Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I point out to the Committee that if Amendment 34 were to be accepted, it would pre-empt Amendment 35, which leads the next group.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, is taking part remotely, and I now invite the noble Lord to address us.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I begin by quickly welcoming back the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and thank her for reminding us so eloquently why we have missed her contributions.

I rise to speak to Amendment 34, and I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for tabling it and for his excellent speech. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for his past commitment to ensuring the law is communicated as clearly as possible by removing the Latin names of the prerogative writs through the Civil Procedure (Modification of Supreme Court Act 1981) Order 2004. Can he explain in his closing remarks why, 22 years later, he appears to have changed his mind on the guiding principle, which I assume informed his earlier decision, that the law should be accessible and unambiguous? Perhaps, and maybe he could clarify this in his closing remarks, he now believes it should be accessible only to some, and that for others it is fine for it to be clouded—or shrouded might be more appropriate, given the fatal consequences of an ill-informed decision on assisted death—in euphemism, nuance and even deceit.

After all, those with a learning disability or Down’s syndrome, for example, are only disabled people, are they not? What does it matter if their disability means they cannot quite grasp the enormity, finality and irreversibility of the decision to seek, as my noble friend’s amendment states,

“help to commit suicide by provision of lethal drugs”?

We know that language matters, but do we know how much it matters to those whose disabilities make them understand less or make comprehension challenging, and, in the case of Down’s syndrome, those whose innate desire to please makes them more prone to agreeing with the question, especially when its implications are not fully grasped?

I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept this amendment and thereby protect not only those whose disabilities make full comprehension difficult but the reputation of your Lordships’ House. Let it never be thought that we do not care if those whose disability-related need for the clarity provided in my noble friend’s amendment are somehow misled to death because of nuance. I hope the noble and learned Lord will show, by accepting this amendment, that those whose disabilities make them particularly vulnerable to ambiguity must not be treated as unfortunate collateral damage.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I signed the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, which seek to probe the ways that we can make this Bill more transparent to the public. That is my main driver—I believe in plain speaking. The public deserve to know what this Bill involves.

As it happens, I think the noble Lord’s wording would add clarity. His proposal is to replace

“assistance to end their own life”

with

“medical help to commit suicide by provision of lethal drugs”.

That wording is factually accurate, even if it makes you gulp. The reason it makes one gulp is because it is factually accurate, and we do not often recognise what is being advocated here. There is a danger that the Bill’s terminology creates ambiguity rather than clarity, and it is important that we are frank and open.

Why use the word “suicide”? As has already been explained, the Bill needs to amend the Suicide Act precisely to carve out the legal space to allow this type of assisted suicide, as mentioned in the Bill, to be within the law. That is accurate. But I am wary of having a culture war over the word “suicide”—I use the term “assisted dying” all the time, so I do not want to be called out for hypocrisy here—because I am aware of the fact that suicide as an issue is far too serious and tragic to be glib about or to have verbal ping-pong over.

On the other hand, I am worried that avoiding the word “suicide” in this debate, and making it verboten, might desensitise public debate. Let us be honest, language choice can influence opinion. “Assisted dying” sounds softer, palatable and more sympathetic. It is interesting that evidence shows that support for assisted dying changes if you call it “assisted suicide”; it drops significantly when the terms are plainly defined.

Some may flinch at the proposed words used by the noble Lord, Lord Frost—

“medical help to commit suicide by … lethal drugs”.

As I have said, it is hard to accept that. It makes you think. Is there going to be a complete change in the way medicine is operated, so that medics could hand you poison and lethal drugs? The answer is yes. When people hear that phrase, it might hit them what a fundamental shift this will be for medical professionals and so on. That is exactly why a number of us are not prepared to nod this Bill through. It is perfectly reasonable to completely disagree with what I have just said, but I want everyone to know what the Bill is about and why it is a very big change in our society, causing all sorts of ethical discussions. The public deserve to know that, and therefore we should be as clear as possible.

I recall that, on the first day in Committee—and subsequently, but particularly on the first day—there was a lot of tut-tutting and reprimands, with a lot of people being shouted at when Peers used the term “assisted suicide”. A lot of people stood up, saying, “You can’t say that. You’re just being emotional, manipulative and so on”. But clear language promotes public and patient understanding. In a way, I advocate a patient-centric approach rather than a euphemistic approach, which could, arguably, be seen as an act of misinformation in some instances.