Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Yes, I completely agree. That is why I say that I respect the right of MPs to decide to use the Parliament Act process. But I would rather that we did not have to go through all this again, having to change what has been a flawed Bill at this end. I appreciate and am aware of the Parliament Act process.

I completely understand the passion of people who want assisted dying to happen in this country. A variety of amendments have been rejected when talking about pain or other things being key criteria, or about autonomy versus the risk of coercion, and I think they should come up with a better Bill.

I am conscious that I have spoken for somewhat longer than I had intended. I could have said a lot more in response to what the noble and learned Lord said. The two Houses are different in their processes. I could have given examples of popular PMBs; one in particular had a majority of 304 in the Commons and then never made it through this House. I am conscious that others want to speak and, for what it is worth, I do want us to go into Committee at some point today. With that, I beg to move.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, will be taking part remotely, and it has been agreed that she will be called as the third speaker in the debate on the amendment.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin on a personal note. As I have mentioned in previous debates, my mother was a Marie Curie nurse who supported terminally ill people through their final days. In 2007, she was diagnosed with late-stage womb cancer. When she was in pain at the end of her life, she was helped by hospice staff—in my words—to take an earlier train home.

That experience changed how I see the debate. I consider myself broadly in favour of assisted dying, because I believe in choice and in personal autonomy, but what I witnessed, and what I have learned since, is that what happened to my mother happens quietly all the time across the country, informally and inconsistently, with no upfront oversight and no safeguards. The current ban does not prevent assisted dying; it simply makes it unregulated, unequal and unsafe. It forces some people to travel to Dignitas, often alone, dying earlier than they need to because the law has given them no other way. It leaves their relatives looking over their shoulders, concerned that they might face prosecution for helping their loved ones have their dying wish. It forces others to take their own lives, frightened and alone, or perhaps with assistance but with no way to protect against abuse. We heard evidence in the Select Committee that 650 terminally ill people commit suicide every year with no controls, no safeguards and no protections under the current legislation. Others, without the ability or resources to take control, risk dying terribly or without dignity, in pain and with suffering.

So I came to this Bill believing in the principle of assisted dying to allow choice and autonomy, but believing that it needed the skills of your Lordships’ House to make assisted dying the best and safest process in the world. I was in favour of setting up the special committee to take evidence; I even sat on it. I was in favour of giving the Bill extra time to allow additional scrutiny. It was fitting that we had a similar number of sittings on this Bill as on the current Crime and Policing Bill.

However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, set out, this Bill has had plenty of time compared with other Bills; we have just not chosen to use that time wisely. It has taken 20 times longer—20 times more per page of legislation—than other Bills, such as the Crime and Policing Bill, such as welfare, health and security Bills, or the levelling-up Bill, so I believe that it has had plenty of time for scrutiny. As I say, we have just not chosen to use that time wisely. I believe that the whole Bill, and the reputation of the Lords, is the poorer for it. I know that many Lords will state that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has not been responsive to suggested amendments. He has pointed to the many examples where he has been.

For me, our failure to get to the end of this process and discuss all clauses has made us all the poorer. Let me give an example. On an earlier clause, the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, spoke eloquently and movingly about the dangers of people with learning disabilities being inadvertently coerced into assisted dying through their wanting to crowd please. The whole Committee was moved and educated that day by the noble Baroness, and the noble and learned Lord immediately agreed to make the necessary amendments to safeguard against this. This was the Lords at its best—into the detail, understanding the full consequences and then acting to protect. To me, the real missed opportunity here is that, by spending so much time on the early clauses and not getting through the Bill, we did not have the benefit of this House’s wisdom, experience and expertise to go through, make the points and understand them in the very clear way that the noble Baroness did that day, and the way that the noble and learned Lord reacted.

That is my true regret in this, and that we let down the 70% of the British population who support assisted dying, saw the House of Commons pass the Bill and do not understand how the Lords can block it without even a vote. Most of all, I am sorry to those people who are currently terminally ill, for whom the Bill held out a safe, humane and pain-free death of their own choosing.

I finish by remembering some of those people who passed away during the passage of the Bill, for whom we are too late. Antony Shackleton, aged 59, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. He battled for six years and travelled, in the end, to Dignitas in December 2024. He said to his wife Louise, “Look at my options. I could go there and die peacefully, with grace, without pain, or be laid in a bed, not even able to look at anything unless you move my head”. He spent his final four days laughing and, in his wife’s words,

“ at total peace with his decision”.

For accompanying her husband so that he could die with dignity, Louise spent 10 months under police investigation. What he wanted, as she put it, was

“nothing more than a good death”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, I speak as one of the Lords spiritual and as a member of the Select Committee that examined the Bill. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility for the integrity of our legislative process and for the dignity and protection of those whose lives may be most directly affected by what we decide. I have been deeply moved by the personal stories that have been shared by noble Lords in recent months and wish to acknowledge the stories that my noble friend shared with us just now. My own dear cousin died earlier this week from a condition that could at many stages have been described as terminal. She continued resolutely to live life to its fullness, and her sudden death is a matter of great sadness to me.

