Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Debate adjourned until Friday 19 September.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it has been a long day at the end of a very long week. As we adjourn our proceedings, I am sure all noble Lords will join with me in thanking the catering staff, the attendants, the clerks, Hansard staff, the broadcasting unit, the police, security staff and the doorkeepers for their excellent support in keeping the House operating and keeping us safe. With that, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

House adjourned at 4.37 pm.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion agreed.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it has been a long day at the end of a very long week, at the end of this September sitting, when we have made good progress on the legislation before the House. I thank the usual channels and all Members for that most sincerely. As we adjourn our proceedings, I am sure all noble Lords will join me in thanking the catering staff, the attendants, the clerks, Hansard staff, the broadcasting unit, the security staff, the police and the doorkeepers for their excellent support in keeping the House operating and keeping us safe. I recognise, as Government Chief Whip, the pressure that this places on the staff of the House, and I will continue my discussions across the House to ensure that proper support is always in place when we return on 13 October.

I wish everyone a well-deserved break as we move into the conference season. For everyone attending a party conference, whether that be in Bournemouth, Liverpool, Manchester or elsewhere, I wish them an enjoyable time. For those who are not attending a party conference, they probably have the best deal, and I also wish them well.

House adjourned at 3.50 pm.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose it would be apt for me to complete the Holy Trinity of faith. We have started with the Christian faith, we have heard a Jewish dimension and we have heard about equality and opportunity. As a member of the Islamic faith and as a practising Muslim, I say that, while I fully respect the House and I am grateful to the Chief Whip and the Leader, it is important that we reflect all traditions.

One of the main challenges that I have with this Bill is the lack of consultations with different communities. As many noble Lords will be aware, Friday is also a sacred day for Muslims, particularly in the middle of the day with the Jummah prayer. I just flag that point. I of course respect the organisation and the business of the House, but ask that there is time for those who practise the faith and choose to offer prayer by congregation in the middle of the day. Following on in support of my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Polak, I think that the diversity of our country, the diversity of the House and the respect of all traditions and faiths is something that should be borne in mind.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I will first say, as a Catholic, that I have great respect for the three noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Polak and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. I like all three noble Lords very much, as they know, and I am sympathetic to the points they raised. It is why I made a statement to the House yesterday, after Questions, which I then sent to every noble Lord’s parliamentary email account. My statement and email sought to help colleagues with reasonable planning assumptions, in line with the usual conventions.

The Government would never seek, on a Private Member’s Bill, to force the House to do anything it did not want to do. My plan today is, if necessary, to return to this Dispatch Box at a convenient point around 2.30 pm to again give advice to the House on how we achieve a rising time of around 3 pm—it could be before or slightly after. At the end of the day, the decision is the matter for the House, not for me as Government Chief Whip. This is not a government Bill. The Government are neutral on the Bill. At this point, though, I think we need to move on from procedure and start debating and scrutinising the Bill and the more than 900 amendments before us, line by line, with respect and courtesy for each other and for the different opinions genuinely and sincerely held across the House.

Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that point from the noble Lord.

I do not want to bring my own personal circumstances into it, but the plain fact of the matter is that I will not be able to participate in the next group because, for obvious reasons, I have to leave. I am a practising barrister. I set aside time to contribute—usefully, I hope—to the work of this House, but there are other pressures on time. If this were a government Bill, we all know how government Bills work. This is well beyond my unpaid pay grade, but it seems to me that we are perhaps trying to pour a quart into a pint pot by doing this Bill as a Private Member’s Bill; as I say, though, that is way beyond my pay grade.

I will sit down in a moment but, because of the exchange we have just had, I want to place on the record the fact that I will not be here for the next group. Having said on this group that the two groups are interrelated, I hope that that will not be a discourtesy to the Committee—certainly not to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is the sponsor of the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as it is nearly 2.30 pm, it might be helpful to the Committee to know that, when my noble friend Lady Merron has responded for the Government Front Bench and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has responded, I intend to invite the House to resume; that will bring today’s debate to a close. That is my intention but, obviously, it is a matter for the Committee to decide what it wants to do.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can the noble Lord give some guidance on the issue of timing? As has just been indicated, if it were not obvious before this morning, it is now perfectly obvious that four days is not going to be enough for the Committee stage of this Bill. There is unanimity that this is an exceptionally important Bill and that this House has to carry out its constitutional function of scrutinising it. It would be enormously damaging to the reputation of this House if, because of timing, we were unable to do that task. Will the Government make government time available?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. As I said at the start, the Government remain neutral and will not be providing government time for this Bill. Obviously, we will look at things when we get to the end of our four days in Committee. I will then work with the usual channels to see what other time can be made available from non-government time, but we will have to see whether we will move on over the next few days.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I say to the Minister that we are talking about four days. The general public know that a sitting Friday lasts from 10 am to 3 pm. People have made arrangements accordingly, and there are reasons of faith and things such as that which require that we respect that ending at 3 pm. On a normal day, the House would sit for up to 10 or 12 hours, so four days is just not enough.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I do not think I can add much more to what I have already said. We are debating the Bill. The House will adjourn fairly shortly, and I will have a discussion in the usual channels. There is no government time that can be made available for the Bill.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Is it not time that the Government look to give some government time to the Bill? As has already been said, this is one of the most important Bills ever to come before this House. For the Government not to give us government time, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has just said, is unfair to the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

All I can do is repeat myself: this is a Private Member’s Bill, and the Government do not have any government time to give it at the moment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It might be convenient to concur with what the Government Chief Whip has just said. We could finish in the normal run of things if there were fewer interventions and perhaps if the Front Benches could be allowed to sum up.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Since I was standing, I will be very brief. I support what the Chief Whip said. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said earlier. I agree with the Government Chief Whip about not giving government time, but we need more time to deal with this as a Private Member’s Bill. I do not think that any reasonable person listening to the debate and the expertise contributed from these Benches could have concluded anything other than that this was a debate that reflected well on the House and that we are doing our job seriously and conscientiously. We need to continue to do that. That is all I would say to the Chief Whip.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

As a final point, I agree with the noble Lord. As Government Chief Whip, I take my job very seriously. I love the House, and I want to do this properly. I assure the Committee that I hear noble Lords’ sentiments. I know how long it has taken on the Bill. I know that views are sincerely held on both sides. I will work in the usual channels to deal with these matters.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the insightful contributions that have been made to this debate. I will be very concise on the point. In summary, it is our view that workability concerns are less significant, although the Government are unable to confirm at this stage that the current drafting is fully workable, effective or enforceable. As noble Lords will understand, the amendment has not had technical drafting support from officials.

