Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grey-Thompson

Committee stage
Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am conscious that many noble Lords wish to speak in this debate. If we work together, everybody standing up will get the chance to speak. If we follow the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding—we can make our points in four to six minutes very easily—we will all get a chance to speak. The next contribution will come from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, whom a number of noble Lords have called for. Please all work together—we will all get to speak.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for recognising my inability to bob. I apologise that my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff is not able to be here today. She is attending the funeral of one of her patients, whom she spoke about in your Lordships’ Chamber in this very debate. Four doctors diagnosed that patient with a terminal condition and told him he had three months to live. My noble friend has known him for 35 years.

It does not give me any sense of satisfaction that we are where we are today. This is a complex Bill, and there is a whole range of emotions on all sides of the debate. But people are angry and scared. Where we have got to in the debate does not address many of the issues of death—the good death—or palliative care. I am one of the Peers who have been targeted in the press for the number of amendments they have tabled. My amendments came about in different ways. I wrote many of them. Some were tabled at the request of organisations and charities of and for disabled people, as well as disabled individuals who are very worried about the reality of the Bill. We have been criticised for the length of our speeches and the way we have worded things. I am very happy to show anyone my speech outside the Chamber, although I am not allowed to do so in the Chamber. We edit and rewrite as we go along in order not to be repetitive. But our role is to bring our experience and knowledge to the Chamber.

It is hard to argue with the principle of two doctors’ settled wish and a six-month diagnosis, but Committee in the House of Lords is about detail. Committee has raised many issues of detail that we have explored, but it is not possible to put this into simple soundbites. A letter was circulated yesterday about the role of the House of Lords and mentioned that we have completed only seven clauses. But I agree with my noble friend Lady O’Loan: we have debated other parts of the Bill. I have made numerous attempts to get answers to my questions about Clause 22, and they have not been forthcoming. Where the noble and learned Lord and I probably agree is on some of my amendments around advertising. I understand why it took weeks for him to table his amendments, but what has been tabled is a much weaker version of what I originally put down.

We are continually told that this Bill is the safest in the world, but in a meeting with the noble and learned Lord and the honourable Member for Spen Valley, I asked who said that. I was told that doctors from all around the world did, but that does not make it the safest Bill in the world—it is not a very high bar. I have a frustration with the understanding of people outside the Chamber of how Parliament works. The Bill we have been presented with is very different from the Bill that started in the Commons. Two-thirds of the time there was spent with a High Court judge as part of the Bill, and that was then removed. On Report in the House of Commons, 121 amendments were tabled— 44 by the sponsors. Of the remaining 77 amendments, MPs were allowed to vote on only seven, so I disagree that there has been detailed scrutiny.

This Bill has failed because there are too many gaps in it. The recent Bill in Scotland failed because there were severe concerns at the third stage about safety. The Delegated Powers Committee, royal colleges, organisations of and for disabled people, charities and individuals have all raised multiple concerns about this Bill, not the principle. Although many people have written to me about not wanting to die in pain and suffering, this is not in the Bill. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what people might get. I really worry that people on the outside have been promised something that they were never going to get.

Some think this is about euthanasia. It is not one pill. Assisted death does not mean that the death is painless or that it will be quick, and it is not for some of the groups who think they will get it: it is not for people with motor neurone disease, but it could be for people with bulimia. It certainly will not be available at a place of people’s choosing. Most of the emails I get say, “I want to choose the time and place of my death”, but, without proper licensing, that will not happen.

There is a challenge in this being a Private Member’s Bill, in that those who oppose it have not had access to the team to be able to finesse our amendments. Yes, we have been asked several times to think about what groups we might like to debate, but I have not seen a suggested groupings list. We are not one single group of people; in this debate, I have been working alongside people whom I never thought I would agree with on anything. It shows the strangeness of this debate. Many of my amendments are drafting amendments—just simply to get the correct language around disabled people and to think about the impact the Bill might have on those groups.

