Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the comprehensive way in which he presented this Bill. In opening the debate for the Official Opposition, let me be clear that, as a Front Bench, we have no collective view on either the principle of terminally ill people receiving interventions to end their lives early or on the drafting of the Bill. Noble Lords on this side of the House will have a free vote both on the Bill and on the Motions we are debating. The Official Opposition do not have a collective position on those Motions.

Given this fact, I will speak neither in favour of nor against the Bill. But, as the noble and learned Lord said, this is a historic occasion. It is not hyperbole to say that this Bill may be one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever to be considered by this Parliament, with far-reaching implications for our society and the sort of society that we want to live in. Noble Lords will appreciate this significance simply from the sheer volume of correspondence received. Those speaking on both sides of the debate will be informed by their own experiences, whether that be professional or personal experience. We will hear many moving stories in these debates, and perhaps even shed a few tears. But, as a revising Chamber, I know that noble Lords will respect those experiences and reflect on them in good faith as we work to properly scrutinise and improve the Bill where necessary.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, we have received a clear signal from the elected House on the principle of the Bill. While that does not prevent noble Lords opposing the Bill per se, it is the duty of your Lordships’ House to do its work as a revising Chamber diligently. This Bill has received much scrutiny in the other place: over 100 hours across all stages, more than other Private Members’ Bills. But we should also not forget that 174 amendments were made to the Bill in Committee, and further amendments were made at Third Reading, not all of which have been properly scrutinised. So the Bill your Lordships received in this House is much changed since its introduction and is in need of thorough scrutiny.

The arguments around this Bill are finely balanced. A noble friend of mine who, let us put it this way, is not exactly known for sitting on the fence, said to me that he attended the last time we debated this and that, after almost every speech, he found himself agreeing with the speaker. To this day, he remains torn. It just shows how finely balanced these arguments are.

Let me attempt to frame the debate and touch on some areas that noble Lords may wish to probe in Committee. In debating this Bill, we must have in mind the well-being and dignity of those for whom it was originally proposed: the terminally ill who want to end their lives early. We will hear powerful arguments based on compassion and bodily autonomy from the Bill’s supporters.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has indicated his openness to amendments to the Bill. We on these Benches welcome that openness. I expect amendments to come from supporters of this legislation who want to make it the best Bill possible. We have seen that in some of the emails noble Lords have shared with each other; we also saw it in Committee in the other place, where the Bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, tabled 142 such amendments.

On the other side of the debate, there will be noble Lords who oppose the Bill on principled grounds. For some, it will be based on their faith. Others may support the principle behind the Bill but not the current drafting, either because of insufficient safeguards or because of limited access to palliative care, which denies patients a meaningful choice. They too approach this Bill with compassion. This is a matter of conscience, and as the Government Chief Whip said, we should respect the views of noble Lords who disagree profoundly with this Bill just as much as we respect the views of those in favour of it. Those who oppose the Bill will also choose to bring amendments to improve it, despite their overall view. So, whether an amendment is tabled by a supporter of the Bill, an opponent of the Bill or someone who has yet to make up their mind, those watching the debate from outside your Lordships’ House should not mistake amendments to this Bill for outright opposition.

A number of organisations, including the Law Society, the Complex Life and Death Decisions group at King’s College London, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have proposed amendments to address some serious concerns over the drafting of the Bill as it stands. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has himself acknowledged, both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have recommended amendments to the Bill, highlighting that there are now 42 regulation-making powers in this version of it—the version that came to this House. Both the Hansard Society and the Constitution Committee have pointed out that, as it is a Private Member’s Bill and the Government remain neutral as to its purpose, it is unclear how these powers will be used. These are all important challenges that we must take the time to consider carefully.

There are noble Lords with strong views on both sides of this debate, but all approach it in good faith. My opening comments are not meant to persuade your Lordships to vote one way or the other or to support certain amendments over others; they are an attempt to frame the overall debate and to touch on some of the issues that may need to be probed in Committee. The decisions we take are not easy and the consequences are not always clear, but I have no doubt that the Bill will receive the scrutiny needed in this House—whether we are in favour or against—with all the emotions and concerns that will be expressed. No matter how challenging that may be, let us work together to examine the Bill in detail and do our work diligently.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kamall Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I have spoken already about how my experience as a Member in the other place has made me very concerned about this Bill, and more determined that it must not be a cause of further harm to vulnerable people. Many unanswered questions about the Bill before us have been raised during the course of this important debate. This is why I have tabled the amendment and the following Motion to hold a Select Committee before Committee of the whole House begins.

