Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am not opposed to assisted dying in principle but I am opposed to this appallingly drafted Bill, which is a travesty of a Private Member’s Bill. It is a massive 51 pages, with 59 clauses and three schedules, and is one of the largest so-called Private Members’ Bills ever introduced in Parliament. It is larger and more controversial than many government Bills, and should have proper scrutiny. Since we need proper government Bills to make laws on prison sentences, penalties for killing with knives or dangerous driving, serious drugs et cetera, it is wrong to pass a law on how people should die through the Private Member’s Bill procedure.

The Delegated Powers Committee has issued a scathing report on the excessive 38 delegated powers, including all the Henry VIII powers, and that report alone should be enough to condemn this Bill to the scrap heap. Then yesterday, the Constitution Committee criticised it. If this Bill passes, it will not be MPs and we Peers writing the law on how we die but civil servants in the Department of Health writing up all those 38 delegated powers. Quite simply, I do not trust the Department of Health to write one word on the implementation details. The department has so far failed to implement single-sex wards for women and it failed for many years to take action on the discredited Liverpool care pathway, where 3% of patients being expedited to death actually recovered. A department that apparently cannot tell the difference between men and women is not fit to write guidance on legislation on when people should die and the drugs used to kill them.

Every year, 550,000 people die of terminal illness in the UK. From my 42 years in Parliament, I am convinced that it is impossible for Parliament to draft a general law—even with thousands of pages of regulations—which can cover every possible individual circumstance relating to those 550,000 people. We as parliamentarians have to realise and accept our limitations. I can draft a foolproof law for myself but not for any of your Lordships’ situations, nor for half a million others. The variables are simply too great. There are numerous cases of people diagnosed with terminal cancer making a full recovery and living five to 20 years longer than expected, proving correct the famous Sir William Osler, the father of modern medicine, who said:

“Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability”.


Prognostic uncertainty is one reason why the Royal College of Physicians does not support the Bill.

This Bill will give lawyers the ultimate power to make the final decisions, not the doctors. We have all seen firms of lawyers pursuing fraudulent medical negligence cases in respect of our soldiers who fought bravely in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, and corrupt immigration lawyers running fake cases. Almost every clause in this Bill can be used by lawyers on all sides of an assisted dying application to take the case to court, and all those regulations will be a judicial review paradise for lawyers. I will trust my doctor to do what is in my best interest on my deathbed on the basis of the medical mantra, “First, do no harm”. I will be damned if I let any lawyers decide how I die.

In 2016, I tried to help pass the Medical Innovation Act, also known as the Lord Saatchi Act, which aimed to promote innovation in medical treatments in England for terminally ill patients. I recall at the time that most doctors were in favour of it, but the lawyers were opposed since it would remove their ability to sue if the treatments did not work. My perception is that most doctors have serious concerns about this Bill, but most lawyers are in favour. I do not want lawyers to come within a million miles of decisions about how people should die.

We need to start again, possibly with a royal commission led by doctors who will set out the principles and all the safeguards required. Then, there needs to be proper public scrutiny on a draft Bill that a joint parliamentary committee can consider. Finally, we need a proper government Bill and to see drafts of all the regulations that will be made. We cannot buy a “pig in a poke”, which this Bill is, and hope that the regulations will be just all right on the night.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Some people may detect from my accent that, although I hail from the great city of Bangor, it is not the great city of Bangor in north Wales but the great city of Bangor in Northern Ireland. I have particular empathy with the amendments that have been put forward by the noble Baroness due to my experience as a Minister in a devolved Administration. The clarity the noble Baroness seeks goes to the heart of the relationship between the devolved Administrations and Westminster, and it is of particular relevance to this Bill.

Generally speaking, a Minister in a devolved institution will face three categories of legislation. First, there will be reserved matters, which are entirely within the purview of Westminster—national issues, which I think everyone would accept. Secondly, there will be a range of issues which, although not strictly reserved, are of such obvious applicability across the United Kingdom that a legislative consent Motion should be applied. I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his place, but on occasions even the SNP Government in Scotland have been prepared to sign up to legislative consent Motions. The third category—the bulk of legislation—is situations that should be decided locally, where a devolved Government and a devolved Parliament can choose whether to follow what is happening at Westminster and in England, to take a different path in seeking either to virtually replicate or to amend, or to go in a tangentially very different direction. That is at the heart of democratic accountability in devolution.

I believe that this is an issue that should be decided in Wales. It is an issue that should clearly fall into category three. We all know that we have a very unusual constitutional set-up in the United Kingdom, where devolution to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is on a slightly different basis in each case. That can produce some unusual aspects. What we have today is a certain level of anomaly, because this legislation falls into what may be described as a fourth, hybrid category. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, highlighted, the distinction is between the aspects that deal with criminal justice and criminal responsibility, and those that deal with health and social policy, with the former being reserved and the latter being devolved.

