Safeguards, AI and Prognosis Dominate Assisted Dying Debate

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords opened with formal announcements, then completed Third Reading of the Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill, which passed. Peers discussed arrangements for business and sought clarity on the Parliament Acts; the Chief Whip confirmed their scope, outlined precedents, and arranged a factual clerks’ briefing. The Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (8th day) debated in‑person safeguards, use of artificial intelligence, the reliability of six‑month prognoses, and the interaction with compensation law for industrial disease cases. Several amendments were withdrawn, Clause 1 was agreed, and the debate on terminal illness definitions was adjourned to continue on 6 February.

Detailed Summary

Formal announcements: death of a Member and retirement

The House was informed of the death of Lord Wallace of Tankerness and condolences were recorded: “I much regret to inform the House of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness”. The retirement of Lord Offord of Garvel under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 was also announced, with thanks for his contribution: “I should like to thank the noble Lord for his valued service to the House”.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill – Third Reading

Lord Bach thanked colleagues and the Minister, saying the Bill enables secure schools to deliver education and intensive support for young people in custody: “this Bill will allow us to continue to transform how we detain children and young people in custody”. He added he was “delighted … that it will soon be on the statute book”. Baroness Levitt said the model offers “small and homely environments with healthcare and education at their heart”. The Motion was agreed and the “Bill passed”.

Arrangement of Business and Parliament Acts briefing

The Chief Whip, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, set the day’s timetable, including a target to adjourn “at around 6 pm” and a “40‑minute” lunch break. On the Parliament Acts, he confirmed they apply to all public Bills and therefore “can be applied to Private Members’ Bills”, noted it “has not been applied to a Private Member’s Bill to date”, and announced that clerks will provide a factual briefing on the Acts. He also stated: “The Government have no intention of bringing back this Private Member’s Bill … it will not come back as a government Bill”.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (8th Day): preliminary points

The House noted legislative consent correspondence and relevant reports. Baroness Grey‑Thompson queried whether Commons changes on independent advocates remained a mandatory safeguard, warning that under new wording “advocacy is therefore satisfied by instruction alone rather than active participation”. Lord Falconer said the questions would be addressed with Clause 22: “the appropriate place to deal with them is when we get to the amendments relating to Clause 22”.

In‑person and jurisdictional requirements (Amendments 60, 65 and related)

Baroness Coffey proposed broadening which steps must occur in England and Wales and requiring more in‑person interactions, citing risks of remote assessment and coercion, asking: “Are we sure that somebody is not in the room, giving them the eyes so that they will give the right answers?”. Supporters, including Lord Empey, argued that complex remote assessments are “nigh‑on impossible”, while Baroness Gerada said there was “no ethical or clinical reason” assessments must be face to face. The Minister, Baroness Merron, warned that mandating face‑to‑face could conflict with panel video provisions and “could give rise to legal challenge on the basis of Article 14 when read with Article 8”. Lord Falconer noted the sentiment that “face to face … is best” but said there must be flexibility, undertaking to “bring back something … that indicates when face to face is appropriate or should be the norm”. Amendment 60 was withdrawn and related amendments were not moved.

Artificial intelligence and the Bill (Amendment 66)

Baroness Coffey sought to prohibit AI use under the Bill, warning: “I want to avoid a world of chatbots that removes the human element”. Baroness Merron said a blanket ban “is likely to have major workability impacts” given AI’s growing role in NHS systems. Lord Falconer affirmed that decisions must be made by humans—“It is very difficult to imagine how you could put a machine in prison”—and said he would bring forward advertising amendments covering digital contexts. The amendment was withdrawn.

Clause 1 stand part: process, delegated powers and impact assessments

Baroness Coffey did not seek a vote on Clause 1: “It is not … my intention to move a Division”. Lord Rooker urged adopting Delegated Powers Committee recommendations to speed progress. Baroness Falkner criticised the Government’s refusal to update the Equality Impact Assessment during passage, citing the reply that updates would come only “should the Bill receive Royal Assent”. Clause 1 was agreed.

Terminal injuries and the Fatal Accidents Act (Amendments 70, 78, 829)

Lord Harper warned that where death follows assisted dying after an industrial disease, certification and coronial treatment could break the causal chain for dependants’ claims: assisted deaths would “not be certificated as being caused by industrial disease”. Lord Sandhurst sought an early review/assessment to secure remedies. Lord Hendy argued the Bill should expressly protect dependants’ rights and suggested coronial recording to preserve causation. Lord Falconer opposed extending eligibility to injuries, saying the Bill addresses illness and disease, but accepted the compensation issue needs resolution, proposing a report on the 1976 Act within the first reporting period so that action can be taken before commencement. Amendment 70 was withdrawn.

Defining terminal illness and the six‑month prognosis (Amendment 71 and linked debate)

Baroness Finlay questioned the reliability of a six‑month prognosis, calling predictions “highly unreliable and largely guesswork” and the six‑month rule “unsafe and unworkable”, urging linkage to demonstrable progression and best‑practice treatment. Baroness Campbell supported requiring awareness of disease‑modifying treatments before decisions, noting “prognosis will vary greatly depending on whether the person receives no treatment, poor … or … best practice”. Lord Pannick emphasised that the test is whether death “can reasonably be expected within six months” and that it should be the patient’s “choice”. Other peers proposed adding an explicit suffering criterion to align with public rationale and international models. Debate was adjourned to continue on 6 February: “Debate on Amendment 71 adjourned”.