Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a great privilege to sit here all day and listen to noble, and noble and learned, Members of this House. The problem is that when you are the penultimate speaker, most of the good ideas and suggestions have already been made. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady May, the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Hunt, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his very good point regarding palliative care in England and Wales, which is highly relevant to this debate.

I am concerned about the fundamental shift that the Bill will cause for our relationship with the medical profession. As legislators, we owe it to the public who will be impacted by the Bill to think through all consequences carefully, whether intended or not, and to think about who we will empower to pass legislation.

If this Bill passes, we will be moving from an NHS where doctors are focused solely on healing to an NHS where, when the conditions of the Bill are met, any individual doctor with no specific training can raise ending a terminally ill patient’s life with the state’s endorsement, no matter how vulnerable the patient. We place a lot of trust in our doctors and healthcare professionals to seek what is best for us, and the Bill risks the implication, if not outright declaration, that ending your life early is a suitable course of NHS treatment.

The honourable Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in the other place, who is an NHS consultant doctor, reflected on this issue of how patients interact with their doctors during the debate on Report:

“As a doctor, I am very aware of the trust that the public place in doctors and the seriousness with which they take what we say. If a doctor gives somebody information about assisted dying, it is quite reasonable for that person to think that the doctor is suggesting that they should take part in that process, or is hinting that their death will be dreadful and trying to be kind. If doctors are allowed to say, ‘This is a good process,’ more people will take it up than would otherwise have wanted to”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/25; col. 646.]


I know when I go to the doctors, I assume that the doctor before me will be there to help my health and recovery and nothing else. That should be our experience. Any threat to this kind of relationship between the medical profession and its patients must be rejected. We cannot afford to fundamentally rewire the NHS to the effect that the public will no longer be sure that their recovery is occupying the totality of the doctor’s thoughts, or will worry that in a cash-strapped NHS trust, somebody is calculating, as set out in the impact assessment, that £13,000 could be saved per patient for every four months of unused healthcare for the cost of a £14 prescription.

As this Bill passes into law and establishes assisted dying as a regulated and approved treatment, something commonplace, we will have to be sure not just that systems and process are beyond reproach; many professionals at all stages on their career will have the opportunity and ability to put patients on the route to an assisted death. This means that we will have to have faith in the competence and professionalism of every individual. I have no problem, having closely interacted with three NHS trusts as a Member of Parliament, in saying that some of the most dedicated people in our country work in the NHS. However, I would be delusional to pretend that that is universally true. I have seen deeply worrying cases where one bad apple was simply shunted from job to job. As with all institutions, doctors are fallible human beings. Mistakes will be made through exhaustion, misunderstanding and, yes, in some cases, malice.

Yet advocates for this Bill would have us reject common experience. When the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green raised the point on Report that many constituents

“have grave concerns about the way in which they are treated, because they feel that they do not have a level of equality within our NHS”,

the Member for Solihull West and Shirley rejected it as

“rhetoric that engenders a fear around the medical profession”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/25; col. 651.]

We must not underestimate how much power this will put into the hands of, potentially, very junior medical professionals, and the scope of impact that a very small cohort can have. That is evident in the international jurisdictions with similar regimes. According to an official report in 2021, a single doctor in Oregon wrote one-eighth of all assisted dying prescriptions. In Victoria, according to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board, during 2023-24 10 doctors handled 55% of all cases. This Bill should not pass in this current form.

Nitrous Oxide Misuse: Drivers

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. The figures for the last 12 months, which may help, show that 0.9% of adults aged 16 to 59 years old have been reported as using nitrous oxide in the past year. That sounds like a small number, but it is quite a significant number of individuals. We need to look at health advice at appropriate places, as well as at education and support from peer groups and parents. I know from my experience a long time before I entered Parliament, when I worked in the field of drug prevention, that the key thing is to ensure we have action on peer group pressure, education and health advice. To back that up, under legislation passed by the previous Government, nitrous oxide is now a controlled drug. Therefore, there is also the potential for police enforcement activity, which relates back to the initial Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, a close family member works for a fast-food drive-through takeaway, and she was telling me over the weekend about the amount of abuse she receives from drug-drivers taking nitrous oxide openly in front of her, using balloons. I asked what the standard operating procedure was for reporting this to the management of the retail outlet. She said that she reports it to the manager, who then reports it to the police. I am sorry to say that when it is reported to the police, there is no action. An idea for the police is to use facial recognition. We have had discussions in this House about facial recognition in retail outlets to stop shoplifters. Could we do the same thing in this case or suggest that the Minister looks into it, so that those people cannot get away with abuse of female workers in retail outlets?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is not acceptable to have that level of abuse, and it not acceptable for people to blatantly break the law. It may interest him that 378 individuals were prosecuted for offences related to nitrous oxide possession or trafficking last year. Of those 378, 240 were convicted. It is an important issue.