On this point, if the amendment is passed in isolation, it is likely to have minimal legal effect, as Clause 1 is essentially declaratory rather than operative. The remainder of the Bill would refer to the capacity to make a decision, which, as noble Lords will be aware from the Bill, is to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

I anticipate coming later to discussions on amendments to Clause 3, as noble Lords have referred to, as those amendments would change the operation of the Bill. I will comment on proposals when we come to the relevant debate. These issues are, of course, rightly a matter for noble Lords to consider, deciding which test is to be used.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we spent nearly four hours and 45 minutes on that group of amendments. I think this would be a convenient point to adjourn.

House resumed.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have completed three groups of amendments, which is fewer than I had hoped for when I spoke in the House this morning. All noble Lords need to reflect on that before we resume consideration of the Bill next Friday.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Before the noble Lord adjourns proceedings, can I ask him whether he would give anxious consideration to how we are going to complete Committee on this enormously important Bill, which this House may well want to amend and may well wish to disagree with at Third Reading? It is surely essential that this House is provided with the time that enables us to do our job, because if we do not do our job, it will be enormously damaging to the reputation of this House. Is there any way in which he can give thought to this over the next few days?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I am very happy to give thought to that. When I came to this Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago and announced the extra days, I hoped that that would assist the House, but at this rate of progress I think we may still struggle. I am very happy to consider that. My door remains open to anybody for whom I can give assistance on that. The point that I keep making is that, at the end of the day, this is a Private Member’s Bill and the Government remain neutral on the Bill itself.

House resumed.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 22, 308 and 347, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Amendment 22 rightly seeks to exclude serving prisoners and those detained by a hospital order from accessing assisted dying under the Bill. As we have heard, the Bill speaks the language of choice, autonomy and settled intention, yet this group are, in effect, the group least likely to have choice, autonomy and settled intention. Nevertheless, these are men and women living in overcrowded, often violent environments, cut off from family contact and support networks, access to services and meaningful work—those things that provide a context for someone’s life. Many are traumatised, mentally ill or struggling with addiction.

Prisoners, as we know, are an exceptionally vulnerable population. In a report published in July this year, the Prison Advice and Care Trust—PACT—warned of the mounting mental health crisis in prisons, where mental ill health is the norm and not the exception. It goes on to note that rates of self-harm in prisons have more than trebled in the last decade, from nearly 26,000 in 2014 to just over 79,000 in 2024, and reflects that recent data shows that, among prisoners, 56% of men and 74% of women report having mental health problems. In the year to June 2025, government statistics show that there were 86 self-inflicted deaths per 1,000 prisoners.

Behind these statistics lies a culture that breeds hopelessness. It is into this context that we are proposing to make serving prisoners eligible for an assisted death. I am deeply concerned that, terminal illness aside, if you design a scheme in which a person’s own sense of despair may well be a key trigger, and there is no requirement for asking someone what their motivation is for engaging in this act, those who feel most hopeless will be the most susceptible. By any objective measure, prisoners are perhaps among the most hopeless within our society.

I note that in response to a question during the Select Committee evidence sessions, the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman KC, MP, commented that, as we have already heard, this is a policy choice on which “the Government is neutral”. But she went on to say that much will depend on its interaction

“with the wider prison regime and some of the challenges that lie therein”,

and that there would be a need to ensure that the Bill operates in a way that

“does not lead to abuse or is not misused”.

I would like to learn from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, precisely how he intends to ensure that this is not misused within the prison system.

I wonder whether the Minister and indeed the noble and learned Lord have considered the 2021 Hospice UK report Dying Behind Bars. The authors note that

“up to 90% of older incarcerated people have at least one moderate or severe health condition, with over half having three or more”.

I have great sympathy for the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox; clearly, the state has already taken from these individuals their liberty as a punishment to protect the public. The state is of course also responsible for the delivery of healthcare within prisons. In such an imbalanced power dynamic where the state has such overwhelming power, the shift this legislation represents as drafted, whereby the state may say to a prisoner who otherwise meets the eligibility criteria, “We will help you die”, is a profound challenge. I am concerned that if we fail to exclude prisoners from the remit of the Bill, we risk undermining the comprehensive suicide prevention programmes operating in our prisons.

Providing access to assisted dying in prison sends a chilling message that where the state has failed to provide adequate care, resources or meaningful autonomy, its final offer is death, which is why I support this amendment. I am conscious of time, though, so will speak only briefly in support of Amendments 308 and 347 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

Noble Lords will perhaps be aware that I ran community projects for homeless people for the better part of two decades. I will not repeat what others have said, but the complexity of the lives of people who are homeless cannot be overstated, and I am deeply concerned that the Bill fails to account for their specific needs and risk factors. People experiencing homelessness already face significant obstacles to accessing the healthcare they need. The NICE guidelines for integrated health and social care for people experiencing homelessness note:

“Barriers to access and engagement with preventive, primary care and social care services can mean that problems remain untreated until they become very severe and complex”.


It seems entirely reasonable to reflect the complexity of the lives of people experiencing homelessness, as the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness aim to do.