In our context, where questions of life, death, care and conscience are so closely intertwined, the quality of our scrutiny is not a procedural detail. It is a moral necessity. Some may dismiss my contribution as one grounded in a faith, but this is as legitimate and significant as any other viewpoint, whether grounded in faith, belief or none. While my faith informs my alarm at our designation of dignity or the lack of it, it is from my experience on the Select Committee that I have found that, the more closely we have examined this Bill, the more concerns have come into focus, not fewer. For a Bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative. Within our proceedings, there has been an acknowledgement, even from those closely involved in the Bill, that it is not yet in a settled or satisfactory form. When such admissions are made, it is incumbent on us to listen with care.

The Select Committee heard evidence that raised a number of unresolved and deeply serious questions. These questions were practical as well as deeply principled: whether the state should be obligated to address unmet need before assisting someone to die, even if in doing so the person’s mind might be changed; how we ensure that we continue to uphold our duty to suicide prevention for those who are terminally ill; how such a significant change in the law would be delivered in a way that does not put vulnerable people at further risk; and how this would work for extremely vulnerable populations who do not have the same choice, such as prisoners. These are not marginal concerns. They go to the heart of how we understand protection, vulnerability and moral responsibility.

Across this House, Peers from many different perspectives have expressed concern. That breadth of unease ought not to be dismissed lightly, yet I share the concern that the time afforded for debate has often been limited in ways that do not reflect the gravity of the subject. When the Bill was first introduced, it contained a number of delegated powers of a kind that, as noble Lords have already pointed out, rightly attracted concern. While some adjustments may have been made, the underlying issue remains—whether too much is being left unresolved, to be determined later rather than clarified now. There must be opportunity for a deliberative process as these are examined. Moreover, the committee and the House more broadly have raised a number of detailed questions to which clear answers have not always been forthcoming from the Government or their advisers. That lack of clarity makes it difficult for us to discharge our duty with the confidence that is required.

In my ministry, I am often reminded that how we care for those at the end of life is a measure of our common life together. That care must be marked by compassion, clarity and a steadfast commitment to protect the most vulnerable. For that reason, I believe we must continue to proceed with great caution. Until the questions that have been raised are answered more fully and until this Bill has received the depth of scrutiny it requires, it would be irresponsible to allow it to move forward. This is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that any change we make is just, humane and worthy of the trust that is placed in us.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as requested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I have reflected on the progress we have made on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to date. I know that we have engaged in vital scrutiny work and made progress, although for the supporters of the Bill it seems agonisingly slow.

I am acutely conscious that the role of this House is not to rubber-stamp legislation. It demands that we draw on our knowledge, our experience and research evidence to demonstrate why revision is necessary and, most importantly, to insist firmly that a Bill is made safe before it leaves us. That is our constitutional duty and it is what we have been doing over the past 14 days in Committee. Yet our work has been dismissed as filibustering or worse. That is simply not true. The breadth of participation in this House reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability organisations about the risks this legislation may pose to the most vulnerable.

I have spent over two decades studying similar laws internationally. I have long supported autonomy for disabled people, but autonomy without protection is not freedom—it is risk. When the outcome is irreversible, that risk must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Public opinion is given to reflect that caution, despite the high-profile celebrities fronting the campaign for assisted dying. Of course, they get the headlines. Actor Miriam Margolyes’s recent outburst against “a cohort of rabid Catholic privileged Lords out to sabotage the Bill” was heard loud and clear. But please do not be mistaken; this is not a reflection of public opinion.

The latest polling by Whitestone Insight shows that there is no clear or informed public mandate for this Bill. Around four in 10 people do not understand that assisted dying involves administering lethal drugs—when voters are better informed, support falls away; nor is this a public priority, with far greater concern focused on NHS pressures and social care. Importantly, the same polling shows strong support for the role of this House. A clear majority of the public believe that the House of Lords has a duty to amend or block legislation if it risks harm. That is not a call for us to step aside. It is a call for us to do our job.

Without significant amendment, this Bill cannot guarantee protection for those in vulnerable situations or outside its intended scope; nor can it ensure that decisions are made entirely free from pressure. These concerns are shared by, for example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and disability organisations. Even Liberty, an organisation long associated with defending individual freedoms, cannot support this Bill. It warned Parliament at Second Reading that the risk to those whose rights are fragile must also be protected. As it put it, the autonomy of one group cannot override the rights of another. Rights must be carefully and proportionately balanced. This Bill fails that test.

I also struggle to understand why the Bill’s sponsor appears unwilling to recognise the weight of expert evidence. I welcomed the noble and learned Lord’s open-door policy to engage with our concerns and I sought to assist him to understand the nature of a terminal prognosis. I arranged for two eminent intensive care consultants from St Thomas’ Hospital to meet him and provide a clear tutorial on prognostication. They demonstrated that a six-month prognosis cannot provide a reliable foundation for legislation of this kind. But has he returned with amendments of his own to address this deficit in the Bill? No.

Much of the chatter around the debate inside and outside this Chamber focuses on motives; it should not. Our role is to examine all available evidence, test safeguards and make revisions. Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear: this Bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your Lordships why it is dangerous for them. They fear unequal access to care shaping their choices, subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected, error in prognosis, persistent assumptions about the value of their lives and a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity. These are real and repeated concerns. I have contributed to amendments that have sought to strengthen safeguards to that end. That is not obstruction; it is our duty.