Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts

Friday 27th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I will speak to my Amendments 354A and 432A, which are both about making sure that relevant information from the preliminary discussion is made available to the commissioner and the panel. The reason why I can be brief is that they are similar in what they are trying to achieve to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rook. He set out clearly the rationale for doing so, and I can simply agree with what he said in support of my amendments.

I will comment on the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The theme behind all of them is to ensure that there is timeliness in reporting and sufficient clarity about what is recorded to give people confidence that the process has been carried out properly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has been very clear that there is a clear process set out in the Bill, but it is important to give people confidence that it is documented, comprehensively and on a timely basis. There is clearly a debate to be had about being too specific about the timeframe or what is recorded. However, ensuring that there is sufficient detail, and that it is done sufficiently quickly, is important. I commend those other amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Committee will forgive my brevity—I will focus on the few amendments I have tabled in this group.

As the Committee has heard, many of the amendments relate to the preliminary discussion or to recording general medical information as the patient progresses through the procedure. However, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to whom I am grateful for her kind words, my amendments focus on a particular, very important issue.

My Amendments 562A, 563A and 564A seek to probe the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a patient’s decision to cancel their first or second declaration not to be recorded immediately. There is a point of principle here. While I understand that there can be a genuine debate about whether a decision to initiate the procedure should be recorded and, if so, how quickly, I am concerned that a decision to pull out—which is what a decision to cancel is—whether after the first or second declaration, should not be left hanging there. I do not understand why that should be recorded only as soon as practicable and not immediately.

As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, and for the benefit of the Committee, “immediately” in English law generally means forthwith—as quickly as possible. You will not be in breach of the statute if you do not record it within three and a half seconds. The courts will always take circumstances and context into account. However, “immediately” gives that sense of urgency, which is very important. It is particularly important—this is why I tabled these amendments—when somebody is cancelling or pulling out. We must not have any risk whatsoever that another medical practitioner or healthcare professional might think that the person is still in the system, so to speak, when they have in fact cancelled their first or second declaration.

Also, without too much threshing through the undergrowth on a Friday afternoon—although it always is a Friday afternoon for this Bill—this is particularly important in Clause 24(3). Clause 24(2) deals with when

“the notice or indication … is given to a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice”.

“Immediately” is appropriate there, for the reasons I have given. It is all the more important in Clause 24(3), where

“the registered medical practitioner to whom notice or indication of the cancellation is given”

is not within the practice. The problem there, as drafted, is that you have two uses of “as soon as practicable”. First, the practice must be notified “as soon as practicable”, and then the practitioner notified must “as soon as practicable” record the declaration. That doubling is problematic as well. “Immediately” in this circumstance ought to be the key test.

Therefore, I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, when he replies, to explain whether he believes, as I do, that the failure to record a declaration cancellation immediately might result in harm coming to a patient, and how, if not by way of my amendment, we mitigate that risk.

We are repeatedly told by the Ministers at the Dispatch Box that the focus of the Government’s position is whether this is workable or practicable. Have the Government looked at whether immediate recording is practicable? I would be interested in knowing the Minister’s thoughts and the Government’s position on that point.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for an important and thoughtful debate this afternoon. As I have already made clear, I will limit my comments to amendments about which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. I will speak first to Amendments 212, 215, 217, 218, 214, 557 to 559, 562, 563, and 564, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which would introduce specified time limits for when duties in the Bill must be undertaken. Similarly, Amendments 212A, 212B, 215A, 217A, 218A, 218B, 320C and 321A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, specify a timeframe by which records of a person’s preliminary discussion and first assessment must be recorded in their medical notes.

As drafted, the Bill requires this information to be recorded “as soon as practicable”. As the Government have not developed a service delivery model, I cannot confirm that the timelines proposed in these amendments are workable. Amendments that change the duty to record information from “as soon as practicable” to “within 24 hours”, or that require the co-ordinating doctor to make a report on the same day they see the person, may result in a duty that is difficult or impossible to discharge. As drafted, these amendments may increase the risk of practitioners facing legal or professional action. For example, if they fail to comply with this mandatory duty due to being sick or on leave, the amendments do not afford any discretion or flexibility.

Amendment 219, tabled by my noble friend Lady Keeley, says:

“The registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice must disclose to the medical practitioner conducting the preliminary discussion any information in their possession that may affect the individual’s eligibility for assisted dying and such information must be taken into account by the co-ordinating doctor”


when undertaking the first assessment. Proposed new subsection (5) would require a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice to notify the commissioner if they have

“reasonable grounds to believe that an individual does not meet the eligibility”

requirements for an assisted death.

The amendment is not clear on a number of key details, such as who in the GP practice is subject to these obligations, when the information must be sent, how the information is to get to the co-ordinating doctor for the first assessment, whether it is a continuing or a one-off obligation, and how the duty is intended to operate with Clause 31. This duty may also mandate information sharing with the commissioner in relation to people who are considered by a registered medical practitioner within a GP practice to not be suitable for an assisted death, even if the person in question is not actively seeking an assisted death under the Bill. My noble friend Lord Rook’s question about whether the powers in the Bill are sufficient for the commissioner, or whether further powers should be granted, is one for Parliament to decide in the eventuality.

Lastly, Amendment 561, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would amend Clause 24 to require any preliminary discussion, first discussion and second declaration to be recorded in a person’s medical records, including the reason for not continuing to the next stage. It is not clear who must undertake these duties or what would happen if the person seeking assistance did not give a reason for why they did not wish to proceed. Where legislation seeks to impose a duty, it must specify who that duty is placed on. That is particularly important, given that an intentional or reckless failure to comply with the duty under Clause 24 is a criminal offence. The amendment would require further policy and legal work to clarify the intent and ensure that the drafting was workable.