I have had a lot of pushback on my amendments. Certainly, pregnancy seems to have attracted a lot of attention. I made it clear in the debate that it was not about who could get pregnant. It was not a debate about gender recognition, nor about the age of the individual; this is set out in NHS guidance. It seems a shame that those who are willing to take umbrage with me do not appear to have listened to what I said in the Chamber.

What have we learned? We have learned that being pregnant, homeless, poor or disabled should not be a barrier. That is why the Bill’s progress has been slow: those comments have made people nervous. If you are homeless, poor or disabled, you do not have equal access to society, so it is not a level playing field to start off with and you have significant disadvantage. Why are disabled people scared? A couple of weeks ago, I had my name on an amendment to the English devolution Bill, which was simply to enact legislation that passed 30 years ago. It was to make sure that taxis were accessible for disabled people. There was a three-line Whip against me and the vote was lost. This Chamber voted against something as simple as making taxis accessible for disabled people. So why do disabled people have little trust in this Bill?

It is not just seven of us who have opposed this Bill. There are many who have spoken in the debates. The noble and learned Lord himself has tabled 76 amendments. He now comes fifth highest on the ranking list. To me, that shows that there is not the confidence that this Bill is safe.

I have received many emails, many of which asked whether I have watched someone who I love die. Yes, I have. I sat beside my father’s bedside for weeks while he died slowly, having multiple amputations. I held his hand for the last 24 hours before he died, and I constantly think about what I could have done differently. My father was instrumental in making me the person I am and for all my strengths and weaknesses. I seriously questioned myself on whether this Bill, if it had passed, would have made his death better. No, it absolutely would not.

We talk about choice and free will, but there are many people who have no choice or free will, and this Bill does not operate in a vacuum. We cannot forget the significant amount of discrimination that many people face. I myself have experienced ableism within the health service, and the point that my treatment changed was not when I became an expert patient and it was not when I argued for my rights; it was when they realised that I had a red stripy badge and that I sat in the House of Lords. We have to recognise the privilege that we have.

I have had thousands of emails on this issue, including two this morning, one of which was from someone who has emailed me many times, who finds my cruelty unforgivable and is disgusted with me. Another was sent to Ms Leadbeater and I was copied in. The individual said:

“I am someone with no one. Little in the way of family. There will be no one there with me when I die. I know that I will be manipulated to not waste inheritance money on care homes, and to end my life for the sake of others. I’ve been in hospital dozens of times the last few years as my health declines. Each time by taxi, no one to look after me, not allowed sedation because there’s no one at home to look after me the following 24 hours. I don’t think I’ll be someone who lives a long life. It’s embarrassing to admit you have no family to care about you, who would look after you in old age or when you are ill, or to hold your hand in your last moments. So I believe we are the silent majority”.


We have heard much debate today about the damage to your Lordships’ House, but I have had thousands of emails to thank us for what we are doing here to unpack the danger that is in the Bill. I am very clear on my role. It has not been pleasant to sit here and be targeted by so many people who say that we are doing a bad job. But our job is to protect everyone in British society, and this Bill does not do that.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grey-Thompson

Committee stage
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

As I said earlier, it is absolutely fine to break mid-group on these amendments.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, thank you. If there is one place where language matters, it is in the Bill before us. As a young disabled person, I used to interchangeably use “person with a disability” and “disabled person” and did not understand the importance of that. In later amendments, I will argue that “disabled person” is much better phraseology to use.

Language is the dress of thought. We are all spending many hours working on this Bill, but, if the outside world does not understand what is meant by “assisted dying”, we could be in a situation where somebody with learning disabilities or who uses British Sign Language, who has not spent as much time as we have interrogating the Bill in every single session, might not understand what they are signing up to. Personally, I would prefer something around “died by suicide”—that is something else that can be finessed as we go through the Bill.

The BMJ published an article that showed how poorly understood the phrase “assisted dying” was. This highlights the problem that we are facing: the phrase is poorly understood and creates confusion. Just 43% of respondents thought that “assisted dying” involved

“the provision of lethal drugs to end somebody’s life. The majority believed the term meant withdrawing life-prolonging treatment or providing hospice-type care”.

