English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness Butler-Sloss and Baroness Andrews

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support all these amendments, and in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best. The tiny village where I have a house, 10 miles from Exeter, is not just a rural community but a farming community. For years, Exeter City Council has wanted to take over the area; those of us living in this tiny village and the other villages round about it know perfectly well that there is not a single person in the city council who has the slightest knowledge of anything to do with rural affairs. It is very important that the Government pick up and take on the fact that rural affairs need to be separately considered.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I regret not having taken part in Committee. If you come to the arguments on Report quite fresh, they have a curiously powerful impact. This afternoon, we have heard speeches on aspects of the amendments on rural needs and ambitions that have been very powerful. We do not have planning and development Bills that often, and I know my noble friend the Minister has been extremely flexible and engaged on many aspects of the Bill, but I do think that a Bill that claims to speak for the whole of development, in terms of the devolution settlement across the UK, and community empowerment has a duty to address the needs of the whole country.

We have had these debates about the absence of the rural voice, rural priority and rural needs as long as I have been in this House, for 25 years. The same arguments have been made by many of the same noble Lords and have grown in urgency rather than diminished. The loss of the unit for rural-proofing was very seriously misjudged.

If the Minister could give some further thought to Amendment 310 in the name of my noble friend, it would be incredibly welcome. It is reasonable, proportionate and comprehensive in what it would achieve, to flag up the seriousness with which the Government take the contribution of rural areas to growth, building community and their specific needs, which have been neglected for far too long.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Butler-Sloss and Baroness Andrews

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am delighted to hear it in relation to embassies and charities, but the other example given was the person living in Spain who wants to come back to die here. It seems to me that needing to be resident in this country for the last 12 months would not allow that person to do so. The noble and learned Lord might just look again at that particular element of residence.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt this fascinating debate between our lawyers. I have no legal experience, but I have investigated the notion of domiciliary status at some length for different reasons. I absolutely agree with anyone who has tried to work their way through the 93 pages of conditionalities and various different criteria.

I come back to the central point in the excellent contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the need for consistency with the NHS and the implications of not being consistent. The terminology is not just about domiciliary status. What is the notion of permanence? We could have an equally long and problematic debate over that other element of the terminology. I completely respect that this is a probing amendment, but just as we had the beginnings of a debate on mental capacity and the necessity for consistency and trusting that what we already know works, because we see it every day in practice, so the notion of ordinary residence should simply, as far as I am concerned, end the conversation. I think there is a welcome consensus around the Committee that this is the only definition that is going to be practicable, workable, known and acceptable. I hope we can move on with the debate in that context.