Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, so much has been said about the principle and the technicalities of the Bill that I thought I would use my few moments to return to the language used in the Bill. I realise that that is a controversial thing to do, because I have seen the reaction to the speech of my noble friend Lady May. I wish to express some solidarity with her, because the argument against her has been that people wishing to access an assisted death do not actually want to die, but suicides presumably do. I think that is a mistake. In the case of suicides, most of them do not want to die. Most of them want their girlfriends or their families back, their fortunes restored or their pain taken away. The distinction collapses when you look at it closely. They are very much in the same position as people who are trying to avoid pain at the end of their life. So I express my solidarity with my noble friend.

There are other points about the language. It is notable that the words “death” and “dying” hardly appear. The poison to be used is described as an “approved substance”, and the still mysterious contraption by which it is to be administered is called an “approved device”. The business itself, when you get to Clause 25, is headed “Provision of assistance”. “Assistance” is the term used throughout the Bill. Is this something that is going to become part of our daily language? “Have you considered ‘assistance’, Mrs Smith?”

We know what this is: it is euphemism, an ancient Greek device for hiding from the gods, through the use of flowery language, something of which you are ashamed. That is what the language of this Bill is constantly expressing at every turn. I think we are right to be ashamed of what is in this Bill. I think we should take the opportunity not only to scrutinise it but, if we see fit, to give the Commons an opportunity to consider it in a second parliamentary Session to see whether its view remains as firm as it is now—which after all is not very firm, purely on the numbers.

I will make one final point in response to an argument that I have heard several times in the course of this debate: that it is somehow discriminatory that some well-off people can afford to go abroad to evade the law and that this is a discrimination that needs to be addressed by giving everybody the opportunity to evade the current law. We never use that argument on anything else, do we? Have I ever heard that argument used when it comes to tax evasion, for example? It is a very strange argument indeed, and one that I think does no credit to those who promote it.

I think this Bill indeed deserves scrutiny, but we are not in any way committed or obliged to pass it. It is a Private Member’s Bill and, if it is the view of the House that it should not pass, that is the view the House should take.