Lords debate judge role in assisted suicide process

Peers have debated reintroducing judges to the assisted suicide process as fundamental questions about the plans are still being considered.

During the House of Lords’ fifth day of scrutinising amendments to Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, the Committee of the Whole House debated proposals tabled by Lord Carlile to return to a judge-based system to approve a person’s request to kill themselves.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill initially required the involvement of a High Court judge, but after Kim Leadbeater was told this would be unworkable, she downgraded her self-described ‘ultimate safeguard’ to a multidisciplinary panel, comprising a social worker, lawyer and psychiatrist.

‘Flip-flopping’

Baroness Berridge criticised this fundamental late-stage amendment, stating that it undermines the impact assessment which was “prepared on the basis of the panel” as well as the evidence heard by the select committee.

She said that “removing 16 clauses from a Bill, which is about 30 per cent of the Bill, makes this in my view potentially a new Bill.”

Baroness Berridge warns that backtracking on a fundamental aspect of the Bill – the panel model to determine applications for assisted suicide – undermines the impact assessment and previous evidence given to Peers scrutinising the Bill. pic.twitter.com/xzbn2xoxzd

— The Christian Institute (@christianorguk) January 9, 2026

Lord McCrea told the House: “This flip-flopping does not inspire confidence, my Lords!” He added that the High Court safeguard was scrapped in the House of Commons because it challenged the Bill’s practical workability.

Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the Bill in the Lords, defended the panel-based model, claiming “you are better off and it is safer if one does it with a multidisciplinary panel”.

Extra time

On Thursday, a motion put forward by Lord Falconer for extra time for Peers to scrutinise the Bill was passed without a vote. This could mean that debate in the House of Lords could continue into the evenings. This is a non-binding motion and the Government has not yet pledged any specific additional time beyond the ten extra days it made available at the end of last year.

Lord Falconer warned it “would significantly damage the reputation” of the House if the legislation was ‘timed out’. Parliamentary procedure dictates that, should the Bill not pass by the end of this session, it will fall.

Conservative Peer Lord Shinkwin responded to criticism that the scrutiny was taking too long by remarking: “We can only ever work with what we have been given. The volume of amendments, and the time taken to consider them, therefore, reflect the quality or lack thereof of the Bill that was sent to us.”

He added: “If any bill is so poorly drafted and so unsafe, surely the question is not so much whether the Bill deserves more time, as whether yet more time could transform it.”