Greg Lawton submits evidence on End of Life Bill to House of Lords

Greg Lawton, Barrister at Nine Chambers, has submitted official written evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee examining the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

His submission — published by Parliament under reference TIA0024 — provides detailed constitutional and legal analysis of the Bill, raising issues with its drafting, the legislative process, and the broader implications for UK constitutional law.

Summary of the Written Evidence

Greg Lawton’s statement makes clear that he takes no position on the overarching question of whether facilitated suicide should be available in England and Wales. Instead, his evidence focuses on the process and legal and constitutional soundness of the Bill and the need for formal public consultation before any change to end-of-life law.

His key points include:

• The Private Member’s Bill process is “unsuitable for making changes to the law with such a profound and wide-ranging societal impact as the introduction of facilitated suicide.”
• The Bill is “inadequately drafted, and in parts antithetical to the UK constitution.”
• Since its Second Reading, the Bill has “changed radically”, with a further 106 pages of amendments now proposed by the House of Lords as of 3 November 2025. The rate of change “should ring alarm bells in and of itself.”
• The scale of amendment is “symptomatic of the fact that fundamental issues have not yet been settled: should such law be introduced, and if so, how best to do it?”
• Greg suggests that a Royal Commission and a bill drafted with the assistance and resources of the government would be an alternative, ensuring the public — including its experts and lawyers — is properly informed and consulted on the question of whether facilitated suicide should be available and, if so, under what framework.

He also examines the constitutional implications of the Bill’s delegation of powers to the Secretary of State, describing these powers (particularly under Clause 37) as broad, warning that they could allow substantial legislative change “without the same degree of Parliamentary scrutiny” as the Bill.

“The Bill fails to retain democratic parliamentary control over such legislation, and to uphold the constitutional separation of powers.”
— Greg Lawton, Written Evidence (TIA0024)

Drug Development and Supply Concerns

Greg Lawton raises a series of technical and constitutional questions regarding the drug development and supply framework proposed in the Bill.

He notes that the Bill leaves Parliament with “a significant and substantial blind spot” as to who would design, manufacture, and supply the substances used to facilitate suicide, stating that Parliament “cannot know who would be involved, how it would be done, where it would be done, or using what method.”

He emphasises that the Bill does not contain provisions governing essential areas such as:

• the design, testing, and licensing of substances,
• clinical supervision, dispensing, and storage,
• or error reporting and regulation.

He cautions that such omissions undermine democratic oversight and could expose pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, or others involved in supply to legal uncertainty under the Suicide Act 1961.

“There remains a risk that the courts would find that participation in the drug development and supply process pursuant to regulations made under the Bill would amount to the offence of assisting or encouraging suicide under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961.”
— Greg Lawton, Written Evidence (TIA0024)

Additional Legal and Societal Considerations

The evidence also highlights several broader legal frameworks should be examined if such a law were to proceed. These include:

• Whistleblowing law, which Greg notes “is in need of reform” and could provide a useful tool in exposing any malpractice.
• Free speech protections, which could be strengthened “to provide an enabling framework which supports challenge.”
• Freedom of Information law, which may require amendment to ensure transparency in how any assisted-dying process is provided, regulated and monitored.

Greg also discusses the societal and linguistic implications of the Bill, suggesting that the term “facilitated suicide” may more accurately convey the intent and consequences of the proposed process than the phrase “assisted dying.”

He argues that this distinction is not merely semantic — it carries constitutional, ethical, and cultural weight, influencing how society views care, medicine, and state responsibility.

Public and Media Discussion

Greg Lawton’s submission has attracted public and media attention, with several organisations referencing his written evidence on social media.

The commentary highlights the legal and constitutional issues raised in Greg’s submission and reflects the growing public debate surrounding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Watch the House of Lords evidence session on Parliament TV and read Greg Lawton’s written evidence:
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — House of Lords Select Committee evidence session

Greg Lawton’s written evidence