Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as requested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I have reflected on the progress we have made on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to date. I know that we have engaged in vital scrutiny work and made progress, although for the supporters of the Bill it seems agonisingly slow.

I am acutely conscious that the role of this House is not to rubber-stamp legislation. It demands that we draw on our knowledge, our experience and research evidence to demonstrate why revision is necessary and, most importantly, to insist firmly that a Bill is made safe before it leaves us. That is our constitutional duty and it is what we have been doing over the past 14 days in Committee. Yet our work has been dismissed as filibustering or worse. That is simply not true. The breadth of participation in this House reflects deep and genuine concerns shared by NHS doctors, human rights bodies and disability organisations about the risks this legislation may pose to the most vulnerable.

I have spent over two decades studying similar laws internationally. I have long supported autonomy for disabled people, but autonomy without protection is not freedom—it is risk. When the outcome is irreversible, that risk must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Public opinion is given to reflect that caution, despite the high-profile celebrities fronting the campaign for assisted dying. Of course, they get the headlines. Actor Miriam Margolyes’s recent outburst against “a cohort of rabid Catholic privileged Lords out to sabotage the Bill” was heard loud and clear. But please do not be mistaken; this is not a reflection of public opinion.

The latest polling by Whitestone Insight shows that there is no clear or informed public mandate for this Bill. Around four in 10 people do not understand that assisted dying involves administering lethal drugs—when voters are better informed, support falls away; nor is this a public priority, with far greater concern focused on NHS pressures and social care. Importantly, the same polling shows strong support for the role of this House. A clear majority of the public believe that the House of Lords has a duty to amend or block legislation if it risks harm. That is not a call for us to step aside. It is a call for us to do our job.

Without significant amendment, this Bill cannot guarantee protection for those in vulnerable situations or outside its intended scope; nor can it ensure that decisions are made entirely free from pressure. These concerns are shared by, for example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and disability organisations. Even Liberty, an organisation long associated with defending individual freedoms, cannot support this Bill. It warned Parliament at Second Reading that the risk to those whose rights are fragile must also be protected. As it put it, the autonomy of one group cannot override the rights of another. Rights must be carefully and proportionately balanced. This Bill fails that test.

I also struggle to understand why the Bill’s sponsor appears unwilling to recognise the weight of expert evidence. I welcomed the noble and learned Lord’s open-door policy to engage with our concerns and I sought to assist him to understand the nature of a terminal prognosis. I arranged for two eminent intensive care consultants from St Thomas’ Hospital to meet him and provide a clear tutorial on prognostication. They demonstrated that a six-month prognosis cannot provide a reliable foundation for legislation of this kind. But has he returned with amendments of his own to address this deficit in the Bill? No.

Much of the chatter around the debate inside and outside this Chamber focuses on motives; it should not. Our role is to examine all available evidence, test safeguards and make revisions. Disabled people who have contacted me are very clear: this Bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your Lordships why it is dangerous for them. They fear unequal access to care shaping their choices, subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected, error in prognosis, persistent assumptions about the value of their lives and a system already under strain being asked to deliver decisions of the utmost gravity. These are real and repeated concerns. I have contributed to amendments that have sought to strengthen safeguards to that end. That is not obstruction; it is our duty.