Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Jopling Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I have not changed my opposition to the concept of assisted dying since the previous debates in your Lordships’ House in 2015 and 2021. My views, which are not influenced by religious teaching, are based on my opposition—like the noble Lord, Lord Deben—to the passing of laws that permit the taking of life. That is why, in 1964, I supported the Silverman Private Members’ Bill to abolish capital punishment, much to the irritation of some of my then constituents.

In particular, I am concerned about two dangers in these proposals. We have heard already about the effects of the Bill in encouraging greedy families. As an example, I quote my own mother, who was widowed at 58 and, during temporary bouts of illness and depression, on many occasions told us that she wished she could die. Of course, we jollied her along and, in the event, she lived until she was 96, having led an interesting life and having seen a good deal of the world during those years. I know that, during those depressed moments, we could perfectly well have agreed with her and told her that we would try to arrange assisted dying if it had been then available.

My second concern is about the issue of doctors for hire—people who strongly support assisted dying, build a reputation for sanctioning it and become what I can only describe as a soft touch. In the torrent of information we have had about this Bill, I noticed the example of the Canadian situation, where 4% of medical-aid-in-dying practitioners provide these services more than 30 times a year. That is the sort of danger I am concerned about when I talk about doctors for hire.

On two previous occasions when we have discussed this Bill, I have put down amendments to restrict the number of times a doctor can sign the certificate. If this Bill is given a Second Reading, which I am sure will happen, I intend to put down an amendment to suggest that no doctor should sign a certificate more than twice in four years. That is a limitation which is open to discussion as to the frequency with which a doctor might be restricted to signing the certificates. We could discuss this between Committee and Report.

Finally, I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that when I made this proposal in 2015, he told me:

“I am very happy to discuss with the noble Lord the idea of there being some limit”.


He went on to say:

“However, I am completely engaged on how one seeks to deal with the issue of doctors for hire”.—[Official Report, 16/1/15; col. 1060.]


I hope that this would be a helpful amendment to this Bill in preventing doctors from setting up this type of reputation, which I think would be a mistake.

Genome Screening: Newborn Infants

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very good point. Certainly, it is part of how we develop the use of data. I am aware that he did not directly ask me this, but perhaps I might use the opportunity to say that data safety, which I know is a matter of concern to many noble Lords, is absolutely paramount here. We also have absolute regard to conducting studies ethically, but the point about primary care data, its use and its value, as well as its safety, is very well made and one which we are certainly developing still further.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, while the screening of genomes in newborn infants is of course very important, it is even more important to find a cure for some of these dreadful hereditary diseases—I am thinking particularly of Huntington’s chorea. Does the Minister have any information as to what progress is being made, with a prospect some time, before too long, of having a cure for this dreadful disease?

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Jopling Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone who has spoken so far in this debate, I give my general support to the Bill. Indeed, I am prepared to support almost anything which reduces the curse of smoking.

I had a similar thought to that of my noble friend Lord Howe in his speech—particularly when the previous Government made similar proposals—as to how it would work in practice. Attempts to impose an age limit on the right to acquire tobacco and smoking products is one thing when 17 year-olds can but 16 year-olds cannot, but that may look and be treated as arbitrary and more theoretical in years to come, when you are talking about 56 year-olds who can and 55 year-olds who cannot.

I have always found it difficult to understand why about 12% of the population still smoke—6 million people. We are told that smoking kills two-thirds of the long-term users of tobacco and that they will die of lung cancer. That is, of course, totally contrary to the wicked campaign pursued by the tobacco companies over so many years. The evidence seems quite overwhelming; indeed, it has become more and more compelling over the years. I can only describe a decision to smoke as insane, and I support all steps to educate, prohibit and tax in a way to reduce smoking.