I accept that the legislation is based upon the premise of autonomy, but autonomy is not absolute, and we do not live as isolated individuals. It is reasonable and appropriate to ensure that this legislation is as safe as possible, with vulnerable populations in mind. To that end, I also strongly support Amendments 308 and 347.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, before we proceed, I will just say that we are getting to the point where we should begin to think about Front-Bench replies to this group of amendments so we can finish at around 3 pm. I do not want to break mid-group because that, of course, is very difficult for the House, Members and the clerks, as it will have to be recorded. Perhaps your Lordships can just bear that in mind, as I am conscious that the time now is nearly 2.40 pm.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make a practical point. It is obvious that this will be the first Act in relation to assisted dying. Clearly, it is unjust because it does not deal with people with motor neurone disease and so on. Why does the House not accept that the issue of prisoners should be in the next Bill and not the present one?

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 23 and 24 not moved.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have completed four groups of amendments today, which in my opinion is still slow progress. It means that, in four days of Committee, we have completed only 10 groups of amendments. Before we return to Committee in the new year, I think that all noble Lords should reflect on that fact.

The one thing I have achieved today is a run on copies of the Companion. There are now only two copies left in the Printed Paper Office. I draw to the attention of the House page 15, pararaph1.54, which makes clear that:

“The House does not recognise points of order”.


We are a self-regulating House. This is the reason why we say “My Lords” in the House and do not address either the noble Lord on the Woolsack or the noble Lord at the Table. Being a self-regulating House is something we all treasure, but it does call for some self-regulation by all noble Lords.

I will talk again next week to the usual channels. I will also email all noble Lords, to their parliamentary email accounts, with the various references, relevant paragraphs and page numbers. I can recommend chapter 8 as very good festive season reading.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I want to ask a question about timing. I have read that, somehow, in the calculation of time allocated for Committee, it is expected that we would have one and a half times the number of Committee hours on a Bill than the other place. My understanding when I was in the usual channels was that we tried to provide, roughly speaking, the same number of Committee hours in your Lordships’ House as they do in another place. I wonder whether the noble Lord could clarify that point.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I can confirm that I had never heard of the one and a half days figure until I saw the letter that arrived yesterday. We are a self-regulating House. There is no formal algorithm that we use for Committee days. I talk to the usual channels to try to get agreement on the number of Committee days; sometimes I am successful, and sometimes not. There is no formula or algorithm that we use, so I do not recognise the one and a half days comment that was made in the letter circulated yesterday.

House resumed.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

It seems obvious that there are two problems relating to this. If a person is dying and goes to the trouble of organising obtaining and ingesting a lethal substance—poison—that is suicide. That is an accurate use of language. By removing the word “suicide” from the discussion, there is another danger. Advocates of this Bill, without saying the S-word, none the less argue that assistance in ending one’s life can, in certain circumstances, be dignified, a positive choice and a happy release. I am afraid that normalises taking one’s own life. Even if you do not use the S-word, that is the sort of thing I associate with the propaganda on pro-suicide, pro-self-harm sites, rather than with a Bill such as this. I suggest that normalising and even glamourising taking one’s life as a happy end result is not something we should do. Therefore, I would at least like to call it suicide so that people might gulp and think again.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, to help the Committee, I will interject to say that it has just gone 5 pm. Basically, we have two options. Both involve us finishing at 5.30 pm. We can either carry on this debate, which is absolutely fine. We have recorded the number of Lords who are present, so I can move to adjourn the House at a convenient point around 5.30 pm. Alternatively, if the debate is coming to an end, we can hear the Front-Bench speeches and then adjourn at 5.30 pm. I do not mind what we do, but we are going to adjourn at 5.30 pm. It is in the hands of the Committee.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I agree with what has been said. I agree with the need to avoid euphemism. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, raised the point, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, came back to it, that some will object to the phrase “commit suicide”, but I will make a stronger case on that point.

With regard to many cases of suicide, these reservations would be justified. “Commit” implies clear intention by the person concerned to take his own or her own life, but, as we have heard throughout this debate on the Bill so far, suicide can be the result not so much of firm, clear intent, but of the perpetrator sliding inexorably into hopelessness about the circumstances of their life or being confronted by a lack of help. If the inability to cope with such misfortune leads to depression and then suicide, I agree that it is misleading to talk of committing suicide, but the cases envisioned in this Bill are quite different. As the Bill makes clear, the person must have a clear, settled and informed wish to commit suicide. Here, then, “commit suicide” is indeed the appropriate phrase.

Moreover, the phrasing in the Bill, in terms of assistance to end one’s own life, carries, as has been said, a risk of confusion between what the Bill proposes—the deliberate action to bring life to an end—and the normal practice of doctors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned earlier, which is to ease suffering and sometimes to use palliative measures that might, although this is not their aim, shorten life. The advocates of the Bill have often spoken in a way that blurs this distinction. It is important that the phrasing of the Bill guards against such confusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I have been very clear throughout this debate that any noble Lord who wants to speak and participate should be allowed to do so.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

As I said earlier, it is absolutely fine to break mid-group on these amendments.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, thank you. If there is one place where language matters, it is in the Bill before us. As a young disabled person, I used to interchangeably use “person with a disability” and “disabled person” and did not understand the importance of that. In later amendments, I will argue that “disabled person” is much better phraseology to use.

Language is the dress of thought. We are all spending many hours working on this Bill, but, if the outside world does not understand what is meant by “assisted dying”, we could be in a situation where somebody with learning disabilities or who uses British Sign Language, who has not spent as much time as we have interrogating the Bill in every single session, might not understand what they are signing up to. Personally, I would prefer something around “died by suicide”—that is something else that can be finessed as we go through the Bill.

The BMJ published an article that showed how poorly understood the phrase “assisted dying” was. This highlights the problem that we are facing: the phrase is poorly understood and creates confusion. Just 43% of respondents thought that “assisted dying” involved

“the provision of lethal drugs to end somebody’s life. The majority believed the term meant withdrawing life-prolonging treatment or providing hospice-type care”.

That is something we must consider. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked about how the Bill should be largely workable. It should be workable, but it should also be safe. Part of that safety is about the public understanding what they might be signing up to.

