Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Moylan and Lord Katz

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I comment before the Minister sits down? I would hesitate to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because that would be quite correctly stopped by the Whips, but what he is saying is not to the point. If someone has one fatal illness that will kill them at some time in the future, such as a certain form of cancer, they may of course have another illness, say heart disease—I am not a medical person—that could equally see them off at some point in the future. Of course, that will be included in the scope—we entirely understand that.

That is not quite what the Minister is saying. She is saying that one might have a combination of circumstances, each of which might be non-fatal in itself, but that in combination they might result in a terminal diagnosis within six months. If one is frail—again, I am not a medical person—one might have pneumonia combined with certain other conditions, such that the combination could be very threatening and might lead to death within six months, but none of those instances would be fatal in itself. That seems to be what the Minister is saying, but it is not what the Bill says. There has to be an identifiable—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

I am not entirely clear whether this is an intervention or a speech. If it is an intervention, it should be clearer and briefer than that, and have an actual question. Please come to the point.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

This has exposed something that has never been mentioned in relation to the Bill before, or in the whole of our debate on terminal illness. It is a matter of crucial importance. I know the Minister wants to dodge it, but it seems that the Government’s interpretation of Clause 2(1) is very different from what it appears to say in plain language.

Public Transport: Expansion and Electrification

Debate between Lord Moylan and Lord Katz

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am pleased to say that rail is already the greenest form of transport, but more is indeed needed to meet our contribution to achieving net zero by 2050. For instance, 9% of all passenger miles are covered by electric vehicles, so it accounts for only 1% of transport emissions across the sector. We are investing in electrification, particularly on the trans-Pennine route upgrade—to electrify and upgrade the main arterial route between Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York. I cannot give my noble friend any commitments today, obviously, on extending the great western main line electrification, but we are working to identify other opportunities for further electrification in light of the spending view.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, what is the business case for electrification of public transport, when government policy means that we have the highest electricity prices in the developed world, a position that will only get worse if we join the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, as mooted in this morning’s deal?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I admire the noble Lord’s perspicacity in following this line of argument, but it is of course our reliance on gas from overseas that causes such fragility and variability in the cost of energy in this country.

“I believe that the struggle for decarbonised transport, clean development and clean air is as important as the struggle for clean water was in the 19th century”—


those are wise words, but they are not my own. Those are the words of Grant Shapps, the former Conservative Transport Secretary.