Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My point is that the change to the Bill was introduced after 62 hours. No evidence was taken on the new process. On Report, of the 77 amendments tabled by Members other than the sponsor, only seven were selected for a separate decision.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

The noble Baroness and I are relatively unique in that we were two of the 12 members of the Lords Select Committee panel that looked at the Bill. One issue that we found on our side was that the people against the Bill refused to take the evidence that we were trying to propose from other countries that had been successful with this type of Bill, including Australia, New Zealand and many other countries—some 30 sovereignties. We had great difficulty getting any chance of a proper hearing until the very end, by which time it was too late.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

Forgive me; I am unclear exactly what the noble Lord is referring to. I can tell the House, for clarity and for the record, that only one vote was taken at the Select Committee of this place: a vote not to accept written evidence. We all would have benefited from accepting the greatest number of representations. I voted in support of written evidence, and it is a shame that we did not have it. It meant that, because of the time limitations, we did not get to hear from more people. That was in large part determined by the clerks who supported us on the Bill.

It was therefore not surprising that the Bill cleared the Commons by just 23 votes—less than half of its already moderate majority at Second Reading. The assertion repeated today is that the Commons carried out thorough scrutiny and addressed the most important issues, but I attest that that does not mirror the facts. This is not a criticism of the efforts made by our colleagues in the other place; it is an acknowledgement that the process for Private Members’ Bills is completely inadequate for the task of scrutinising a Bill of this length, magnitude and complexity that has not been preceded by any consultation or other pre-legislative scrutiny.

It was therefore no surprise that, when the Bill arrived in this House, not one but two Select Committees in this place, the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, were scathing about the state in which we received it—specifically about the 42 Henry VIII powers that the Bill now conferred. It was exactly for that reason that an agreement was reached with my noble and learned friend to hold a time-limited Select Committee, which did not delay the timetable for the Bill. It ensured that we maintained the four protected Friday Committee sessions before the Christmas break at the end of last year but allowed us to take evidence on the Bill as we received it in this place and to hear from the professional bodies whose members will be responsible for delivering on the Bill.

We heard evidence from organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing, and from GPs and medical examiners—organisations and groups that are neutral on the principle of assisted dying but have legitimate and significant concerns about the efficacy, workability and safety of the Bill. I was seeking to make an intervention earlier on my noble friend Lady Andrews. Not a single royal college in this country will attest to the safety of the Bill. Why is it that noble Lords in this place believe that they know better than the people, organisations and professions that will have to deliver on the Bill? The Equality and Human Rights Commission, disability organisations, mental health organisations and domestic abuse experts talked about the Bill’s practical issues: its gaps and lack of safeguards or guardrails.

I have to express my significant disappointment that virtually none of that evidence presented to us has been taken on by my noble and learned friend the sponsor. What should have been an opportunity to strengthen and improve the Bill seems to have been treated instead as a mere hurdle to be jumped over to get this legislation over the finish line. That rich body of authoritative evidence, imparted over 13 panel sessions, has been largely ignored in the sponsor’s own amendments—the only amendments that have so far been accepted, save for one amendment to an amendment from my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland.

As for the comments that have been made about Committee, I attended every sitting and I do not believe that the depth and seriousness of this scrutiny can be captured in mere numbers and statistics. However, since supporters of the Bill have repeatedly referred to the number of amendments tabled, I will point out only that it is not clear what a normal number of amendments is for a Private Member’s Bill of this length and complexity that has not benefited from any pre-legislative scrutiny, because there has never been any attempt to pass a Bill like this before. It is a wholly spurious criticism.