In other groups, we have talked about doctors and medics, and I have many in my family. There is nothing more medic-like than using very long words and things that the public do not necessarily understand. Not everybody is an expert patient. We must be clear about what we mean in the Bill. We should stop hiding behind phrases that people may choose to use. To be clear, I have used the term “assisted dying”, because I try to be very thoughtful of the people who do not like “assisted suicide”. However, I have used “assisted suicide” today, and I will from now on, because that is what the Bill is going to do to the people who sign up to it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I want to pick the noble and learned Lord up on the progress that I thought we had made last week, which he has just confirmed a bit, when he accepted that asking the question was valid. The problem is, if the result of asking that question is that nothing changes, it is just cosmetic window dressing. He may not have intended to, but he illustrated beautifully the point of asking the question. If we talk to somebody and it is clear that the reason they do not wish to go on is that they are lonely and they have no one there, we can do something about that. There are organisations and people who would provide that companionship. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, shaking her head. There are organisations and people who would do something about that.

It comes down to the point I made last week. We are saying that, if your life is terrible and you get a terminal illness diagnosis, under the Bill, you are more likely to want to end your life with assistance than someone whose life is great. That is a terrible thing for us to do. The noble and learned Lord does not agree with me; that is fine. The House will have to make a decision, and I think that the position that we have set out with these amendments would lead to a better Bill and a better society than the one he is setting out. We will keep making that point and attempting to move him to that position.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we are meant to be having brief questions here; these are not brief questions.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That was the very thought going through my mind as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. They just made the same speeches again. On the point that he is making, the question of why is worth asking for two reasons: first, it might go to the question of coercion; and, secondly, it might throw up something that can be remedied, but, in the example I gave about loneliness, it may well be that meeting an organisation in those circumstances is simply not enough and does not change the person’s view. That is why I say that autonomy, rather than parsing the reasons, is the right course. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

These are difficult issues, but the panel is being asked to authorise their death, so this is a serious issue. I accept that this is uncomfortable, and I am not suggesting the entire panel would rock up at their home, but at least one member of the panel ought to have to talk to them. The idea that the panel would authorise somebody to have an assisted death, never having spoken to them, is frankly appalling.

I shall just finish, because I want to stick to time—although I am conscious that the noble and learned Lord nicked a bit of it to explain to the Committee. I shall finish by saying that the amendments that have been put down are very helpful, because we have fleshed out this very sensible issue of how much of this should take place in public.

The other reason for it being in public is because, otherwise, there are two groups of people the panel is asked to talk to. It may hear from and question any other person and may ask any person appearing to have relevant knowledge. The problem is that, if these hearings are done in private and no one knows they are happening, I do not know how the panel is supposed to know who any of these people are; these people are not going to be able to make themselves known to the panel. So there is a clear argument about where you draw the line and there is clearly a balance to strike between openness, transparency and privacy, but it seems to me that this is a good debate for the Committee, and I want to hear where the Bill’s proposer thinks that balance should be struck. We have heard a little bit about that, and we can hear a little more later.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

I am conscious of the time; it is now nearly quarter to six. So, it quite clear that this debate is not going to finish tonight and we are going to have to adjourn mid-group. This is absolutely fine, but we will take the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and maybe one other contribution. Then we will probably have to adjourn mid-group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled a handful of amendments, a couple to Clause 17 and then some more to Schedule 2. It is perfectly acceptable for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, to be appalled by some of these amendments. That is okay: that is her perception; that is her reality. It may not be what my noble friend intended, but we are dealing with a serious situation.

Noble Lords have talked about finding somebody dead. Of course, it would be devastating if the family around them had not known that somebody was thinking that the only way life could get better was if they did not have a life at all. That is the reason for some of the aspects about bereavement services and connection to next of kin, so that there is that contact to see whether somebody who is in a very dark place is terminally ill or doctors have suggested that they have less than six months to live. An interesting area that we are discussing is about the tipping point for somebody to choose to accelerate that, to take that poison, and for the state to help them do it without being in touch with the next of kin. I know there are other groups where we get into that in more detail, but this is why it has become so sensitive.

I held my mother’s hand as she died. She had less than a month to live, and we looked after her. My dad died while I was on a plane, and I found out when I landed at Heathrow Airport. That is why I cannot watch the end of “Love Actually” because it is everybody meeting their families. It is the most I have ever cried in my life, and I have to switch off the film before the end. These are very significant moments.

I am conscious of what noble Lords have said about whether this should be in public. I think on balance it should be in public because we are having this effectively quasi-judicial process, which is at the end of a line, to some extent, making sure that somebody is doing this of their own volition and is not being coerced. That is why all the different safeguards are suggested.

I have tabled Amendment 480A—I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord will, perhaps next time, speak to his Amendment 480—which refers to how the panel will operate. I believe that an audio link is not enough in terms of discussions with the co-ordinating doctor, the person doing it and, indeed, the person’s proxy. In person or by live video would be good. I have tabled Amendment 483C to amend subsection (5), which currently provides:

“Where the panel considers it appropriate for medical reasons, it may make provision for the use of pre-recorded audio or video material for the purposes of subsection (4)”.


I can completely understand that, but I can understand it only for the person applying. I do not understand why the co-ordinating doctor would not be available to go in person or on a videolink in order to have that interaction with the panel. I have chosen to put that amendment in at that point.

The panel is an important part and that is why it is vital to get to the bottom of Schedule 2. Another noble friend asked me to ask the sponsoring Member whether there would be immunity from suit for the panel members, but I want to get into a few amendments that I have tabled. I am trying to work out how this is all going to work. I see this panel very rarely meeting in person, and I can see it evolving quite quickly. It will all be done by Zoom or Teams, and that concerns me. If the intention is that this is going to be available effectively probably 365 days a year, I am trying to get a sense of how this is going to work.

I appreciate that the Government will not want to answer that; they say they have not done the thinking, but somebody has done the thinking, because this is what the legislation is about. We now have, in parts of Schedule 2, panel members even starting to ask whether they can have pension contributions. Who is going to be doing these roles? Is it going to become a full-time job? It is one of the reasons I put a suggestion—it is just a number—of a maximum of 25 years for panels. I do not know if that is a panel per day, whether multiple people will be in a panel, or whether it is a one-off panel. I think the Law Society, in its written evidence to the Commons, suggested that it should take a day per panel, per application. The Government have costed in an estimate, in their equality impact assessment, of two hours. I am trying to get a sense of who is going to be doing this.

