Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

I understand that the noble Lord was talking about a subset of consultations, but this is my point: I think he accepted that there might, in any process, be exceptional circumstances where a consultation was not in person. I am just saying that, even in that narrow subset, there might be a reason for another person to be in the room. I am not talking about that specific point; I am trying, in general, to suggest that we should try to lay down some principles but not try to overengineer and cover every possible circumstance.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She seemed to express a kind of common-sense view that of course we all agree that it is much better to have face-to-face interviews, and we have heard all sorts of evidence today from the medical profession and the legal profession about how that is much better. The noble Baroness thinks there should be a code of practice. I agree, but surely that code of practice should be about where there are exceptions. It would be much safer to have a Bill in which it is specified that interviews should be face to face, except for certain exceptions laid out in a code of practice. Surely it should be that way around in order that we have as safe a Bill as possible.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord makes a really valid point about codes of practice. Codes of practice sometimes are not statutory, so it would need to be a statutory code. Apart from all that, we also know that codes of practice become outdated. In another area of my expertise, a statutory code of practice was agreed in 2011. Although it is unlawful today, it has still not been withdrawn by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I make special mention of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, who spoke about the death of their father and mother. Like everyone else, I am grateful for what may have been something that was quite difficult to contribute to the debate. I hope I have not left out anyone else out who has done that.

These amendments fall effectively into two categories. The first is the England and Wales category—what do you have to be in England and Wales to do?—and, secondly, and separately, in what circumstances is a face-to-face meeting between either the patient and the doctors or the patient and the panel required?

I will deal first with the position of England and Wales, raised by Amendment 60, from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Currently, under the provisions of the Bill, the first declaration made by the patient, the second declaration made by the patient, the first assessment of the patient, the second assessment of the patient and assistance being given to the patient all have to take place in England and Wales. There was a range of other things that the noble Baroness wished to take place while the patient was in England and Wales—for example, switching from one doctor to another, which is a process. For my part, I think the Bill has broadly got right when you have to be in England and Wales. Having listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said, I am not minded to suggest an amendment in relation to that, and I note that it was not picked up as an issue by other people.

The face-to-face issues were much more what the Committee, if I may say so, was interested in through the course of this debate. The effect of the debate has been, in effect, to identify four possibilities. First, Amendment 65 wants each of the occasions, namely the two doctors and the panel, to always involve a face-to-face meeting. Secondly, there should be a face-to-face meeting unless there are—I use this phrase without intending to pick up all the amendments—exceptional circumstances or practicability issues. Thirdly, the third amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which he referred to, is that there should be, to use his language, a “statutory protocol” defining where there can be remote meetings, accepting that the norm is face to face. Fourthly, we could simply rely on the existing provisions of the Bill, which is that codes of practice can be issued by the Minister under the various provisions of the Bill saying when face to face is appropriate and when it is not.

The testimony—that is what it felt like—given of cases where remote has gone wrong have enormous power and I think we are all aware of circumstances where face to face will lead to much greater and better communication. The other side of the coin, which was referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Hayman, my noble friends Lady Jay and Lady Blackstone and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is that there will be circumstances where, if you insist on face to face, you are, in effect, excluding some people from this right when they should have it. There are arguments on both sides.

I come away with the strongest possible feeling that the Committee thinks that face to face where possible is best but that there will be circumstances where it is not appropriate. That brings me to my third and fourth possibilities. It is wrong and dangerous to try to use a phrase such as “reasonably practicable” or “exceptional”; more is required and guidance should be given. This is not a criticism—it is a congratulation—but I do not think the words “statutory protocol” are right, but I get from what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is saying that he wants something that has the force of regulations or something similar that says, “This is what we have in mind”. Whether that is a code of practice or a statutory protocol, I am not sure. I am sure it is not what is called a protocol, but it might be something quite like that. I think the right course for me is to go away and bring back something that satisfies the Committee that there will be something—a statutory protocol or a code of guidance—that indicates when face to face is appropriate or should be the norm, but gives the circumstances where it would not be, because I get the sense of anxiety about that. I hope, in the light of that approach, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not to press their amendments.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I cannot quite understand why the noble and learned Lord is so unwilling to have in the Bill that the presumption should be face to face, with exceptions written into a protocol? Why is he objecting to having it that way round?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

As a lawyer, going for a presumption is wrong. I think the right thing to do is say something such as the norm is face to face, but there could be circumstances in which you may not do that. You should give maximum flexibility.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The noble Lord puts it accurately. Some countries have taken one view and other countries have taken another. It is clear from the choice that I am supporting that we take the view that pregnancy should not be a bar to it, though inevitably, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, there should be questions in relation to appropriate people, whether they are pregnant or not, which may have an effect on the result. On the more detailed questions, based on what I am saying, they would not arise in the Bill.

