Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Bishop of Newcastle Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

There are many more people I could mention. The current law does not protect people; it abandons them, often to die in pain, sometimes to die without dignity, sometimes to die alone in a foreign country or relying on the quiet, unregulated compassion of those around them. My mother was fortunate; many are not. These people—nurses, teachers, parents, magistrates—deserved better. So do thousands of people like them who face the same choice, or the absence of one, this year and every year that follows. Our colleagues in the other place raised the hopes of the nation last year by passing this Bill and I am sorry that we have let them down. All I can say and pledge, and I know I speak for many of our colleagues here, is that we will try, try and try again to bring this Bill back as soon as possible in the next Session, to do what is right democratically and, most importantly of all, to give those people who are terminally ill hope of the choice of a better way to die.

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, I speak as one of the Lords spiritual and as a member of the Select Committee that examined the Bill. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility for the integrity of our legislative process and for the dignity and protection of those whose lives may be most directly affected by what we decide. I have been deeply moved by the personal stories that have been shared by noble Lords in recent months and wish to acknowledge the stories that my noble friend shared with us just now. My own dear cousin died earlier this week from a condition that could at many stages have been described as terminal. She continued resolutely to live life to its fullness, and her sudden death is a matter of great sadness to me.

In our context, where questions of life, death, care and conscience are so closely intertwined, the quality of our scrutiny is not a procedural detail. It is a moral necessity. Some may dismiss my contribution as one grounded in a faith, but this is as legitimate and significant as any other viewpoint, whether grounded in faith, belief or none. While my faith informs my alarm at our designation of dignity or the lack of it, it is from my experience on the Select Committee that I have found that, the more closely we have examined this Bill, the more concerns have come into focus, not fewer. For a Bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative. Within our proceedings, there has been an acknowledgement, even from those closely involved in the Bill, that it is not yet in a settled or satisfactory form. When such admissions are made, it is incumbent on us to listen with care.

The Select Committee heard evidence that raised a number of unresolved and deeply serious questions. These questions were practical as well as deeply principled: whether the state should be obligated to address unmet need before assisting someone to die, even if in doing so the person’s mind might be changed; how we ensure that we continue to uphold our duty to suicide prevention for those who are terminally ill; how such a significant change in the law would be delivered in a way that does not put vulnerable people at further risk; and how this would work for extremely vulnerable populations who do not have the same choice, such as prisoners. These are not marginal concerns. They go to the heart of how we understand protection, vulnerability and moral responsibility.

Across this House, Peers from many different perspectives have expressed concern. That breadth of unease ought not to be dismissed lightly, yet I share the concern that the time afforded for debate has often been limited in ways that do not reflect the gravity of the subject. When the Bill was first introduced, it contained a number of delegated powers of a kind that, as noble Lords have already pointed out, rightly attracted concern. While some adjustments may have been made, the underlying issue remains—whether too much is being left unresolved, to be determined later rather than clarified now. There must be opportunity for a deliberative process as these are examined. Moreover, the committee and the House more broadly have raised a number of detailed questions to which clear answers have not always been forthcoming from the Government or their advisers. That lack of clarity makes it difficult for us to discharge our duty with the confidence that is required.

In my ministry, I am often reminded that how we care for those at the end of life is a measure of our common life together. That care must be marked by compassion, clarity and a steadfast commitment to protect the most vulnerable. For that reason, I believe we must continue to proceed with great caution. Until the questions that have been raised are answered more fully and until this Bill has received the depth of scrutiny it requires, it would be irresponsible to allow it to move forward. This is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that any change we make is just, humane and worthy of the trust that is placed in us.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.