It is very clear that the heart of the Bill makes major decisions that impact on health and social policy. However, we are left with a situation for Wales that means, if this goes through unaltered, that the criminal responsibility will be lifted but there will be no regulations coming from this House as to how that will actually be brought about. It is the equivalent of this House saying that we are going to bring in new road safety measures, which will not apply to Wales, but if you are caught speeding on the motorway there could be no criminal sanction against you. What we have potentially arrived at for Wales is the worst of all worlds.

We need to take a step back. We need to ensure that the wishes of the Welsh people, as exercised by the Senedd—they may change over time—are respected. Rather than, in effect, imposing something that then has to be more or less corrected in Wales by way of changes to their health and social policy, we should be allowing the issue of assisted dying to be decided by the Welsh Senedd. If they decide to make those changes, this Parliament should then reflect them by way of changes to the criminal justice system, which I think would be relatively easy to do.

In the absence of that, the importance of these amendments, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is that if we cannot get things definitively the right way round, we can at least get a level of clarity over what aspects apply to Wales, rather than a potential wall of obfuscation. This is an ideal opportunity for the Government and the sponsors to highlight where exactly the demarcation is, which will be very helpful as we move through the rest of this Bill.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendments in this group. As I looked at the title of the Bill, “terminally ill”, and then saw clause after clause talking about the patient and the doctor’s involvement, I was clear that this was a medical Bill. We had the Secretary of State for Health saying that he was in charge of it, and the Department of Health and Social Care, which seconded about 30 officials to help rewrite it, in a way taking ownership of it. Then I asked myself: why on earth are we legislating for Wales when health is a devolved matter in Wales and the Senedd is in charge of health matters? This is where it is really Pythonesque, because although this is a medical Bill in England, it is a criminal Bill in Wales, and criminal matters are not devolved to Wales. How on earth can the same Bill be a health Bill in one country of the union and a criminal Bill in another?

On 23 October last year, Senedd Members, including the First Minister, Eluned Morgan—the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—and the Health Minister, Jeremy Miles, voted against a Motion calling for a new law to allow assisted dying in Wales and England. Miles had earlier warned of “huge ramifications” for Wales if the law changed. In total, 19 Senedd Members voted in favour of the Motion, with 26 against and nine abstentions. However, the Senedd does not have the power to change the law on assisted dying in Wales, so the vote was symbolic. The Senedd does not have the power to legalise assisted dying, but the Health Minister indicated that it is likely that future legislation will require another vote to give Parliament consent.

The Welsh NHS, which is almost totally devolved and overseen by Cardiff politicians, would be responsible for implementing the law. However, I understand that the Senedd can still vote on whether to implement the legislation, as parts of the Bill touch on devolved areas, so the Welsh Government would need to pass specific regulations and gain an affirmative vote from the Senedd before the Welsh NHS could provide the service. I am not a great fan of the devolved Administrations, but they exist and they have a genuine job to do. In Wales, this would mean that their NHS and its doctors would have implemented all the provisions of an English law, which they had no power to change. That does not seem right. If the Senedd in Wales can be trusted to run the NHS in all medical facilities in Wales, it should be trusted to make its own terminally ill end-of-life Bill.

Next year there will be Senedd elections, and on current polling there may be a large majority of Plaid Cymru and Reform Members elected. It cannot be right that they inherit a Bill relating to the deaths of about 35,000 people in Wales each year and that they have no say over how their constituents die.

Of course, the Senedd could refuse to give consent to the legislation, but I suspect it will be threatened and blackmailed into doing so. It will be told that it is the English Bill or nothing and that Wales has no power to do its own law, so the Senedd had better approve it or else. But the Senedd could do its own law; all we have to do is grant it the constitutional power to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

As people around me are saying, I do not think I said that. They are neutral. The royal colleges have said that they have problems with the Bill, but they have been neutral on the principle, save for the Royal College of General Practitioners. I am sorry; I stand corrected on that. They are neutral, as is the Association for Palliative Medicine, which is not a royal college.

When one looks at the evidence that we took, of course individuals from within that group would come along whom we had to call. It was right that we did that, but one looks at a corporate view. I enormously respect Professor Sir Chris Whitty, but I heard his evidence on this and he was not the highest expert in the land. He was humble enough to write to correct himself, as he had misunderstood the Mental Capacity Act when he gave evidence in the Commons.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for bringing this matter before the Committee, but also to my noble friend Lord Harper, who has highlighted some of the deficiencies in in the Mental Capacity Act. Yes, it may be tried and tested in its current usage but, as we heard from many sides of the Committee, it may be inadequate for dealing with death issues.

