Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak against the Bill and in support of my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s amendment, as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I speak as a former World Health Organization ambassador for Africa and the Middle East, and as chair of the AMAR International Charitable Foundation. The mandate of that foundation is health for all, as is the WHO mandate, and education for all, as is UNESCO’s mandate. In that capacity, with an outstanding board and uniquely committed professionals, we have in the last 35 years built 90 to 100 primary health centres and several small hospitals, and we have delivered medical consultations to 50 million people in greatest need. This has taken over 40 years, all in conflict countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Romania, Ukraine, Pakistan and Kashmir.

They are all local medical staff, so there has been no linguistic misunderstanding of what I am going to report. Working to WHO and UNESCO standards for the poorest of the poor in these conflict zones before, during and after their war, I have to report to noble Lords that not one single patient during that long time has asked for death. Every patient has asked for life, understanding, compassion for their suffering and, potentially, a future for themselves. The drive for life is so great that when I was in Damascus last week and saw skeletal figures on the street—I have not seen poverty quite like it for a very long time—they were not begging for death; they were begging to be given the opportunity to live. In other words, the thing to do is to bring joy to the patient who is in trouble and assist in every possible way to ease the pain—perhaps we should lift the restrictions we put in only a few years ago to stop medical professionals easing pain more easily—because the in-built desire to live is so great that in the most intolerable circumstances people beg to be kept alive.

The World Health Organization of course admits that the National Health Service is not yet perfect—for example, it has never really focused on preventive medicine, which is the key to success in the modern world—but this Bill destroys even that opportunity because it would take resources away and, worse than that, it would divert from the primary purpose of the National Health Service, which is to provide health and life to all. You cannot do both in any organisation. Those of us who have chaired companies, businesses and institutions know that you must have a single mission statement. You do not have a mission statement that tells you to turn right one minute and left the next. I recall very well a wonderful example of this from childhood that all noble Lords may remember, a tremendous animal that had a head both ends. It was called the pushmi-pullyu and was owned and looked after by Dr Dolittle. That is what will happen if we take this dreadful Bill before the House any further.

Humans are very imperfect creatures. We look at the example from Utah Valley University, a wonderful university I spoke at recently, where poor Charlie Kirk was slaughtered yesterday. Immediately, people said, “With what he said, he deserved to be killed”. Indeed, I do not wish to paraphrase it so precisely because the incoming head of the Oxford Union said something very like that, as did some local journalists. It is absolutely appalling. We are not perfect people. This Bill gives the opportunity for maximum damage to a huge number of individuals.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Amendment 120A from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I really need to get through this. Can all interventions be saved until the end? If I can get through the things I really need to tell the Committee about, I will take interventions.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

No, I am sorry; the Minister has made it clear that she will try to take any interventions at the end if there is time.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am so sorry. I mean no discourtesy to the noble Baroness, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I must get through the matters that the Government need to tell the Committee about, so it can make decisions about this particular group.

Amendment 120A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is plainly contingent upon Parliament agreeing to a court-based application system. In that event, the noble Baroness’s amendment would then exclude those making applications to the court from obtaining legal aid or legal help otherwise sourced from taxes, except indirectly through benefits. The framework for legal aid funding is set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, known colloquially as LASPO—an old friend of mine. The Committee should note that there are no primary provisions permitting the grant of legal aid outwith LASPO, so the noble Baroness’s amendment would present a novel approach to extending those provisions. The Government’s view is that, if the principle contained within this amendment is the will of Parliament, the mechanism for achieving this may need to be considered within LASPO in order for there to be legislative coherence.

There is a further point your Lordships should note in relation to the noble Baroness’s amendment. Hearings related to assisted dying, as proposed by this Bill, are not currently in scope for legal aid funding within LASPO. But LASPO does contain provision for exceptional case funding, which provides for legal aid in circumstances in which the ECHR requires an individual to be able to be legally represented. The Government’s view is that excluding assisted dying hearings from legal aid funding, including the exceptional case funding mechanism, as a matter of principle and without exception could lead to a breach of convention rights.

I return to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Amendment 426 requires the court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, first, that the applicant has sufficient capacity and, secondly, that to refuse to make the order would amount to a

“breach of the relevant human rights law”.

The Government have one concern and one observation. The concern is that it is not clear what the relevant human rights law means in this context. Given that there is currently no right to an assisted death under the convention, as drafted this would mean that the test could never be met. If the amendment refers to other rights, for clarity the Government feel that they should be specified.

