Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

We have given an enormous amount of time to looking at safeguards. The noble Lord just totally denied that and said that we have to begin all over again. We do not. This debate has regrettably been characterised by too few of the speakers giving any consideration at all to the important, tough safeguards already decided in the House of Commons. I will not go through them now, in the interests of time, because I that know my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will, when he responds to this debate.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and then the noble Baroness, Lady Cass.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, an enormous amount of time was given in the other place to blocking safeguards. I support the vital amendments in this group and thank all those who tabled them. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, who made some incredibly important points about vulnerability. Some of us have been there. This is proper scrutiny; it is the House of Lords at its best. On whichever side of the divide we find ourselves on this Bill, we should all be very proud of that.

As someone who speaks from one patient’s perspective, I would never presume to know exactly how the pain another person experiences might feel to them as an individual. But I think that the sense of incredible loneliness, compounded by a sense of disorientation, are both parts of total pain, as defined by the pioneer of specialist palliative care, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, mentioned—Dame Cicely Saunders. That makes these amendments dealing with coercion and pressure crucial.

When I have been drowning in a pool of pain, the sides of which, in that moment, seemed so steep and slippery, I would have clutched at almost anything in an attempt to pull myself out. I appreciate how coercion and pressure are so nuanced and subtle and how much each of us in this House, at some point in our lives, may need to be protected from them. My noble friend Lady Coffey is absolutely right, in speaking to her Amendment 47, to mention the Royal College of Psychiatrists and, in her explanatory notes, its reference to the sense of being a burden as an internal coercion. I can testify from personal experience that in some cases the sense of being a burden, or the burden of pain, whether physical and or emotional, can be simply too great to bear on your own. This can be the most powerful and damaging form of coercion and perhaps the one from which we most need protection. We need to recognise that in the Bill.

I note that the Bill does not require any questions to be asked about why a person may wish to die. It is because Rebecca Paul’s Amendment 468 on precisely this issue was rejected in Committee in the other place that Amendment 3, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and Amendment 181, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady O’Loan, are so important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the other sponsors of Amendment 48 have argued, we cannot divorce this internal coercion from the circumstances in which, for example, a disabled or older person might find themselves. We have to factor those in. It is not just coercion or pressure by any other person that may prove the tipping point.

I hope that your Lordships’ House will give very careful consideration to the amendments on financial pressures, such as Amendment 462, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for tabling so ably. As we know, these pressures are exacerbated when a person is living with a disability.

In closing, I particularly welcome Amendment 846, tabled by my noble friend Lady Berridge, and Amendment 58, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, because the subtlety of pressure, particularly as it relates to disability, can definitely stem from cultural attitudes, whether institutional—for example, in terms of access to appropriate care—or societal. I give one example. I was laughed at in the street outside my home as recently as last weekend because of how I look as a result of my disability. That is not good for morale, to put it mildly.

It could be argued that mockery goes with the territory of being disabled, particularly when the anonymised vitriol on social media encourages teenagers, for example, to view disabled people as fair game. My question in relation to the Bill, and specifically Amendment 58, is, how can being subject to such prejudice not affect a person’s mental well-being or their sense of self-worth? How could such a structural disadvantage, in terms of the cumulative effect of being constantly exposed to such negative and discriminatory attitudes, not affect a person in a vulnerable situation who is considering assisted dying? It is inevitable, but how many non-disabled people factor that in?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise, but I rise to raise a procedural issue crucial to the reputation of your Lordships’ House. When I blocked out my diary for the Fridays scheduled for Committee on this Bill, I did so in good faith. I assumed not only that your Lordships’ House would recognise the value of the views of Members with lifelong lived experience of disability, but that steps would be taken to ensure that those views were heard on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. That would be entirely in keeping with the Equality Act 2010, which placed on organisations a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments on account of disability in, among other things, the way in which they work.

In the belief that your Lordships’ House and the Government will appreciate the crucial importance of our being seen to set an example and uphold the law, which we passed and which we expect others to abide by, I emailed the Government Chief Whip and wrote to the Prime Minister to explain that, because of my disability, I need to leave by 3 pm in order to catch my flight home. I requested an assurance that the House would not sit beyond 3 pm, which is of course the time by when the House normally rises on a sitting Friday. Regrettably, I have been given no such assurance. Instead, the Government are using a procedural technicality as a feeble fig leaf for discrimination against me as one of the House’s Members—one of its few Members—with lifelong disability. I do not believe it is beyond the wit or the will of the Government, or indeed your Lordships’ House, to ensure that we rise by 3 pm so that I can participate today and on other sitting Fridays on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. Given that not one organisation of or for disabled people supports this Bill, surely it is right that all of us—every one of us—are enabled to do our duty of subjecting this monumentally significant Bill to the forensic scrutiny it requires.