I was going to speak in support of Amendment 2, but I might also be willing to support the potential oral amendment from my noble friend Lord Deben. When considering important decisions, particularly in the context of healthcare, it is crucial to understand the distinction between capacity and ability. This is especially relevant for terminally ill patients, as questions about decision-making may arise on treatment options, advance directives and legal matters.

I believe that we should change references from “capacity” to “ability” when discussing decision-making for terminally ill patients. The reason for this change is to ensure clarity and accuracy in describing a person’s actual situation. We should not be afraid to bring in a new word if it is more relevant than “capacity”. Although “capacity” is a legal and clinical term for specific criteria, “ability” is a broader term that may better reflect the practical realities and nuances of an individual’s situation. Using “ability” can help to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that patients are supported in ways that are appropriate to their unique circumstances.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I do not believe that people are tabling amendments simply to wreck the Bill. That may be the noble Lord’s opinion, but he should remember that other people have different opinions. I respect the noble Lord’s opinion, but I hope that he will in turn respect my right to have an opinion. I believe that we must scrutinise this well. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, objected to the fact that practically no one who supports the Bill has spoken. I know of no one supporting the Bill who has been stopped from speaking. They did not get up to speak, and therefore they were not stopped. If there are those who want to support this Bill and to get up to speak, they are free to do so. I certainly would like to hear their opinions just as well. I believe that I have an opinion that ought to be heard equally, as they have.

I come from a family that knows what the reality of suicide means and the heartbreak of suicide, where we examine and wonder whether something more could have been done before that person ended their own life in suicide. I know the pain of that and the loneliness that they went through. Therefore, I believe we must get this right.

In the domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour context, a victim may, due to intimidation or trauma, deny that their actions are caused by wrongful coercion. Is the doctor supposed to be weighing the patient’s words against the very limited evidence that they can see in an examination room? Professor Jane Monckton-Smith OBE, professor of public protection at the University of Gloucestershire, emphasised in her testimony to the Select Committee the significant difficulties in relying solely on a person’s verbal denial of abuse when assessing coercion:

“I have worked in this area for a very long time. I have seen victims refuse medical help when they have been hit in the head with a hammer through fear. That is not an isolated example. If you speak to the other people here, I think they will probably agree with me. What I am saying is that coercive control is a serious social problem. It will impact on the people who are going to look to this Bill”.


Also in the Lords Select Committee evidence, Cherryl Henry-Leach of Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse warned

“the difficulty is the lack of insight into the impact of coercive control on somebody’s ability to make decisions, even though that has been enshrined in case law”.

I do not want to detain the Committee, but in over 50 years as a minister I have experienced people coming to the end of their life. I have been with them in their moments of their deepest pain, and, as a noble Lord said, was there with the families after the occasion, trying to minister to them. I also know what it is from my 25 years as a constituency Member of Parliament in the other House, and we should not close our minds to the fact that people can be coerced. Sometimes it is done very subtly and gently within family dynamics, and that is difficult for assessing doctors to detect in limited formal settings.

Therefore, I believe it is vital that the words put into this legislation, if it is passed, are the correct ones that cover all these possibilities. Remember, when the person takes that lethal injection or whatever potion they take, there is no return as far as this life is concerned, but they go to another.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I had intended to give my strong support to Amendments 3, 45 to 49, 52 and 58—a mere eight amendments out of the 21 in this massive group—but in the interests of time I will dump my notes on all those and speak merely to Amendment 58 in the name of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who has made a crucial point with regard to that amendment.

Coercion and pressure do not always manifest themselves as direct, intentional acts by individuals. Instead, they can arise from broader and societal structures and conditions that constrain genuine choice. When a person facing terminal illness is subject to circumstances such as chronic poverty, social isolation or a systemic lack of quality healthcare, their options are severely limited. In such scenarios, the choice to pursue end-of-life options may not be a true expression of free will but rather the result of enduring disadvantage and unmet needs.

At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Moylan made the telling point that many people contemplating suicide do not want to die; they just want their life circumstances to change for the better. Therefore, “structural disadvantage” refers to the social, economic and institutional barriers that systematically disadvantage certain groups. When terminally ill individuals lack access to palliative care, social support or financial resources, they may feel compelled to consider end-of-life options not out of genuine preference but because their suffering is exacerbated by these systemic failures.