The observation is that, as your Lordships will be aware, the expression “beyond reasonable doubt” means that it is the criminal standard of proof that applies. Thus, unsurprisingly, it is in criminal proceedings that the highest standard is generally required. In civil law, the criminal standard is usually reserved for cases where the courts are imposing a punitive measure and the issue to be determined is a question of fact, including findings as to states of mind, such as intentional recklessness. It would be unusual for there to be a requirement that a judge be satisfied to the higher standard on questions of clinical opinion and breaches of legal rights. That said, it would be a policy decision for Parliament whether cases of this kind required the application of a higher standard.

Amendment 426B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require the physical attendance of the applicant in court. It seems that this would exclude any person who is unable to attend the hearing from accessing an assisted death. For this reason, this amendment would, in the Government’s view, engage with Article 8, on the right to private life, and Article 14, on the prohibition of discrimination, and that restriction would have to be objectively and reasonably justified in order to comply with ECHR obligations.

I turn to eligibility, and Amendments 69 and 95 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The Government have a concern that Amendments 69 and 95 would create uncertainty in relation to eligibility for assistance. It might be difficult to prove that a disease could not be halted for a short time, even in cases in which the clinical opinion is that its return and progression is inevitable. There may be a risk that this could be seen as creating unprincipled distinctions in eligibility and could therefore give rise to legal challenge, for example on the basis that excluding certain people is not justified under Articles 2 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and/or amounts to unjustified discrimination under Article 14.

On court-based mental capacity assessments, Amendment 116 would remove the use of the Mental Capacity Act and propose a different and untested approach to capacity. As part of this, the court would be required to play a more direct, investigative role than is standard practice in capacity assessments. The Government are concerned that this could create confusion for practitioners who have experience in applying, and are trained to apply, the test under the Mental Capacity Act. Switching to this new approach might risk undermining the quality of capacity assessments. There might also be a risk that it would create unprincipled distinctions in capacity by excluding anyone with any impairment of the brain or mind, even if that would not affect their capacity under the Mental Capacity Act. It would be important to be able to justify the different approach to prevent discrimination under the convention.

Amendments 427, 428, 613 and 781 would introduce the concept of independent persons who would be required to carry out various functions. It is not clear from the proposed new clauses how these independent persons would work together to carry out these functions or resolve any disagreements between them, or how the skills and experience of each profession would align with their duties. For example, under the new clause as currently drafted, a solicitor might be responsible for the collection and transportation of the approved substance. It seems that the solicitor would then be required to report on medical matters, such as pronouncing the death of the person, without any requirement that they complete medical training. The Government also have a concern that, should medical help be needed as an unforeseen consequence of the self-administration procedure, Amendment 613 might create a risk, if that independent person had no medical qualifications.

Amendment 427 would require the lethal dosage of the approved substance to be ingested by the person accessing an assisted death. Giving the word its ordinary meaning, “ingested” would not include intravenous or injectable administration. Ingestion is generally understood to mean taking a substance into the body via the gastrointestinal tract: that is to say, via oral, nasogastric or gastronomy routes. The Government believe that this is how most doctors would understand the word “ingest”. The Committee may wish to note that this amendment as drafted might prevent clinicians proposing a more clinically appropriate mechanism for a particular person, such as intravenous or injectable self-administration, or might have the effect of excluding some patients from having an assisted death even though they might be capable of self-administration by other means.

There are additional drafting issues. At the beginning of my speech, I observed that if Parliament were to allow some of these amendments, they might require some redrafting to make them workable. I give Amendment 626 as an example. First, the word “form” and the expression “lethal dosage of drugs” would, in the Government’s view, need more clarity in order not to give rise to uncertainty when regulations are drafted. Secondly, the requirement to specify the exact composition of each dosage might also raise issues of liability, intellectual property and safety. Thirdly, it should also be noted that what constitutes a lethal dose may be patient specific, depending on factors such as weight, tolerance, the patient’s health status and other medication, so the drafting may need to make provision for this. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, readily acknowledged that there are likely to be some drafting issues. I can confirm the Government’s position is that, while we are neutral on all the policy choices reflected in these amendments, as on the Bill as a whole, the Government would provide drafting support to ensure that any amendments passed by either House are legally workable and consistent and coherent with the statute book.

Finally, Amendment 67, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would require the Family Division of the High Court to make an order confirming compliance with the Act before a person could be provided with assistance. This would be in addition to consideration given by an assisted dying review panel. The Government have one observation: the amendment does not set out how and when a person’s case would be referred to the High Court. The Government feel that further detail would be needed in the primary legislation to ensure that supporting procedure rules and practice directions would be adequate.

