Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to see the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, back in her place. She has been very much missed, and I hope this is the first stage on the road to full recovery. She, like me, may have a feeling of Groundhog Day because we have made lamentably slow progress on the Bill since she was last with us. We are on day 12 in Committee and we are still on Clause 5 of 59.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned, she began our Committee proceedings on 14 November when she moved the first of her 111 amendments in relation to Wales, and here we are again. I say simply to the Committee that of course the Bill should apply to Wales. The Bill seeks to create an exception to the prohibition on assisted suicide and that is an aspect of the criminal law of England and Wales. We all agree that criminal justice is a matter reserved to Westminster. It would be bizarre were this House or Parliament to approve the Bill but not approve it in relation to Wales. There is simply no sensible reason why people living in Wales should be denied the same options as people living across the border in England.

I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, and she suggested that there has been some parliamentary mischief, and that the people of Wales have not been listened to. But it is the case that the people of Wales have a number of representatives in the House of Commons. My understanding is that they all voted for the Bill.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Most of the amendments in this group relate to Wales, but some of them also relate to Scotland. Notwithstanding the noble Lord’s sensation of Groundhog Day, there has been an important development since we met last Friday, which is that the Scottish Parliament, by a decisive majority of 69 to 57, has chosen against assisted dying. In that context, therefore, a number of the provisions in the Bill need a significant rethink; in particular, references to Scotland in Clause 57(2) and (3), which would extend the provisions to Scotland, surely should no longer apply.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. There is a substantial difference between the Bill that was not accepted in Scotland and the Bill that we are debating now. The Bill that was debated in Scotland had fewer safeguards; it is not the same Bill and therefore the noble Lord’s premise is not quite as he said.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

The noble Baroness brings me neatly on to the second point I was going to make, which is that the lack of safeguards in Scotland precisely demonstrates the constitutional and practical difficulty of trying to legislate in Scotland while a number of those key safeguards are reserved matters to Westminster. Part of the reason the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the pharmacists came out decisively this week against the Scottish Bill was because it was not able to include enforceable conscience protections for health professionals that would, for example, have enabled them to refuse an instruction from their employer to participate in assisted dying. Instead, the mechanism that was forced, as it were, on the Scottish legislation was a Section 104 order, which would be subject to a future Westminster Government changing their mind.

The Scottish Parliament was being asked to legislate for assisted dying, absent any Scottish safeguards for conscience and dependent on the future decisions of a Westminster Parliament. The noble Baroness neatly illustrates the point that there is a fundamental problem when one part of the United Kingdom seeks to go its own way. It is incapable of getting the necessary protections and that is one of the reasons why the measure was defeated. Amendment 887 in this group, which would withdraw the reference to Scotland from some of the measures, clearly makes sense given that the Scottish Parliament has just decided that it will not go down this path.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The three reasons why it extends to Scotland are so that people cannot advertise in Scotland to England and Wales, so that people in England and Wales get proper protections if they want to use the conscience clause, and so that substances are dealt with by the United Kingdom. That is why Scotland is included. Is the noble Lord saying that he wants those removed if the Bill goes through?

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Can the noble and learned Lord elaborate on his second reason?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The second reason is that if, for example, you want the protection of employment law, that employment law which extends to the whole of the United Kingdom should protect you in Scotland as much as in England. You should never be prejudiced. That is why it is included.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that Scottish health professionals will be travelling south to undertake assisted dying? Is it a sort of Berwick-upon-Tweed provision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

It is not so much a matter of prejudice because, as I understand it, this provision was inserted in the House of Commons in the anticipation that the Scottish Parliament was going to have before it a Bill on assisted suicide, which it would at that point have passed. This was trying to do a belt and braces on a Section 104 order which everybody could see was likely to be deficient.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

No, that is not right. The reference to Scotland was included to provide protection for people in England and Wales who, under employment law, wanted to exercise the conscience clause. If I am right about that, I am sure the noble Lord would not wish it removed.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I would be interested to come back to that on Report when we have had a chance to investigate that point further.

Fundamentally, this shows that there is a great problem, a structural problem, in trying to do these types of big social changes through Private Members’ Bills, be they in Scotland or England. The reason for that is that it requires concurrent action by the Governments of both nations. We have seen time and again that when these sorts of questions have arisen and we have posed these questions, we have been told by the Front Bench, for reasons we all understand, that amendments to try to deal with these problems pose workability concerns. Then we ask, “How would you address those workability concerns?” and answer comes there none, because the Government are officially neutral on the question. Dealing with these sorts of questions cannot be left to Private Members’ Bills when you cannot get to the bottom of the workability concerns or deal with the fact that, in order for the narrowly drawn legislation to work, there are a whole set of other things that have to be in place that only the Government can provide.

