Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Moylan

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very important debate. As usual, I will limit my comments to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

To begin, key concepts in Amendment 149, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are unclear. It will therefore be difficult to assess whether the duties have been discharged. For example, it is not clear who must co-ordinate and undertake the suggested multiagency assessment of support needs and who is responsible for ensuring that those needs are fully funded, so it may be impossible to demonstrate that these criteria have been met.

Amendment 152, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to prohibit registered medical practitioners or any other health professionals from raising the subject of provision of assistance under the Bill. If passed, this would be inconsistent with the discretion currently afforded to the registered medical practitioner in Clause 5(2), which makes it clear that a registered medical practitioner may exercise

“their professional judgement to decide if, and when, it is appropriate to discuss the matter”.

This amendment would therefore create conflicting duties and may lead to confusion about whether a registered medical practitioner can raise the issue of assisted dying.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Briefly, as it is of no interest to other Members of the Committee, but it is surprising that, with all the legal advice offered to her, the noble Baroness has not noticed that there is a consequential amendment in my name in the same group—which I referred to—which deletes subsection (2), since I too have spotted that there is an inconsistency and I have dealt with it.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It is still worth raising these matters in this context to avoid any confusion.

Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, would mean that a registered medical practitioner could not raise assisted dying with any person with a learning disability, including people with Down syndrome, unless they raise the subject themselves. This restriction would apply to all persons with a learning disability, including where the person has the capacity to make a decision to end their own life.

The purpose of Amendments 205, 207 and 207A, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton and Lady Grey-Thompson, appears to be to prevent a healthcare professional raising the subject of the provision of assistance with a person who has a learning disability or autism, unless that person has a family member, independent person or guardian present. Under Amendment 207A, both a family member and an independent person would need to be present. These amendments do not draw any distinction between varying levels of individual need. As drafted, a registered medical practitioner would be required to establish in all cases that the person does not have autism or a learning disability before raising the subject of an assisted death, unless a family member or independent person is present.

Amendment 200C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would mean that no person could raise the provision of assistance with those under the age of 18, whether online or otherwise. Amendment 209, tabled by my noble friend Lady Goudie, prohibits any adult with a duty of care or responsibility for a person under 18, including but not limited to guardians, social workers, educators or carers, from raising the subject of assisted dying “with such a person”. These amendments would be extremely difficult to enforce, due to their breadth and ambiguity. They may, for example, prohibit parents or guardians from discussing the broad issue of assisted dying with their children.

Finally, I bring to noble Lords’ attention that amendments discussed here, including Amendments 149, 162, 200C, 205, 207, 207A and 209, could give rise to legal challenge on ECHR grounds, in particular challenges brought under Articles 8, 10 and 14. These amendments would require reasonable and objective justification to comply with ECHR obligations.

I make no comment on the other amendments in this group. However, as noble Lords will be aware, the amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials. Therefore, further revision and corresponding amendments may be needed to provide consistent and coherent terminology throughout the Bill.

Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Moylan

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I was just coming to the point of saying that—as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, pointed out—we are now seeing personal safety and road safety being sacrificed on the altar of net zero. It is undoubtedly the case that heavier vehicles have a greater impact when an accident takes place. I am not claiming, nor did the noble Lord claim, that they are more likely to have an accident but they will certainly have a greater impact. This is exactly the same physics that lies behind the argument that speed limits in city areas should be cut. The impact is a function of the speed times the mass. If you increase the mass, you are putting back—so to speak—what you have gained by reducing speed limits in cities. That is what the Government are doing. They are playing recklessly with personal safety on the road, including that of vulnerable users in particular, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as those driving other motor vehicles.

There is a further point that was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pack: the effect on the roads themselves. The roads in this country in many places are breaking up. It is not simply a matter of potholes now but of another complete dereliction by the department. In many cases, the base of the road is being damaged because maintenance is being neglected. It is no good the Government saying they put a certain amount of money into it—which is what they always say when this point is brought up—because it is not having an effect on the roads. The roads are breaking up. A lack of maintenance means that the effect is not simply on the surface—the potholes—but on the base. Very often you can see that on many rural roads, which are breaking up, and a huge bill is being stored. Part of that is to do with heavier vehicles.

Some of those heavier vehicles—all the heavy SUVs and so on—are heavier for reasons that I do not personally approve of. Another reason is that we are actively encouraging heavier vehicles, and doing so through measures such as this one. We did it through the amendments to the driving licence provisions, which we dealt with late last year. Now we are doing it in relation to the testing regime and the drivers’ hours rules for vans. The Government are driving forward, and they are very much driven by net zero, with no regard for the consequences for personal safety and road surfaces—and now, of course, we need to add the bridges.