Just for the information of the House, it is quite difficult for the police to identify nitrous oxide later on because it disappears from the blood system very quickly. However, the noble Lord’s point on facial recognition is well made. It is one that the Government are examining in relation to a range of potential uses and there will undoubtedly be further developments during this year.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Given the confusion from her earlier letter and the arguments I made earlier, I very much hope that this House will support my amendment. I intend to test its opinion.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 149, regarding broad workforce support. I was born and brought up in a working-class community that was specifically built to supply workers to build aircraft for a very large organisation employing thousands of people. As a teenager, I was lucky enough to get a job there, but I worked for a contractor which was not unionised. I remember going to the works canteen on the first day, and I was asked two questions: was I a member of a union and was I a Tory? The answer was no to the first one; as to the second one, I did not quite know because I was not old enough to vote, but perhaps I did turn out to be a Tory. I was asked to leave and told that if I was not a member of a union, I could not be in the canteen, so I left.

Because it was a tight-knit, working-class community, I was asked later by family, friends and relatives who worked at this factory why I did not go to the canteen. When I explained to them that I was not made welcome on the first day, they asked, “Who was it who said you couldn’t come in?” When I explained to them who it was, they said, “Oh, don’t take any notice of him, he’s a union convener”—I cannot remember the name of the trade union. Then I started to learn one or two things about trade unions. My noble friend Lord Balfe reminded me that there was a pecking order within the workforce. I learned that different trade unions represent different skill sets. I recall, because it was an aircraft factory, that if you were an electrician and a member of TASS, you regarded yourself as a superior trade unionist.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

We were.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

Some things have not changed. Then you had the mechanical engineers, the aircraft fitters, and so on and so forth: several different unions representing different members. I learned as a very young man that some unions are more militant than others and that a very small group of people could bring a whole aircraft plant to a halt.

I recall crossing a picket line. I was not a member of a trade union, but I was a contractor. A small group of trade unionists brought the plant to a halt. I turned up to work and wanted to go through the gates, and I was barred. But I was always taught to stand up to bullies, so I insisted on going through the gates—indeed, I did walk through the gates. I can remember to this day—and it is 45 years ago—the abuse I received as I walked through those gates to work as a young teenager. I still recall it, because every time I go to a Conservative Party conference I get a very similar amount of abuse. So some things have not changed.

The noble Lord, Lord Barber, rightly pointed out that trade unions are a force for good, because they look after their members in so many ways. Nobody across this House would argue with that. But the point of my amendment is that a small group of militant colleagues on the trade union side can bring the whole factory or organisation to a halt. Throughout this debate we have talked about SMEs; in this case I am talking about a very large organisation. It is the intimidation of the minority that affects the majority. Eliminating the 50% turnout threshold for strike ballots would significantly lower the bar for industrial action, allowing strikes to proceed if only a small minority of the workforce participates. This creates unpredictability and challenges for business continuity and planning, as substantial disruptions could occur based on the votes of a very limited number of employees.

In sectors where products are highly perishable, including the distribution of medicines or those with just-in-time supply chains, the ease of initiating industrial action increases the risk of supply chain interruptions. Some medical products have a limited shelf life. Strikes at distribution centres could lead to critical shortages, with direct consequences for public health and patient care. For industries that rely on seasonal production cycles, such as manufacturing and distribution of vaccines, removing the threshold places the delicate timing of mandatory deliveries at risk.

Even short periods of industrial action could jeopardise the ability to meet strict production targets and delivery deadlines, impacting public services and national preparedness. Lowering the requirements for strike action could deter domestic and international investors, who typically are seeking business environments with stable industrial relations frameworks. The potential for frequent or unpredictable strikes may lead to perceptions of elevated operational risk, discouraging long-term commitment across multiple sectors. The absence of a robust threshold may undermine industrial relations by encouraging strike action that lacks clear, broad-based support among employees. This could erode morale, create internal divisions and reduce trust between management and staff, ultimately affecting organisation productivity and the wider economy. I grew up in the 1970s; we do not want to go back to the 1970s.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 149A—and Amendment 149, spoken to very ably by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow. He is absolutely right about the qualifying percentage. Not long ago, I was thumbing through my copy of the Labour Party rules, as you do; the template rules of the Labour Party. I noticed that regional executive council meetings of that party have a quorum of 33% in terms of any decisions made in the deliberations of that committee. If the Labour Party is going to impose a less than 50% and certainly less than 33% marker for decisions being made internally, it is odd that it does not take a similarly robust attitude towards important decisions that affect many workers in industrial landscapes and industrial relations.

