Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Tyrie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

I will not try to match that story. All I will say is that this has been a brilliant debate on an extremely controversial subject. Some people have opposed the Bill on principled grounds. The first point I make is that, in practice, on a number of the areas of principle—and I agree on this point with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—the Rubicon has already been crossed. I shall mention two. First, the withdrawal of care essential for the preservation of life is already permissible, including the withdrawal of food, and even water in certain circumstances, in a controlled medical environment. Secondly, indefinite sedation with drugs is also permissible, even when it is understood that it may shorten life. These are already practised to some degree.

What we are primarily debating are the practical consequences for the terminally ill, their families and the medical profession of widening somewhat a discretion that is already there. Most people want to be able to exercise control, especially when they are elderly, fearful or in deep pain, although the point has been made that those in pain will not benefit from the Bill, because it is silent on the issue.

I remain very nervous about this legislation on several practical grounds, many of which have already been mentioned. Can six months be defined? What constitutes mental capacity? Can assistance be legally defined, and, once legalised, as has just been pointed out, will the eligibility criteria be expanded? Will the Human Rights Act get engaged here? I think it will.

We have already seen that medical science and practice, and court scrutiny of both, have taken us well beyond the intentions of Parliament in the Suicide Act 1961, and it will undoubtedly happen again if this Bill is on the statute book. It is important to bear in mind that the discretion I described a moment ago, which is already exercised, was almost certainly not envisaged at the time of that legislation.

A further concern has been aired very widely already, so I will not linger on it. Some people may feel pressured into taking decisions at the end of their lives which do not reflect their true wishes. We know that some people hold one view of the termination of their apparently hopeless lives while they are discussing it when they are well, but quite another when they are very ill.

A third point, which has already been aired to some degree, is that the medical profession is deeply split on many of these issues, just like this House. I personally support people’s right to exercise control over their deaths, as well as their lives, but we have to accept that the regulation needed to support this legislation will be complex and will almost certainly have unintended consequences. In my view, we have to try much harder to get this right, particularly to assist the clinicians on the front line, in ICUs and in the hospices.

To pass the Bill in its current form, heavily laden with controversy and with many arguing, as they have today, that it has not been properly debated, would be a very profound mistake and would make for bad law. At the very least, we need a Select Committee. We perhaps need a royal commission. Then, we need a Bill in government time, as was the case with the Suicide Act and with the Mental Capacity Act. What I have suggested might lead to some delay, but we would probably get better legislation as a consequence.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Tyrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said that some people were suffering from insomnia. I think this House is suffering from collective amnesia. All of a sudden there is a great hurrah about the Sewel convention and respecting devolution. I gently remind this House that it had no hesitation whatever in legislating over the heads of the Northern Ireland Assembly against the expressed wishes of that Assembly on abortion, for instance, and on other matters. So, if we have suddenly decided that we are going to respect these settlements, it is a Damascene conversion, and I hope that it is perfectly obvious that there are huge holes in where this legislation is taking us, as has just been ably pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Gove. Like him, I leave it open as to whether this is the right amendment, but I just gently remind everybody that we in this House are not scoring very high on consistency.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

I will be brief—everybody will be delighted to hear that. I should say that I am a supporter of the intentions of the Bill, and I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, particularly when he suggested that the Government will need to be involved in sorting out some of these problems.

What concerns me is that we are now going to try to improve a Bill, which is demonstrably flawed, with 900 amendments—many of which seem to make sense to me—on the Floor of the House between now and Christmas. Surely the Government should now be listening, and grasping that they need to take the Bill in themselves. They need to consult nationally and widely, to try to find as much consensus as possible, and then in a considered way they need to come back to the House. To attempt to deal with these 900 amendments in this way will end up with the Bill being talked out, with us being in a place we do not want to be—at least those of us who want to see progress on the Bill—and we will end up in a worse place than we would have been had the Government done the sensible thing at the beginning and taken the Bill in, as they did with Private Members’ Bills such as the Suicide Act.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be even more brief than the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, but I put on record that I am quite in favour of Damascene conversions on this occasion. This last hour and a half have shown us that this is irrespective of the aims of the Bill. The way the Bill is written has so many flaws that I do not think that, however long we debate it, this House will be able to get it to a stage where it is legislatively fit to be passed, and that is our role: we should not vote for anything that cannot legislatively be properly implemented.