Safeguards Dominate Lords Debate on Assisted Dying

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords announced the retirement of Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and completed the Third Reading of the Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill, which passed. The House then undertook the fourth Committee day on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, concentrating on safeguards relating to mental capacity and deprivation of liberty, cross‑border GP issues, GP continuity versus multidisciplinary input, and whether to exclude certain vulnerable groups. Several probing amendments were withdrawn after the Bill’s sponsor indicated readiness to explore enhanced protections and possible Report‑stage drafting. The Government reiterated neutrality on assisted dying and highlighted potential risks under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) where relevant. The Chief Whip reminded Members of the House’s self‑regulating procedures and current pace of progress.

Detailed Summary

Retirement of a Member: Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Lord Gardiner of Kimble notified the House of Lord Hodgson’s retirement under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 and recorded the House’s thanks: “I should like to notify the House of the retirement” [ref: b427.1/1]; “I thank the noble Lord for his much‑valued service” [ref: b427.1/1]. No further action was stated in the transcript.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill – Third Reading

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved that the Bill do now pass. She said the Bill amends the Space Industry Act 2018 “to provide legislative certainty that spaceflight operators will not face unlimited liability when operating from the UK” [ref: b427.5/3]. Viscount Stansgate noted that “The Bill literally changes one word, from ‘may’ to ‘must’” [ref: b427.6/2]. The Minister, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, said “the question of liability and insurance is of utmost concern to the space sector” [ref: b428.1/2], and concluded: “Bill passed” [ref: b428.1/3]. Next steps: not stated in the transcript.

Arrangement of Business – conduct, timings and government neutrality

The Government Chief Whip outlined expected timings and conduct, saying, “I expect the House to rise at a convenient point around 3 pm” [ref: b428.3/3]. He reminded Members that in Committee “Noble Lords should address their remarks to the amendments … and not make long, Second Reading speeches” [ref: b428.3/5], and that “we do not accept interventions on interventions” [ref: b428.3/6]. He also underlined neutrality on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: “The Government remain neutral. That position is not going to change” [ref: b428.3/10]. In response to Baroness Hayman, he emphasised, “We are a self‑regulating House” [ref: b430.1/1].

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (Day 4): Capacity and deprivation of liberty (Amendments 16, 16A, 114, 114A)

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff proposed that those currently or recently deprived of liberty under the Mental Capacity Act be ineligible, citing system pressures: “There were over 334,000 applications in England alone in 2023‑24” [ref: b431.0/5]. Baroness Berger (for Baroness Keeley) highlighted the backlog: “more than 123,000 applications” [ref: b432.2/2]. The sponsor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, accepted the “yellow flag” concern and proposed exploring “some form of enhanced protection” after discussions: “see what form that enhanced protection could take” [ref: b434.0/5]. The Government, remaining neutral, flagged ECHR risks if lack of capacity in one area were used to infer lack in another, noting “the amendments may conflict with ECHR obligations” [ref: b439.1/2]. Outcome: Amendment 16A withdrawn; Amendment 16 withdrawn [ref: b442.3/2; b442.3/3]. Next steps: sponsor to convene discussions on strengthening safeguards.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (Day 4): Cross‑border GP registration and Scotland (Amendments 17, 62, 309A)

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie probed the position of English residents registered with Scottish GPs and whether preliminary discussions could occur with Scottish practitioners. The Government advised that including Scottish GPs would “require further consequential amendments to ensure that the Bill is coherent” [ref: b448.0/3] and warned that one proposal would mean the Secretary of State “must be in England or Wales at the moment they sign the regulations” [ref: b448.0/5]. The sponsor said that, as drafted, eligibility requires registration with a GP practice in England or Wales: “The answer is no under the Bill at the moment” [ref: b449.0/3], and acknowledged Clause 5 preliminary discussions might, on the face of the Bill, involve a Scottish GP, which raises enforcement questions he would “take away” [ref: b449.0/5]. Outcome: Amendment 17 withdrawn [ref: b450.0/3]. Next steps: further consideration and discussions, including with Scotland.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (Day 4): GP continuity versus multidisciplinary input (Amendments 19, 20, 21, 26, 30B and related)

Amendments sought to require minimum GP registration periods, numbers of appointments, established relationships and/or home visits to strengthen safeguards and avoid ‘doctor shopping’. The Government cautioned against mandating fixed consultations or home visits due to practicality and clinical need: “home visits are generally offered only where clinically appropriate” [ref: b477.0/5]. The sponsor emphasised that the Bill does not rely on an established GP relationship and indicated willingness to embed multidisciplinary care input: “you cannot possibly rely on people having an established relationship with their GP” [ref: b467.0/2]; “I am willing and keen to reflect that insight in the Bill” [ref: b478.2/3]. Outcome: Amendment 19 withdrawn; Amendments 20 and 21 not moved [ref: b479.0/8; b479.0/9]. Next steps: sponsor to consider drafting for multidisciplinary safeguards ahead of Report.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (Day 4): Excluding particular groups (prisoners, pregnancy, homelessness, EHCPs) (Amendments 22, 24, 30A, 30C, 119A, 308, 347, 458)

Baroness Grey‑Thompson probed exclusions for serving prisoners, those under hospital orders, defendants on remand/bail, pregnant women, people experiencing homelessness and young adults with education, health and care plans (EHCPs). She highlighted vulnerabilities and practical dilemmas, including that “a prisoner’s decisions could be impacted by their experience” [ref: b480.2/7] and the need to understand pregnancy‑related drug effects [ref: b480.2/15; b480.2/16]. The Government warned that blanket exclusions risked breaching the ECHR by creating unjustified differences in treatment: “making these groups ineligible … would … lead to a difference in treatment” [ref: b502.0/3]. The sponsor opposed categorical exclusions, arguing parity with safeguards: “prisoners should be entitled to exactly the same position as everybody else” [ref: b504.1/4]; he said “pregnancy should not be a bar” [ref: b505.4/1], and was “very strongly against” removing the right due to homelessness [ref: b505.4/3]. He suggested considering “enhanced protection” for those up to age 25, which would include young adults with EHCPs [ref: b505.4/3]. Outcome: Amendment 22 withdrawn; Amendments 23 and 24 not moved [ref: b507.2/8; b507.2/9]. Status of other amendments discussed in this debate was not stated in the transcript. Next steps: further engagement on safeguards, including for younger adults.

Procedural note on progress and self‑regulation

At the close, the Government Chief Whip noted: “we have completed four groups of amendments today,” and “only 10 groups of amendments in four days of Committee” [ref: b508.0/1]. He reminded Members that “The House does not recognise points of order” and “We are a self‑regulating House” [ref: b508.0/3; b508.0/4]. He clarified there is no fixed allocation formula for Committee time between Houses: “There is no formula or algorithm that we use” [ref: b509.0/1]. The House adjourned at 3.19 pm [ref: b509.0/3].