Lords Deadlock on Assisted Dying; Committee Motion Withdrawn

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords used the sitting to address procedural motions on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and to reflect on scrutiny, safety and process. Lord Falconer of Thoroton confirmed there was no prospect of completing the Bill this Session and moved to take note of the Bill’s scrutiny; Baroness Coffey tabled an amendment to recognise relevant committee reports. Members set out opposing views on whether progress had been unjustifiably delayed or necessarily thorough, raising issues including delegated powers, safeguards against coercion and the Bill’s interface with the NHS. After debate, Baroness Coffey withdrew her amendment; Lord Falconer withdrew his amendment and then his main motion that the House resolve into Committee, and the House adjourned at 3.11 pm.

Detailed Summary

Arrangement of Business – Announcement

Lord Kennedy of Southwark outlined the running order and timing, aiming “to adjourn proceedings at around 3pm”. He explained the debate would begin with Lord Falconer’s motion to go into Committee and amendments, and noted the sponsor’s intention to seek leave to withdraw the motion later, while stressing it was for the House to decide. He added that amendments to a motion to go into Committee were “precedented but unusual” and urged courtesy and respect during debate.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Motions on going into Committee and taking note of scrutiny (supporters’ case)

Moving an amendment to take note of progress, Lord Falconer said he was “despondent” that the Bill could not proceed before Prorogation and that this was due to “procedural wrangling”. He highlighted the Commons’ extensive scrutiny—“more than 100 hours of debate” and hundreds of amendments—contrasting it with the Lords having completed “only seven out of 59 clauses after 13 days of Committee”. He argued the failure was “not because of a lack of time”. Lord Markham said the current ban “does not prevent assisted dying; it simply makes it unregulated, unequal and unsafe”, and cited evidence that “650 terminally ill people commit suicide every year”. Several Members urged that differences be resolved by votes: Lord Pannick called the outcome “a stain on the reputation of this House” and said “we have to come to a view and vote”. Others warned prolonged debate had damaged self‑regulation and delayed decisions; Baroness Hayman said this had “damaged the reputation of this House”, while Baroness Harding noted, “Ten noble Lords have accounted for 26% of the time”. Some called for the Bill to be revived next Session, with Lord Pannick hoping the Commons would return it “so that the Parliament Act can apply”.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Concerns on safety, delegated powers and process (opponents’ case)

Baroness Coffey moved an amendment to recognise the reports of the Delegated Powers and Constitution Committees, arguing they were “pretty damning about the unprecedented use of Henry VIII powers” and about leaving too much to regulations. She stressed risks of indirect coercion and said she had tabled “111 amendments” to probe safety and devolution. The Bishop of Newcastle said that closer examination had increased concerns and, until key questions were answered, “it would be irresponsible to allow it to move forward”. Baroness Campbell of Surbiton warned that “autonomy without protection is not freedom—it is risk” and questioned a six‑month prognosis as a reliable legal threshold. Lord Carlile favoured court oversight over “largely unaccountable panels”. Other Members raised operational concerns, including the Bill’s interface with the NHS; Lord Moore said it was “about how it would be carried out” in the NHS, involving “costs, its professional conflicts and all the difficult questions”. Baroness O’Loan argued some safeguards had been weakened, including on the presence of independent advocates, and said “Doctor-shopping possibilities have expanded”. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, concluded from personal experience, “We owe the dying better than this Bill” and called for stronger palliative care. Baroness Berger stated that “there is not a single medical royal college in this country that will attest to the safety of the Bill”.

Front‑bench reflections and outcomes

Speaking from the Front Bench, Lord Wolfson said it was “regrettable” the House had not reached a conclusion and suggested that any future attempt should include government‑facilitated pre‑legislative scrutiny and a free vote. The Government reiterated neutrality, with Baroness Merron confirming this was a Private Member’s Bill and that “Sixteen sitting Fridays were allocated for debate”. At the close, Baroness Coffey withdrew her amendment to Lord Falconer’s amendment. Lord Falconer then withdrew his amendment and the main motion that the House resolve into Committee, and the House adjourned at 3.11 pm.