I say on a personal note that, years ago, I used to have some responsibility for Albert Bridge as a local councillor, and I see that it is now closed. At that time, we spent quite a lot of money bringing Albert Bridge up to a standard where it could bear and be safe for 3-tonne vehicles—that would be the weight limit. Now that 3-tonne limit is almost of historical interest, so another bridge across the river in London is being taken out of use. What is the Government’s plan for this? There is no plan for any of this. They have not thought about any of these things; they just drive ahead recklessly with net zero.

Although this measure appears to have a purely technical character, it is very significant in a number of respects that I have set out in my speech. The Government need to start taking these things seriously, because otherwise they will be abandoning their transport-related duties. That is something we will constantly highlight and oppose.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Moylan, for their comments on this important area of work. Some of the points raised have come together from both noble Lords, if from slightly different angles, so perhaps they will forgive me if I cover them together.

One of the major themes coming through was the concern about the devolved Administrations and divergence. Just to reiterate, the regulations apply in Great Britain only; to reinforce that, this policy area is devolved to Northern Ireland and the officials in the Department for Infrastructure there have been updated on the regulations. I want to reassure noble Lords that the department in Northern Ireland is currently considering the potential impact the introduction of this legislation may have on regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is considering the impact of proposals that have been presented by the European Commission on drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements, which mirror the changes in these regulations—I think the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, picked up on some of the details around this.

I can only repeat that decisions on changes in Northern Ireland will be for Northern Ireland Ministers. While officials in the DfT and Northern Ireland’s Department for Infrastructure are working together to manage the impact of these measures on GB operators for the change in vans that regularly travel to Northern Ireland, we want to minimise the impact on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

In the meantime, drivers of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission vans will need to ensure that their vehicle complies with the applicable law while operating in Northern Ireland, including ensuring that they are meeting testing requirements and that their vehicle is fitted with a tachograph. For further reassurance, I can inform noble Lords that the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, speaks regularly to her counterpart in Northern Ireland to make sure that they are kept appraised of progress.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to answer my specific question? What contacts took place between her Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland, prior to the tabling of this secondary legislation, with a view to ensuring that the legislative gap did not exist—in other words, that they could proceed in harmony?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord will understand that I cannot be specific at this point about the exact detail. I am happy to write to him to make sure that he is fully apprised of the contact between the two areas.

On the road safety theme that has been picked up, I reassure noble Lords that there is no data to suggest that there is likely to be an increase in the collision rate following the introduction of these regulations. In fact, some van operators have indicated that they experience a lower collision rate with their 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero-emission van fleet compared with the equivalent diesel vans. This may be due to features such as the regenerative braking that I mentioned earlier, whereby braking energy is captured and can be reused, reducing wear on brakes. It is also important to note that, although heavier, in most cases these vans are the same physical size as the diesel vans they replace.

Smart Motorways

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Moylan

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an interesting point, but I have to go back to the fact that 793 people were killed or seriously injured on the motorways in 2023, compared with 1,120 on A-roads. Making sure that we consider carefully how we can improve driver safety, whether that means looking at young people or at older people—we know that eye tests are being proposed—is fundamental. I go back to the point that we are prepared to tolerate a level of death and injury on our roads that is, frankly, unacceptable. If such accidents and injuries happened on any other part of the transport network, there would be outrage. It is down to all of us to take very seriously, and not to be overcritical of, the attempts to change safety on our roads.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, when you come off the motorways, you quickly notice the rapidly deteriorating condition of many of our rural roads, which are becoming a threat and a safety risk in themselves. The Government have pledged to fix 1 million more potholes a year. Can the Minister update us on what progress is being made towards meeting that target?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware that we do not hold that level of detail on potholes, but what I can say is that this Government have made the biggest commitment of financial support to local authorities, so they can assess priority need and get on and repair the roads in their areas, which will contribute to the safety and well-being of all road users.