Poverty is a profound social vulnerability. A terminally ill person living in poverty may fear becoming a burden to family or may lack the means to access pain relief, counselling or hospice care. The psychological and practical impact of poverty can create a sense of hopelessness, making the option of hastening death appear more acceptable or even inevitable. When systems persistently fail to address the needs of the most vulnerable, this neglect can be seen as a form of institutional or collective intent. Thus, the responsibility for coercion or pressure extends beyond individual actors to the structures that shape people’s lives and choices.

Many years ago, my illustrious predecessor in my constituency, the great Willie Whitelaw, said to me, “David, I was never interested in pensions until I turned 65”. The wonderful thing about this House of ours is that the average age in here is 71, I understand, and our average death age is 81. That, as we have heard from many noble Peers, gives us a unique insight into the sorts of infirmities that we and our close relatives suffer and the close experience of those near to us who have died from them.

We have heard from many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Polak and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, their experience of beating the odds because the prognosis was not right. I quoted in my Second Reading speech that Sir William Osler, the father of modern medicine, said, in about the 1890s:

“Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability”.


Because my noble friend Lady Berridge mentioned NICE, I am tempted to cite an example. I have experience of NICE. I am grateful to it in some ways and hate it in others. One of the side-effects of MS is that one’s feet feel nailed to the ground: they are as heavy as lead and do not move. Fifteen years ago, NICE approved an experimental drug call Fampridine. I was one of about 500 patients put on it at the National Hospital.

Fampridine is an absolutely miraculous drug. What does it do? You saw it in effect this morning. It helped me stagger from my chair to here. With assistance from my noble friends, I can manage to walk—not very fast—to the Dispatch Box. Every six months, I have to do a walking test. If my walking is not fast enough with the drug, they cut it off and I do not get it any more.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister in winding up could advise us what the Companion says about Peers making speeches on the same amendment over several points of the passage of that amendment.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, speaking to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rook. There is a lacuna in Clause 1(1)(d), which, by requiring registration with a GP, does not cover the practical point of what happens to people who have lost contact with their GP. They may have lost contact for no other reason than being so ill, perhaps with cancer as that is the main illness that people who might be seeking assisted dying have, that they have been taken into private care—those who are lucky enough.

An increasing proportion of the population of the United Kingdom now uses private care, not least because employers provide it as part of a package. So, coming to continuity of care, if we must have the light-touch amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rook, in the Bill, to clarify and strengthen Clause 1(1)(d), I will share with the Committee very briefly a practical experience of what it means to have advanced cancer and the interaction with the GP. My GP practice, having failed to diagnose me over six months, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, slipped away the moment I engaged with private care, although every single consultation with a private practitioner is sent to the GP. Nevertheless, between 30 August 2024, when I was first diagnosed, and late this September, I had no contact whatever with my GP practice. I was finally invited to come in and was told I had fallen between the cracks—it must have been a pretty large crack to have lasted 14 months.

I noticed in the equality impact assessment that 66% of the people who sought assisted dying in the two jurisdictions quoted were people who had cancer. My question to the noble and learned Lord when he winds up on this debate is therefore, what consideration has been given, in having Clause 1(1)(d) in the Bill, as to the relationship of the private oncologist who is treating that patient with the local GP, given that terminally ill people in significant enough numbers that we need to be conscious about them in the Bill may well have been—shall I say—passed on from the GP?

As a final point, once I had the diagnosis, I had the experience of requesting treatment at my local—within a walkable distance—leading cancer teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. When I rang about that after the diagnosis, I was told by my GP, “They won’t take you, because now you’ve gone private”. I leave that for noble Lords to reflect on.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Before we move to the rest of the debate, could we please give way to those noble Lords who have tabled amendments? I would like to hear what they have to say.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21, tabled in my name, from personal experience. The richness of the debate today shows that, even in your Lordships’ Chamber, we all have completely different experiences of how we access a GP practice.

I tabled this amendment partly from personal experience, trying to look at how we provide continuous care to a patient. As for my own experience, I am disabled, not sick, but I have had some very interesting experiences of interacting with doctors. Fairly recently, I was asked by a doctor how I caught spina bifida and had to explain to him that it was congenital. As for my husband’s experience of the healthcare system, he had a spinal cord injury in 1984 and, at a recent visit, was continually asked whether it was in 1884 that he had his accident—I know he looks good for his age, but not that good. This is not to be flippant, which I have been accused of before. It is actually to try to ensure that we have proper continuity of care for a person who wishes to end their life.

My amendment is also grounded in coercion detection and the limitations of any capacity assessment. When I tabled it, I was thinking that perhaps a GP could provide extra knowledge to contribute to the decision that was made. But then I heard of the experience of my noble friend Lady Falkner, which is absolutely appalling. It shows that there is far more work we need to do, not just on the National Health Service but on making sure we provide the right care. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about the NHS we wish to have. Well, this might be a chance to think about the NHS we wish to have.

