Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Dobbs Excerpts

Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

I apologise to the Stubbs family and all the supporters of the Bill that we have been denied the fair, proper constitutional process that could have made that choice possible here.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, this debate has become very personal at times, and perhaps I might indulge in that. First, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for trying to get in the way of his valedictory speech. He is a friend of mine and will remain so, and I shall miss him very much. There are many other opponents of the Bill, which I so fervently support, who are dear friends of mine, for whom I have and will continue to have great respect. That includes, for instance, a previous Chief Whip who I can see, and who am I to argue with the wiles of a Chief Whip?

Five years ago, when I was diagnosed with the cancer that had killed my father and my brother, one of the first people to come to me to say, “Michael, come and have a cup of tea”, and to give me a hug, support, sympathy and advice was the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I am very sad that she is not in her place today because I would have liked to express my affection for her and my gratitude to her in this House to her face.

This has been a Bill of passions and disagreements. I will continue to respect all those of my friends who disagree with me on this, but—there is always a “but” in life, is there not?—while this has not been a filibuster, I was silly and went and looked up how a filibuster is defined, and it is “to talk something to death”. There is a certain irony in that definition, is there not? Look, it is not a filibuster, but if something looks, sounds and smells like an elephant and it is standing on your bloody foot, you can be forgiven for believing that it is indeed an elephant—but, of course, it is not a filibuster, is it?

It is not the job of this House, as we have heard so many times, to bury a Bill in distractions, which is what so much of the last few weeks and months have been about. I believe that we as a House have let ourselves down by failing to come to a conclusion on this Bill. We have harmed our future by failing to do our duty. There are people out there, opponents of this House, who would bring this House down and use this debate and our failure to deal with this Bill properly as a reason for doing so.

No one wants a bad law, but we already have a bad law. It is a law which is cruel. It is a law which is callous. It is the law of Dignitas, whereby people are forced—only if they can afford it—to go off to a strange land and die there. We have a law of suffering and excruciating pain. It is the law of humiliation and degradation, which far too many people have to endure, totally unnecessarily. I fail to understand how anyone can suggest that the current law in this country is acceptable. We must find an alternative. We should not be made, as individuals, to go on that longest journey we will ever take, to our deaths, racked with pain and stumbling in fear.

To know that you can and may die in peace is to live in glory. This Bill will fail, but it will be resurrected. It will return and it will succeed—and I personally will rejoice.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I am dismayed at the decision to spend some time today on process instead of continuing to consider the raft of outstanding issues that we otherwise would have considered, so that the substantive challenges could be addressed in any future legislation. Today we would have considered how an assisted death would interact with the NHS constitution.

As we take note of the overall progress that has been made in this House, I will respond to a number of the claims that we have heard today, in some cases more or less from the moment the Bill arrived before us last summer. The claim today has been that the scrutiny that has taken place has been unnecessary or unusual and that in any event, the elected House had already undertaken sufficient scrutiny before we began. The Bill was first published in the way any Private Member’s Bill is. We have heard in this Chamber today some attempt to equate it with government Bills such as the Crime and Policing Bill and the welfare rights Bill, but there was no prior public consultation on this Bill. There was no pre-legislative scrutiny, no Green Paper, no White Paper, no international comparison. Even at the earliest stage, when the Bill was first presented, it was several times longer than any other Private Member’s Bill, weighing in at 43 clauses. It has now been expanded to 59 clauses and three schedules. The House of Lords Library tells us that this is the longest Private Member’s Bill ever.

This is in stark contrast to previous well-known Private Members’ legislation on issues of conscience that supporters have sought to use as precedents, such as the seven-clause-long Abortion Act and the four-clause-long Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act. Both benefited from a commission which fulfilled the pre-legislative scrutiny role that this Bill has sorely lacked.

After Second Reading, the amending stages in the other place began in Committee with the overwhelming majority of amendments being rejected by a Committee made up of 14 Members who supported the sponsor, in contrast to nine MPs who raised concerns about the Bill. Two-thirds of the way through Committee in the Commons, about 62 hours in, the most significant safeguard in the original Bill—the High Court stage at the end of the process, involving a judge—was removed. It was replaced by the new untrialled process, involving non-judicial panels overseen by a new, tsar-like figure, the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

This seismic change was made without any input from the 627 Members of the other place who were not on the Bill Committee. Significantly, no evidence was taken on that totally new process. On Report in the Commons, scrutiny was limited to just over two days, and of 77 amendments tabled—