Lords Seal Rare Cancers Bill, Probe Assisted Dying System
High-Level Summary
The House of Lords noted the retirement of Earl Attlee, completed Third Reading of the Rare Cancers Bill with cross-party and Government support, and spent most of the day in Committee on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Proceedings began with procedural guidance and exchanges about alleged filibustering and the pace of scrutiny. Committee debate first examined the role, appointment and accountability of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner; one amendment was agreed to require consultation with Welsh Ministers before appointment. After lunch, peers opened detailed debates on whether any assisted dying service should be publicly funded or delivered outside the NHS, and on the composition, powers and transparency of Assisted Dying Review Panels, before adjourning mid‑group.
Detailed Summary
Retirement of a Member: Earl Attlee
The House was informed of “the retirement, with effect from yesterday, of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee … On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Earl for his much-valued service to the House”. No decision was required.
Rare Cancers Bill – Third Reading and passage
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay highlighted “genuine cross-party co-operation … This has been this House and the other place at their best”, adding that implementation “will make a difference to the 55% of people who die of a rare cancer”. Lord Blencathra urged formal involvement of the Royal Marsden in the new structures. Earl of Effingham said, “His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, Dr Scott Arthur and the Bill itself, and we look forward to seeing it receive Royal Assent”. The Government endorsed the Bill; Baroness Merron confirmed “the new brain tumour research consortium will be led by the Royal Marsden hospitals”. Outcome: “Bill passed”. Next steps: to receive Royal Assent.
Arrangement of Business – procedural guidance and concerns about filibustering
Lord Kennedy of Southwark set parameters for the day, indicating he would “adjourn proceedings around 6 pm” and reminding that “only those present at the start of a debate can participate”, with an appeal for “Courtesy, kindness and respect”. Lord Falconer outlined the pace of scrutiny: “We have spent 53 hours debating this Bill in Committee … After nine days of debate, we have completed consideration of just three clauses”. Some rejected claims of filibustering; Lord Harper stated, “there absolutely has not been any filibustering”, noting average speeches were “less than five minutes”. Others urged progress while maintaining scrutiny; Lord Lansley said he would “withdraw or not move my remaining amendments in Committee” to aid progress. No motion was decided.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (10th Day), Part 1: Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (role, appointment, accountability)
Peers debated whether the Commissioner should both operate and monitor the regime or whether to separate roles. Baroness Cass cautioned that the Bill makes the Commissioner “both poacher and gamekeeper”. Lord Beith proposed a Commons Select Committee pre‑appointment hearing with a possible veto, while Lord Garnier argued the post has a judicial element—“determining applications for reconsideration”—and should be appointed by the Sovereign on the Lord Chancellor’s advice. Baroness Levitt clarified that designating the Prime Minister as appointing authority is the sponsor’s choice in a Private Member’s Bill and that regulated appointments processes would apply. She also highlighted potential European Convention on Human Rights issues with some amendments (Articles 14 and 6). Lord Falconer supported having a senior judge as Commissioner and outlined core functions: receiving documents, appointing and organising panels, and reconsideration on error of law. Outcome: Amendment 131A (Lord Falconer), requiring that “the Prime Minister must consult the Welsh Ministers” before appointment, was agreed. Next steps: further amendments in this area were withdrawn or not moved; consideration to continue at future sittings.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (10th Day), Part 2: Funding, delivery model and interaction with the NHS
Lord Moylan proposed that assisted dying should not be funded by the public purse, tabling amendments that would “prohibit the expenditure of any public funds” on the service, arguing that “it is not the case that the state pays for every act of compassion”. Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie advocated a separate, regulated, non‑NHS delivery model and cited statements about needing to “reprioritise spending to fund assisted dying”. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff raised concerns about cost pressures and claims of savings: “Each assisted death has been estimated to cost around £2,000 yet would save about £13,000”. Baroness Levitt stated that if Parliament decides the service should be provided, “the Government will fund it”, adding it is “not right to assume” this would mean taking money from other parts of the health service. Lord Falconer argued for free access to avoid inequality—“we do not want to create a two-tier system”—and cited the impact assessment’s estimate of £37m in year 10. On safeguards against coercion, he pointed to “five steps before you get to assisted dying”. Outcome: No amendments were agreed; Lord Moylan withdrew his lead amendment. Next steps: further funding and delivery amendments to be revisited as Committee proceeds.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Committee (10th Day), Part 3: Assisted Dying Review Panels (composition, powers, transparency) – debate begun and adjourned mid‑group
Lord Murray of Blidworth sought to require the Commissioner to issue procedural guidance, set independent appointment criteria for the panel list, and strengthen panels’ evidence‑gathering powers, noting stakeholder concerns; the Law Society asked Parliament to “clarify how Assisted Dying Review Panels would deal with and decide cases”. Lord Sandhurst proposed requirements for legal and medical expertise on panels and measures to formalise evidence handling, including powers analogous to Mental Capacity Act section 49. Baroness Keeley urged in‑person evidence as the default, warning that a short “pre‑recorded” statement should not suffice. Lord Moylan cautioned against selecting panel members based on prior tendencies to approve applications, comparing risks of routinisation to another area of law becoming “entirely routine”. On privacy, Lord Harper noted the Bill’s presumption that panels “determine referrals in public”, and the sponsor clarified the intention that chairs usually defer to patient requests for private hearings: “The norm for the panel is to sit in public, but … if the person … wants it in private … the chair can say … it’s in private”. Outcome: Debate continued when the House adjourned mid‑group—“Debate on Amendment 142 adjourned”. Next steps: Committee to resume consideration of these panel amendments when it next sits.