I take this opportunity to welcome my new noble friend Lady Gerada and the experience she brings to the Chamber. I have to say that it has left me slightly more confused. I have amendments on data recording, which we will be debating later. Her comments show that data recording and sharing is really important. The part I got a bit confused about was that, if there is a named clinician as part of that process, does that not ultimately feed in to the points that have been made today? I would welcome the chance to discuss that with her outside the Chamber.

Continuity of care is really important, and how it relates to improved patient outcomes. In 2012, 56.7% of patients had a preferred GP, but that is declining. There is a link between your preferred GP and being able to access that GP. The decline has happened regardless of baseline continuity, rural or urban location or level of deprivation. Providing a better experience to patients will make those final weeks and months better for them. The Royal College of General Practitioners published excellent work in 2021 on why the patient’s relationship with their general practitioner is so important. Research on coercion and undue influence demonstrates that standard capacity assessments, while necessary, are not currently sufficient to identify subtle forms of coercion. That is why I tabled an amendment.

In response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Pannick, about what happens if a GP dies, I am happy to be corrected, but I thought the provision in the Bill about your doctor dying would cover a general practitioner as well as any other doctor involved in the process.

What we are talking about here are really complex decisions. Consulting an established GP or GP practice might mean that they possess the nuanced knowledge which would help somebody make a choice. The requirement that GPs confirm that they have a good understanding of the individual’s personal circumstances represents, to me, a better form of safeguard, ensuring that this knowledge actually exists. We cannot assume anything during this process. The assessment should provide abuse detection capacity unavailable in other types of consultations. For individuals whose care is family dependent, the home visit element—which I had, not so long ago—can play an important part in identifying coercion. If the debate has raised nothing else today, it is that this is a really complicated issue which needs much further work.

--- Later in debate ---

This issue illustrates a couple of things. Yes, it is down to safety, but I respectfully suggest that the fact that we are having this discussion today shows the immaturity of the Bill. We should have had a royal commission and a Government Bill, instead of trying to do it this way and negotiate on the hoof.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak last Friday, and this is the only group to which I intend to speak today. I could have spoken to the last group, as my former constituency abutted the Scottish border of Dumfries and Galloway and a mere 85 yards across the River Sark was Gretna. I was aware of our glorious 600-year history of border-raiding for cattle and women—in that order—and now it seems we can add free prescriptions to the list as well.

These amendments would strengthen the safeguards with a demonstrable, ongoing clinical relationship with a GP, reducing risk of error, coercion and administrative confusion, while supporting clinical judgment and the continuity of care. Requiring 12 months’ registration plus a minimum number of in-person contacts gives a straightforward verifiable test of recent clinical involvement. We need robust, practical safeguards and clear eligibility checks. These are essential to protect vulnerable people by evidencing local care and oversight. A sustained relationship with a local GP who has seen the patient helps ensure that the patient is informed and is acting voluntarily and free from subtle pressure. The GP’s direct knowledge of the patient’s circumstances is therefore a critical safeguard rather than a bureaucratic hurdle.

The big issue, which has already been raised today, is: who sees the same GP twice these days? I am very lucky, and perhaps some other noble Lords are as well, in that there are superb multi-disciplinary GP practices in Cumbria. I almost always see the same GP, and we can email as well. In fact, in 40 years of living that constituency, I have only ever had two GPs. However, that is not the national picture. Many patients see a different GP every time they visit. Therefore, for this part of the Bill to work, it cannot be any old GP from a practice; it has to be a GP who has treated the patient personally on a few occasions or over a period of time.

Yesterday, I had the wonderful privilege of hearing in this House from a GP who satisfied all the criteria of these amendments thanks to her deep knowledge of her patients. I was later able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, a former president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, on her excellent maiden speech. I am delighted to see her here today. I understand that this morning, she was doing the day job, treating her patients in her constituency.

I know that the noble Baroness is in favour of assisted dying, but what she said in one part of her speech yesterday was directly relevant to these amendments. The noble Baroness—I am rather vexed at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who stole these lines earlier this morning—said:

“I became a GP in Kennington, and I have lived and worked in the community I serve ever since … My very first patient was a young woman who suffered a stillbirth. Decades later, I look after her children and now their children too. That continuity, seeing lives unfold across time, gives general practice its unique moral and social power. It allows us to see people as whole human beings, not as isolated organs or diagnoses. We are interpreters of experience, translators of suffering and witnesses to change”.—[Official Report, 11/12/25; col. 370.]


That is exactly the sort of GP I trust to make a decision on whether a person has a confirmed wish to opt for assisted dying—not just any general practitioner, who may never have met the patient before and has just 10 minutes to form an opinion.

