Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, as one of the younger Members of your Lordships’ House, I start by thanking the hundreds of citizens of this nation who have taken time out to write to us or email us. I have read some of the very personal letters that have been sent to us, and I want to thank them all, regardless of whether they were in support of the Bill or against it.

I want to thank the MP for Spen Valley, Kim Leadbeater, for introducing this Bill, and thank the Members of the other place who worked on the committee. I see one of them stood here in the Chamber: my good friend Tom Gordon, the MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

For me, the concept of choice is always important, and I speak in favour of this legislation because it is fundamentally about choice and compassion. This Bill is not about compelling anyone to act against their conscience; it is about giving individuals and families the ability to decide how they spend their final days, whether they have faith or no faith. Let us be clear: today we have heard speakers who are in principle against people being assisted to take their own life, but that discussion has been held previously. People already have that choice, which is simply exercised by leaving this nation and going to places like Switzerland. It is therefore time that we in your Lordships’ House moved on to see how we can assist those who want to exercise that choice to do so in our nation, rather than limiting it to those who can afford to travel abroad.

Let me be clear: I would not personally choose assisted dying, and nor would any member of my family. Our faith teaches us to endure life until its natural end, and we respect that. But my personal decision or that of my family should not mean that others who hold different beliefs and make different choices are denied the ability to act according to their own conscience.

As a society, we already grant a great deal of choice in how we treat a person after death. Families decide whether to bury or cremate. In some faiths, including my own, and for our Jewish friends, there is a duty to bury as soon as possible. Others may take more time; some choose a more natural, environmentally friendly option; some choose to share a grave with a loved one. In each case, the law allows space for those decisions to reflect conscience, culture and personal beliefs. If we grant such choice after death, why do we withhold choice in the last days of life? Why do we say to those suffering unbearably that they must endure their final hours in a way they would not choose, even when the medical profession can provide safe and compassionate assistance? The Bill does not compel anyone to end their life; it does not diminish the sanctity of life; it simply allows those who, after careful consideration and with proper safeguards, wish to have control over dying, and to do so with dignity and without the fear of criminalisation.

I will follow the passage of the Bill carefully and remain open-minded to amendments at later stages if they genuinely enhance its intentions. At its heart, this is a question of individual freedom. A central pillar of liberalism is the freedom to choose for oneself, provided it does no harm to others. Laws should not enforce needless pain but should offer dignity, compassion and, above all, choice. If we honour freedom in life, we must honour it at life’s end.