The articles in question are Article 14, on protection from discrimination, and Article 6, on the right to a fair trial. On Article 14, Amendment 913 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would prevent the employment of a person as commissioner, or a member of their staff, should they have links with any agency promoting assisted deaths. The Government wish to highlight that the amendment as drafted is unbalanced, creating a risk of breach of Article 14 of the convention. This would be avoided if it also prevented the employment of individuals who campaigned against assisted dying. In addition, the amendment as drafted would prevent the employment of a person in the commissioner role, or a member of their staff, should they have links with any agency that provides assisted deaths. But, if assisted dying were to be provided through the NHS, that would prevent the commissioner employing staff with relevant NHS experience.

Amendment 496C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, would involve differential treatment as between how reconsiderations of panel decisions would be made in the cases of, on the one hand, identified groups of people in the amendment and, on the other, those not belonging to those groups. If that is the intention behind the amendment, consideration would need to be given to whether the approach is proportionate and justified to avoid a risk of breach of Article 14. But if the intention behind the amendment is to afford everyone a right to hearings with the commissioner, but for only remote hearings to be permissible in the circumstances specified, then drafting changes would be needed.