Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I speak with enormous hesitation on this complex and sensitive issue. Any Second Reading of a Bill must inevitably discuss the principle behind it. I acknowledge the principle of choice and the argument that, by changing the law, we may avoid unnecessary pain. Against that has to be weighed another principle: attitudes to human life. The wider consideration that legislators must take into account is not just the immediate consequences but those over the longer term, not just the intended consequences but the unintended consequences as well.

We have to take into account the patient-doctor relationship. Assisted dying is not a treatment and sits oddly with the concept of a cradle-to-grave national health service. Regardless of the stance we take on the principle, any Act that is passed must function as a workable framework that protects the interests of patients and professionals and ensures that the safeguards are proper safeguards. I have been struck by the concerns that have been expressed to me by medical practitioners and the evidence from several prestigious medical organisations, including several royal colleges, which, while remaining neutral, have expressed specific concerns about the Bill.

Points that need to be addressed in Committee include these: why does the Bill not require the person who wants to end their life to be asked why they wish to do so? It is of paramount importance that we avoid a situation in which anyone who wants an assisted death does so because they fear they are becoming a burden. That is a crucial point: people should not be forced to consider that they are becoming a burden. Would it not be better if pain and suffering were written into the Bill as the exclusive reason for allowing assisted dying? Another unanswered question is how the regulation of the lethal drugs will be carried out. The system seems to bypass the MHRA and the UK-established drug approval process. How are we going to judge capacity—that is, the ability of the individual to make the decision about whether to end their life? In Belgium and New Zealand, medical practitioners are prohibited from initiating discussions about the possibility of assisted dying. Should there not be a similar prohibition in our legislation? On capacity, one of the royal colleges has criticised the use of the Mental Health Act as an inappropriate reference point by which to judge the individual’s capacity. That is a point that needs to be explored in Committee.

The Secretary of State has made it clear that there will be no extra resources to cope with this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has assured us that the costs will be minimal. We shall see, but we may end up in a curious situation in which palliative care is funded 30% while state-assisted dying will be funded 100%.

The crucial point about this Bill is that, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out, so much is left to be decided later, to be decided over time or to be delegated to decisions by Ministers. This is an unsatisfactory position. We need to know more detail. For this reason, many amendments need to be made in Committee. We need intense scrutiny, and the Bill as it is at the moment is not satisfactory.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Lord Lamont of Lerwick Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. It is absolutely right. Let us try to recap. When was the last industrial strategy published? It was some eight years ago, in 2017. Since then, we have had several Conservative Administrations, several Prime Ministers, several Secretaries of State for Business and all that. This industrial strategy is needed now because we are in a pretty unstable global trading environment. Businesses want certainty and stability, and this is what this Government are offering them. They also want a long-term plan and for us, the Government, to stick to our guns. The UK’s world-leading capabilities, pragmatism and clear policy direction make us a prime destination for international businesses. We are attracting investment to this country. Amazon announcing a £40 billion investment last week shows that it has confidence in this Government and in our industrial strategy.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, over the years, Governments have introduced their industrial strategies—I remember the industrial strategy of the Callaghan Government—but I think sometimes they think that they have found a policy when they have simply found a phrase. Industrial strategies in the past have tended to lead to a lot of different funding pots and opportunity for lobbyists. The Minister used the phrase “crowding in”. Crowding in sounds wonderful, but are the Government or the agencies that administer the industrial policy going to avoid two dangers: first, that by combining public money with private money, they are merely subsidising investment that would have happened anyway, and, secondly, if they are subsidising that investment, that it is not a poor investment and that the risk is being taken out of it? How are they going to be able to avoid those two dangers that have plagued industrial strategy in the past?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the Lord for that question. He makes several very interesting observations. The reason we have published this industrial strategy is what I mentioned earlier about the global trading environment, but we also have a very clear goal. We want to drive growth. I know many noble Lords have mentioned it, but it is still the number one mission of this Government, and we can achieve that only by better and increased investment. The noble Lord is right. Previous Governments have published investment strategies, but why is this investment strategy different? Past growth plans have often been felt by businesses as being done for them, so it looks as though government knows better and this is what the industrial strategy is for, whereas with this industrial strategy, we work with businesses every step of the way. We have meetings with business representative organisations—in fact, I have learned a new word, “BROs”; we work with trade unions and investors so that this strategy is not only a government strategy but a whole-of-business strategy. That is the first difference. The second difference is that we have listened to the needs of businesses, the need for long-term certainty. Every business that I have spoken to wants three things: certainty, stability and less regulation. That is what the Government are trying to solve through their strategy to reduce regulation by 25%. This is still very much a work in progress, but it is what we are aiming for. We hope that this strategy is different from previous strategies.