Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, and I say this with an element of hope—perhaps more so than experience—I urge the noble and learned Lord, when he responds to these amendments, to try to adopt a very positive approach to them. I think on the earlier group he said that he does not see his role model as Stonewall Jackson, who seems to be the American Civil War general of the day. He is right in adopting that approach. Stonewall Jackson is not a good role model, not simply because he died at the age of 39 but because his demise was brought about by being inadvertently shot by his own troops—a fate that I am sure none of us hope befalls the noble and learned Lord. I look forward to a positive embracing of these important amendments. With that, I beg to move Amendment 30.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Lab)]

My Lords, as Amendment 30ZA is an amendment to Amendment 30, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor.

Amendment 30ZA (to Amendment 30)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

It is addressed to Amendment 30ZA amending Amendment 30. It is on page 2 of Today’s Lists.

It is all too easy imagine such appeals by a family to altruistic feelings. They do not want to cause distress or be a burden, especially to those they most love. In the dismal world where the Bill has become law, such ways of thinking will have become a social norm. That is very easy to imagine.

My amendment is designed to make that future a little less dismal, by putting in an obstacle to this insidious form of coercion by those the person in question may love most.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme. I also support the other amendments in this group.

I first put on record that while I like and respect the Government Chief Whip, as I know do so many Members of your Lordships’ House, I am deeply disappointed that without consultation and despite my having written to the Prime Minister, it has effectively been decided that, as a severely disabled Member who has to leave the House by 3 pm on a Friday in order catch my flight home, I should not be enabled to contribute on an equal and non-discriminatory basis to scrutiny of a Bill that would have a devastating impact on disabled people if it became law. Instead, I have had to fly home at very short notice so that I can contribute, but unequally, without the ability to intervene in this debate remotely. The Prime Minister never replied to my letter, so I assume this decision is his response. It does not reflect well on him or his great party in my respect. His great party deserves better than being saddled with what everyone knows is ultimately the Prime Minister’s Bill.

Returning to Amendment 30, I hope we can assume that all noble Lords accept the motivations listed in the noble Baroness’s amendment and that they apply. On the basis that the noble and learned Lord is not contesting that fact, I do not understand why anyone would not want a doctor to rule these surely vital motivations out at the start and for the Bill to make it absolutely clear that they must do so. I would be very grateful if, in his closing remarks, the noble and learned Lord could make it absolutely clear that he accepts not only the existence of these motivations but that the Bill should ensure they are addressed, as set out in Amendment 30.

I completely understand why it is difficult for us, as an overwhelmingly non-disabled group of people, and thus a privileged and hugely unrepresentative body, to appreciate the extent to which these motivations go with the territory of being disabled in the UK in 2026. Let us consider the motivation in this amendment of feeling like a burden. Personal experience has taught me that society continues to view disabled people such as me as a burden, rather than as a contributor with equal rights. Such a perspective colours societal attitudes, which in turn inform our continued exclusion by default from employment—just look at the 30% disability employment gap—access to goods and services, such as shops, pubs, bars and restaurants, which any non-disabled person assumes and takes for granted, and, of course, from the policy-making process here in Parliament.

In case anyone would query that, I invite noble Lords in the Chamber to cast their eyes around the Chamber and count how many Members of your Lordships’ House with lifelong lived experience of disability are present today. Even if every Member with such lived experience were present, it would still be the case that no more than 1% of the House of Lords could speak on the basis of such experience. Yet, as a shamefully disproportionately non-disabled lawmaking body, we presume through this Bill that we have a right, effectively, to pronounce on the fate of disabled people, who, the evidence from other jurisdictions shows, will be disproportionately affected by it.

I thank the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment 30 because it gives us an opportunity, following Rebecca Paul’s blocked attempt to introduce a similar amendment on Report in the other place, at least to ensure that disability and other motivations are taken into account. I completely agree with those who argue that the reputation of your Lordships’ House is at stake. It is, but not for the reasons some would have us believe. I believe that our reputation will be irretrievably damaged if we are seen to put completing the process of scrutiny of this life and death Bill ahead of our overriding duty to ensure it is scrutinised forensically. The two are quite distinct.

Let us not be deceived that the time spent blocking amendment after amendment—including Rebecca Paul’s, which I have just mentioned, which mirrored this amendment in the other place—somehow amounts to evidence that the Bill was subject to effective scrutiny before it came to us. It does not. The very fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has had to table this amendment is proof that the Bill is only now receiving proper scrutiny for the very first time, here in your Lordships’ House.