I conclude on that point by noting that this past week we have seen a report from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, once again on hospice and palliative care. It says:

“There is an urgent need for reform to address the financial challenges that the independent adult hospice sector faces … The Department’s solution—the Modern Service Framework—is in the early stages of development, details are sketchy, and it is at least a year from being introduced. This is not good enough when so many hospices are announcing service cuts”.


The idea that we should legislate when that is the context right now seems to me utterly ridiculous.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, as a Welsh-speaking Welshman, who has, in this House, consistently supported Plaid’s perfectly right demand that there should be fairer funding for Wales—I am not a Plaid supporter, but I support that aspect—I hope that the House will have listened carefully to the fundamental comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. If the Bill is passed, the Welsh Government will have to make arrangements for its implementation in Wales. In Wales, the provision of palliative care is not as good as it ought to be—this is widely understood. Yet we would be imposing on the Welsh Government the necessity to make particular decisions about health in Wales, when they have no powers to make those decisions for themselves.

That is a very simple issue, and I recognise the problems stated by the noble and learned Lord. But the truth is that we have an underfunded Welsh Government who spend half their money on health and know that there are real gaps in the provision. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, told us that assisted suicide was part of palliative care. That, of course, has solved the case—we now know that it is just part of palliative care. But those of us who do not think that it is part of palliative care recognise that, in Wales, the issue is sharper than anywhere else because of the lack of funding, which is about the misuse of the way that funding from the centre is put out.

I beg this House to take very seriously what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said. If we were to ignore the amendments we are talking about here, we would be saying to the Welsh, “You just stuff it because we are going to decide”. We have had that issue before on abortion in Northern Ireland: they decided what they thought and we chose a moment when we had the power to decide they could stuff it. I believe in devolution, and I do not believe that this House should tell the Welsh people to stuff it; we should let them make their own decisions.

Finally, I will turn to what the noble Lord said. I know perfectly well—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The health service could determine who it is going to make it available to free, but it could not prevent other people—for example, private providers—having different provisions in relation to it.

The next category of amendments was in relation to removing Scotland. I gave an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in relation to that in the course of the debate.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will clarify the answer he gave on Scotland. I think he is saying that even though the Scottish Parliament has decided that assisted dying should not be lawful in Scotland, a Scottish hospice could nevertheless not prevent its employees doing something that would be unlawful in Scotland if they travelled across the border to perform that act in England. Is that the consequence of what he is suggesting?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

This was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. She focused, rightly, on what would happen in the case of a doctor who lived in Scotland but worked in England. The question was: could they be prejudiced? The answer is no—employment law would apply, and employment law is right across the country. On what is not being done in relation to the Bill, it does not refer to Scotland, because in Scotland they are awaiting the Scottish Bill. It is entirely focused on the protection of people working in England. That is why it is there. It is also focused on advertising coming from Scotland into England. So it is not in any way dependent upon what might happen in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, as usual, I came to listen and not to speak, but there are a couple of things that have been said to which I want to react. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Hayter, to be honest.

I will not go into the details, but I lost my first wife before the internet. There were no internet searches at all, because it was so long ago. We could work it out. It kept coming back in half the time—three years, 18 months. She was still at work—no problem there—managing a college in south London. It was coming back in half the time, so it was fairly obvious that you could measure it. We did not do it like that, and it was only later that we worked out that it came back in half the time.

When I went through it, I had no warning at all. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that there was a consultant who had looked after me since the beginning, when I had no warning. About four years after I finished chemo—she was going off somewhere else to do research, so I was not going to see her again—she said to me, “You have to remember that the drugs deal with only half the problem”. That made me very satisfied. On the other hand, I have gone through cases involving people who were as positive or more positive than I was, but it got them in the end. That is what I remember. The drugs deal with only half the problem.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

On the thrust of the argument, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that approaching this probabilistically, rather than with a single number, clearly makes sense. It is wonderful to hear the impact that these new immunotherapies have had in his own personal case as well as for oesophageal cancer.

Just for the record, I want to associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, because the evidence is pretty clear that there is not an association between positive thinking and cancer survival. There may be a link with quality of life, but frankly, it is perfectly normal, having had a cancer diagnosis, for people to feel depressed or anxious.

The only reason for raising this very briefly at this point is that we need to be very sensitive. When somebody’s cancer progresses and ultimately kills them, we should not be leaving the impression that we think that is because they lacked the positive attitude that would in some way have enabled them to survive. I know that is not what the noble Lord was suggesting, but just for the record, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was right to draw that to our attention, and we should be clear about that.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

To add to what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, I very much dislike the death notices, for example, which refer to people having put up a great fight or having failed to deal with the battle, or whatever expression is used, which suggests precisely what the noble Lord said—that they have somehow failed in a mortal combat.