Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will present five bases of rejection to the Bill. The first is the evolution of the Bill in the other place, which we can hardly call Parliament at its best. It was deemed to be a Private Member’s Bill, but I am sorry to say that I think we are being fooled here; it is quite obviously a government Bill in disguise. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, indicated this last week in his fine speech, when he referred to the Civil Service assistance he had had to date, which is more than unusual for any Private Member’s Bill.

From the start, Committee in the other place was stilted in its composition, and many respected institutions that will be operating in the space of the Bill were denied their opportunity for input. What worried me more than anything else were the joyous, tear-flecked celebrations by some parliamentarians of the passing of the Bill in the Commons; it is a Bill of death. I found that quite bizarre and chilling. I should not be surprised, however, as many of the same people are jubilant about the opportunity to home-conduct abortions up to full term without sanction. I celebrate life rather than death.

The Bill as originally drafted had 16 Henry VIII clauses; that has now grown to 42, including many that will allow ministerial powers and secondary legislation to create criminal sanctions. Noble Lords will be aware that this is just not right in legislation; this should not happen without great cause, to create criminal sanctions by secondary legislation. It is usually widely condemned.

My second objection is the reality of what we have seen in other jurisdictions, where we have seen a loosening throughout—whether that be in Australia, Canada or most certainly Belgium. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, predicted last week that only 1% of deaths would be through legalised suicide within 10 years. That does not fit very well with Australia’s 3% and Canada’s just under 5%. In all jurisdictions, “I don’t want to be a burden” has become bigger and bigger. In Belgium, children as young as nine are being euthanised under similar legislation—let me repeat that: in Belgium, children aged nine are being euthanised. I have grave concerns about the human rights industry in this country, where whatever happens in Parliament gets overturned through judicial activism. I am absolutely sure that this would be watered down to death on the state on demand in due course. That is my great fear.

My third grave concern is inheritance. I am professionally trained and licensed to do probate work through the Institute of Chartered Accountants; believe me, post-death battles over inheritance can get very ugly. I am fearful of the coercion of the elderly and the vulnerable. It is so obvious.

Fourthly, I am worried about the six-month time limit. We have a similar thing in the DWP for end-of-life PIP, where you have to have an assessment that you may live for only up to 12 months. The reality is very different: the average is over two years, and very commonly people live for three when the assessment was just a year. Are we really going to terminate lives earlier than may be the case? The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, gave a fine speech last week: a personal account of his father. What he is looking for, and what I would be looking for, is that very end-of-life solution where things can be put right, the making a person comfortable, that we know happens, sort of, today. If that is the bit that needs codification into legislation, that is fine; we should be considering that.

Fifthly and finally, I am concerned that we want to embed an option for death within the NHS, where its modus operandi should be for life and for doing its bit, obviously, when palliative care is needed. To have this as an option is very dangerous. I would like to see—if we have to have this at all—a separation, because unfortunately the NHS would have skin in the game in terms of costs and staff problems. This is an unwholesome Bill, and I will oppose it.