Electric Vehicles: Transition

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Moylan

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord hits on a very important point, but I emphasise to the House just how seriously the Government are taking this point. We have 88,000 public charge points in the UK and 920,000 domestic charge points, and all motorway service stations have them—I take the noble Lord’s point about rapid charging. That is why the Government are investing £400 million in the local electric vehicle infrastructure fund and are working with local authorities, which are in a position to look at the coverage in their areas, to co-ordinate with providers and make sure that we get the coverage that is required.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I come back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay. It is not just that the volume of motor manufacturing in this country is starting to collapse, but profits are as well. Meanwhile, we see our fine British motor manufacturing industry being substituted by Chinese imports. How does this fit with the Government’s growth strategy, which the Prime Minister says is his top priority?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The Government have the £4 billion DRIVE35 programme supporting investment in zero-emission vehicle manufacturing R&D and the supply chain in the UK. We are working across the whole system looking at where gigafactories are located and, most importantly, working closely with the sector. I point out that we have an industrial strategy; I think that is a big advantage on where we were when we came into government.

Railways: East Coast Main Line

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Moylan

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will make sure that we follow up the comments that the noble Lord has made. It was my responsibility to be heavily involved when the timetable changes were introduced in 2017, and I would say that, overall, this introduction has gone exceptionally well in comparison to what was experienced in the past. Of course, there will be difficulties, and I will endeavour to get answers to the question that the noble Lord asks.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it has turned out to be a livelier Question than I had expected. I am very grateful to the Minister for being here to answer these detailed questions about broken rails, particular services and so forth as she has today, and she has local knowledge as well, but will she or another government Minister still be here to answer those questions when Great British Railways comes legally into existence? She will agree, I am sure, that the Bill being considered in the other place removes Great British Railways almost entirely from parliamentary and ministerial scrutiny, with the only power left to the Secretary of State being to sack the chairman of the board. Is that really an acceptable way forward?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We have had many robust debates through the passage of different legislation in this House and I look forward to continuing to do so. Yes, in answer to the first question, we very much do intend to be here to see through the development of the legislation. Of course, it is going through the other place at the moment, and I look forward to the debates that we will have when it comes to our side.

Zero-emission Vehicle Mandate

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Moylan

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right to raise the issue of China and Chinese imports. At the moment, imports from China represent 34% of EV cars coming into the country. We will work closely with our US allies and, obviously, with Europe—but we need to focus on economic security. I cannot answer the specific question that she asks about Northern Ireland, but I am happy to follow up with correspondence on the matter.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, why do the Government think that people on ordinary incomes will be able to afford these cars, especially if they have to take into account the possibility, which I hear is on the table, of road pricing?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord has to reflect on the fact that we are talking about the new car market. An enormous amount of work needs to be brought together around the second-hand market—which also includes recycling the key component parts so that they do not end up in landfill or other places—so we can make sure that expensive components are available.

London Underground

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Moylan

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the opening of the factory in Goole that will manufacture new trains for the London Underground Piccadilly line by the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans they have to provide further investment in London Underground.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The Government welcome Siemens’s investment in Goole, creating a rail facility that will support up to 700 jobs and many more in the supply chain. This has been possible thanks to government funding. In London, transport is devolved to the Mayor of London and Transport for London. It is for them to make investment decisions, and the Government continue to engage with them to understand their capital funding needs. Any further government investment will be considered through the spending review.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on making progress with this project, which started under the former mayor, Boris Johnson. It is the case that a full modernisation and upgrade of the Piccadilly line would improve capacity by 60%, if it included modernising the antiquated signalling. These trains contribute only a sixth of that. Does the Minister agree that this shows that you very often get better returns from investing in and improving existing assets than from investing in something new? Are the Government willing to review and publish criteria for rail investment that prioritise the investment that contributes most to economic growth?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his supplementary question. As he is well aware, discussions are ongoing with Transport for London and all the regional authorities around the country about their long-term funding needs. This will be subject to the spending review, and we very much look forward to hearing the outcomes of that. I will of course be more than happy to continue the fruitful conversations with the noble Lord opposite.

Bus Fares: National Cap

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Moylan

Monday 7th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to continue the national £2 cap on bus fares, which is scheduled to end on 31 December.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Making fares more affordable for bus passengers is one of the Government’s top priorities, as we know how important it is for those passengers. The Government are looking at the future of the national bus fare cap as a matter of urgency and considering the most appropriate and affordable approach for the future of the scheme.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister must know that if a decision is not made very quickly, almost immediately, the bus companies will not be able to implement the policy from 31 December. Is this another one of those questions which is caught up in the pantomime of chaos in Downing Street? Why should passengers suffer because the Government cannot make a timely decision?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Honestly, I do not recognise any of the pantomime within the Department for Transport. This is one of its top priorities. Extra resource is being put into the department to deal with it. The department knows how important it is that local authorities working with their partners can deliver this and how popular it is. But the noble Lord is right that the scheme finishes in December 2024. The outcome was delayed before the election, but I can assure him that the department is treating this as an absolute top priority.