Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard three arguments against the Bill: from those who oppose assisted dying in principle, those who say it will undermine pressure for palliative care, and others who think that the Bill is faulty.

There is not much I can say to those whose objections are deeply religious, but I disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that enabling a dying person to end their own life means that we, as a society, believe that

“some lives are not worth living”.—[Official Report, 12/9/25; col. 1785.]

I say no; it means that we value our fellow human beings and their choice to hasten the inevitable, at a time of their choosing.

I acknowledge the views of the noble Baroness, Lady May, although I do not think she should prevent others from exercising a different view. I disagree with her that:

“As a society, we believe that suicide is wrong”.—[Official Report, 12/9/25; col. 1784.]


As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says: it is legal, but there are no safeguards—particularly when people go to Switzerland. As we have heard from a former DPP and a former chief constable, the current need to interrogate the loved ones of those who have legally taken their own life is a situation none of us would want to face.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others have said, the Bill is not about people choosing to die. They are dying. The Bill is about helping to make those final days easier for those who so choose. It is about dying people who want a loved one with them; the Bill allows that. It is not just about a medical intervention. It is for those who want a loved one with them, if they choose to end their own life, when the pain, discomfort, indignity or scale of intervention become unbearable.

Some noble Lords claim that the Bill would undermine pressure for palliative care. But there is no evidence for that. Indeed, the Bill has already led to more discussions about dying; the need for dignity, support and help; and it may even have increased the likelihood of improved provision. I say to those noble Lords: campaign away for palliative care, but do not do so at the expense of those who have had palliative care and then, in their final hours, want help to die.

Palliative care is about improving the quality of the last part of life for those approaching death, by managing pain and other symptoms—often in their own home. Why, when those symptoms are no longer manageable, should professional help be unavailable at a time and manner of their choosing and in their own surroundings, alongside those they love?

I address the argument from those—who would otherwise support assisted dying, rather than those who never would—who say that this Bill is not right. Our task is not to undermine the clear public desire, and the Commons’ support, for this measure. Our task here is to ensure that it achieves its ends but with proper safeguards, albeit not with so much bureaucracy that its purpose is defeated. We should look for genuine improvements, helped by a timely Select Committee and then by the whole House, without derailing its timetable. Let the Commons then have the final word.

There is a right to die; it is already in law. This is about helping those who, in their final days, when the inevitable is coming, can have the comfort of professional help as well as having their families around them if they choose to end their life.