Lords Weigh End of Life Safeguards as Space Bill Passes

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords announced the retirement of Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and completed Third Reading of the Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill, which passed. The Government Chief Whip outlined conduct and timing for the fourth Committee day on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and restated government neutrality. Committee debates then examined amendments on capacity and deprivation of liberty, cross‑border GP registration and devolution, GP continuity and the role of multidisciplinary teams, and eligibility issues for prisoners, pregnant women, homeless people and young adults with education, health and care plans (EHCPs). Several amendments were withdrawn after the Bill’s sponsor indicated willingness to consider enhanced protections; no divisions were held. The House adjourned at 3.19 pm.

Detailed Summary

Retirement announcement: Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Lord Gardiner of Kimble notified the House of the retirement of Lord Hodgson “with effect from today” under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 and thanked him for his service: “I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts” [ref: b427.1/1]. No further action was required.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill – Third Reading and passage

Baroness Anelay moved that the Bill do now pass and thanked contributors. She said: “The Bill amends the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legislative certainty that spaceflight operators will not face unlimited liability” [ref: b427.5/3]. Viscount Stansgate noted, “The Bill literally changes one word, from ‘may’ to ‘must’” [ref: b427.6/2], and Lord Moylan supported the measure while observing broader risk transfer to the taxpayer [ref: b428.0/1]. The Minister said the Government recognised the sector’s need for certainty on liability and insurance [ref: b428.1/2]. Outcome: Bill passed — “Bill passed” [ref: b428.1/3]. Next steps: not stated in the transcript.

Arrangement of Business: conduct and timing for Committee

The Government Chief Whip outlined how the day’s Committee stage on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would be run, saying, “I expect the House to rise at a convenient point around 3 pm” [ref: b428.3/3], and reminded Members that “we do not accept interventions on interventions” [ref: b428.3/6]. He stressed that this Private Member’s Bill is not a government Bill and that “The Government remain neutral” [ref: b428.3/10]. In reply to Baroness Hayman, he confirmed the House’s self‑regulating nature: “We are a self‑regulating House” [ref: b430.1/1].

End of Life Bill Committee – Capacity and deprivation of liberty (Amendments 16, 16A, 114, 114A)

Baroness Finlay proposed that those currently, or recently, subject to deprivation of liberty should be ineligible, highlighting system overload and data‑sharing gaps; she suggested a DoLS history “should act as a yellow flag” in eligibility assessments [ref: b431.0/7]. Baroness Berger pointed to a substantial backlog: “The last reported backlog of deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments… was more than 123,000 applications” [ref: b432.2/2]. Lord Falconer (Bill sponsor) accepted the concern and proposed discussing “some form of enhanced protection” [ref: b434.0/5]. The Minister reiterated neutrality and warned that these amendments “may conflict with ECHR obligations… Article 14… when read with Article 8” [ref: b439.1/2]. Outcome: Amendment 16A was withdrawn, followed by Amendment 16 [ref: b442.3/2; b442.3/3]. Next steps: the sponsor offered meetings to explore strengthened safeguards (not further stated in the transcript).

End of Life Bill Committee – Cross‑border GP registration and Scotland (Amendments 17, 62, 309A)

Baroness Fraser (for Lord Beith) queried whether English residents registered with Scottish GPs would be eligible and sought clarity on preliminary discussions across the border, warning that “some residents in England close to the Scottish border will be excluded… because they are registered with a Scottish GP” [ref: b443.0/2]. The Minister said further consequential changes would be needed and noted ongoing technical work on devolution with Scotland [ref: b448.0/2–b448.0/3]. Lord Falconer confirmed that, as drafted, a person must be registered with a GP in England or Wales — “the Bill is clear that you have to be in a GP’s practice in England or Wales” [ref: b449.0/3] — and was open to finding solutions, saying, “let us see whether we can make it work, but it will require discussions with Scotland” [ref: b449.0/4]. Outcome: Amendment 17 withdrawn [ref: b450.0/3]. Next steps: further consideration of devolution and enforcement implications (not stated in the transcript).

End of Life Bill Committee – GP continuity, home visits and multidisciplinary safeguards (Amendments 19–21, 26, 30B and related)

Amendments sought to require minimum GP registration periods, specified numbers of consultations and home visits. Lord Rook proposed adding a safeguard: a person must have been registered for “at least 12 months” with at least two GP contacts [ref: b451.1/2]. Baroness Gerada said “modern general practice works in multidisciplinary teams” [ref: b453.4/1]. The Minister raised workability concerns, including that “home visits are generally offered only where clinically appropriate” [ref: b477.0/5]. Lord Falconer said the Bill does not require the GP to authorise an assisted death — “the GP… is not somebody who has to be involved” [ref: b478.2/2] — and suggested instead embedding input from the team caring for the patient, to “get the multidisciplinary team… to give the appropriate input” [ref: b467.0/3]. Outcome: Amendment 19 withdrawn; Amendments 20 and 21 not moved [ref: b479.0/8; b479.0/9]. Next steps: the sponsor indicated willingness to consider drafting reflecting MDT input (not further stated in the transcript).

End of Life Bill Committee – Eligibility of prisoners, pregnancy, homelessness, and EHCP (Amendments 22, 24, 30C, 308, 347, 458, 30A, 119A)

Baroness Grey‑Thompson tabled probing amendments on excluding serving prisoners and those on hospital orders, defendants on remand or bail, pregnant women, people experiencing homelessness and young adults with EHCPs. The Bishop of Gloucester drew attention to prison health concerns, citing the Health and Social Care Committee’s view that “so‑called natural cause deaths, the highest cause of mortality in prison, too often reflect serious lapses in care” [ref: b491.0/5]. Lord Carter asked: “How will the Government balance those two conflicting things?” — the duty to prevent suicide and any assisted dying request from a prisoner [ref: b493.0/2]. The Minister cautioned that excluding whole categories could “lead to a difference in treatment” under the ECHR without adequate justification [ref: b502.0/3]. Lord Falconer opposed blanket exclusions: “prisoners should be entitled to exactly the same position as everybody else” [ref: b504.1/4]; he added that “pregnancy should not be a bar” [ref: b505.4/1], was “very strongly against” removing eligibility from homeless people [ref: b505.4/2], and suggested considering “enhanced protection” for those aged 25 and under [ref: b505.4/3]. Outcome: Amendment 22 withdrawn; Amendments 23 and 24 not moved [ref: b507.2/8; b507.2/9]. Next steps: further discussions indicated by the sponsor and movers (e.g. a meeting noted by Baroness Grey‑Thompson) [ref: b507.2/5].

Closing business note and adjournment

Before adjournment, the Government Chief Whip observed slow progress — “in four days of Committee, we have completed only 10 groups of amendments” [ref: b508.0/2] — and reminded the House that “The House does not recognise points of order” in a self‑regulating Chamber [ref: b508.0/3]. The House adjourned at 3.19 pm [ref: b509.0/3].