I would love to find a way to include that magnificent sentence about continuity and seeing lives unfold over time giving general practice its unique moral and social power; I would love to see whether we could incorporate it into the Bill, because it sets the right moral climate.

As I say, I have a GP. However, for those millions of people who are not so lucky, these amendments would balance safeguards with practicality. Setting a modest minimum of contacts is proportionate. It is enough to demonstrate an established relationship without imposing unrealistic burdens on patients or practices.

Many noble Lords have spoken of multidisciplinary teams. Can the noble Baroness tell me—indeed, can anyone tell me—how many of all the GPs in this country are still single-practice doctors? A Google search suggests that it is around 63%. That seems terribly high; there must be more multidisciplinary teams than that. There are still an awful lot of single-practice GPs. On the rare occasion when I have not seen my own GP, the other GP has had a look at the computer and read all my clinical notes. However, he does not really know who I am; perhaps that is just his good fortune.

These amendments would support patient safety and public trust in any assisted dying regime. It needs to be visible and enforceable, and it needs to have enforceable safeguards. Clinicians must be able to attest to a patient’s circumstances. I support these amendments.

May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that I was dismayed to read some very hostile comments about noble Lords and noble Baronesses in the weekend press? The complaint was that some Peers had tabled a large number of amendments, and that that was somehow wrong. If they were the only Peers who spoke to them, that criticism would be valid, but those noble Lords and noble Baronesses, as professionals and experts, tabled amendments to which many of us wanted to speak. We left them to do it because those Peers have experience; scores of Peers have spoken to their amendments, so they were not abusing the House. I am absolutely certain that the noble and learned Lord was not behind that bad-mouthing, because he is a gentleman as well as a Peer, but some supporters of this Bill are trying to drown out and close down any proper scrutiny in the Lords.

Lastly, I remind the noble and learned Lord and the Committee that Dignity in Dying’s website boasts that the Bill had 29 Committee sittings in the Commons and over 90 hours of consideration. Since the Bill has come to us from the Commons, we have heard devastating criticisms of it from the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee and experts giving evidence to the noble Baroness’s Bill Committee. Today, we are on only our fourth sitting, after, I think, 18 hours of debate. So I say this to the noble and learned Lord: please tell some of the others to call off the attack dogs because this House is doing its proper job.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I grew up at a time when the family doctor was looked upon as a family friend who could always be depended on whenever you were ill or in a time of crisis. Unfortunately, that is not the situation today. There is a major problem across the United Kingdom: patients desiring to see a GP find themselves sitting on the telephone and ringing the surgery 120 times, perhaps, but still not getting through to someone and giving up at the end of it. That is the reality of the situation in many places.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not here. He posed a question to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, concerning what happens if your GP retires. Let me give my small experience. My GP was in his late 50s. He was an excellent GP. During Covid, unlike many other practices, he still allowed patients to come to his surgery. Whenever elderly patients could not come, he went out to their houses and visited them in their own homes—unlike many other practices and GPs. Unfortunately, he got cancer and, in his late 50s, just recently, he passed away.

We were left with a practice in our town with several thousands of patients but nobody to take it over. So what happened to us? Our GP died, and so, without any consultation whatever, we were all farmed out to seven or eight practices around the countryside, some of them not even close—just to whoever would take us. It is unrealistic to imagine that somehow a new doctor would have any knowledge of the pressures, the problems or the complex challenges that his new patient was facing; he would not have any continuity of care whatever.

It was even worse than that, because it was several months before the notes went to the next practice that you were farmed out to. You were allotted a practice but the notes concerning any illnesses of the patients did not immediately follow; it was several months before they arrived. What has been suggested in these amendments today strengthens safeguards. Therefore, they are worthy of the support of noble Lords in this House.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to two amendments in this case.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, could we please first hear from those noble Lords who have tabled and signed amendments before the rest of us speak? I apologise if the noble Baroness is a signatory, but I did not think she was.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have my name on a number of amendments. I did not know that those rules applied—anyway, they do not.

I have added my name to a number of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, in this group.

In general, I am glad to support many of the amendments on palliative care in this group. The Bill asks us to accept that assisted dying is a medical intervention, albeit an irreversible life-ending one, which is something I am not entirely happy with. It seems obvious to me that there must be guaranteed input from the best-placed medical experts in end-of-life care: that is, palliative care specialists. That is essential for the informed consent of the patient.

I imagine and hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is very sensitive to the importance of palliative care. I know that he is in the much-cited Demos Commission, which I will not bother quoting again, and I am hoping that he has not changed his mind. I think the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a very important point earlier to the sponsor of the Bill about the number of amendments, for which we have all been chastised and finger-pointed at and tut-tutted at. I kept my patience last night, although my blood pressure did go up.