That brings to an end my observations on behalf of the Government in relation to the workability of the Bill. I have not addressed all clauses, but I have a few moments left. As I said I would, if the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, wishes to make her intervention, I will take it.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I would appreciate if it would be considered at some moment that the two medical professionals on the panel may not have any knowledge of hearing issues. There is about one week of a medical professionals’ training on hearing, and that of course is almost nothing. Unfortunately, in the United Kingdom, about 20 million people have hearing defects, some large and some lesser. None the less, when people are dying or are very poorly, they find understanding considerably more difficult. I want that point to be brought in, and I will raise it in considerable detail at the right moment. I merely ask the Minister to take account of it at this time.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am sure the Committee entirely endorses what the noble Baroness said in relation to the importance of those who are hearing impaired. I think that, in these circumstances, this is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the proposer of the amendment and for the sponsor of the Bill should it be passed. However, the point remains an important one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The royal colleges are neutral on the principle. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that it is worried about the burden on psychiatrists, not by reference specifically to the panel—though it comes into what it says—but in relation to some of the capacity assessments it has made. I do not think it will be difficult to find, for the purposes of the panel, people who have the appropriate qualifications in psychiatry to sit on the panel. People who have had some experience and are maybe working part-time, for example, will be able to do it—so I am not concerned about the absence of people who could do it.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

Does the noble and learned Lord not accept that his particular panel make-up disregards deafness, which is probably the largest disability in the whole of the United Kingdom? Some 19 or 20 million people are deaf to different degrees. The issue is very underrepresented in this House, oddly enough, although a large number of Members suffer from deafness. It is also particularly badly treated in the National Health Service, as we have seen in the recent report that one in 1,000 babies is born deaf and the issue is not addressed as it should be. Why does he think his panel will be any better than the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile? Presumably a judge would consider every aspect of a patient before making any decision. I am concerned that this panel attitude is quite irrelevant to those of us who are deaf—nearly 20 million British people are deaf—and to the very large number of people who do not speak English.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am not sure, particularly given the way in which the noble Baroness addressed the issue at the very end, that this is a point about panel versus judge. I would expect a judge to be experienced and able to deal with somebody who is deaf, and if they are not able to, they should be. Equally, I would expect a panel to deal with that in the same way. In all honesty, that was not a factor in determining whether panel or judge was better. Both would have to deal with that.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My question was about deafness. There is no social work relevance to deafness. The noble and learned Lord’s panel is very specific.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I hope I have given a satisfactory answer in relation to that.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 174 is in my name, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the meeting on this issue. This amendment states:

“Any interpreter provided under subsection (4) must be aged 18 … or over”.


It is a probing amendment.

If you put two lawyers in a room and give them wording from the NHS guidance saying that it is “inappropriate” to use children, you would have a fascinating discussion about discretionary versus mandatory, and that is the point behind this amendment. It might be that a different age, say 16, is appropriate, but since meeting with the noble and learned Lord, I have looked at certain guidance from particular NHS hospital trusts. Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust states that you “must not” use children. The Milton Keynes University Hospital trust says that children “should not” be used as interpreters. So we have overall NHS guidance using the word “inappropriate”, which seems to imply discretion, but then we have certain hospitals—I obviously have not checked them all—using mandatory language. It is important that we consider whether, in this scenario, there should be any discretion to use children, whether they are under 18 or, as I say, under 16.

The TIA process should be mandatory, because it is a substantial process. This is the communication of a profound state of affairs. It includes numerous complicated stages, from a preliminary discussion to different co-ordinating doctors. It involves a Mental Capacity Act assessment and could involve the discussion of quite sensitive information about the administration of lethal substances and their potential complications. It is a serious and, as we have said, irrevocable decision.

My submission to the Minister is that it should not be an option that interpreting lies in the hands of a child, but that we should provide for qualified, skilled adults to be present and to provide that service, so that any relative, including children, can sit, support and have their own potential needs met. Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that this should be a service provided by the National Register of Public Service Interpreters?

This is not a small problem. The census in 2021 shows that around 7.1% of people in the UK speak English as a second language and around 5% do not speak English well at all. The NHS website states that there are 1 million people who do not speak English well at all, who will need assistance with communication. If we do not provide this within the Bill, it might be that relatives, particularly children, are used in situations where the interpretation services are underfunded in that area—it is local commissioning that provides interpretation services.