I will give the House an example of my own experience of smoking. At the end of my first year at the University of Newcastle in 1950, I became seriously ill and spent many weeks in hospital. I was about to be discharged when the professor of thoracic medicine came to me and said that he thought I was going to be all right. He asked whether I smoked and I said yes, I did. He asked me how many and I said, “Too many”. He told me that he thought that was a serious mistake and that I should stop smoking. When I demurred and said I thought it was perfectly all right to continue smoking, he said, “One of my students has just written a thesis where he claims to have found a connection between smoking and lung cancer. I’ve only briefly skimmed over the thesis, but it seems to me to be very compelling”. He then went on to say, “You have completed the first year of a science degree so you will understand most of the thesis, and I am going to let you see it”.

The following day, this thesis by a Dr Strang—who later became a very distinguished surgeon in thoracic surgery—arrived on my bed. I read it and was horrified to read this new and, in those days, almost unheard of connection, showing the insanity of smoking. That connection did not get general publicity until five years later; there was practically nothing said publicly about this until the mid-1950s. Having read it, I decided enough was enough, and I have never had a cigarette in my hand or my mouth since that day. I have lived a joyous life for 94 years and hope for many more to come, but if I had not taken that decision that day I am sure I would not have been here today to contribute to this debate.

Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I do not smoke. I am married to a smoker and I do not like her smoking, but that is not the point. The point about legislation is its effectiveness. What worries me about gesture legislation is that it comes about because something ought to be done about something.

As far as I know, with the current packaging situation, we have about 19% of the country smoking. Without any advertising, packaging or public involvement, we have about 21% of the country using illicit drugs. It does not seem therefore that packaging is necessarily the determining effect. If anything, the more you drive smoking underground, the more attractive it seems to become. We should be slightly careful how we tackle it. Perhaps it should be looked at as part of the overall issue of how we deal with the problem of addiction and drugs instead of trying to target a little bit of advertising, with lots of people having preconceived ideas. I am not a qualified advertising man, but I think that the purpose of packaging is to try to make somebody switch from one brand to another. I do not think that it is what makes people smoke, but I could be wrong. The statistics suggest that we should not drive it underground.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to trump the ace of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, when she said that she gave up smoking in 1974 but, in 1950, at the end of my first year at university, I became very ill. I spent 12 weeks in hospital with a chest complaint—the doctors thought that it was tuberculosis, but mercifully it was not. At the end of it, the surgeon came to me—he was the professor of thoracic surgery at Newcastle, George Mason; the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will remember him. He said to me, “I think you’re going to be all right but, tell me, do you smoke?”. I said yes. He said, “Well, you shouldn’t”. I said, “Oh, come on. My father’s been talking to you”. He said, “No, I haven’t talked to your father, but one of our students in the University at Newcastle”—it was Dr Strang, who again I think the noble Lord will recall—“has just written a thesis where he has claimed to find a connection between smoking and lung cancer. I’ve scanned it and I haven’t properly been through it, but I found it very compelling. You’ve done the first year of a science degree. You will understand not all of it but most of it, and I’ll give it to you”. The following day there arrived on my bed in the hospital the thesis by this young student. I read it and I was so horrified that I have never smoked a cigarette from that day to this—I was smoking about 25 a day at that time. Ever since then, I have taken a great interest in the connection between smoking and lung cancer. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said about the horrors of tobacco, which I thoroughly support. All the time since, I have listened to the arguments one way or another, as we have listened to the arguments here today.

I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said earlier about the publicity of the tobacco industry. I remember so well through the 1960s and 1970s, when I was in the other place, what I can only call the wicked advertisements, publicity and PR of the tobacco industry. I think the connection between smoking and lung cancer became clear in the 1950s, yet in the 1960s and 1970s the tobacco industry still tried to pretend that there was no danger whatever. That really was wicked.

I have not, I confess, examined the arguments about packaging this time but I listened to the arguments tonight. Bearing in mind the negative start I made—I admit it—when looking at the publicity of the tobacco industry, it seems that this is an experiment well worth trying. For that reason, I most strongly support the Government’s line tonight.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords—