Baroness Berridge (Con)

My Lords, I recognise that this is a day of disappointment. I am keenly aware of those who viewed this law as the solution to their plight, but also of those for whom the clear failure of proper provision of palliative services will not be solved any time soon and for those living with disabilities or with children with disabilities who struggle to access healthcare today. I also recognise that there is disappointment for many in their perception of their Parliament. I have, in my 15 years here, witnessed the best of parliamentary legislating as I sat on the Joint Committee scrutinising the Mental Health Bill after an independent review, a White Paper and a government response, but in my 15 years, this is not the best. I have said numerous times in Committee that the Private Member’s Bill process is being asked to replace pre-legislative scrutiny, and it cannot do that, so there is no surprise that huge concerns remain. I will speak briefly of just two examples—it was going to be three, but I am mindful of time—that could have been dealt with if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny. First, the consultative palliative care expert Jamilla Hussain said in the Guardian on 18 May 2025: “I am deeply concerned about the provision that there is no requirement to inform family or next of kin until after the assisted death has occurred”. This led me to think that children could be that next of the kin who would be the first informed and then to the question of children as interpreters, so I tabled amendments in that regard. The latter amendment about interpreters was the subject of enormous criticism on social media, but it was not, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, a “bureaucratic” amendment. It was not “procedural obstruction”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter, said. It was an important amendment, and it was not until the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that Parliament first heard from the Children’s Commissioners about the impact on children, although outside the scope of the Bill, of the societal change we were going to introduce. My second instance, or expert, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I have enjoyed the intellectual engagement in those meetings, and I am grateful for them, particularly the meeting that was held with Professor Alex Ruck Keene KC on the nuances of the Mental Capacity Act, down to the detail of decided case law. However, when the discussion came to the Mental Health Act, we got back to the basic outline principle that the Mental Health Act is not based on capacity. You can be detained repeatedly under the Mental Health Act but still have capacity. It was clear to me when leaving that meeting that we had gone from nuanced detail to basic principle and that we needed to have a look at the interconnection of the Mental Health Act and this Bill before we started. I will conclude where I began, with the different views of the world—which was also the subject of a meeting with the noble and learned Lord. He came from a place of individual autonomy and choice when beginning to legislate. But as I outlined at Second Reading, that is an anathema to many people who live in close community—whether that is geographical, in the north-east, or within a faith community. As other noble Lords have outlined, I think there is disappointment among some people of faith that their motivations and views have been used so casually and negatively in the media campaign—although, I note, never by the noble and learned Lord in my meetings. It is interesting that Professor John Lennox, emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford, quoted an unusual source in Westminster Hall in June last year. He said: “Polly Toynbee was spot on when she wrote in The Guardian: ‘Every day in Parliament, fundamentally different worldviews do battle. Politics is all about the clash of moral universes’”. Atheistic, materialistic, secular, humanist, Judaeo-Christian, liberal and now neoliberal viewpoints are all welcome. I would hate to think what William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King would think if it were otherwise. I have two final practical points. Away from your Lordships’ House, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and Lord Williams of Oystermouth are going to have a debate on the principle of this Bill on “Intelligence Squared”. If this view of the involvement of religious motivations is shared by the noble and learned Baroness, I would love to see her on a platform of that scale to discuss her views and intellectually engage properly on that issue, which is key to our liberal, democratic society. My second point is to reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the Private Member’s Bill process has not served us well. I am sad to see the polarisation and the polemic nature of many of our debates. I hope we can find a way to look at what has happened with this Bill to prevent it happening ever again. My final point is to do generally with the law. I hear the comments from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, but for the parents of disabled children, we have not spoken sufficiently of whether the law will protect their children when they are gone.