Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

I do not underestimate the gravity of what this Bill has proposed. Assisted dying, as we have heard, raises profound ethical questions. It demands safeguards, clarity and humility. But we must also recognise, as we have heard, that some patients take things into their own hands, often in ways that are lonely, traumatic and unsupported. This Bill is about whether we are willing to trust patients within a carefully designed framework to retain autonomy in how their lives end. Whatever position we take on the Bill, I hope we can hold on to that principle.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we can all get all Members who are standing in if their speeches are kept short, sharp and to the point. We will hear from my noble friend Lady Hayter, then we will go to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the House of Commons and the public want the Bill, but the number of amendments and the length of the speeches mean that we have run out of time, so it cannot go back to the Commons. This is bad for democracy. Even more seriously, it is bad for the terminally ill—those mentally competent adults with fewer than six months to live. The Bill would offer them the choice of a more peaceful way out of this life, a way under their control, with friends and family around them, rather than an isolated and often risky suicide. A particular mum of three asked, “How dare a handful of Peers look society in the face and say they care about dying people? How dare they put their particular beliefs above the care and compassion that should be due to those facing an agonising death?”

Of course, we never heard from those affected. As my noble friend Lady Hunter said, we on the committee, where we were outnumbered by the opponents to the Bill, were denied the opportunity to hear from those facing deaths or from those bereaved, who had to watch their partner die without this help. As we just heard from my noble friend Lady Blackstone, we heard from the royal colleges, organised groups, professional bodies, social workers, the church, palliative care experts and lawyers—everyone except for whom the Bill was designed.

We have heard in the debates that the amendments are actually about improving the Bill. But I know, and I think that we all know, that some people would never have supported the Bill, even if we had accepted a thousand amendments. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—although she was a Prelate at the time—admitted this at Second Reading, saying that she was going to propose a vote against the Bill at Third Reading. We heard her say today that she is against it in principle, so for some these amendments were not about improving the Bill but because they opposed it in principle.

Had we just been interested in trying to make assisted dying safer for the vulnerable groups, we would not have had to have those amendments referred to—that everyone, including a man, should have to have a negative pregnancy test before they could apply for assisted dying. We would not have had to consider the idea that some of the very people who needed this—such as those in care homes—would be denied it; that anyone being treated in an NHS hospital would have to leave for a private place with different doctors and carers if they wanted an assisted death; or, indeed, that the intimate private discussions with the panel should take place in public, so that the public can watch people talking about why they wanted to bring their deaths forward. We would not have been told in the amendments that this all costs too much, even though the estimate is the same as what the NHS spends a year after accidents caused by people wearing flip-flops—I kid you not. The cost—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that this is a day of disappointment. I am keenly aware of those who viewed this law as the solution to their plight, but also of those for whom the clear failure of proper provision of palliative services will not be solved any time soon and for those living with disabilities or with children with disabilities who struggle to access healthcare today. I also recognise that there is disappointment for many in their perception of their Parliament. I have, in my 15 years here, witnessed the best of parliamentary legislating as I sat on the Joint Committee scrutinising the Mental Health Bill after an independent review, a White Paper and a government response, but in my 15 years, this is not the best. I have said numerous times in Committee that the Private Member’s Bill process is being asked to replace pre-legislative scrutiny, and it cannot do that, so there is no surprise that huge concerns remain.

I will speak briefly of just two examples—it was going to be three, but I am mindful of time—that could have been dealt with if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny. First, the consultative palliative care expert Jamilla Hussain said in the Guardian on 18 May 2025:

“I am deeply concerned about the provision that there is no requirement to inform family or next of kin until after the assisted death has occurred”.


This led me to think that children could be that next of the kin who would be the first informed and then to the question of children as interpreters, so I tabled amendments in that regard. The latter amendment about interpreters was the subject of enormous criticism on social media, but it was not, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, a “bureaucratic” amendment. It was not “procedural obstruction”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter, said. It was an important amendment, and it was not until the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that Parliament first heard from the Children’s Commissioners about the impact on children, although outside the scope of the Bill, of the societal change we were going to introduce.

My second instance, or expert, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I have enjoyed the intellectual engagement in those meetings, and I am grateful for them, particularly the meeting that was held with Professor Alex Ruck Keene KC on the nuances of the Mental Capacity Act, down to the detail of decided case law. However, when the discussion came to the Mental Health Act, we got back to the basic outline principle that the Mental Health Act is not based on capacity. You can be detained repeatedly under the Mental Health Act but still have capacity. It was clear to me when leaving that meeting that we had gone from nuanced detail to basic principle and that we needed to have a look at the interconnection of the Mental Health Act and this Bill before we started.

I will conclude where I began, with the different views of the world—which was also the subject of a meeting with the noble and learned Lord. He came from a place of individual autonomy and choice when beginning to legislate. But as I outlined at Second Reading, that is an anathema to many people who live in close community—whether that is geographical, in the north-east, or within a faith community. As other noble Lords have outlined, I think there is disappointment among some people of faith that their motivations and views have been used so casually and negatively in the media campaign—although, I note, never by the noble and learned Lord in my meetings.

