Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I am opposed in principle to this Bill for a myriad of reasons, very well articulated by my noble friends Lady May and Lord Ahmad.

We have heard—we heard just now—other noble Lords whose principles and experiences, often heart-rending, lead them to support the Bill. I very much respect their views and their position. But I say to those who disagree with me and other noble Lords on matters of principle, and those who support the Bill, I am sure we can all agree on one point. It is simple and obvious, but it merits saying. On legislation on an issue as sensitive as this, we cannot and must not rush ourselves; quite the reverse. On this subject, almost more than any other—indeed, more than any other—it is imperative that we set a very high bar in terms of the scrutiny we give the Bill, which is why I support so wholeheartedly what my noble friend Lord Forsyth has put in his amendment to the Motion. If the Bill is to pass into law, that law must not just be merely workable and practical; it must be a law which commands people’s trust and which ensures that those who implement its measures can be held to account.

Although I hear the heartfelt points being made today, I do not think that the Bill in its current state meets the exacting standards we should demand of it. Day after day, like I am sure many other noble Lords, I have been receiving emails and letters raising specific points of concern about numerous aspects of it: the eligibility criteria; the definition of terminal illness; the suitability of relying on the Mental Capacity Act; the role of doctors; the safeguards to ensure that vulnerable people are not coerced into making decisions; and the impact on NHS resources and on palliative care. The list goes on and on—the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, cited many others. These concerns are coming from experts and members of the public, and they cannot and must not be brushed aside.

Added to these concerns is another that, I think, unites many of us on all sides of the House, and that is the use of delegated powers. We often bemoan how Governments—and I include those I have been part of—have produced Bills that give Ministers powers to make regulations which receive minimal parliamentary approval. On any issue, chipping away at Parliament’s ability to hold Ministers properly to account is bad enough, but on this issue that is literally related to life and death, it is, in my mind, unacceptable.

The Delegated Powers Committee quite rightly calls several clauses “highly inappropriate”. Let us remind ourselves: it said the clauses give

“sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to the Government while removing Parliament’s scrutiny role for provision that should be in primary legislation, and replacing it with the considerably more limited role of scrutinising delegated legislation”.

I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggest that he will address this, but I am not surprised by it. Just last year, he gave a lecture in which he bewailed

“primary legislation giving huge power to ministers and other bodies which would previously have required either primary or secondary legislation”,

citing, for example skeleton legislation, Henry VIII powers, legislative sub-delegation of powers and disguised legislation. He concluded by saying—and I end on this point—that if legislation offends in one of these four ways, it is unconstitutional. Well, this is another reason why this Bill is flawed, why it needs a complete overhaul, and why it is laced with ambiguity, riddled with unanswered questions and breeding anxiety among so many people.