Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I put down one amendment and did not speak to it. I do not like the Bill—everyone knows that—but I was working, and trying very hard, to get it to Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for recognising that. I want to say to your Lordships something about the future. It is inevitable that there will be another Bill. I implore the other House, assisted by us, that we must have pre-legislative scrutiny at that point, because if we have pre-legislative scrutiny then we really should be putting it through this House.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am one of the newbies the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, although I have not spent time in government—I have spent a lot of time in local government and a brief time in the European Parliament. Noble Lords will note that I have spoken only twice during the debate—I made one substantial speech at the start and then one intervention—but I have sat through the many Fridays we have spent on the Bill. I pay tribute to the moving and personal speech from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, earlier.

Last night, I was with some friends who asked me whether I was going back home to Sheffield or staying. I said that I was going to stay and that I was going to listen, and that I did not have a pre-prepared speech but was going to speak from the heart. There have been occasions during our deliberations on which noble Lords have raised important points, whether on learning disabilities or prisoners. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the other sponsor have listened, but my frustration has been this: just because I have 10 minutes to speak, as I do today, does not mean I need to take 10 minutes to get to the point. Noble Lords need to reflect on that. Had we made the points we wanted to make quicker, we may well have got through many more topics. I pay tribute to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in trying to narrow our debates into topics. I thought that we had found a way forward.

On Wednesday, when I was making my way to the Public Services Committee, I set off one and a half hours earlier than usual, due to the Tube strike, not realising that the Jubilee line was still running, and so I got here an hour and 15 minutes early. There were many people outside Parliament who were deeply frustrated by what is happening in your Lordships’ House. I have to say, there are issues here around confidence and trust. Our reputation is at stake. Our duty is to revise and scrutinise legislation. That is what we do best.

For me, one of the key points has always been about choice. I made it very clear to your Lordships’ House in my first speech on this topic that this is not something I would like to exercise, nor would any members of my family or anyone else I know from my faith. However, who am I to stop others? That is why I have said that I will play an active role in helping revise and improve this legislation where I can, but I do not intend to block it.

I really hope that the sponsors of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and my friend from the other place—I am not sure what terminology to use—who are here, are listening, because I see this issue coming back to us. This is not going to go away just because we are not able to conclude our deliberations. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said earlier, we may have to do some pre-legislative scrutiny on this, because, ultimately, as I see it, this is half-time for this issue. There will be a second half in the next Session. I hope that all noble Lords on both sides of the argument will reflect on how we have conducted ourselves on the many Fridays we have sat, as well as on how we can improve both how we operate and the public’s perception. With that, I will sit down—after three minutes.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I am one of the members of your Lordships’ Select Committee. We came to the Bill from different perspectives. As noble Lords know, I am not in favour of the principle of assisted dying. However, my view has always been that the role of your Lordships’ House is clear: it is to scrutinise and amend legislation. I have at no point sought to delay the legislation, because it is crucial that we send a message to the other House.

If my views had prevailed, my preference would have been to say that we do not want this legislation at all, but that does not appear to be the will of your Lordships’ House, and the view of the country seems to be a general preference for legislation on assisted dying. As I said at Second Reading, we as legislators are not legislating for ourselves or our own preferences; we must be legislating for the most vulnerable in society.