It is interesting that Professor John Lennox, emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford, quoted an unusual source in Westminster Hall in June last year. He said:

“Polly Toynbee was spot on when she wrote in The Guardian: ‘Every day in Parliament, fundamentally different worldviews do battle. Politics is all about the clash of moral universes’”.


Atheistic, materialistic, secular, humanist, Judaeo-Christian, liberal and now neoliberal viewpoints are all welcome. I would hate to think what William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King would think if it were otherwise.

I have two final practical points. Away from your Lordships’ House, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and Lord Williams of Oystermouth are going to have a debate on the principle of this Bill on “Intelligence Squared”. If this view of the involvement of religious motivations is shared by the noble and learned Baroness, I would love to see her on a platform of that scale to discuss her views and intellectually engage properly on that issue, which is key to our liberal, democratic society.

My second point is to reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the Private Member’s Bill process has not served us well. I am sad to see the polarisation and the polemic nature of many of our debates. I hope we can find a way to look at what has happened with this Bill to prevent it happening ever again.

My final point is to do generally with the law. I hear the comments from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, but for the parents of disabled children, we have not spoken sufficiently of whether the law will protect their children when they are gone.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have now been debating this issue for just short of four and a half hours. It is my intention to bring proceedings to a close at around 3 pm. Both the Government and Opposition Front Benches have indicated to me that they wish to make contributions, so after the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, we should be looking to bring proceedings to a close. Maybe we will have one more speech after her—but then we want to hear from the Front Benches. Then we need to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer before adjourning around 3 pm.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment this morning from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to the noble and learned Lord’s amendment asks us, when we note the progress of scrutiny today, to recognise the recommendations and findings of both House of Lords Committees: the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The Constitution Committee is very concerned that, as a Private Member’s Bill, this Bill has not had the same kind of pre-legislative scrutiny and debate. It has not been in a manifesto and has not had the discussion or attention that a government Bill would have. Indeed, the committee points out—and we know this to be the case—that the impact assessments, which have been mentioned this morning, reached the House of Commons only after the Committee stage was concluded, on the first day on Report, 16 May 2025, after which it had two more days on Report. That is just over a month before the Third Reading in the Commons, which took place on 20 June.

In the words of the House of Lords Constitution Committee:

“The degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny is therefore significantly less than we would expect to see for an equivalent government bill”.


That is especially concerning given the subject matter of the Bill.

I point out, in response to the many people who have drawn attention to the fact that we have spent a lot of time scrutinising, that one of the bold print recommendations in the Constitution Committee’s report is that not only does the House of Lords play an important role in the legislative process but it is

“constitutionally appropriate for the House to scrutinise the Bill and, if so minded, vote to amend, or reject it”.

I shall not go into that point any more, but it is therefore wrong of the protagonists of the Bill to denounce the process of scrutiny that we have been doing and to accuse people who are trying to amend the Bill to make it better and safer, and indeed constitutionally to bring it up to the standard of a government Bill that has, as has been said, had all that time. I do not like the fact that reports have been given to the media suggesting that. In my experience in the House of Lords—I have not been here very long—people have been given a lot of time, including on government Bills, and Governments of both complexions have bent over backwards to be polite and take account of what Members have tried to do.

Apart from that, I will mention only one other point: delegated powers. There are many of them—we have heard today that there are 42 in the Bill, which is a particular problem. I will mention just one instance of a Henry VIII power that is worrying. It is just a technical one, but I was glad to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on Clause 27, and later I had my own on Clause 37. These are to protect and regulate the supply of drugs that are designed to bring about death. They are called “approved substances” in Clause 27. We are not given any detail about the substances—no list or anything else—but are given just the meaning of an “approved substance”, without any details other than the meaning of a drug or other substance specified in the regulations in Clause 27, referred to again in Clause 37 with more about the powers to make provision on these.

These substances, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee notes, will be

“inherently dangerous and indeed necessarily lethal”.

What happens if someone has taken the substance but changes their mind? How rapidly would it work? Is it reversible, and how? What would the side-effects be? Bringing up such points as these may seem to protagonists of the Bill a matter of time-wasting and obstruction. But they should remember that this Bill will give Ministers—and often officials, as advisers—power to make very serious laws about regulation and determining safety, which we debate every day of the week in every other Bill that comes our way. We take a great deal of time on them, whether on the environment or anything else.

So it is very important that these matters be debated and gone into. It is important that there are answers in the Bill, as both committees want. With that, I beg the noble and learned Lord to regard the good faith with which people have tried to make his Bill better.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we have had over four and a half hours of debate, and I want to begin to close as soon as we can after 3 pm. I will call three more speakers from the Back Benches and then move to the Opposition Front Bench. We will have three more brief contributions: the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and my noble friend Lady Jay, former Leader of the House of Lords. Then we will move to the Front Benches.