Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to be able to take part in a debate such as this. Even if I disagree with some of the views that have been put forward, I fully respect the sincerity with which they have been put forward.

I pay tribute to Kim Leadbeater. She has done a tremendous job. For her tenacity, sensitivity and campaigning fervour, she deserves a lot of respect, even if one does not agree with her views. I do agree with them. I have always felt that I cannot deny to others something that I would want for myself, and I would certainly want to avail myself of the provisions in the Bill if my health had reached the position where I qualified for it.

The present position is surely unsafe, cruel and unworkable. Those Members of this House who do not want the Bill in any circumstances are, I think, obliged to say what they have to offer. Or do we simply keep the status quo? For people who have the money to go to Switzerland, there are no safeguards at all; they can just go—provided they have the money, off they go. At least here we have a Bill with numerous safeguards.

Public opinion is very much on the side of the Bill. All the surveys show that the public want to be able to have a choice. We the politicians are in danger of being out of step with the public.

We have had the experience of Oregon put before us. My understanding is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, that people who get palliative care in Oregon also have the right, if they want, to end their lives if they qualify under the legislation. Yet, because they can do it at any time, because they are in control, they often do not use that option at all. It is a sign that people want some control over their destinies.

The Bill had extensive coverage in the Commons, and I think we have to be very careful before we challenge the elected House, which has been through such long processes of debate and consideration of this measure. It would be a regrettable step if we were to block it by procedural means rather than by the principles that are there for us to scrutinise legislation. The Bill received more scrutiny in the Commons than virtually any other piece of legislation in the world. It was very clear that the Commons in the end were in favour of it.

People have talked about pressure. There is also the possibility of pressure the other way: there might be an individual who wants to take advantage of the Bill and whose family will not let him or her. So, the pressure can work in both directions. What we need are adequate safeguards.

I finish by describing an experience. We have all had personal testimonies. Some years ago, there was a similar attempt to pass legislation in this House. A friend of mine was very ill with motor neurone disease and I used to see him quite often. On one particular occasion, he was anxious, through his family, to ask if I could be there because he wanted to talk to me. I got there, his wife and children were there and at that point all he could do was tap out on a keyboard—on my next visit, he could not even do that. He was in a pretty bad way. The purpose of my visit, or rather his intention for my visiting, was that he wanted my views on a Bill similar to this one going through. He wanted me to give a promise that I would support such legislation. I gave him that promise.