I have not tabled an amendment about this, but will there be a register about who is there? I do not want this to become a thing for, dare I say, vigilantes to try to intimidate people, but there is a question about how we do some of the vetting—I will not repeat what my noble friend said earlier. I am also genuinely concerned that we are going to give this an international element. I do not mean the person applying, necessarily—we covered that some time ago—but the people on the panel. That is why I have put things like a judge in England and Wales. You can be a King’s Counsel and be in Canada or Australia, where there are all these other things, and in law at the moment that does not stop it being the case. People might think I am overimagining things, but I am trying to be precise about what the law allows and trying to understand how it might work. If I am wrong, fine: I am happy for it to be said in Committee that that is not going to apply, but I want it to be said in Committee, so that if anything does evolve like that, we can start the judicial reviews to stop that practice.

I have suggested in Amendment 921ZB that it should not be King’s Counsel. That was inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, in his Second Reading speech. It made me think a little more. I am not trying to do this so that hardly anyone can do this role. What I am trying to ask is why we talk about high judicial office being needed. A pretty high-level judge or a KC, without being too rude to KCs, is not exactly the same comparison. There are plenty of other judges—deputy court judges or district judges—who are all regularly used to having this arbitration or tribunal approach, so I do not understand why we have limited it to being that or a KC.

As for Amendment 932A, I do not see why the lawyer is the person who has to chair it. This happens quite a lot in decision-making bodies in government: things just evolve. The reason why the local resilience forum in Buckinghamshire is actually across Bucks, Oxon and Berks, it so happens, is by default, not in law but in practice. The chief constable is always Gold Command—it is always the police that run it—therefore, what has happened over time and practice is that the LRF is across those three counties automatically. These sorts of things start to become habits; they start to become the way it is done and it cannot be changed, so I just want to be clear. I do not in any way understand why the lawyer should be making the decision as the chair of the panel. I do not understand why it should be the legal person who gets to determine whether the sitting should be in private. I think that is an unnecessary addition.

I would prefer the panel to be in public, but I completely understand the sensitivity, so the impact of my Amendment 933A is designed to be that they can sit in private but only for the part that directly involves the applicant. The reason for that is sensitivity to people at a very difficult time in their lives, but I do not understand why that should also apply to all the other people who have been involved at some point. Why should their interactions with the panel need to be in private? When people go behind closed doors, we start to get a lack of understanding of what is being said and of patterns. That is why, later in the Bill, I will mention other protections that I want to see. I am conscious or concerned about being a panel member effectively becoming a full-time job. That would be a bad step in this regard.

There are many other amendments that I would love to talk to, but I am conscious of the time. This is a really important moment in considering how this final safeguard will work in practice. Is it what we were expecting when the Bill arrived in this House?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the Clerk of the Parliaments has confirmed to me that the clerks have recorded the names of every noble Lord who was here at the start of this debate. They will be circulated to the Chief Whips, including me, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches next week.

Debate on Amendment 142 adjourned.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It is still worth raising these matters in this context to avoid any confusion.

Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, would mean that a registered medical practitioner could not raise assisted dying with any person with a learning disability, including people with Down syndrome, unless they raise the subject themselves. This restriction would apply to all persons with a learning disability, including where the person has the capacity to make a decision to end their own life.

The purpose of Amendments 205, 207 and 207A, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton and Lady Grey-Thompson, appears to be to prevent a healthcare professional raising the subject of the provision of assistance with a person who has a learning disability or autism, unless that person has a family member, independent person or guardian present. Under Amendment 207A, both a family member and an independent person would need to be present. These amendments do not draw any distinction between varying levels of individual need. As drafted, a registered medical practitioner would be required to establish in all cases that the person does not have autism or a learning disability before raising the subject of an assisted death, unless a family member or independent person is present.

Amendment 200C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would mean that no person could raise the provision of assistance with those under the age of 18, whether online or otherwise. Amendment 209, tabled by my noble friend Lady Goudie, prohibits any adult with a duty of care or responsibility for a person under 18, including but not limited to guardians, social workers, educators or carers, from raising the subject of assisted dying “with such a person”. These amendments would be extremely difficult to enforce, due to their breadth and ambiguity. They may, for example, prohibit parents or guardians from discussing the broad issue of assisted dying with their children.

Finally, I bring to noble Lords’ attention that amendments discussed here, including Amendments 149, 162, 200C, 205, 207, 207A and 209, could give rise to legal challenge on ECHR grounds, in particular challenges brought under Articles 8, 10 and 14. These amendments would require reasonable and objective justification to comply with ECHR obligations.

I make no comment on the other amendments in this group. However, as noble Lords will be aware, the amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials. Therefore, further revision and corresponding amendments may be needed to provide consistent and coherent terminology throughout the Bill.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, for the benefit of the Committee, I will let noble Lords know that when we have heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I intend to bring the Committee to a conclusion. It would be wiser to wait to start the next group next week, rather than to get half way through it and have all the problems about who was or was not here, and so on. If colleagues are thinking ahead to the next group, it will not be called until next week.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for telling us about the circumstances of his father’s DNR, to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, for telling us about the circumstances of the deaths of his mother and his grandmother, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, for telling us about the circumstances in which her father became ill.

I also pay an especial tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, whose speech was incredibly powerful and moving, and obviously requires a detailed answer from me in policy terms, about people who have learning disabilities and what may happen to them. It also has relevance not just for those whose parents are still alive, but much more significantly, for when their parents are gone. There therefore needs to be a solution beyond simply ensuring that a family member is there. I pay tribute to the influential nature of the speech that the noble Baroness made in relation to this. Whatever happens to this Bill—and I very much hope it becomes law—what she said will, I am absolutely sure, have an influence on its terms, and we should respect that.