That is something we must consider. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked about how the Bill should be largely workable. It should be workable, but it should also be safe. Part of that safety is about the public understanding what they might be signing up to.

In other groups, we have talked about doctors and medics, and I have many in my family. There is nothing more medic-like than using very long words and things that the public do not necessarily understand. Not everybody is an expert patient. We must be clear about what we mean in the Bill. We should stop hiding behind phrases that people may choose to use. To be clear, I have used the term “assisted dying”, because I try to be very thoughtful of the people who do not like “assisted suicide”. However, I have used “assisted suicide” today, and I will from now on, because that is what the Bill is going to do to the people who sign up to it.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grey-Thompson

Report stage
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her work in this area. The figures that she mentioned are terrifying, and I agree with many of her points.

I received a number of emails asking me to speak to this amendment because of the level of concern about misogyny. Like many others, I am tired of misogynistic behaviour and appalled by the way that women are still treated in society. However, what looks like a simple amendment that I could support is in fact far more complicated. The amendment does not explicitly state the word “misogyny”, and to me the inclusion of the word “perception” is not precise enough.

I am grateful for the various views from other noble Lords and, as always, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has given me much to think about and challenged my views about what misogyny actually is. I am still inclined towards a legal framework for it, but I am tired of women having to change their behaviour because of it.

However, we need to consider what we can do to prevent, report and tackle it, and which legislation it should be placed in. Both men and women are affected by domestic violence and all those affected by it deserve protection, but women are undoubtedly more commonly victims. There is only one place in the Bill where the word “female” is used and we should take absolute care with it because it is the only place where women are centred in the legislation.

Domestic abuse legislation is complicated; it should not be, but it is. Last week the Government told me that including a specific provision in the Bill for disabled people who experience abuse in the domestic environment would be too complicated. I am strongly in favour of improving law enforcement around violence against women and girls, which we desperately need, but, while I am moving towards the idea of having a legal framework for misogyny, I do not think the Bill is the right vehicle for it. We should spend more time and care on the question of hate crimes—I am particularly keen to look at disability hate crimes—than on an amendment that comes towards the end of the Bill. We should have an opportunity to explore more options to enable us to do the job that we want it to: offering protection to women and girls.

Counting women should not be complicated. The amendment is largely about the counting aspect of hate crimes. How do the police measure how many crimes of male violence against women are reported and how many are prosecuted? That is fundamental, and this is where it does not need to be complicated. Scotland passed a Bill on hate crimes last week and excluded women and misogyny from it, saying that the issue was too complicated. There is a working group led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and many will be interested in its outcome, but that will not be for many months.

I understand that the word “gender” was added to the amendment after previous stages in another place. Earlier versions used the correct legal definition of “sex” and did not have the late insertion of “or gender” so that has not been through lengthy scrutiny. I am concerned that adding “gender” here takes away from the clarity of Clause 73 in centering women. I reiterate that anyone who experiences domestic abuse deserves support and protection. Gender is neither definable nor defined in law, so including it here could undermine the single use of the word “female” in the Bill, again given that it is women who are disproportionately affected by domestic abuse. Surely we should be concerned about whether the police take crimes of violence, abuse and sexual harassment against women seriously, not what they perceive the attitude of the perpetrator towards the idea of sex or gender to be. Sex is a protected characteristic and defined in law, and is adequate to cover the intention of the amendment if it goes forward.

The Law Commission is developing a proposal on reforming hate crimes legislation and has consulted on it. It has an open question on whether include sex or gender in future, and that section alone runs to 43 pages out of a 544-page document. I understand that it received a great number of responses but, again, it will not be reporting any time soon, so it is important that we do not prejudge that outcome. It is also notable that the Law Commission’s proposal draws on the Office for National Statistics in setting out what it means by sex and gender. After the ruling announced this morning from the High Court, it may need to go back to the drawing board. My noble friend Lord Pannick, who is unable to be in his place today, has stated that he thinks it would be very unwise to legislate on this sensitive issue until we see the Law Commission consultation.

