Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I do not intend, in a brief intervention, to argue the case for the Bill. I support the principles behind the Bill as set out; however, I do harbour some reservations as to the process of implementation. I want to concentrate my remarks on that process and in particular the Bill’s handling in this House and—hopefully in an amended form—on its return to the Commons.

After 43 years in Westminster, I have learned a simple lesson: legislate in haste and repent at leisure—there are too many precedents. I am worried that if we pass the legislation in a single session, in the period of implementation it will be subject to repeated attack as unforeseen problems arise. So I propose that we proceed on the following basis. The legislation should be the subject of annual renewal over a period of three years. There are a number of precedents in primary legislation for defined period renewal. For those who follow proceedings outside the House, they may well wish to look at the precedents. The Northern Ireland Act 1974 provided for annual orders on direct rule from Westminster. Section 17 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 provided for annual renewal powers, as did Section 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Then we have the provisions under the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980. We also have Section 98 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which required that the temporary, now devolved, provisions be voted on in Parliament every six months. I understand that attempts were made during passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 to introduce annual renewal, which the House later rejected. So the precedent is there.

Prior to annual renewal, dependent on how the renewal notice was drafted, the Government could introduce amendments to deal with problems identified during implementation of the legislation. On each occasion, Parliament could, if subject to statutory instrument approval, kill the legislation if it was dissatisfied with any proposed efficiency reforms. Equally, if Ministers failed to take renewal orders, the legislation would lapse. If satisfied, however, Parliament could renew. Yes, it is a steep hurdle, but controversial legislation on this scale needs some form of consensus. We need to heed the concerns of those who will support its provisions only in conditions of minimised opportunity for abuse.

Unlike many others, I am not convinced that the annual review by the Chief Medical Officer and the five-year review by the Secretary of State provide sufficient safeguards for Parliament to have a hand in dealing with potential public concerns. I hope to be tabling an amendment in Committee dealing with my concerns. I understand that my son, who is of a similar mind, will speak to such an amendment in the Commons if the opportunity arises.