Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Baroness Grey-Thompson

Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am in favour of the amendments from my noble friend Lady Coffey. This has been a fascinating debate about the issues that we have with the devolution settlements across our United Kingdom. It is not only about the issues across the English-Welsh border, which have been so ably demonstrated and described by my noble friend Lord Harper, who has experience in this matter from the other place, but we have other strange dynamics going on in this country on the English border over into Scotland, where things are very different. There are other differences between England and Northern Ireland. We are not proposing to usurp the settlement with Scotland or to usurp the settlement with Northern Ireland.

I am quite interested to hear, at the appropriate time, whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will declare whether he is no longer quite so keen on the old devolution settlements that I can but assume he was part of during the Government that he served in, in that it is not quite as convenient now in this Bill to do the things required by those devolution settlements.

I was interested to hear the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, because the Northern Ireland arrangement has a further dynamic, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, where there is, again, a swapping over and a commonality of health provision, and it is quite commonplace that people come and go.

The matter of abortion was also raised. That has had a different dynamic across our United Kingdom over many years. My voting record in the House of Commons will show that I took no part in the rather heated debate on abortion that happened some years ago. I abstained because I appreciated that the devolution settlement was a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly to come to its own conclusions on.

We have to ask ourselves what this Bill is. Is it a criminal justice Bill? We have 42 Henry VIII powers, exercisable by Ministers, so the Bill before us is not actually the Bill that will affect people’s lives; that will be written later because this Bill has so many of those Henry VIII powers in it. Many of those powers, as I described at Second Reading, should not really be there. We should not be having Henry VIII powers to create criminal matters under statutory instruments and delegated legislation; that is just not the way we do things.

So is this a criminal justice Bill? I do not think it is, because it has now morphed very much into a health Bill. It seeks to amend the NHS Act. I think it is the intent of many of the Bill’s supporters that it is the NHS that does these things: advise, provide the medical staff and do the deed. I do not know which chemical might be used. It may be barbiturates in England; it might be heaven knows what in Scotland. These are serious matters.

Is this a medical Bill? I believe that it is. Because it has morphed increasingly into a medical Bill, whether or not we agree with the devolution settlements, we have to respect them. As my noble friend Lord Harper highlighted very clearly, this is the danger of a Private Member’s Bill that is so interwoven with and entrenched in the complications of a devolution settlement. Whether you are for or against this Bill, or whatever, these are complex matters. These are matters of a different potential life or death, depending on which border you are close to in this United Kingdom. This is a matter of health in Wales.

Looking back to Covid, I know that it is a period we all rather like to forget, unpleasant as it was. At that time, I and my noble friend Lord Harper—I am sorry to keep mentioning him—were somewhat active in the space. Do noble Lords remember? These were matters of life and death; I mean, Covid was deemed to be. I was not quite so keen on the measures and voted against them all, but they were deemed to be measures of life and death; that is why they were so draconian.

I remember very clearly that I came up with what I called the Wilkinson conundrum. It is not a good conundrum now, because Wilkinson has subsequently gone into liquidation, but I made the point that because Wilkinson sold everything—fresh fruit and vegetables, tins of beans, and pots and pans—it was allowed to open. The lunacy was that the independent trader next door who sold only pots and pans was not allowed to open. We did that for whatever reason—it was deemed to be a matter of life and death—but Wales did something entirely different. In Wales, Wilkinson had to hide the pots and pans; one could buy beans and everything else, but a cover had to be put over the pots and pans. In matters of life and death, we allowed Wales to have its way.

This is most seriously a matter of life and death. We have a devolution settlement, and it has to be respected.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in this debate: I chair Sport Wales, which is an arm’s-length body of the Welsh Government; I am the president of the LGA; and I am a director of Living and Dying Well. I also spoke recently at a fundraiser event for a hospice in Wales.

A fundamental part of why we are here is to debate legislation, including looking at how this Bill might impact various parts of the UK—most specifically, England and Wales. I am concerned that we could end up with vastly different systems in England and Wales. Generally, there is a lack of understanding on devolution. In sport, I seem to spend quite a lot of time in meetings asking, “What about devolution?”, and we have to be careful about what we do in Westminster and what should be a matter for Wales when the health service is devolved.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill)

Debate between Lord Mackinlay of Richborough and Baroness Grey-Thompson

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I have not to date spoken on this Bill, but there are couple of matters which need to be aired regarding the history of charity. I am a director of a charity, and my daughter attends a private school—let us get those on the record.

The history of charity in this country goes back a very long way, with a particular flourishing during Elizabethan times. The charities of that era were often health related, certainly education related and often to do with hospice and almshouse care—of course, this Government have decided to raise a jobs tax on hospices, which we have been discussing this week. The concept of charity was founded very much on education.

Through the latter end of my illness, my wife would drive me home at weekends for home visits. We found all manner of routes through south-east London to avoid the worst of some of Mayor Khan’s blockages that have been created through London—it did not stop us from paying the ULEZ, of course. On one of the small roads, I came across a charity called the Portuguese speakers community centre. I thought, “Well, well, well, there is such a thing”. I am sure that it does the most amazing work. On most high streets, we see a variety of charities. Lots are to do with animal support—the PDSA, Cats Protection and all manner of other charities. They all do very good work. However, they were not envisaged as the charities of the day when the big flowering of charities came to pass in Elizabethan times, but education most certainly was.

So, for the first time in the history of this nation, we are deciding to have a two-tier charitable system. Whereas that charity route of old—education—is no longer deemed of charitable-worthy status, the Portuguese community centre, for instance, which I am sure does good work, is. It is a strange day that we pass through with this legislation—it is a very sad day. The amendments in Motion Q1 will at least give the Secretary of State pause for thought and an easy way out in the future. I almost guarantee that those thoughts on raising lots of revenue will never be realised. Schools will close and, because of the VAT increase, children will move to the state sector and be a cost to the state in their education. Let us note this day and heed what is being told to the Government: “You will rue this decision”.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and ask that noble Lords note my register of interests. I have not spoken on the Bill before, but we need to consider the impact on sport.

Over many cycles of Olympic Games, many of our medal-winning athletes have gone through the independent school sector and a significant number will have been supported with scholarships. The access it gives to high-quality coaching and facilities, and balancing education with that pathway, is important.

The Sutton Trust has noted that private schools are overrepresented among the medal-winning athletes that we have. Its data probably does not support the argument that I am about to give. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right that 33% of Team GB’s medallists at the Paris 2024 Games went through private schools—down from 40% for the Tokyo Games. Yes, that compares with just 7% of the general population. Is it right that it is disproportionate? No, it is not, but the independent sector offers amazing opportunities for athletes to succeed.

The reality is that there is so much work that we need to do in our state schools. They should provide access to good-quality sports facilities and coaching and care about our children’s education, but the reality is that we are still quite a long way from that. We already know that the state sector is struggling to deliver sports such as cricket; the ECB has noted that. We need to think about the consequences in the short term for our medal-winning athletes and our place on the medal table.

I did not think I that I would be in a debate defending independent schools, but it is important that we are able to offer the right support to young people. A lot of young people on scholarships in independent schools will lose out on the chance to represent the UK. That is not right for the foreseeable future of our elite sporting environment.