Going on to the third category, homeless people, again with six months to live or less, will very frequently, as my noble friend Lady Gray said, have complex needs and complex lives. I am very strongly against that right to an assisted death being taken away from them, but the safeguards will apply, to be sure that it is their clear and settled view and not the product of coercion.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised the education, health and care plan. The range of people with an EHCP is very wide, as everybody knows. I am again very against excluding everybody from the significant provisions of the Bill, because the protections are there. They can go up to the age of 25 and, as I indicated last Friday, for people aged 25 and under we should think of whether there should be enhanced protection. That would include everybody up to the age of 25, including those under an education, health and care plan. In the light of those indications, I hope—

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading but have not yet intervened in Committee. I have the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord. However, would he not agree that there is a special vulnerability about all the categories that we have been discussing this afternoon? Are there any provisions that he can build into the Bill to address this? If you took a homeless person who only had six months to live and said, “Come and live in a five-star hotel and have good palliative care”, would they then still choose an assisted death? If you took somebody out of prison who had only six months to live and said, “We’re giving you early release, you can live in a five-star hotel with good palliative care”, would they still choose an assisted death? There is a particular vulnerability about these people. It is no good simply talking about their rights. They do have their rights, but they are vulnerable. I hope that the noble and learned Lord might be able to build something into the Bill to protect these categories of people.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I completely accept that there are vulnerabilities in these groups. The question is whether we should exclude everybody within those groups from this right. Should we exclude every single homeless person or prisoner? We can disagree on this, but I am saying that I do not think that is right because the protections are sufficient.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, asked how we deliver our Article 2 duty to protect people from death when they are in prison and we are offering them an assisted death. We are protecting them through the detailed safeguards there are before the individual prisoner is entitled to have an assisted death. In my view, that will be an adequate protection and give adequate effect to Article 2. In light of my remarks, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Wheelchair and Community Equipment Strategy

Lord Harries of Pentregarth Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing this debate, which is of great importance. I am the main carer for my wife, who is severely disabled, and I have calculated that we probably need at least nine pieces of equipment to lead any kind of reasonable life. She has a hospital bed to stop her having sores, a hoist to get her out of bed, a commode wheelchair to wheel her to the stairlift, a turner to get her on to the stairlift to take her downstairs, another turner to get her onto the commode lift and a commode lift to take her into the bathroom, in addition to a lifting armchair. In addition, there are special adaptations in the bathroom, with rails and so on, and there are both powered and hand wheelchairs, because we can get into the GP only with a small hand wheelchair. There are at least three ramps to get her out of the house.

We are very fortunate; this is a good story. We have what we want to lead a decent life. It is partly provided and partly purchased by us. However, it brings to my mind the total nightmare of those who do not have that equipment, or if equipment breaks down and they are not able to get emergency help to mend it. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, there is widespread dissatisfaction among those who need equipment because of frustrations, delays and bureaucracy, and I will not repeat those figures. I was particularly moved, as others were, by the story of Rhys Porter, who has cerebral palsy and was without essential equipment, including a hoist and home adaptations, for two years. Apparently, during this time, his parents had to help him use a commode seat in his bedroom and drag him into the family bathroom on a towel once a week, putting them all at risk of injury. When he needed surgery, there was no immediate help to have a hoist to get him out of bed. Such equipment, for Rhys and countless others, is critical, not only to support day-to-day activities but to ensure that essential medical treatment can take place, avoiding further complications.

Such delays are not just occasional. The crisis impacting community equipment, causing months—sometimes years—of delay for assessment and medical kit, is systemic rather than down to individual actors. The main reason, as we have already heard but it is worth repeating, is that there is a lack of national oversight. Statutory responsibilities are left to local authorities and ICBs, which creates inconsistent and patchy provision, and confusion over who ultimately is responsible for this essential service. Moreover, the situation is likely to get worse; with an ageing population and the rise of chronic health conditions, the demand for mobility aids of various kinds is going to increase. It is vital that the Government act now before the situation deteriorates even further.

In the light of the APPG for Access to Disability Equipment’s finding that there is no national strategy, no coherent commissioning framework and no single accountable Minister for community equipment, will the Government now commit to developing a national strategy for both community equipment and wheelchair services, overseen by a named Minister with clear responsibility for delivery?