There are three categories that I need to deal with in relation to this. First, what is the position in relation to people who do not have a disability? Secondly, what is the position for those who do have a disability? Thirdly, what is the position for children?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Can the Minister say whether an explanation of the differences between the two prognoses I have described will be given to the patient? How will that be required of doctors? Will it be set down in guidance, for example? How will we know that something of such materiality, yet potential ambiguity, will be communicated correctly? I hope the Minister will take that away if it has not already been considered by officials as part of their assessment. Did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, consider using any other prognosis-based eligibility test when the Bill was being drafted? This is clearly an issue that would merit further discussion, given the implications.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I have noticed that the time now is 5.18 pm. We have no intention of moving on to another group. When this group is finished, I will seek to adjourn the House. I say to any colleagues waiting for another debate that it will not be happening this week.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, The Government do not have major workability concerns with Amendments 175 and 384, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whom we are very pleased to see in his place; long may he continue to be there.

I will say a few words about clinical practice, which may be helpful in addressing some of the points raised, including those just now by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. Most of the questions were really about the Bill and are therefore matters for the sponsor, but I will make a couple of points about clinical practice. It is rare for a clinician to base prognosis on a median life expectancy. In addition, explaining the data used is not common clinical practice. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.

The issues raised are rightly for noble Lords to consider and decide. Of course, that means that the way the amendments are currently drafted may require further consideration to be fully workable, effective or enforceable.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

I do not underestimate the gravity of what this Bill has proposed. Assisted dying, as we have heard, raises profound ethical questions. It demands safeguards, clarity and humility. But we must also recognise, as we have heard, that some patients take things into their own hands, often in ways that are lonely, traumatic and unsupported. This Bill is about whether we are willing to trust patients within a carefully designed framework to retain autonomy in how their lives end. Whatever position we take on the Bill, I hope we can hold on to that principle.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am conscious that many noble Lords wish to speak in this debate. If we work together, everybody standing up will get the chance to speak. If we follow the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding—we can make our points in four to six minutes very easily—we will all get a chance to speak. The next contribution will come from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, whom a number of noble Lords have called for. Please all work together—we will all get to speak.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for recognising my inability to bob. I apologise that my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff is not able to be here today. She is attending the funeral of one of her patients, whom she spoke about in your Lordships’ Chamber in this very debate. Four doctors diagnosed that patient with a terminal condition and told him he had three months to live. My noble friend has known him for 35 years.

It does not give me any sense of satisfaction that we are where we are today. This is a complex Bill, and there is a whole range of emotions on all sides of the debate. But people are angry and scared. Where we have got to in the debate does not address many of the issues of death—the good death—or palliative care. I am one of the Peers who have been targeted in the press for the number of amendments they have tabled. My amendments came about in different ways. I wrote many of them. Some were tabled at the request of organisations and charities of and for disabled people, as well as disabled individuals who are very worried about the reality of the Bill. We have been criticised for the length of our speeches and the way we have worded things. I am very happy to show anyone my speech outside the Chamber, although I am not allowed to do so in the Chamber. We edit and rewrite as we go along in order not to be repetitive. But our role is to bring our experience and knowledge to the Chamber.

It is hard to argue with the principle of two doctors’ settled wish and a six-month diagnosis, but Committee in the House of Lords is about detail. Committee has raised many issues of detail that we have explored, but it is not possible to put this into simple soundbites. A letter was circulated yesterday about the role of the House of Lords and mentioned that we have completed only seven clauses. But I agree with my noble friend Lady O’Loan: we have debated other parts of the Bill. I have made numerous attempts to get answers to my questions about Clause 22, and they have not been forthcoming. Where the noble and learned Lord and I probably agree is on some of my amendments around advertising. I understand why it took weeks for him to table his amendments, but what has been tabled is a much weaker version of what I originally put down.

We are continually told that this Bill is the safest in the world, but in a meeting with the noble and learned Lord and the honourable Member for Spen Valley, I asked who said that. I was told that doctors from all around the world did, but that does not make it the safest Bill in the world—it is not a very high bar. I have a frustration with the understanding of people outside the Chamber of how Parliament works. The Bill we have been presented with is very different from the Bill that started in the Commons. Two-thirds of the time there was spent with a High Court judge as part of the Bill, and that was then removed. On Report in the House of Commons, 121 amendments were tabled— 44 by the sponsors. Of the remaining 77 amendments, MPs were allowed to vote on only seven, so I disagree that there has been detailed scrutiny.

This Bill has failed because there are too many gaps in it. The recent Bill in Scotland failed because there were severe concerns at the third stage about safety. The Delegated Powers Committee, royal colleges, organisations of and for disabled people, charities and individuals have all raised multiple concerns about this Bill, not the principle. Although many people have written to me about not wanting to die in pain and suffering, this is not in the Bill. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what people might get. I really worry that people on the outside have been promised something that they were never going to get.

Some think this is about euthanasia. It is not one pill. Assisted death does not mean that the death is painless or that it will be quick, and it is not for some of the groups who think they will get it: it is not for people with motor neurone disease, but it could be for people with bulimia. It certainly will not be available at a place of people’s choosing. Most of the emails I get say, “I want to choose the time and place of my death”, but, without proper licensing, that will not happen.

There is a challenge in this being a Private Member’s Bill, in that those who oppose it have not had access to the team to be able to finesse our amendments. Yes, we have been asked several times to think about what groups we might like to debate, but I have not seen a suggested groupings list. We are not one single group of people; in this debate, I have been working alongside people whom I never thought I would agree with on anything. It shows the strangeness of this debate. Many of my amendments are drafting amendments—just simply to get the correct language around disabled people and to think about the impact the Bill might have on those groups.

I have had a lot of pushback on my amendments. Certainly, pregnancy seems to have attracted a lot of attention. I made it clear in the debate that it was not about who could get pregnant. It was not a debate about gender recognition, nor about the age of the individual; this is set out in NHS guidance. It seems a shame that those who are willing to take umbrage with me do not appear to have listened to what I said in the Chamber.