In conclusion, do we really want to send the message to those who are following our proceedings today, “Do as we say, not as we do”? That would be shameful and it would be unworthy of your Lordships’ House. For our own sake, I urge the House not to discriminate against me as one of the very few Members born disabled. I therefore ask that the House rises by 3pm.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, but I would like to thank the Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his willingness to listen and to be flexible, especially when I, together with a number of colleagues, asked for the Second Reading to be split into two days. In the Chief Whip’s remarks yesterday, he talked about convention and tradition, and so we are to rise at 3 pm or thereabouts. I place on record that, as a modern Orthodox Jewish Member of your Lordships’ House, sitting on Fridays in the winter is deeply problematic. Shabbat begins today at 3.54 pm; on 5 December, it will begin at 3.35 pm and on 12 December at 3.33 pm. Your Lordships will know that, by 3.54 pm today, I and others will need to be ready for Shabbat, and I will be in synagogue.

Keeping with my tradition, as the House will follow its tradition, there will be times, therefore, over the coming weeks that I and some others will be absent— I hope that that does not occur when I have an amendment in my name to speak to. I am grateful for the indulgence of the House, but I felt it really important to place this matter on the record as we begin Committee, which will take place only on Fridays.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right, and it is a very important part of mental capacity decisions that the families are involved, supportive and completely understand the implications of what it means to have either incomplete capacity or capacity that varies from time to time. There is no reason— I will leave my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer to answer this point—why this should not be a better Bill, and maybe it can be better if we address these particular questions.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her amazing dedication to her patients. That is beyond question. I hope we are united as a House in paying due respect to that fact and also to the fact that her professional experience is a tremendous asset to this House.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke of her professional experience, and I will speak very briefly of my lived experience on the other side of the table—or the bedside—as a patient. She mentioned Dame Cicely Saunders and the reference to total pain. I simply say that I have been there. My disability has taken me there far more times than I would like to remember. It is awful. The bottom falls out of your world, and your capacity to think clearly, rationally and normally evaporates. So I simply say that it is crucial that patients have the ability to choose: the choice between assisted death and specialist palliative care—a choice that they do not currently have.

I simply finish on this point. Other noble Lords have mentioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I ask the Committee to take note of the fact that the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that applying the Mental Capacity Act to the decision to end one’s life is an entirely novel test—in “uncharted territory”, with “no experience or precedent”.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, earlier on in the debate, there was a discussion concerning members of the committee, on who was or was not called, or who was denied the right to be called to it. I suggest that the straitjacket of the time this House allocated probably did not allow the relevant committee the appropriate time to call everyone that it thought was appropriate. It ought to have been given more time, but it seems that it had to be rushed.

Concerning the Mental Capacity Act, Margaret Flynn, chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, said it was designed to protect us

“when others start to make decisions about our lives … Assisted dying was not on the table during the Law Commission’s consultation which resulted in the MCA”.

Therefore, the suitability of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as a test for a decision to end one’s life is a major source of debate. I believe the many experts and professionals arguing that it is insufficient for this specific irreversible decision.

The MCA was not designed for assisted dying. It was created to safeguard people who lack capacity in decisions about their care, treatment or finances. Assisted dying was not on the table during the Law Commission’s consultation. The Royal College of Physicians, as the noble Lord said a moment ago, said that applying the MCA to the decision to end one’s life is an entirely novel test in uncharted territory with no experience or precedent. It is a very low threshold. The Royal College of Physicians argues that assessing a person’s mental capacity to decide to end their life is an entirely different and more complex determination, requiring a higher level of understanding than assessing capacity for treatment decisions.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it was a day much like any other when I was diagnosed. A busy day at the office was followed by a hospital appointment to find out why, within months, my face had, in effect, shut down on the left side. Nothing prepared me for what came next: an MRI scan showed that a succession of mini-strokes was killing me, and I had six months left to live. The only hope was neurosurgery.

I asked the neurosurgeon my odds on making a full recovery. Her reply was direct. She said, “I can’t give you odds on survival”. What she did not say was, “I can help you to die”. This Bill would fundamentally alter the conversation that a patient has with the doctor whom they trust to do no harm, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and others have highlighted.

