Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am one of the newbies the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, although I have not spent time in government—I have spent a lot of time in local government and a brief time in the European Parliament. Noble Lords will note that I have spoken only twice during the debate—I made one substantial speech at the start and then one intervention—but I have sat through the many Fridays we have spent on the Bill. I pay tribute to the moving and personal speech from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, earlier.

Last night, I was with some friends who asked me whether I was going back home to Sheffield or staying. I said that I was going to stay and that I was going to listen, and that I did not have a pre-prepared speech but was going to speak from the heart. There have been occasions during our deliberations on which noble Lords have raised important points, whether on learning disabilities or prisoners. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the other sponsor have listened, but my frustration has been this: just because I have 10 minutes to speak, as I do today, does not mean I need to take 10 minutes to get to the point. Noble Lords need to reflect on that. Had we made the points we wanted to make quicker, we may well have got through many more topics. I pay tribute to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in trying to narrow our debates into topics. I thought that we had found a way forward.

On Wednesday, when I was making my way to the Public Services Committee, I set off one and a half hours earlier than usual, due to the Tube strike, not realising that the Jubilee line was still running, and so I got here an hour and 15 minutes early. There were many people outside Parliament who were deeply frustrated by what is happening in your Lordships’ House. I have to say, there are issues here around confidence and trust. Our reputation is at stake. Our duty is to revise and scrutinise legislation. That is what we do best.

For me, one of the key points has always been about choice. I made it very clear to your Lordships’ House in my first speech on this topic that this is not something I would like to exercise, nor would any members of my family or anyone else I know from my faith. However, who am I to stop others? That is why I have said that I will play an active role in helping revise and improve this legislation where I can, but I do not intend to block it.

I really hope that the sponsors of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and my friend from the other place—I am not sure what terminology to use—who are here, are listening, because I see this issue coming back to us. This is not going to go away just because we are not able to conclude our deliberations. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said earlier, we may have to do some pre-legislative scrutiny on this, because, ultimately, as I see it, this is half-time for this issue. There will be a second half in the next Session. I hope that all noble Lords on both sides of the argument will reflect on how we have conducted ourselves on the many Fridays we have sat, as well as on how we can improve both how we operate and the public’s perception. With that, I will sit down—after three minutes.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I am one of the members of your Lordships’ Select Committee. We came to the Bill from different perspectives. As noble Lords know, I am not in favour of the principle of assisted dying. However, my view has always been that the role of your Lordships’ House is clear: it is to scrutinise and amend legislation. I have at no point sought to delay the legislation, because it is crucial that we send a message to the other House.

If my views had prevailed, my preference would have been to say that we do not want this legislation at all, but that does not appear to be the will of your Lordships’ House, and the view of the country seems to be a general preference for legislation on assisted dying. As I said at Second Reading, we as legislators are not legislating for ourselves or our own preferences; we must be legislating for the most vulnerable in society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for letting me get in. I have sat through 13 days of Committee on this Bill and I have hardly spoken at all. I will cut what I intended to say, as I know we are beginning to run out of time, to allow others who still want to come in to have a chance of doing so. Moreover, much of what I wanted to say has already been said by others and I want to avoid what has happened during Committee—endless repetition. However, I will endorse two or three important things that have been said.

I endorse what has been said about the effect of the failure to scrutinise the Bill in a fair, considered and disciplined way, so that voting on possible improvements could have taken place, on the thousands of people who have experienced agony, loss of dignity and a desperate wish to die peacefully and as soon as possible. These people and their close friends and relatives, who feel their pain too, have been let down, I am afraid to say, by a relatively small number of Members of this House who have been determined to block the Bill. I know it has been said already, but I endorse that.

I also strongly endorse the criticism that the opponents of the Bill in this House have refused to take into account the overwhelming support for it from the general public, including from the minority of people in this country of religious faith and from individual disabled people. In both cases, most of them want to see a change in the law and something along the lines of what the Bill is trying to do. Its opponents have damaged the reputation of the Lords, not just by the number of amendments tabled—some of them absurd—and the repetition entailed, but by the lack of accuracy and rigour in making their arguments. That we have not talked about today, and I want to do so in a particular area.

There are many examples I could cite, but I will concentrate on the presentation of the medical profession as being opposed to the Bill. I am not a doctor, but I declare an interest as chair of the trust board of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which, like virtually all the royal colleges, has taken a neutral position on the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Berger, has just given, in my view, a really misleading impression about this. I regret that she felt the need to do that.

It is absolutely true that, when assisted dying was debated in the House in 2014 and 2015, the medical professional organisations were opposed and there was justification in referring to it at that time. But those who are still implying this have simply not caught up with the changes in medical opinion over that decade. This is reflected in the view of 50 senior clinicians, including 13 former presidents of the royal colleges and the BMA. They said:

“The status quo in this country is not working; the blanket prohibition of assisted dying has made the way we deliver end-of-life care in this country more cruel and more dangerous. You now have an opportunity to vote for legislation that will give people in England and Wales choice and control at the end of life. In our view this choice will come to be seen as a compassionate and integral part of our National Health Service, of immense comfort to dying people and their loved ones. Changing the law will send a clear message to all in society that we will respect their wishes. We believe it is time for Westminster to show compassion by giving … people choice”.


That is very important.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to give way because time is short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Is the noble Baroness aware that, in the evidence from the royal colleges given to the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships’ House, everyone expressed their concern about the safety of the Bill? Individual letters and so on, even from 50 people, are not the same as the evidence received by our Select Committee.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will answer that briefly. I did not, in what I have just said, in any way imply that the medical colleges did not have some suggestions for improvements to the Bill. Many people have suggestions for improvements to the Bill, including my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. What I am saying is that it is misleading to suggest that they are opposed to the Bill in principle as a profession—they are not; they have been neutral.