I acknowledge that noble Lords may want the lower limit of 16, which some hospitals use, but I find it interesting to note that the limit may in the past have been too low. The former Member of the other place, Sajid Javid, talked about this. He said of his mum:

“I used to go to the doctor’s surgery with her—not because I was ill, but because I had to interpret for her. I was six or seven and an interpreter”.


I believe we should make sure that children in our jurisdiction are not placed in that situation.

From the evidence that was given to the Commons Public Bill Committee by Dr Jamilla Hussain, who is a palliative care specialist, we know that this issue disproportionately affects ethnic-minority communities, though not solely, of course. There are numerous reports of poor communication and interpretation that lead to adverse health effects and life-threatening illnesses being more prevalent in those communities. It would be the safest way possible if we put something mandatory into the Bill that does not allow for the possibility of situations where a young person feels they cannot say something, having been alongside their parent or guardian for many years. Putting something mandatory can actually protect those young people.

In relation to other clauses in the Bill, we have spoken about the profound effect on young people’s brains and development—I believe this is relevant and not repetition—of traumatic events such as the death of a close family member. That casts a new light on the possible neurological impact that interpretation by a child for a relative seeking assisted dying could have; it could give rise to further health conditions as they develop. Reports state that, if a child’s hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is faced with traumatic stress—in this instance the loss of the primary carer—it can lead to long-term functional and structural changes in key areas of the brain’s development. This can contribute to various psychopathologies, obviously including PTSD. Putting something mandatory into the Bill, so that children cannot be placed in this situation, is important to make it clear for all NHS hospitals which may have to deliver this.

It goes to a conceptual point, raised when I met the noble and learned Lord, about autonomy and choice. There are circumstances in which we limit autonomy and choice, particularly with children; we say that it is better for us all, as the legislature, to have taken a decision to protect those children. It should be mandatory that those under the age of 16 in this context are not taking part in the process of interpretation. It may be that, as we discuss this, there are situations and circumstances, such as terminal illness and advice about treatment, where it should be mandated that children are not involved as interpreters.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my own Amendment 171, where I am suggesting that there is an adjustment to insert “hearing or visual impairments”. I declare an interest on both. First, I am a vice-president of Mary Hare School for deaf children, which is one of the world’s most wonderful schools for deaf children, not just in the United Kingdom but internationally; I have been a vice-president for a very long time, as were my parents before me. I do not speak on its behalf. Secondly, my other interest is that I recall my darling mother, who was completely deaf, completely blind and 100% paralysed for 13 months before she died, because of an unfortunate slip-up in an operation. It was, I am afraid, just one of those things. I therefore understand the needs of looking after someone who is 100% disabled, fully blind and fully deaf.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, with reference to our shared amendment, Amendment 174A. I apologise for not raising this in my previous discourse, but the differences are so acute that I just did not feel it right to share them in the same comment, and I believe the Companion allows me to speak twice in Committee.

I declare an interest in this amendment’s matters as I have worked with enclosed communities for most of my life. My most recent responsibilities have been with the AMAR International Charitable Foundation, which I founded about 35 years ago. We have worked consistently with the enforced enclosed community of the Marsh Arabs and the enclosed communities of the Yazidis—the genocide victims—and others, covering different parts of the globe. I work particularly closely with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the Mormons, as they were known—and with other enclosed communities.

My concern today is for Muslim women. We have two minority faiths in the United Kingdom where women are deemed to be secondary to men. As the noble and learned Lord will realise, I know very well that women are actually superior to men, not inferior. I am not quite sure whether I will cause a dispute between the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Newcastle and the Bishop of Southwark on this, but either way I welcome and endorse what they said about minority faith communities in the United Kingdom.

I am speaking particularly strongly about Sunni women who do not speak English. I am sorry to say that, because we in the United Kingdom have made so little effort to help these women become numerate and literate in the language of this country, there are at least a quarter of a million of them—there may be more. Those women, some of the men in their family and even those running the religious side of their lives may believe that verse 74 of the Holy Koran—which places women subservient to men in all cases and puts them at risk of physical violence if they disobey—is the law here. They do not speak English and they do not know our law. Many of them are functionally illiterate and non-numeric in the language of the countries from which they came. In some of those countries, in particular Afghanistan, women do not legally exist at all. The World Health Organization tells me that Afghanistan is the only nation in the world of which this has ever been known.

