Assisted Dying Scrutiny Dominates; Licensing Hours Bill Nears Royal Assent

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords passed the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill at Third Reading, with peers highlighting its shift to the negative procedure for limited licensing‑hours extensions. The Government Chief Whip announced that Friday’s sitting would run to around 6 pm to progress scrutiny of a Private Member’s Bill. The House then spent most of the day in Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, debating an assisted dying help service, informed‑consent safeguards, and whether eligibility should be limited to motivations arising from the terminal illness. Ministers restated the Government’s neutrality and undertook to write with further clarifications. All amendments discussed were withdrawn; there were no divisions.

Detailed Summary

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill – Third Reading

Moving Third Reading, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest said the Bill makes a procedural change so that limited licensing‑hours extensions for national events can be made by negative procedure while preserving scrutiny: “By moving to negative resolution, the Bill ensures that licence extensions can be made when they are genuinely useful to communities and businesses, while fully preserving parliamentary oversight.” The Earl of Effingham confirmed Opposition support: “His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are therefore pleased to welcome the measures in the Bill as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Watson.”

Lord Lemos noted that, on passing the Lords, the Bill would go straight for Royal Assent: “it will not go back to the Commons but go straight to His Majesty the King for Royal Assent.” The Bill passed. “Bill passed.” Next step: Royal Assent.

Arrangement of Business – Friday sitting times

The Government Chief Whip, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, set out that scrutiny of the relevant Private Member’s Bill would continue on Fridays and confirmed later hours that day: “No government time will be allocated for the Bill. Therefore, it is right that it is considered on Fridays only.” He added: “I will not seek to adjourn the House at 3 pm today but will seek to do so at around 6 pm.” He offered to facilitate a 40‑minute lunch break if needed. “I am happy to facilitate a break … for around 40 minutes at 1 pm.”

Lord Empey raised travel concerns for Members from outside London: “those who have to travel a significant distance … are at a disadvantage.” Lord Kennedy said he would arrange briefings for those who had to leave early: “very happy to arrange for them to have a meeting or briefing to go through that response.” No formal decision of the House was sought.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (7th Day): assisted dying help service (Amendment 35)

The Committee noted legislative consent updates: “Scottish legislative consent correspondence published, Northern Ireland and Welsh legislative consent sought.” Lord Birt proposed creating an “assisted dying help service” with personal navigators and flexible timelines. He set out three features: “The first is to create a new organisation, the assisted dying help service… The second is to ensure that the assisted dying process is expeditious… The third is that the commissioner acts solely as a regulator.” Citing Australia, he said “around 50% of applicants die within 19 days of their first request” and that “around one-third of those who ask for and are given the death potion do not take it.”

Several peers opposed embedding such a service in the NHS. Lord Stevens argued that assisted dying lies outside the NHS’s statutory purpose: “Assisted dying does not fall within the scope of that purpose.” Baroness Hollins said the proposed substances are not medicinal products: “The substances proposed to be used neither treat nor prevent disease.” Lord Sandhurst warned of a conflict of interest if run within the NHS: “There is an internal conflict of interest here within the health service.” Others cautioned against fixed timelines: “mandated timelines can mean shortcuts that could make the process unsafe.” Supporters pointed to proportional cost and patient choice; Lord Markham cited the impact assessment estimate of “£28 million” and “0.000175% of the NHS budget.”

The Bill’s sponsor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, rejected the proposed help‑service model and said the Bill’s existing, longer safeguards should remain: “I am not in favour of an assisted dying help service.” He added that he would bring forward more detail on commissioning and regulation under Clause 41: “I said that I would come forward with more detail.” The Minister, Baroness Blake, reiterated government neutrality on delivery: “we are making no assumptions as to what the delivery model for an assisted dying service would be” and undertook to write further to Members. Outcome: the amendment was withdrawn, with Lord Birt indicating he would return to the issue on Report: “we will be returning to these issues on Report.”

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – informed consent and complications (Amendment 39A and related)

Amendments sought to strengthen informed‑consent requirements, including demonstrable understanding and explicit discussion of risks, complications and the Montgomery standard. Lord Blencathra said the lead amendment would “require that the patient’s understanding is demonstrable, not assumed.” Baroness Hollins highlighted gaps in drug regulation and licensing: certain barbiturates used abroad “are not licensed for human use in the United Kingdom.” Baroness Finlay cautioned against presenting outcomes as simple and painless: “This has been sold out there to the public as if this is a Hollywood death.”

For the Government, Lord Katz said many proposals “largely duplicate what is already in the Bill” and flagged drafting issues. The sponsor argued the Bill already requires an “informed” decision and that Clause 12 compels explanation of the substance and discussion of complications, stating the Bill is “absolutely watertight in relation to this.” On clinicians’ duties if a patient does not die after self‑administration, he said: “the doctor should do what the doctor is always obliged to do, which is to save life.” Outcome: Amendment 39A was withdrawn. “Amendment 39A withdrawn.”

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – limiting eligibility to motivations arising from the terminal illness (Amendments 39B, 39C, 44 and related)

A further set of amendments aimed to ensure that a person’s wish to die must be “because of their terminal illness” and not driven by poverty, housing or lack of social support. Baroness Berger’s Amendment 44 would mean eligibility only where the wish to end life is “because of their terminal illness.” Supporters warned against non‑medical motivations; opponents emphasised autonomy and the practical difficulty of assessing motives. For the Government, Lord Katz noted: “It could be challenging to establish whether someone is seeking an assisted death as a result of specified factors.” The sponsor maintained the Bill’s principle of patient choice once terminally ill: “once you are diagnosed with a terminal illness… you should have the option of deciding for yourself how you die.” Outcomes: Amendments 39B and 44 were withdrawn. “Amendment 39B withdrawn.” “Amendment 44 withdrawn.” The House adjourned at 6.02 pm. “House adjourned at 6.02 pm.”