Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Young of Norwood Green 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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, as somebody once said at this stage in the debate, “Everything that can be said has already been said”, and then added, “But not by everyone”. I am the everyone, if you like, but I hope I will add something of interest.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that this has never been tried before and proved effective. Actually, it has, in Oregon and a number of other places. It is a matter of opinion: you have your opinion and I have mine. The overwhelming weight of correspondence that I received was in favour of the Bill and I am sure people did not single me out because they knew what I thought on this issue.

The other problem that has been drawn to our attention is that if we go down the road of this Bill, it will put an enormous strain on the NHS. I must admit that I do not understand that argument. Whether anybody opts for this or not, palliative care will have to be provided, and that is already being provided by us, so I do not really understand that.

We are then told that this Bill is not the right one. I have looked through it and it seems to me that this is a very carefully worded and structured Bill. It provides all the safeguards that we should want: preliminary discussion, first declaration, subsequent assessments—it goes on and on with safeguards. The Bill contains a number of safeguards to establish that, at various stages in the process, including at the time the approved substance is provided to the person for self-administration, the person

“has capacity to make the decision to end their life”,

they have

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”,

have

“made the decision that they wish to end their own life”,

and have a requested provision of assistance. I will not go on to read all of it, but there are more than enough safeguards in there.

I listened carefully, as one would, to some of the best legal brains that we have in this House. I listened carefully to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who said that it is badly drawn. With due respect to her, that is a matter of opinion. I do not think it is badly drawn. This is a carefully thought out, well-drawn Bill that has been developed over a significant period.

I say this to the House: what are the alternatives that present themselves to somebody in this situation? Are we really saying that we want people to make a choice to go to Switzerland to Dignitas, with the rest of their family feeling anxious, concerned and worried? I do not think that is the sort of choice that we should be inflicting on people.

I am in favour of scrutiny, and this House will do it. A Select Committee will look at it, but not in a way that will prevent the eventual progress of the Bill. I hope that the House will recognise that this is a good and fair Bill that gives people the right to choose at a very difficult time in their life, without coercion but with support and help.