What have we learned? We have learned that being pregnant, homeless, poor or disabled should not be a barrier. That is why the Bill’s progress has been slow: those comments have made people nervous. If you are homeless, poor or disabled, you do not have equal access to society, so it is not a level playing field to start off with and you have significant disadvantage. Why are disabled people scared? A couple of weeks ago, I had my name on an amendment to the English devolution Bill, which was simply to enact legislation that passed 30 years ago. It was to make sure that taxis were accessible for disabled people. There was a three-line Whip against me and the vote was lost. This Chamber voted against something as simple as making taxis accessible for disabled people. So why do disabled people have little trust in this Bill?

It is not just seven of us who have opposed this Bill. There are many who have spoken in the debates. The noble and learned Lord himself has tabled 76 amendments. He now comes fifth highest on the ranking list. To me, that shows that there is not the confidence that this Bill is safe.

I have received many emails, many of which asked whether I have watched someone who I love die. Yes, I have. I sat beside my father’s bedside for weeks while he died slowly, having multiple amputations. I held his hand for the last 24 hours before he died, and I constantly think about what I could have done differently. My father was instrumental in making me the person I am and for all my strengths and weaknesses. I seriously questioned myself on whether this Bill, if it had passed, would have made his death better. No, it absolutely would not.

We talk about choice and free will, but there are many people who have no choice or free will, and this Bill does not operate in a vacuum. We cannot forget the significant amount of discrimination that many people face. I myself have experienced ableism within the health service, and the point that my treatment changed was not when I became an expert patient and it was not when I argued for my rights; it was when they realised that I had a red stripy badge and that I sat in the House of Lords. We have to recognise the privilege that we have.

I have had thousands of emails on this issue, including two this morning, one of which was from someone who has emailed me many times, who finds my cruelty unforgivable and is disgusted with me. Another was sent to Ms Leadbeater and I was copied in. The individual said:

“I am someone with no one. Little in the way of family. There will be no one there with me when I die. I know that I will be manipulated to not waste inheritance money on care homes, and to end my life for the sake of others. I’ve been in hospital dozens of times the last few years as my health declines. Each time by taxi, no one to look after me, not allowed sedation because there’s no one at home to look after me the following 24 hours. I don’t think I’ll be someone who lives a long life. It’s embarrassing to admit you have no family to care about you, who would look after you in old age or when you are ill, or to hold your hand in your last moments. So I believe we are the silent majority”.


We have heard much debate today about the damage to your Lordships’ House, but I have had thousands of emails to thank us for what we are doing here to unpack the danger that is in the Bill. I am very clear on my role. It has not been pleasant to sit here and be targeted by so many people who say that we are doing a bad job. But our job is to protect everyone in British society, and this Bill does not do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we can all get all Members who are standing in if their speeches are kept short, sharp and to the point. We will hear from my noble friend Lady Hayter, then we will go to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the House of Commons and the public want the Bill, but the number of amendments and the length of the speeches mean that we have run out of time, so it cannot go back to the Commons. This is bad for democracy. Even more seriously, it is bad for the terminally ill—those mentally competent adults with fewer than six months to live. The Bill would offer them the choice of a more peaceful way out of this life, a way under their control, with friends and family around them, rather than an isolated and often risky suicide. A particular mum of three asked, “How dare a handful of Peers look society in the face and say they care about dying people? How dare they put their particular beliefs above the care and compassion that should be due to those facing an agonising death?”

Of course, we never heard from those affected. As my noble friend Lady Hunter said, we on the committee, where we were outnumbered by the opponents to the Bill, were denied the opportunity to hear from those facing deaths or from those bereaved, who had to watch their partner die without this help. As we just heard from my noble friend Lady Blackstone, we heard from the royal colleges, organised groups, professional bodies, social workers, the church, palliative care experts and lawyers—everyone except for whom the Bill was designed.

We have heard in the debates that the amendments are actually about improving the Bill. But I know, and I think that we all know, that some people would never have supported the Bill, even if we had accepted a thousand amendments. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—although she was a Prelate at the time—admitted this at Second Reading, saying that she was going to propose a vote against the Bill at Third Reading. We heard her say today that she is against it in principle, so for some these amendments were not about improving the Bill but because they opposed it in principle.

Had we just been interested in trying to make assisted dying safer for the vulnerable groups, we would not have had to have those amendments referred to—that everyone, including a man, should have to have a negative pregnancy test before they could apply for assisted dying. We would not have had to consider the idea that some of the very people who needed this—such as those in care homes—would be denied it; that anyone being treated in an NHS hospital would have to leave for a private place with different doctors and carers if they wanted an assisted death; or, indeed, that the intimate private discussions with the panel should take place in public, so that the public can watch people talking about why they wanted to bring their deaths forward. We would not have been told in the amendments that this all costs too much, even though the estimate is the same as what the NHS spends a year after accidents caused by people wearing flip-flops—I kid you not. The cost—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that this is a day of disappointment. I am keenly aware of those who viewed this law as the solution to their plight, but also of those for whom the clear failure of proper provision of palliative services will not be solved any time soon and for those living with disabilities or with children with disabilities who struggle to access healthcare today. I also recognise that there is disappointment for many in their perception of their Parliament. I have, in my 15 years here, witnessed the best of parliamentary legislating as I sat on the Joint Committee scrutinising the Mental Health Bill after an independent review, a White Paper and a government response, but in my 15 years, this is not the best. I have said numerous times in Committee that the Private Member’s Bill process is being asked to replace pre-legislative scrutiny, and it cannot do that, so there is no surprise that huge concerns remain.

I will speak briefly of just two examples—it was going to be three, but I am mindful of time—that could have been dealt with if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny. First, the consultative palliative care expert Jamilla Hussain said in the Guardian on 18 May 2025:

“I am deeply concerned about the provision that there is no requirement to inform family or next of kin until after the assisted death has occurred”.


This led me to think that children could be that next of the kin who would be the first informed and then to the question of children as interpreters, so I tabled amendments in that regard. The latter amendment about interpreters was the subject of enormous criticism on social media, but it was not, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, a “bureaucratic” amendment. It was not “procedural obstruction”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter, said. It was an important amendment, and it was not until the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that Parliament first heard from the Children’s Commissioners about the impact on children, although outside the scope of the Bill, of the societal change we were going to introduce.

