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.

Citizenship Applications

Lord Tyrie Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The guidance is there and the ability of the Government to change that guidance is there. We have made a Statement to the House of Commons in relation to that guidance being changed.

There are many individuals who reside in the United Kingdom who live, work and enjoy the benefits of living in the United Kingdom and who are not British citizens. The right of citizenship is a different issue. As I said to my noble friend Lord Boateng, individuals can apply for citizenship, but the presumption is that they will be refused if they have entered illegally, unless there are compelling, mitigating circumstances. That is our position. That it is not worse than the Rwanda scheme—we are repealing the Rwanda scheme. We are changing the immigration scheme through the immigration Bill, which will come before this House in due course. The noble Baroness will know that there are major steps in that Bill to end the pernicious trade of people trafficking, to stop the wasteful Rwanda scheme, and to ensure that we place immigration and migration on a proper footing. Further, there will be an immigration White Paper later this year, which will cover a range of issues, including the needs of society and the need for immigration for the British economy and growth.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

The more that we listen to this, the more a number of us conclude that this is a major change that deserves much more substantial consideration and scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force. Does the Minister accept that for refugees who have come here by whatever means, and who have become stateless and remain here indefinitely, under this measure, unless they are subject to what the Minister described a moment ago as citizenship on an exceptional basis, they are going to find themselves second-class citizens?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that there will be individuals who either arrive here as stateless or subsequently find themselves stateless through loss of documents. There is a stateless route for application for leave to remain, and that remains in place. The Home Office has had to examine the question of British citizenship. In doing so, this guidance has been published. It is subject to—as it is today—discussion, comment and representation from Members of this House and the House of Commons.