If a woman comes here from a country such as that—a unique country, in that women do not exist—they will not understand that they are actually a full person here, that they have rights and that they are on the same level as everyone else. It does not matter whether they have money or who they are; if they are a citizen of the United Kingdom, a visitor or even an illegal immigrant, they still have that right as a woman and a citizen.

My colleague on the Cross Benches referred to children in this context. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was drafted here in this Chamber by our former Member Baroness Faithfull, who was a great lady. The convention, on which I have worked all my life, is very clear about the rights of children, but these rights will not exist in the minds of these women because they do not know about it. That is our fault and our failing as a nation. We have made no effort: we have not helped them learn English, to get out, or to understand their rights here. This is coming not just from Afghanistan but from Sistan and Baluchestan, where it is believed that a woman must drape herself completely. That is not in the Holy Koran at all; there is nothing like that in the Koran.

I hope that all Members of your Lordships’ House have read the Koran. It is an interesting, rich and full document—I have read it a number of times, and it is important that we understand it. It does not say what some of its practitioners claim or offer.

I also suggest clearly that UK law predominates. These women and the men who work with them—who are their families, maybe even groomers—believe that they are doing the right thing. The new law in Iraq, a country I know intimately, declares that girls of nine may be married to men of any age. A huge number of boat people come from Iraq. It is well organised by northern Iraqis in Iraqi Kurdistan who have a wonderful business going, bringing illegal immigrants by boats across the channel to Britain. If you come from Iraq, you come with that thinking and that background. Unless you are taught British law, you will not have any understanding of what you are.

This abuts on our discussion if you are nearly dying—or possibly you are not, but your family wants to get rid of you. It is worth remembering that 11% of all deaths, which is the highest number, are those who have Alzheimer’s or similar diseases. Someone could say: “Mum’s a bit of a burden; granny’s even worse. Aunt can go as well. What about cousin? What about my sister? I don’t actually like her. They will do as they are told”. This will, in a true sense, crucify them. As my noble colleague just said, certainly in Islam, suicide is outside, so they will be declaring themselves to be outside their own faith. Do we expect them to understand enough to do that? I do not think so.

My suggestion to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is that perhaps he would grant me a meeting. Since this is not a government Bill, I have taken this round the various religious centres for Islam in London. Nobody has consulted them, and they really like to be consulted because suicide is against Islam. The question they ask me is, “Why haven’t the Government been to see us about this?” I put this forward.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

May I ask the noble Baroness to speak to the amendment?

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

This Private Member’s Bill has not been discussed with the mosques in London, nor anywhere else. My suggestions are that we have a meeting, that I bring suitable people with me and that we start to open this up. It is against the faith to commit suicide, so this is very important.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Of course I agree to a meeting and the noble Baroness should bring anybody she thinks appropriate to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who spoke in the debate. I am very conscious that I stand between noble Lords and their lunch, so I will try to sum up quickly. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that we are all trying to ensure the same thing. I am disappointed by his response pointing to his amendments around the right to an independent advocate, because that is only one small part. My Amendment 167 was really about seeking assistance in the preliminary conversation. The reason for that is understanding that, as my noble friend Lord Shinkwin so eloquently said, it is about thinking about the process from the perspective of the person with the communication issues.

Any of us might find ourselves at any moment in our life, through illness, accident or frailty, in this position. Turning the tables and thinking about how we would feel going through this process and the preliminary conversations is really important.

I want to just quickly give examples of why words really matter and why it is not just about independent advocates. We have the next group after lunch on that. In Scotland we had the “right to speak” legislation that went through after the campaigning of Gordon Aikman, and the Scottish Government put in the right for people to access communication aids and support. The problem in practice is that many people have been able to access aids but not the support; that was the essence of my probing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned training. Yes, people are trained to support, and independent advocates might be in that camp, but it tends to be very basic. If you consult the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, it is extremely concerned about the number of professional people available to support this group of people. Clarity is vital all the way through the process.

I am conscious as time goes on that I cannot mention everybody. The point is that language being either mediated by someone else, culturally shaped or indirect can cause an issue at any point in the process, and therefore we must have support for people with severe communication issues and other issues. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Nicholson. We must surely do all we can to ensure that the decision of a person to end their own life is truly that of the individual and not simply a miscommunication.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

I add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for his comments. I look forward immensely to the meeting with him. I also point out that his colleague on the Front Bench stood up and said something about me and, of course, I could not hear it. Hearing is a very difficult thing to ignore. I sincerely hope that the amendments will cover that.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.