Amendment 149A addresses a very perverse consequence—the decision, in terms of Clause 72, to remove proper organised supervision of industrial disputes in the industrial landscape that we have at the moment. It is pretty odd that there does not appear to be a rationale for this. It seems sensible and prudent for us to be in a position where trade union officials are responsible for ensuring that there is an orderly management of industrial disputes. No case has been made by Ministers, in Committee or at Second Reading, for why it is necessary, other than demands from the trade unions to remove that part of previous legislation.

Migrants: Hotel Accommodation

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Evans of Rainow]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what standard of hotel accommodation they provide to migrants who have entered the United Kingdom in small boats from France.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my noble friend’s name on the Order Paper.

Theft of Mobile Telephones

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I certainly congratulate Westminster City Council on its initiative on CCTV funding and the additional cameras in place. CCTV provides a deterrent and critical evidence in the event of criminal acts such as mobile phone theft. On the first point, when the Home Secretary met mobile phone companies recently, she charged them with reporting back on what measures can be taken. Phone companies such as Apple, Google and others are currently looking at what they can do to ensure that mobile phones are not used again and can be blocked, or that their parts are not compatible for the future. The key issue, which we are working with mobile phone companies on, is to determine whether phones that are broken up and used for parts are resold in the United Kingdom or, as is increasingly the case, are sold to a number of foreign countries, where they are used with impunity. We have set mobile phone companies the task of looking at how we can work together to tackle all those issues.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, a few Saturdays ago I took Lady Evans to theatreland. Between Shaftesbury Avenue and Leicester Square, she had her mobile phone stolen. We very quickly saw that she did not have her phone and managed to track it on an app called Find My iPhone. I tracked Lady Evans’s phone as it disappeared down Whitehall, through the Embankment, over Westminster Bridge and ended up at a premises in Brixton. We notified the police and were given a police incident report number. When we inquired about getting the phone back, they said—very much as the Minister just said—that it will be have probably been broken up and exported, and that the organised crime groups that take these mobile phones are very difficult to prosecute.

Can the Minister, notwithstanding Labour-run Westminster City Council, track these vehicles that go down over Westminster Bridge? It would be very easy to ascertain them. Would it also be possible to look into what the police are saying to members of the public, that this is very difficult to stop?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, I am very extremely sorry for that incident. It is an awful, threatening crime that worries people, and which can also access personal data, so it needs to be reduced and stopped wherever possible. One of the measures that we have in the Crime and Policing Bill, which was introduced into the House of Commons recently, ensures that police can take action quickly and speedily on the very point the noble Lord mentions.

At the moment, if a phone is tracked to a property, let us say, in south London, a warrant has to be issued for the police to enter that property. The proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that, on the authority of an inspector, the police can enter those premises immediately. So in the case that the noble Lord mentions of his own family, if that were reported, a crime number logged and the phone tracked to a property in Lambeth, the inspector in Lambeth could immediately authorise a police visit and potentially either recovery or arrest. I hope the Opposition will support that when it comes before this House.

Illegal Migrant Returns Agreements

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for her question and comments. We will certainly keep that under review. It is important that people have both safeguarding properly implemented and any removal, either forced or voluntary—going back to a question raised earlier—done in as humane a way as possible. I will certainly reflect on the points she has made and give her further clarification in writing.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome that 9,400 have been returned, and I congratulate the Minister on that. How many of those 9,400 came here on small boats, and which countries were they returned to?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the noble Lord welcomes that, because it is in fact a 19% increase on when his party was in office before 5 July. The 1,500 foreign national offenders are a 14% increase over the year in which his party was last in office. I cannot get into it today because it would take too long to look at where the 9,400 are from and how many came from where, how and when, but let me reassure him. We are about processing asylum, stopping the small boats and putting in security. [Interruption.] The noble Lord is heckling, saying, “How many in small boats?”. Let us look at the next 12 months and see how many have come in small boats then. It will be far fewer than when his Government were in office.