Scotland recently removed the word “gender” from a Bill on forensic medical services for victims of sexual offences to ensure that if a woman asks to be examined by a female doctor, there is no confusion or negotiation about what that means. I would also be really interested in the opinion of the domestic abuse commissioner on this amendment, particularly on the addition of the word “gender”.

My worry is that including gender and sex as a caveat to the word “female” in the guidance would prevent domestic violence services being clear about sex. Women who have been victims of domestic abuse need to be able to access female-only services if they choose and, again, all victims of domestic abuse need to be able to access services that offer support and protection. We must take misogyny and violence against women seriously, not just seek to be seen to do something when the issue is in the headlines. It happens every single day.

The Government have just reopened the consultation on their violence against women and girls strategy. Surely that is the right place to be dealing with this complex issue, rather than via this last-minute amendment and its additional wording.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 87B, moved by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham. My noble friend gave the House some harrowing facts and figures today. They were shocking and, for me, illustrate why the Government need to act. This is not a time to hide away; it is the time to step up, and my noble friend’s amendment does just that.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, led the debate on misogyny in Committee. We have spent considerable time during the Bill talking about violence, and violence directed towards women. As the noble Lord told us, this hostility against women generates a culture in which violence and abuse are tolerated, excused and repeated. Understanding how that interplays with domestic abuse is important; I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s comments and analysis there.

We need a culture change, from one where violence and abuse can be excused, tolerated and repeated to one where it is entirely unacceptable and not tolerated. To bring about that culture change, however, we need evidence, and that is what the amendment is all about. All through the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House, we have heard appalling examples of violence and tragic outcomes, in which often women victims of violence have been killed. In the examples given to this House there is a common factor of repeated reports being made to the police and other authorities but little or no action being taken until, tragically, it is often too late.

Several police forces have started to record misogyny as a hate crime, and that is enabling valuable data to be collected. The amendment from my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley would move us further forward and require all police forces to record this information and access how it influences the incidence of domestic abuse. That would add to our understanding and help the Government in their difficult task of addressing this truly terrible situation. Sadly, that has been brought sharply into focus by the murder of Sarah Everard and the events on Clapham Common last weekend.

I am also clear that both men and women may experience incidents of violence and abuse. Nothing that I have said previously detracts from that, and we have all been moved by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in previous debates. I agree with many of his points today, but possibly not with his conclusion. I think the amendment is a step forward, and this is an issue on which many of us agree. The noble Lord knows that I like and respect him very much, but I believe that women are more likely to experience repeated and severe abuse, including sexual abuse. I remind him of the dreadful fact that my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon told the House: 30 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner between Second Reading of the Bill and Committee on Monday night, and she read out the names of those women to the House.

I too pay tribute to Sue Fish, the retired chief constable of Nottinghamshire, for the work that she and all the officers and staff of Nottinghamshire Police have done in this area since 2016. It has become the first police force to enable women and girls to report cases of abuse and harassment as misogyny. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley said, thanks to the work taking place there, women in Nottinghamshire have been coming forward and reporting crimes. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, reminded us in Committee that to recognise misogyny as a category of hate crime would not make anything illegal that was not already illegal; instead, the amendment would enable a better understanding of the forms of violence and abuse that women experience by ensuring that they are all recorded effectively.

I am aware of the Law Commission’s review that is presently under way. I believe that the amendment would help it with that review, even just for a few months before it reports, and would further supplement the Government’s work in looking at the review and give them valuable data to enable them to respond positively. I am also aware of the interim report from the Law Commission and its views on sex and gender.

I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I believe that the intent behind this amendment will assist the Government in dealing with the appalling events that have been brought more sharply into focus not only last weekend but also during the discussions on this Bill.

The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, was interesting, although it is not one that had much in it that I can agree with. For me, this is not an issue of free speech; it is an issue of dealing with the most appalling violence against women and girls and how we can deal with that effectively. I support my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and the Labour Benches will support her if she decides to divide the House. However, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will respond positively and thus make a vote unnecessary.