Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rafferty (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak for the first time in this debate as a nurse and former dean of the Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care at King’s College London. Our patron saints include Florence Nightingale and Cicely Saunders. It would be hard to imagine two more rigorous and formidable expert witnesses to comment on the debates that we have been having these past few weeks. Both were deeply committed Christians, driven by the alleviation of human suffering and providing the practical means to do so through nursing and palliative care. Both were accomplished scientists, Nightingale being hugely influential in public health, epidemiology, statistics and social science, as Cicely Saunders was in physiology and the psychology of pain, coining the concept of total pain to convey the holistic sense of suffering.

But both had more speculative sides to their characters. In the case of Nightingale, it was a fascination with Thomas à Kempis, Teresa of Ávila and the medieval mystics. She committed some of her thoughts to paper, consulting Benjamin Jowett, regius professor of Greek and theology at Balliol College, Oxford, who became her spiritual confessor. Cicely Saunders’s library reveals a similar quest to understand Christian ethics and the existential nature of the human condition. Both were deeply interested in, as well as troubled and possibly tormented by, the challenge of squaring the existence of a benign God with the dark side of the soul and human suffering. Perhaps the ultimate question in their minds was an eschatological one. How will it all end? How will life end and what will death be like?

In a sense, that is what we have been wrestling with over the past months, struggling to reconcile very different perspectives on how it will end for ourselves, loved ones, patients and relatives. Some of us believe in enabling people to exercise autonomy over the end of life and the nature of their deaths—to have agency over the end. We have heard testimony from people who have chosen this path, as well as from relatives and loved ones. They have spoken powerfully of the sense of freedom and relief it has provided and the physical, emotional and spiritual sense of peace for all concerned.

There are those who do not agree that this should be possible. Such views are profoundly personal. I happen to have witnessed some very difficult deaths of patients and close family members. That has convinced me that assisted dying is a positive step in easing people through to a good ending. Denying that option to people who would like to avail themselves of it, when we can offer it and international evidence demonstrates that it is safe to do so, seems not only cruel but unethical. When seen in the context of a Bill that has passed in the elected Chamber and is supported by public opinion, it seems like a dereliction of duty. It is not our job to defy or block the democratic process. I implore noble Lords: it is time to dissolve our differences and do the right thing by finding a way to pass this Bill.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, I shall briefly make some reflections. It is a great privilege to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty; I thank her for her contribution. I recognise the enormous amount of work that has gone into this Committee stage. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for meeting me; I thank him for the time that he has given me.

Noble Lords will know that I oppose the Bill in principle, both as a priest and as a nurse, but it is clear that some things unify us. Whether we support the Bill or oppose it, we are unified by the fact that we want people to die in a dignified, pain-free and compassionate way, with the least possible fear. I also believe that we are unified in the belief that there needs to be investment in palliative care now. I welcome the new modern framework for palliative care that the Government have introduced, but recognise that financial investment still needs to occur.

We are also unified around the fact that if this Bill or topic comes back in some form, we need to do our work differently. There is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the biggest societal shifts that we are seeing or will see. Therefore, we need to take our role seriously, as we have done. There is something about our learning for this process and looking forward to how we do it differently when it comes back. I was very taken by the view of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, of pre-legislative scrutiny, although I do not know the details. We should look seriously at that.

We are also united in knowing that this touches some of our deepest emotions. I am grateful to those who have shared their own experiences and stories; I have felt very humbled listening to them. For me, as a Christian, this is clearly an eschatological question, as my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, said. Of course, for me, as a Christian, death is not the end. There is hope in death and life everlasting. As we talk about these things that touch us deeply, we need to look after each other and ourselves and recognise that this process will have impacted us, as well as those listening.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I assure my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that I shall seek to avoid pure wind. I share the disappointment of so many in this House, and indeed so many outside it, that we have not completed our task of scrutinising this important Bill. Scrutiny means not just debating seven clauses of a 59-clause Bill over 13 days; it means completing Committee and Report, going to Third Reading and voting on our differences.

There are profound differences of opinion that people can quite properly and reasonably hold, but there has to be a choice as to which side you are on. Our failure—and it is a real failure, for whatever reason—is a stain on the reputation of this House, because the issues raised by the Bill are profound. They are important to people—people who are worried about death and those who are worried that they may be coerced into agreeing to assisted dying. The issues are highly contentious, and the Bill has been passed by the other place—the democratically elected place. That does not mean that we have to agree with it, but it certainly means that we have to come to a view and vote on these matters.

I, incidentally, have no doubt whatever that if we had reached Report and Third Reading, and if we had voted on this Bill, the overwhelming majority of this House would have voted in support of the Bill, thereby rejecting the destructive amendments that were put forward. I think the opponents of the Bill know that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the House of Commons and the public want the Bill, but the number of amendments and the length of the speeches mean that we have run out of time, so it cannot go back to the Commons. This is bad for democracy. Even more seriously, it is bad for the terminally ill—those mentally competent adults with fewer than six months to live. The Bill would offer them the choice of a more peaceful way out of this life, a way under their control, with friends and family around them, rather than an isolated and often risky suicide. A particular mum of three asked, “How dare a handful of Peers look society in the face and say they care about dying people? How dare they put their particular beliefs above the care and compassion that should be due to those facing an agonising death?”

Of course, we never heard from those affected. As my noble friend Lady Hunter said, we on the committee, where we were outnumbered by the opponents to the Bill, were denied the opportunity to hear from those facing deaths or from those bereaved, who had to watch their partner die without this help. As we just heard from my noble friend Lady Blackstone, we heard from the royal colleges, organised groups, professional bodies, social workers, the church, palliative care experts and lawyers—everyone except for whom the Bill was designed.

We have heard in the debates that the amendments are actually about improving the Bill. But I know, and I think that we all know, that some people would never have supported the Bill, even if we had accepted a thousand amendments. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—although she was a Prelate at the time—admitted this at Second Reading, saying that she was going to propose a vote against the Bill at Third Reading. We heard her say today that she is against it in principle, so for some these amendments were not about improving the Bill but because they opposed it in principle.

Had we just been interested in trying to make assisted dying safer for the vulnerable groups, we would not have had to have those amendments referred to—that everyone, including a man, should have to have a negative pregnancy test before they could apply for assisted dying. We would not have had to consider the idea that some of the very people who needed this—such as those in care homes—would be denied it; that anyone being treated in an NHS hospital would have to leave for a private place with different doctors and carers if they wanted an assisted death; or, indeed, that the intimate private discussions with the panel should take place in public, so that the public can watch people talking about why they wanted to bring their deaths forward. We would not have been told in the amendments that this all costs too much, even though the estimate is the same as what the NHS spends a year after accidents caused by people wearing flip-flops—I kid you not. The cost—

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

Will the noble Baroness confirm that while I have said very clearly that I oppose the Bill and that I would bring it to a vote on principle at Third Reading, I have not in fact tabled any amendments?