None the less, I genuinely think that the number of amendments could be really slimmed down if the sponsor of the Bill were to go through, for example, all the amendments on palliative care and say to us, “I accept the principle of this and I will come back with my own amendment” or what have you. We would then not have this issue. We are not an organised political grouping; people table amendments and add their names to them in good faith, which is what I have done, and they then speak in good faith. We are not trying to repeat things for the purpose of delaying the Bill but because we think that it matters and is important. That is what we are doing here.

On this group, and the concept of 10 important themes, we need an assurance that real choices will be offered to a patient with a terminal illness and they will be given the option of a palliative care assessment and, hopefully, then, possibly palliative care. That safeguard would really reassure us, and it is a key theme, and so on. One of the reasons why I say that is, under the Bill, GPs can mention palliative care to a patient. I am a great fan of GPs; they are fantastic generalists who do a good job. But very often they do not have all the expertise of a palliative care specialist in knowing how precisely medical intervention can improve a patient’s condition, or indeed change their will to live.

It is important for the Committee to note that research has shown that those who wish to hasten their own death often change their mind when they receive more information. Palliative care can mean that people who want to die then want to live, and that is important if we are going to talk about choice. It is possible that you might want to die, that you are determined you want to die in assisted death terms, having had your terminal diagnosis. But why is it that you want to die? That is the motivation behind the discussion in this group.

One of the things that happens is that many people are frightened and fearful, and one of the things they are fearful of is pain and terrible symptoms, which by the way are often graphically described by supporters of the Bill, and I think that they can scare people. It is the idea that your pain and symptoms cannot be controlled. When I talk to supporters of the Bill—some of my friends, colleagues and members of the public—they are completely compassionate in talking about how the Bill will help people who are suffering intolerably and in excruciating pain. None of us wishes that on anyone—or, indeed, on ourselves. It is a frightening prospect.

That is actually often a fear and a dread that the right kind of care can mean will not be realised. Patients are understandably frightened of being in that kind of pain, so they need to know that. Toby Porter, the CEO of Hospice UK, summed up the way I feel about this. He said:

“An outcome in which someone chose an assisted death because of a real or imagined fear that they could not get pain relief or other symptom alleviation, or because their family would not get support through their illness, would clearly be a moral and practical disgrace to any country”.


That is absolutely right.

We all know family and friends and so on who have died and who have had terminal illnesses. People will say that morphine is simply not enough to control the pain. That is the kind of thing that I would say, because I know nothing about medicine. So, it is a great relief to discover that palliative medicine resident doctors say that morphine is the tip of the iceberg for pain management. There are countless other options available, but to know this requires training and experience, which I have not got. When you are having a chat in the pub with mates—or indeed, when I was in hospital pumping in the morphine—it is good to know that somebody, somewhere, has got the experience. That is the palliative care specialist and every terminally ill patient should at least be offered the option to go to see one. This is a modest but meaningful addition to the Bill and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, in the spirit of listening, accommodating and compromise that we heard about last night, will make changes to the Bill accordingly.

There is also a question for the Government and the Minister here. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, explained this very well. In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, yesterday, it was a shocking revelation that the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their modern framework until after the Bill had passed through Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

No, I am sorry, there is no requirement in the Companion that you can speak in a debate only if you have tabled an amendment. If we want to finish at 3 o’clock, we can either go slightly past 3 o’clock or we can stop at 3 o’clock and resume this group next week. I wish to make one point that has not yet been made and which I think is pertinent to the debate, and I believe I am perfectly in order doing so.

The point is this. Two Members have raised the valuable contribution made in yesterday’s procedural debate by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham—a man who knows what he is talking about on the NHS, as he ran it for a number of years—about the timetable for the Government to publish their modern framework for palliative medicine. He said that, at the moment, that framework is likely to be published after Parliament has considered the Bill, and he felt that that was the wrong way around. The reason that matters is that the Government have published a 10-year plan for the NHS, and nothing in that plan will significantly change the provision of palliative care in England.

We know that only about half the people who require specialist palliative care are able to get it, and that the Bill’s sponsor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, believes—or believed and still believes—that good palliative care is a prerequisite for there to be assisted suicide, so I think it very important that the Minister answers the question and confirms that the Government will at least think about publishing the modern framework for palliative care before we get to Report on the Bill, so that this House can make a properly informed decision about the amendments before it on palliative care.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this is a self-regulating House, and that does not mean that a Government Whip can regulate who can speak and who cannot. I echo the point made by my noble friend. If the only way one can speak in these debates is to sign amendments, I know what to do in future.

