Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I enter this debate with trepidation. Unlike some noble lords, I am not a professional in medicine or law, but I have a view on this most complex matter that touches on so many aspects of humanity. Many of us will know of relations or friends who have died in pain. We must therefore do something to alleviate the unacceptable situation where, in a developed country in the 21st century, there are still too many people dying in pain or with a total loss of dignity. I am therefore in favour of the principle that something must be done.

When considering legislation, we are trying to prevent a present or future wrong without inadvertently creating an unintended further wrong. Looking at the Bill, we are all aware that a possible future wrong could be that a vulnerable person might in some way be or feel pressured into seeking an end to their lives when circumstances do not justify such an action. However, as far as I can see, there are more than sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent such a situation. In fact, I am concerned that the process of seeking assistance has become too onerous, particularly for vulnerable people.

The process involves, first, consulting the co-ordinating doctor, who must be appropriately trained, and then the independent doctor, who must also consult other professionals; then the commissioner has to refer the case to an assisted dying panel consisting of a psychiatrist, a social worker and a person who has held high judicial office. After the various consultations, another 14 days of further reflection and a second declaration are required. I am concerned that this lengthy and detailed process will be difficult, particularly for people who might be described as vulnerable. I question whether the Bill, in trying to create sufficient safeguards, has not in fact exposed the patient to further anxiety, distress and probably pain.

The Bill is drafted to give a choice to the patient about how they wish to die. The current law does not give patients that choice. The patient should have a choice, and therefore I support the Bill. It would clearly be wrong for a patient to be pressured to seek an assisted death, but it would be equally wrong for a patient who is terminally ill and in pain to be put off seeking assistance because the process of application is too complex and lengthy.

There are strong arguments on both sides, but I come down in favour of giving to the terminally ill a choice to end their lives in a dignified way with as little pain as possible. The alternative is the status quo, where those who can afford it and are in good enough health go to Switzerland. That cannot be right, and I therefore support the Bill.

Operation Midland

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

First, I totally agree with my noble friend about false allegations harming the actual victims, which has never been raised in your Lordships’ House before. On historic convictions for non-recent child sexual abuse allegations, since 2015 there have been almost 5,000. Those are the victims we should really be thinking about.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I should first refer to the fact that I was a personal friend of the late Lord Brittan for 40 years; indeed, my father was a friend of the late Lord Bramall. I have the greatest sympathy for our much respected Minister having to answer questions on this matter, but we have all been deeply disturbed by the reports of the interview with Lady Brittan, and I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to meet her and the family of Lord Bramall to hear their concerns and look into this matter again. It is very disturbing, and I am sure I speak for all Members of the House in saying that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I have met the family of Lord Janner. I am not sure that it would be appropriate at this point to meet Lady Brittan, which does not mean that my sympathy for her is any diminished from what it is for anybody whose family member has been falsely accused of something they did not do.

Immigration: Overseas Students

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for initiating this debate on such an important subject. The only problem with the debate is that we all agree with each other, and I certainly agree with most of what has been said.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on her excellent and inspiring maiden speech. She comes to the House with a huge reputation as an advocate of civil liberties in this country and abroad. This House is surely enormously strengthened by having as a Member somebody with her experience and knowledge. She is very welcome here.

I declare an interest as a former chairman of King’s College London. Having served there for nine years, I know well the importance of foreign students at so many of the leading universities in this country, perhaps particularly in London. The problem, of course, is that students are included in the immigration statistics. Those who voted for Brexit and those who are concerned about immigration do not, on the whole, consider students to be immigrants, and even if they do, they are not particularly concerned about student immigrants. Like other noble Lords, I urge the Minister, whom I much admire, to try to persuade the Home Secretary to take students out of the immigration figures.

If the Government really do want to get immigration down to below 100,000, that will be completely impossible if students continue to be counted. I have heard the Government’s response that it is not possible to take students out of the immigration figures because all countries are required to use the United Nations definition of an immigrant: a person who comes to a country with the intention of staying for more than 12 months. However, the United States of America apparently has found a way round this. It produces two sets of figures: one based on the United Nations definition and one prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, which makes the distinction between permanent and temporary immigrants. Would it not be sensible for this country to try to do something similar?

As has been mentioned, only a year ago it was government policy to try to increase international student numbers by 20% over the next few years. The numbers are now starting to fall and this is mainly because of visa and immigration problems. My main concern is that there have been a number of intimations from government that overseas students are not welcome in the United Kingdom. Far from discouraging students, we should be encouraging overseas students. Various figures have been suggested, but non-EU students pay in excess of £4 billion a year to British universities. Universities are an important service industry to this country.

Britain has 32 universities in the top 200 in the world. This compares with 62 in the United States, a country with five times the population of our own, 22 in Germany and only four in France. The fact is that in this country we do universities very well, and we should be very proud of that. We should recognise the contribution that UK universities make to the country and to the economy, both financially and academically. Tens of thousands of students from India and China want to come here but we are losing market share because it is more difficult to get a visa to come here than, for instance, to the United States.

We all know that in the past, student visas were granted for study at educational establishments that were not approved colleges or universities. Clearly, there must be a rigorous standard set for students to come here, and only students coming to study at recognised institutions should be given a visa. But we are competing with other countries to attract the best students and it should be no more difficult to come here than it is to go to the United States, Canada or Australia, to take three examples.

In conclusion, it is clear that noble Lords in all parts of this House are asking the Home Secretary and her Ministers to re-evaluate the immigration policy as it pertains to students. The students do not have to come here, and the best will go elsewhere if we do not make it easier for them. We should recognise that it is in the interests of this country for them to study here. Most who do will go home with a higher opinion of this country and it is in our national interest to get this right.