Notwithstanding an excruciating and painful long recovery, the surgery was a success, although I have to speak slowly to be understood, and I am grateful for noble Lords’ patience and understanding. Ironically, my shock then and my shock subsequently at becoming, 20 years later, a Member of your Lordships’ House have something in common: they were both unforeseen.

That brings me to some wise words from Hansard on 12 March 2007:

“Our role in scrutiny is vital … we are a legislative Chamber … There will no doubt be … unforeseen consequences, but they would all need to be considered”.—[Official Report, 12/3/07; cols. 451-56.]


I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as the words are his. It is indeed our duty to scrutinise the Bill and consider all its unforeseen consequences, for they are legion.

I wonder whether we have any idea of the Pandora’s box that the Bill will prise open. Many noble Lords have referred to jurisdictions where assisted dying has already been introduced. The precedents that those jurisdictions provide clearly show the chain of events that the Bill would set off, not just for disabled people but for older people, young people with mental health issues, and young women with eating disorders. It is the stuff of nightmares.

My noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead told us how her friend referred to the Bill as a “licence to kill Bill”. She is right: it gives the state a licence to kill the wrong type of people. I am the wrong type. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out in his speech, there are savings to be made should assisted dying be introduced. This Bill effectively puts a price on my head. Indeed, should it become law and precedents set elsewhere apply in the UK over time, I face the realistic possibility, as a severely disabled person, of being killed as a result of legislation passed by this House. As my noble friend Lord Harper reminded us, no organisation of or for disabled people supports the Bill.

I close with a plea that we do not allow anything to deter us from doing our duty and subjecting this Bill, with all its unforeseen and irreversible consequences, to the scrutiny it not only deserves but so desperately needs. I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger.

Prosthetics for Amputees

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough. I thank him for securing this important debate and draw courage from the example that he sets, as someone who also lives with a disability.

As he may know, non-disabled people often use the term “inspirational” to express their admiration of disabled people. Unwittingly, they thereby place us on a pedestal. The inadvertent implication—subliminal message, even—is that they could never countenance being disabled or, indeed, think of anything worse. Apart from the fact that being placed on a pedestal, however well intentioned, can compound the sense of isolation caused by living with a disability, surely my noble friend’s experience demonstrates that disability—in his case, specifically limb loss as a result of sepsis, as he explained—can affect any of us without warning.

Being placed on a pedestal does not lessen the daily grind of living with a disability, particularly the reliance on prosthetics or, as in my case, orthotics, which I have had to wear on my legs since I was a child. As my noble friend rightly argues, that challenge should not be exacerbated by the system, yet, as he highlighted so graphically, it unfortunately often is.

This seems to be an endemic, even cultural, problem in the NHS, which, to be fair, excels at acute care, as my noble friend and I know from direct experience. The quality of acute care in wonderful NHS hospitals such as St Thomas’, where both of us have been treated, is phenomenal. Yet the failure to follow through with what my noble friend euphemistically termed in his Question “appropriate” care—in his case, prosthetics—at “an appropriate time” perversely undermines the sometimes huge investment made in one individual by inadequate and delayed follow-up care. I hate to think of how much I have cost the NHS over the years. My noble friend is more diplomatic than I am in his use of the term “inappropriate”; what a multitude of sins that word covers.

I should make clear that I do not mean to imply that our highly skilled and dedicated NHS rehabilitation teams, incorporating both prosthetists and orthotists among other relevant healthcare professionals, are at fault—on the contrary. I can speak only as someone who has benefited from the care provided by orthotists, another branch of that rehabilitation family, but I am immensely grateful for the crucial part that they have played in enabling me to keep the show on the road. By that, I mean that, after every fracture—I have had countless fractures—it has only been because of them and the callipers I wear, which they have tailored to support the very broken body in which I live, that I am here today, on my feet, speaking in your Lordships’ Committee.

So I am delighted to have this opportunity to put on the record my sincere thanks to Chris Cody and his brilliant team at the Guy’s and St Thomas’s regional specialist rehabilitation centre for their professionalism, compassion and empathy as I pick myself up, dust myself down and damn well get on with it. I am sure that the same can be said by my noble friend in terms of the pivotal role that NHS prosthetists have played in enabling him to continue both to live a full life and to perform his crucial role as a Member of your Lordships’ House.

