Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Baker of Dorking Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, this is the third time in my life that I have spoken in this House on assisted dying. The first time was over 20 years ago, when it was not very prominent at all. I have been a strong supporter of it. The argument then was that the sanctity of life was so important, and the Bishops have said this today—they believe that very strongly. But many of their parishioners do not believe that. I am an active Anglican and, in my church, my friends are all very keen on assisted dying. The right reverend Prelate is nodding; I see that he has some as well.

Something very extraordinary about this is that the recent Directors of Public Prosecution have been most reluctant to charge husbands for killing their wives because they know that, when they go to court and the court hears how the husband has worked not from greed but from love—how he has been asked by his wife constantly to end her life so she does not suffer any longer—they do not convict. When laws do not convict, they should be changed. That is the reality, and the Prime Minister has shared in it.

This House has always been very supportive of assisted dying, because we are much older than the Commons. I am now one of the older Members—I am 90—so I am much closer to death than any of you. The one thing I would say is that it would be wonderful if there were a choice of palliative care, but it is totally unrealistic that it will happen. It will cost billions. Is the Labour Party or the Conservative Party going to say in its next manifesto, “We will spend billions on palliative care”? I do not think even Farage is mad enough to do that, and it just will not happen.

My father died watching the television news, and I hope I might go as quickly—but one may not; one may live. I visited two palliative care homes to meet friends, and they were looked after very well, but they all wanted to go home. They wanted to get out as quickly as possible to die at home, because they wanted to control their own death, so it is not really an alternative. It is absurd for people to think that it is a political alternative to spread palliative care in the way that it may be needed.

I think this Bill should be supported because it is compassionate and it wants to prevent suffering. It also wants to protect people from coercion. I visited two friends who were dying and who were surrounded by family, and there was coercion—but it was coercion to go on living, not to die. That is often the pattern. I believe that the safeguards in this Bill are quite adequate, and those who wish to destroy or undermine the Bill or to increase the safeguards so much that hardly anybody will ever die in this way should consider very carefully the great indignity of extended old age. I am now aware of it, and one thing I would say to noble Lords—a bit of good advice—is that it is very costly and you should save some money for being old, as you really will need it, I can assure you.

People must die in dignity. The simple reason is that you can anaesthetise suffering, but you cannot anaesthetise dignity. Many people feel very indignant indeed that they are going to have to suffer for so long. I want to my death to be my death. I do not want some intruder who has never intruded upon my life to intrude upon my death.