Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in strong opposition to the Bill before us today, not only as a Member of your Lordships’ House but as a person, like all others—whatever side of the argument they are on, deeply committed to the values of compassion and dignity. I add to that the value and sanctity, both through faith and principle, of the preservation of human life.

I had the great honour to serve as the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Minister for many years. For me, the most fundamental of human rights that we must continue to protect is the right to life itself. The noble and learned Lord knows that I have immense respect for him, and I regret that I cannot lend support to his Bill. Of course, I acknowledge the deep pain and suffering that many individuals and their families face when confronted with terminal illness—we have heard many moving stories. We have all been there with parents, families and friends. No one should underestimate the emotional toll of witnessing a loved one enduring excruciating suffering or the anguish of being in a state of health where one’s life seems to offer no prospect of meaningful recovery. Yet it is precisely because of this shared humanity and compassion that we are rightly driven as a country and a community to seek solutions that alleviate suffering in ways that are aligned with our collective values of preserving life.

One of the central arguments in favour of the Bill is that it provides individuals the opportunity to exercise autonomy and control over their own deaths. I understand the appeal of that. In a world that increasingly celebrates individual rights, it is only natural that we would seek to extend such autonomy to the ultimate decision in one’s life: of how one departs from this world. However, we must ask the question: is it truly a sign of freedom when we open the door to a practice that could be used to expedite life’s end, rather than seeking, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said on the issues of palliative care, to preserve and enhance life, even in its final moments? I believe that we have a moral as well as a legal and legislative duty to preserve life and offer care in its most fragile stages, not merely through the provision of medical interventions but through dignity, compassion and kindness.

As has been mentioned, psychological and emotional pressures can often cloud one’s judgement. We must therefore also ask ourselves whether we as a society have done enough to support those who are facing such dire circumstances, not just through palliative care but through the emotional, psychological and social support that would empower them to live the remaining days of their lives with dignity and peace.

Let us be clear, the very essence of the Bill—that assisted dying should be available as an option—represents a major shift in the values we uphold as a society. If we as a nation say that it is acceptable to take life in certain circumstances, I fear that we risk opening a door to consequences that go way beyond the current scope of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Canada in his opening speech, but after that Bill was introduced in 2016, changes were made in 2021, with the words “terminal illness” removed. One in 20 deaths in Canada are now through euthanasia.

The fundamental question we must ask is: are we truly offering compassion when we facilitate death? At a time when technology is advancing and pain management methods are improving, we must ask ourselves whether assisted dying is the right approach. The role of the state is to protect life. I have many concerns about the Bill, such as the lack of family involvement and engagement and that the actual reflection of our diverse communities is not included. Ultimately, when we offer choices towards the end of life, it is certainly my view that we as a society that cherishes lives should provide for the dignity of every individual, with not only the medical care but the emotional and social support and investment that are required. When people are seeking to end their lives, and for those who are at the end of their lives, we should help them to live with dignity so that they choose, and we choose, life over death.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, but I would like to thank the Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his willingness to listen and to be flexible, especially when I, together with a number of colleagues, asked for the Second Reading to be split into two days. In the Chief Whip’s remarks yesterday, he talked about convention and tradition, and so we are to rise at 3 pm or thereabouts. I place on record that, as a modern Orthodox Jewish Member of your Lordships’ House, sitting on Fridays in the winter is deeply problematic. Shabbat begins today at 3.54 pm; on 5 December, it will begin at 3.35 pm and on 12 December at 3.33 pm. Your Lordships will know that, by 3.54 pm today, I and others will need to be ready for Shabbat, and I will be in synagogue.

Keeping with my tradition, as the House will follow its tradition, there will be times, therefore, over the coming weeks that I and some others will be absent— I hope that that does not occur when I have an amendment in my name to speak to. I am grateful for the indulgence of the House, but I felt it really important to place this matter on the record as we begin Committee, which will take place only on Fridays.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose it would be apt for me to complete the Holy Trinity of faith. We have started with the Christian faith, we have heard a Jewish dimension and we have heard about equality and opportunity. As a member of the Islamic faith and as a practising Muslim, I say that, while I fully respect the House and I am grateful to the Chief Whip and the Leader, it is important that we reflect all traditions.

One of the main challenges that I have with this Bill is the lack of consultations with different communities. As many noble Lords will be aware, Friday is also a sacred day for Muslims, particularly in the middle of the day with the Jummah prayer. I just flag that point. I of course respect the organisation and the business of the House, but ask that there is time for those who practise the faith and choose to offer prayer by congregation in the middle of the day. Following on in support of my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Polak, I think that the diversity of our country, the diversity of the House and the respect of all traditions and faiths is something that should be borne in mind.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I will first say, as a Catholic, that I have great respect for the three noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin, Lord Polak and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. I like all three noble Lords very much, as they know, and I am sympathetic to the points they raised. It is why I made a statement to the House yesterday, after Questions, which I then sent to every noble Lord’s parliamentary email account. My statement and email sought to help colleagues with reasonable planning assumptions, in line with the usual conventions.

The Government would never seek, on a Private Member’s Bill, to force the House to do anything it did not want to do. My plan today is, if necessary, to return to this Dispatch Box at a convenient point around 2.30 pm to again give advice to the House on how we achieve a rising time of around 3 pm—it could be before or slightly after. At the end of the day, the decision is the matter for the House, not for me as Government Chief Whip. This is not a government Bill. The Government are neutral on the Bill. At this point, though, I think we need to move on from procedure and start debating and scrutinising the Bill and the more than 900 amendments before us, line by line, with respect and courtesy for each other and for the different opinions genuinely and sincerely held across the House.