In advance of today’s debate, I consulted a few people on the front line of the NHS rehabilitation sector. First, I will give the good news. Technological advancements such as microprocessor knees, which my noble friend mentioned, and the integration of 3D printing are making a difference, although the latter is in its infancy. Such innovations are undoubtedly welcome but—it is a big “but”—they are overshadowed, again, as my noble friend said, by workforce shortages. Indeed, one of the rehabilitation experts said:

“We are a profession at risk”,


such are the workforce constraints. Coupled with funding constraints, which have led to disparities in access to and quality of care, this is a really worrying situation for anyone who cares about value for money in the NHS. As my noble friend explained, demand is outstripping supply. There are not enough prosthetists or orthotists, which has an inevitable effect on waiting times and—quite apart from the low pay for technicians, as has been mentioned, and for prosthetists and orthotists—their morale.

So I would welcome any reassurance the Minister can give that the refreshed NHS long-term workforce plan, which I think is due in the summer, will address the critical shortage of qualified prosthetic and orthotic professionals. In case the Minister assumes that I am asking for the NHS pot as a whole to be increased, let me say that I am not. This is a question not necessarily of increasing the NHS budget as a whole so much as one of reprioritising existing resources to safeguard the cost-effectiveness of the NHS’s investment in people like my noble friend and me, precisely in order to get bigger bangs for bucks.

In conclusion, I go back to the positives and front-line suggestions on improving patient outcomes. As we know, this means greater independence, fewer hospital admissions, better mental health—my noble friend mentioned this—and more disabled people in employment and thus paying into the system. I have three suggestions. First, strengthen workforce development by investing in education and training programmes. Expanding apprenticeship opportunities and providing financial incentives offer exciting potential to attract new talent to the profession.

Secondly, enhance funding and commissioning. For example, a standardised approach to commissioning prosthetic and orthotic services could potentially mitigate regional disparities and promote consistent access to high-quality care. There are lots of amazing products and components out there, but access is limited by financial constraints.

Thirdly, we must embrace technological innovations. This is where investment in research and development and the adoption of emerging technologies are so important. If that means greater collaboration with private sector firms such as the ones that my noble friend mentioned, in the interests of patient outcomes and consistent with NHS values, that is fine.

In closing, I hope that the Minister has found or will find this discussion useful in deepening her appreciation of just how important prosthetic, orthotic and other rehabilitation services are. Neither my noble friend nor I would be here without them; they need to be nurtured, and that requires a shift in priorities. I would love to think that my noble friend might be asked to help effect that change to the culture and priority that the NHS attaches to what are, sadly, Cinderella services.

Fracture Liaison Services

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, earlier on today, I googled the meaning of the phrase, “It’s a no brainer”. Apparently, it applies to a question that is very easy to answer and, although it did not give an example, I suspect we could all think of one. As my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood said, there is unanimity across your Lordships’ House on this.

As someone who lives with a bone condition, I am something of a reluctant expert on fractures, or at least on the excruciating pain they cause. The crunch as the bone fractures is immediately followed by the weird sensation of there being a void, because suddenly the broken bone cannot bear any weight. There is literally nothing there, and into that vacuum comes this all-consuming shockwave of pain. I make this point because some may assume that rollout is not urgent because, as my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood mentioned with regard to hip fractures, it is not normally life-threatening. But this ignores the unnecessary human, as well as financial, cost.

I think of Stephen Robinson, a forklift truck operator, who suffered chronic, agonising back pain, dismissed for years as muscular by his GP. The doctor insisted that he should leave his manual job if he wanted his pain to improve. Eventually, the choice was taken away because the pain was so severe that Mr Robinson had to leave work altogether at 61. He remembers “living in the chair, drugged up to the eyeballs, counting the minutes until I could take the next painkiller”. My Lords, I have been there. It is not nice. A private DEXA scan is not easy to afford when you are unemployed, but it showed that Mr Robinson had 10 undiagnosed spinal fractures. An early assessment through a fracture liaison service would have given him back years of his life and saved him so much unnecessary pain.

In contrast, Alison Smith retired at 60, feeling fit, healthy and ready to embrace her new-found freedom. But nine months later a fall left her with fractured ribs and an alarming sense that something was wrong. Seen quickly by medics, she was referred to a fracture liaison service, which identified severe osteoporosis and started her on treatment. With the support of the fracture liaison service team, Alison received lifestyle advice and ongoing care, which prevented any further fractures happening and saved the NHS and the taxpayer money.

In conclusion, any further delay in the rollout of these vital services would represent an inexplicable, unjustifiable false economy, because it is actually costing money not to proceed with universal provision. I look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister giving us reason to hope.