This is a significant and complex piece of legislation by any definition. It demands a process that can withstand the weight, but it is clear that there are serious shortcomings, as both the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted in their reports last week. Indeed, I am concerned that the legislative process is being asked to compensate for the absence of robust policy-making before the Bill was published: no comprehensive review; no public consultation or prior engagement with professionals and other stakeholders; no Green Paper or White Paper, which we would have seen had it been a government Bill—I understand the case made for why it is not a government Bill, but that has diminished what is before us today; and no published analysis of international experiences. Instead, Parliament has been asked to grapple with questions about implementation, safeguards and NHS implications without this groundwork, which we would usually turn to for a law change of this magnitude.

Back in March, Jill Rutter of the Institute for Government—which is neutral on the principle of assisted dying—said:

“We’re expecting Commons scrutiny to do far too much—things it simply can’t do … Commons scrutiny is being left to solve a whole range of problems it isn’t equipped to deal with”.


We have seen the dropping of key but expensive safeguards, such as the review by a High Court judge, and whole new clauses and schedules introduced to replace them with very little opportunity for thorough scrutiny.

It was a clear pattern in the other place that when significant concerns were raised that had not been anticipated, the response was often to add another delegated power. There are now, as we know, 42 delegated powers contained within the Bill: 42 areas where government will work out the detail later, with Parliament largely excluded from the conversation. The result is a Bill that is today substantially different from when the Bill Committee in the other place took evidence in January this year, but now with less clarity.

I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary, but I have been asked many questions on the process about what is before us, which I will seek to address. My amendment ensures that we can have some evidence, expertise and insight on the Bill before us today. We need this information before we commence line-by-line scrutiny.

Noble Lords will have received a letter setting out a condensed list of witnesses that I and other supporters believe this House must hear from, including my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and those who will bear the responsibility for delivering the Bill, should it pass, and setting out how they would use their delegated powers. These witnesses are to include the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the chief executive of NHS England, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

We must also take evidence from the professional bodies whose members will be asked to carry out the functions that the Bill sets out: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Association of Social Workers and the Law Society.

We are, of course, not able to hear from serving members of the judiciary, but may hear from the former Chief Coroner of England, Thomas Teague KC, and Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court. We must also ensure that we understand the impact of the Bill on our hospices and care homes, through Hospice UK, the Association for Palliative Medicine and Care England.

A previous suggestion of a Select Committee in parallel, alongside a Committee of the whole House, would not achieve—

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I apologise, I do not want to detain the House any longer than is necessary. Just to clarify, will all the evidence before the Select Committee be published?

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the intervention, and I was just about to come on to that, but I will answer that now. The answer is yes, absolutely. The intention is that all the evidence accumulated and amassed during that time will be published for everyone in the House to interrogate and consider in advance of us going into Committee of the whole House. To confirm, this Select Committee cannot take place in parallel in order that we can receive evidence on vital parts of the Bill before we go into debate, so that we are not in the unenviable position of knowing what is wrong with the Bill but being unable to amend it.

My Motion provides that a Select Committee would be intended as a focused piece of work, hearing vital expert oral evidence, as I have just set out, rather than it being a more time-intensive open exercise. It may report by simply publishing that evidence before we go into Committee of the whole House, in order to inform our detailed consideration of the Bill. As I understand it from the clerks, the revised timetable allows the committee to hold six meetings over three weeks, with two panels of witnesses on each of the days, to begin the week commencing 20 October and allowing it to conclude by 7 November. The revised timetable ensures that the Bill can progress to its next stage and maintain the opportunity for four sitting Fridays before Christmas.

We have, over the past two Fridays, shown the determination of your Lordships’ House to discuss the Bill in a considered and constructive way, and it is my strongest hope that we can continue to do that. If my amendment is accepted, I do not intend to speak on the Motion that will follow, which contains the detail that I have just set out. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton—