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.