Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

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.