Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I also support the idea of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the Bill needs more time for scrutiny than is available through the usual tried and tested Private Member’s Bill process. We have to manage expectations, though, and I have been thinking about precedents for a Bill of this complexity. With the help of the House of Lords Library, I have been looking at balloted Private Members’ Bills from the House of Commons ballot that reached First Reading in this House in the 10 years from the start of the 2015 Session. It is very interesting.

In the other place, of course, ballot Bills are introduced by title only, with the full text appearing or changing at later stages. But the full text version as brought from the Commons provides a consistent and analytically robust basis for comparison. The average length of the Bills in that 10-year period was 8.8 pages, with a mean of five clauses. In contrast, this complex Bill, heralding major social and societal changes, has 51 pages, with 59 clauses. So it is hardly surprising that it needs lengthy scrutiny.

Eight of these pages were actually added by the sponsor on Report, with little or no discussion. In the other place, 92% of the amendments tabled by Members other than the sponsor were not even debated, and just seven were put to MPs for decision. This data refutes the misleading impression being given in the national media, which suggests that your Lordships’ House is delaying progress by tabling and debating amendments, as in reality they are needed to improve the safety and care of patients.

I suggest that counting the number of amendments is misleading, because many are consequential on the change proposed. As my noble friend Lord Carlile suggested, there are about 10 major issues. The noble and learned Lord has not said which amendments, if any, even those recommended by the royal colleges and patient advocacy groups, he is willing to accept. Members are waiting for his active engagement and for a bit of give and take.

In the past 10 years, only 66—about a third—of all balloted Private Members’ Bills have become law. Of these successful Bills, the vast majority were government handouts or had explicit government support. Nobody can argue against scrutiny, and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has recognised that a Bill of this length and complexity does not fit the usual model of a Private Member’s Bill. I have concluded that the kindest thing for the Government to do would be to seek to establish a royal commission to give this weighty issue the attention that it deserves. We cannot do it justice through the Private Members’ Bill process, but I agree that it needs time.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I hope that the noble and learned Lord gets an opportunity to reply to this debate, but I wondered whether I could ask what is perhaps the daft laddie question. Is he, or are the Government Front Bench, able to tell us how many days and what dates they think will be required for the Bill to get through its passage in Committee, on Report—bearing in mind that there may well be Divisions on Report—and then at Third Reading, so that proceedings here will be completed in adequate time before the end of the parliamentary Session, before it goes back to the other place? Of course, the other place will presumably need time on Fridays or Wednesdays, as I think they sometimes sit on Wednesdays to deal with Private Members’ Bills.

Irrespective of one’s views of the merits of the Bill or of the noble and learned Lord’s Motion, it would be enormously helpful if he could put some meat on the bones of “reasonable time”—the phrase he uses in his Motion. That would inform us in a very helpful way. If he cannot do it, perhaps the Government Front Bench could do so instead.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the process. Time in Committee is obviously linked to the progress of meetings, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for offering a one-on-one meeting on one aspect of the Bill.

However, the usual manner in Committee, as I have understood it from substantive Bills—usually government Bills—is to have themed meetings with quite a large number of Peers to discuss issues. There may be around 10, but I would say that there are more than 10 issues here. That is concentrated down on Report. If the noble and learned Lord could adopt that process, it would limit the time in Committee.

I might also remind the noble and learned Lord of his evidence to the Select Committee when I raised the issue of advertising. If noble Lords look at Clause 43, they would think that advertising was still on printed pieces of paper. We know that that is not the case but, due to the lack of government write-round on a Private Member’s Bill, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which has responsibility for the Online Safety Act, has no idea what the impact of that clause will be on that Act or on online advertising. In response to my questions, the noble and learned Lord accepted that he needs to come back with more detail on advertising.

I have looked at the Order Paper under Clause 43 and there are a number of amendments, but still none from the noble and learned Lord in relation to these matters, so I am now going to have to go to the Public Bill Office to get my amendments drafted not knowing what the noble and learned Lord’s position was when he gave that evidence before Christmas. That is the type of issue of process that is causing more time to be used in your Lordships’ House. I have about 15 amendments down, so I am concentrating on a handful of the issues, which I believe is the way I have behaved with any Bill before your Lordships’ House to date.