My second instance, or expert, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I have enjoyed the intellectual engagement in those meetings, and I am grateful for them, particularly the meeting that was held with Professor Alex Ruck Keene KC on the nuances of the Mental Capacity Act, down to the detail of decided case law. However, when the discussion came to the Mental Health Act, we got back to the basic outline principle that the Mental Health Act is not based on capacity. You can be detained repeatedly under the Mental Health Act but still have capacity. It was clear to me when leaving that meeting that we had gone from nuanced detail to basic principle and that we needed to have a look at the interconnection of the Mental Health Act and this Bill before we started.

I will conclude where I began, with the different views of the world—which was also the subject of a meeting with the noble and learned Lord. He came from a place of individual autonomy and choice when beginning to legislate. But as I outlined at Second Reading, that is an anathema to many people who live in close community—whether that is geographical, in the north-east, or within a faith community. As other noble Lords have outlined, I think there is disappointment among some people of faith that their motivations and views have been used so casually and negatively in the media campaign—although, I note, never by the noble and learned Lord in my meetings.

It is interesting that Professor John Lennox, emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford, quoted an unusual source in Westminster Hall in June last year. He said:

“Polly Toynbee was spot on when she wrote in The Guardian: ‘Every day in Parliament, fundamentally different worldviews do battle. Politics is all about the clash of moral universes’”.


Atheistic, materialistic, secular, humanist, Judaeo-Christian, liberal and now neoliberal viewpoints are all welcome. I would hate to think what William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King would think if it were otherwise.

I have two final practical points. Away from your Lordships’ House, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and Lord Williams of Oystermouth are going to have a debate on the principle of this Bill on “Intelligence Squared”. If this view of the involvement of religious motivations is shared by the noble and learned Baroness, I would love to see her on a platform of that scale to discuss her views and intellectually engage properly on that issue, which is key to our liberal, democratic society.

My second point is to reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the Private Member’s Bill process has not served us well. I am sad to see the polarisation and the polemic nature of many of our debates. I hope we can find a way to look at what has happened with this Bill to prevent it happening ever again.

My final point is to do generally with the law. I hear the comments from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, but for the parents of disabled children, we have not spoken sufficiently of whether the law will protect their children when they are gone.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have now been debating this issue for just short of four and a half hours. It is my intention to bring proceedings to a close at around 3 pm. Both the Government and Opposition Front Benches have indicated to me that they wish to make contributions, so after the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, we should be looking to bring proceedings to a close. Maybe we will have one more speech after her—but then we want to hear from the Front Benches. Then we need to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer before adjourning around 3 pm.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment this morning from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to the noble and learned Lord’s amendment asks us, when we note the progress of scrutiny today, to recognise the recommendations and findings of both House of Lords Committees: the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The Constitution Committee is very concerned that, as a Private Member’s Bill, this Bill has not had the same kind of pre-legislative scrutiny and debate. It has not been in a manifesto and has not had the discussion or attention that a government Bill would have. Indeed, the committee points out—and we know this to be the case—that the impact assessments, which have been mentioned this morning, reached the House of Commons only after the Committee stage was concluded, on the first day on Report, 16 May 2025, after which it had two more days on Report. That is just over a month before the Third Reading in the Commons, which took place on 20 June.

In the words of the House of Lords Constitution Committee:

“The degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny is therefore significantly less than we would expect to see for an equivalent government bill”.


That is especially concerning given the subject matter of the Bill.

I point out, in response to the many people who have drawn attention to the fact that we have spent a lot of time scrutinising, that one of the bold print recommendations in the Constitution Committee’s report is that not only does the House of Lords play an important role in the legislative process but it is

“constitutionally appropriate for the House to scrutinise the Bill and, if so minded, vote to amend, or reject it”.

I shall not go into that point any more, but it is therefore wrong of the protagonists of the Bill to denounce the process of scrutiny that we have been doing and to accuse people who are trying to amend the Bill to make it better and safer, and indeed constitutionally to bring it up to the standard of a government Bill that has, as has been said, had all that time. I do not like the fact that reports have been given to the media suggesting that. In my experience in the House of Lords—I have not been here very long—people have been given a lot of time, including on government Bills, and Governments of both complexions have bent over backwards to be polite and take account of what Members have tried to do.

Apart from that, I will mention only one other point: delegated powers. There are many of them—we have heard today that there are 42 in the Bill, which is a particular problem. I will mention just one instance of a Henry VIII power that is worrying. It is just a technical one, but I was glad to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on Clause 27, and later I had my own on Clause 37. These are to protect and regulate the supply of drugs that are designed to bring about death. They are called “approved substances” in Clause 27. We are not given any detail about the substances—no list or anything else—but are given just the meaning of an “approved substance”, without any details other than the meaning of a drug or other substance specified in the regulations in Clause 27, referred to again in Clause 37 with more about the powers to make provision on these.

These substances, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee notes, will be

“inherently dangerous and indeed necessarily lethal”.

What happens if someone has taken the substance but changes their mind? How rapidly would it work? Is it reversible, and how? What would the side-effects be? Bringing up such points as these may seem to protagonists of the Bill a matter of time-wasting and obstruction. But they should remember that this Bill will give Ministers—and often officials, as advisers—power to make very serious laws about regulation and determining safety, which we debate every day of the week in every other Bill that comes our way. We take a great deal of time on them, whether on the environment or anything else.

So it is very important that these matters be debated and gone into. It is important that there are answers in the Bill, as both committees want. With that, I beg the noble and learned Lord to regard the good faith with which people have tried to make his Bill better.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have had over four and a half hours of debate, and I want to begin to close as soon as we can after 3 pm. I will call three more speakers from the Back Benches and then move to the Opposition Front Bench. We will have three more brief contributions: the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and my noble friend Lady Jay, former Leader of the House of Lords. Then we will move to the Front Benches.