Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not spoken in this debate before, but the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, last week made me want to do so. He reminded us that:

“Nobody could say that a doctor can tell you that you will die within six months. But the Bill does not so provide. Its conditions require only that the doctor, and the panel in due course, are satisfied that … the person has an inevitably progressive illness or disease which cannot be reversed”—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The noble Lord is not down as having been present at the beginning of the debate last week.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My name was on the list. I checked last week and my name was on there.

[Noble Lords]

Let him speak.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

If it is the will of the Committee to hear the noble Lord speak, then fine.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

Thank you. I checked before I left, so I am puzzled.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to situations where, as set out in the Bill,

“‘the person has an inevitably progressive illness or disease which cannot be reversed … and … the person’s death in consequence … can reasonably be expected within six months’”.—[Official Report, 30/1/26; col. 1261.]

We know from all the evidence we have heard that trying to predict when someone will die is not a precise science, but that is not really the point of this Bill. It is about ensuring that people have a right to choose and are doing so in circumstances where we can feel reasonably confident that safeguards are there.

I look at the safeguards in the Bill, and this is a very cautious step forward:

“Initial request for assistance: first declaration … Witnessing first declaration … First doctor’s assessment … Second doctor’s assessment … Doctors’ assessments: further provision”.


Some noble Lords are speaking as though we have just one doctor, who may not be very mature or experienced. That is not the case in this Bill. It is much more careful and cautious. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, reminded us last time that

“one of the international facts that supports entirely the position he is taking is that, in the … 33 jurisdictions where assisted dying is allowed, it is usually the case—I cite one or two—that, following that suggestion by a doctor, or prognosis or however you want to describe it, over a third of those who make the choice he has described then do not use the provision … There is no question that they want to die; they are simply using it almost as an insurance policy”.—[Official Report, 30/1/26; col. 1262.]

I understand that there is a real difference of opinion in this House. Some feel that, if we make this step forward—I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—without putting more things in the Bill, it will be unsafe. I do not take that point of view. We are giving people, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the right to choose. That may not accord with the views of all noble Lords. Others want us to take into account degree of suffering and all sorts of circumstances, but I do not accord with that. I take the view that we in this House are trying, with some difficulty, to ensure that we have a Bill that gives people the right to choose and has significant safeguards. Can it guarantee that we can tell people exactly when they will die? Of course not. Minister Wes Streeting announced recently that we will make significant improvements in cancer treatment, which will change people’s lives fundamentally. On those grounds, I hope the House will continue to support this Bill.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

My Lords, can I address the Committee on a personal note? My late brother-in-law suffered from muscular dystrophy, a horrendous progressive disease that many noble Lords may have come across. In the last years of his life, he was pushed around in a wheelchair. It was very difficult for the family, particularly for my wife, his sister.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Order. The noble Lord is not on the list. He was not there last week and should therefore not be taking part.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

Is the Committee prepared to hear me?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, when she is intervening, to keep it short, and people cannot intervene on people who are intervening.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Noble Lords are repeatedly intervening on the different points.

As for the numbers, the estimates, based on the evidence from other countries, suggest that the estimates in the impact assessment are very low, and that the demand for assisted suicide would be much higher, so it would come into the purview of a large number of clinicians; hence the need for specialisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I sat for many hours through the debates on the Employment Rights Bill. When I said that there was a plethora of rights and that we were overdoing it, I was treated with some contempt.

I have to finish. The fear is that once assisted dying is normalised as a medical treatment, health professionals would be obliged to offer it as a medical treatment or, even worse, be under some obligation to explain this therapeutic option as part of their duty of care for eligible patients. They could be held negligent for not offering this treatment against their conscience. That would seem to be the implication of case law in the Montgomery ruling, which ruled that all reasonable therapeutic options needed to be presented to and discussed with patients. The worry here is that civil liability protections do not cover—

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Can the noble Baroness bring her remarks to an end, as she is well over the 10 minutes?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

This is meant to be a debate. I have taken a lot of opposition points. Let me finish. The worry is that civil liability protections do not cover where a duty is owed to the patients. How can doctors who do not wish to offer or discuss assisted dying be sure that they do not face liability for failing to comply with their alleged duty to raise treatments?

When I have raised such concerns with supporters of the Bill, I have been reassured that now that we have passed the workers’ rights Bill—there are parts in this Bill, too—there will be lots of protections. They point out that, if there are any problems, staff can always use employment tribunals if they feel that they have been unfairly treated, although, as I say, trade unions are quite keen on an opt-in. But as those of us who sat through the hours and hours of deliberations on the Employment Rights Bill will know, employment tribunals have huge, years-long waiting lists. Also, such tribunals put the burden on the employee to demonstrate and prove detrimental treatment, which seems completely unfair.

It seems pertinent to note, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, that as the remedy in employment cases is damages not rehiring, this could lead to driving health and care workers out of the understaffed healthcare sector—not a good result. To finish, as the noble and learned Lord is a member of the party that rightly boasts of its commitment to workplace fairness and workers’ rights, I am simply hoping that he will be sympathetic to those amendments that put workers’ rights—guaranteed—centre stage in relation to assisted dying. It is not too much to ask.