I spoke for five minutes on the Friday before Christmas and said not a peep in the debate earlier today because it was not my speciality. I have been waiting here for two hours to make a speech on palliative care, and we seem to have been refused the right to do so because the Government Whip wants us not to say anything so that we can finish at 3 o’clock. I agree that we can finish at 3 o’clock—it is a simple matter for the House to adjourn and come back to polish off this matter next Friday morning—but it would be absolutely outrageous for noble Lords who have not had a chance to speak at all on palliative care to be refused the right to do so because the Government have imposed an arbitrary timetable on us.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not an arbitrary timetable. Many people have spoken on palliative care both at Second Reading and today, and I respect that totally. I am just saying that we need to respect the rules of the House to be able to adjourn. It is better if we finish this amendment so that we can start the next session with a new debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Why must we finish this group and start the next session with a new amendment? In Committee, we often adjourn at 10 pm when we are half way through a large group, and we come back and polish it off the next day. Nothing in the Companion suggests that we are honour-bound or duty-bound to finish a group on a certain timescale. There is no problem with coming back and completing it then.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

The noble Lord is of course completely correct that there is nothing in the Companion. It is however difficult for many Members, when they have spoken in a debate, not to be able to hear from the Front Benches because they have arrangements for another occasion. I say gently to the last two speakers that we are not talking simply about the Companion; we are talking about last night’s decision and the mood and concern of the House that we make progress. It is very unfair to attack the Government Whips on this when they are trying to work their way through the input of last night’s decision.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I respect what the noble Baroness has said, but it is also the case that it is disrespectful to Members who have prepared speeches, wishing to say something on palliative care, and who deliberately stayed quiet in previous debates so that they could make a point on a subject in which they are interested. They are now being deprived of the opportunity to do so.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, one reason I was reluctant to get up is that I believe very strongly that all who want to speak in these debates should be allowed to do so, but I ask noble Lords to please bear in mind that there are many others who may want to speak to the group, and we should not make Second Reading speeches. We should repeat what the Chief Whip reminded us of a number of times: please can we speak to the amendments and keep to the point? I will try to do so in summing up very quickly.

It is quite clear that these amendments relate to palliative care and whether people who seek assisted dying services are offered a meaningful choice—not just a choice in theory or on paper because it says it somewhere in the current version of the Bill but a very real choice. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. When I was the Minister taking the Health and Care Act 2022 through the House, she came to speak to our officials in the Department of Health and Social Care who did not know as much as her. She held a teach-in. She did not have to do that, but many officials in the department said that they welcomed the opportunity to learn from such expertise. That is why I think it is important that we learn from all noble Lords, whatever their expertise. We should also thank everyone, especially specialists, currently working in the palliative care sector, which is under pressure.

This refers to a point made early on at Second Reading, when the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Stevens, said that we know how government works and how money is shifted around government. I do not want to argue about the merits of the Bill—personally, I am torn on it at the moment and am listening to the debates to make up my mind—but the noble Lords said that, if it goes through, the money has to come from somewhere. They feel, having been in government—one having run NHS and one having been a Health Minister—that that money will come at the expense of palliative care. I think that that concern is behind many of the amendments in this group.

It seems that the principle is that anyone who is making that decision, or who seeks that help, should make a meaningful choice, so I welcome the intent of all those who laid amendments in this group—I will not waste time by naming them all; they know who they are, and I thank them. But I point out to them that, as some noble Lords have said, palliative care is mentioned in the current version of the Bill. We see it in Clause 5, on preliminary discussions with registered medical practitioners; in Clause 12, on doctors’ assessments; in Clause 39, on codes of practice; in Clause 40, on guidance about the operation of the Act; in Clause 47, on reporting on the implementation of the Act; and in Clause 50, on review of the Act.

Surely, the crucial question at this stage to both the sponsor of the Bill—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—and the Minister, are whether they believe that these clauses in the current version of the Bill, as entered this House, address the concerns raised by the many probing amendments discussed in this group. That is the crucial question to the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister.

I have a further question for the Minister, and I know that it is a little unfair because it is probably more a question for the Department of Health and Social Care and perhaps the Treasury, so if the Minister does not have the answer to hand, we understand that she will write to us and place a copy in the Library. Are the Government confident that palliative care will be sufficiently funded so that those who seek assisted dying services are offered a real as opposed to theoretical choice on palliative care, so they can make a more informed decision, understanding what is available to them? I recognise that that may be a difficult question and may put the Minister on the spot, but I hope that she can go back to the Government and ask for an answer that can be shared with your Lordships.

I look forward to the answers from the Bill’s sponsor and the Minister.