King’s Speech

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in the debate on the humble Address in this His Majesty the King’s first Speech as our monarch. As a committed unionist, I am totally supportive of the union in all its aspects, and I trust that the packages and policies introduced by the Government will be applied fairly across the United Kingdom in order to support struggling families, particularly those in Northern Ireland.

It is a matter of regret that, at this time, we still have political uncertainty in Northern Ireland. We want devolution to succeed. We want to see decisions taken in Stormont, because decisions that impact the daily lives of people in Northern Ireland are best taken locally in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Government’s efforts to find a solution to the outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. Although there has undoubtedly been progress made, regrettably, it is clear that problems remain and, as my party leader recently said, as things stand there is some distance left to travel. It is essential that arrangements are put in place that have cross-community support; it is clear that the current arrangements fall short of this. My party will, however, continue to work with the Government to find solutions to these outstanding issues.

Governance in Northern Ireland must operate on the basis of consensus. There remains no consent within unionism for barriers being implemented between parts of the United Kingdom. There remains no consent for arrangements which will see further EU regulations implemented and which will cause Northern Ireland to diverge further from our closest friends and partners here in mainland Britain. Regrettably, it remains the case that the rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Act of Union have not been restored. In order to see devolved government up and running once more in Northern Ireland, it is vital that the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is restored.

If Northern Ireland citizens and businesses are to be treated as equal to our fellow Britons elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the integrity of the UK internal market must be restored. A customs border on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and remaining within the UK internal market was unnecessary in 2019, and it remains unnecessary in 2023. Transformative investment is required, and it should be saved for policing, schools, hospitals and roads in Northern Ireland, rather than facilitating an economic border between parts of this United Kingdom. For Northern Ireland to join England, Scotland and Wales in benefiting from being outside the EU, out of constitutional necessity we must find a solution to these issues. For those of us who value this great union of nations, safeguarding and protecting Northern Ireland’s long-term place inside the UK internal market and inside the union is the most important responsibility we have.

I want briefly to turn my attention to funding for the devolved nations. For a long time, it has been clear that a disparity exists in the current funding model. One of the major reasons for this glaring disparity is the simple fact that the formula used for the rest of the United Kingdom, a formula based on need, has not been applied in Northern Ireland. To continue to fund Northern Ireland using an outdated model is to continue a process whereby Northern Ireland is starting with less. Public services in Northern Ireland are being denied the money they require to operate effectively. Unless there is a serious review into how Northern Ireland is funded, the situation will only deteriorate. With or without a Northern Ireland Assembly, and with or without the Northern Ireland protocol, the reality of the Barnett formula and the current model will continue to lead to future budgetary uncertainties and continued pressures on public services. Devolved government will work only with a fair and stable funding formula in place.

I want to see Stormont back up and running. However, the institutions cannot work without the restoration of the delicate political balance negotiated over many years. My party is committed to continuing to work with the Minister’s party and with the Government to resolve the remaining issues, but at all times our work must be about delivering on the commitment given to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I am grateful to be able to contribute to this important debate. I have many questions to ask about the so-called safeguards in the Bill.

Although the framework in the Bill of two doctors agreeing that a person has a terminal illness is clear, exactly how the process will work leaves important questions unanswered. How will a person’s mental capacity be judged? “Capacity” is defined in the Bill by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but the purpose of that Act is to determine whether someone does not have the capacity, not whether they do have the capacity, to make a decision that cannot be reversed. The test is in Clause 1(2)(c)(ii).

What will happen if a person is identified as suffering from depression? Depression is frequently associated with terminal illnesses so it is likely that this situation will arise. There is no clear statement that the High Court can look at to judge whether a person who suffers from depression as well as a terminal illness meets the Bill’s criteria. Instead, the question of how depression is to be dealt with will be set out under Clause 8 in a code of practice

“recognising and taking account of the effects of depression or other psychological disorders that may impair a person’s decision-making”.

The Bill recognises that depression may impair a person’s decision-making but it is not clear whether that means that the two doctors should determine whether the person has impaired decision-making, nor whether it excludes that person from an assisted death. We need to ask ourselves whether we want a Bill that might allow a person suffering from depression to proceed with a request for assisted suicide.

What will happen if a person cannot self-administer the lethal drugs? The fact that the person must take the drugs themselves has been seen as the ultimate safeguard because the patient has the final control over their death and, specifically, because the Bill is not meant to legalise euthanasia—that is, a doctor directly ending a patient’s life. However, my reading of the Bill is that it does not make it clear whether it would still apply if a patient was unable physically to self-administer the drugs. Given that self-administration is seen as such a key safeguard, the ability to self-administer should be part of the assessment and declaration process that the High Court should review.

I make these points before the House as examples of my deep concerns about the safeguards in the Bill. This is why I will not be supporting it.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, there is much talk of compassion and choice in this debate but we must not lose sight of the core question before us. Are we prepared to license one group of people—in this case, doctors—to involve themselves in deliberately ending the lives of another group—in this case, those who are terminally ill? That would represent a major change to the criminal law of this country. I put it to your Lordships that before we can seriously contemplate going down that road, we need convincing evidence that the law that we have is unsatisfactory and that what would be put in its place would be better. On neither count has any convincing evidence been provided.

In a civilised society we do not license an action by law simply because we can empathise with it in exceptional circumstances. None of us would want to see a father who injured an intruder while defending his family sent to prison. None of us would want to see a mother imprisoned because in desperation she stole money to feed her starving children.

We would expect to see our laws against assault and theft maintained to protect all of us, and to see exceptional cases to be dealt with exceptionally. That is what happens with the law on assisting suicide. The law makes it clear that encouraging or assisting another person's suicide is a punishable offence, and it makes anyone minded to behave in this way think very carefully before proceeding. As a result, instances are fairly rare and they tend to be those where there has been serious soul-searching and where the assistance given has been genuinely compassionate and reluctant. In such cases, the law provides discretion not to prosecute. However, that is a completely different matter from creating a licensing system for such acts within the National Health Service. Would we create a similar licensing regime for other criminal acts in exceptional circumstances? I think not, so why are we contemplating it in this case?

The evidence of how such laws work overseas is, at best, dubious and, at worst, alarming. At best, we can look forward to rising death rates from legalised assisted suicide. Oregon’s rising death rate is worrying enough; it equates currently to around 1,100 assisted suicide deaths annually in England and Wales if we had a similar law here. Neighbouring Washington is showing an even more alarming trend: its death rate from legalised assisted suicide has more than tripled in four years, and is now rising so steeply that one cannot help wondering whether Oregon has been providing an untypical and unreliable picture.

Embracing assisted suicide is a problem not just because it depends on perverse constitutional logic that undermines sensible, flexible approaches to hard cases, nor simply because of the scale of the deaths that it would facilitate. It is a huge problem because of the nature of the deaths in question. Here we come to the nub of the issue: the quest for a dignified death. In the 16 years that the law has been operational in Oregon, 22 serious complications—I do not intend to elaborate on those complications today—are known to have occurred. Six people have regained consciousness and not been counted as physician-assisted deaths. If the same percentages of complications occurred in England and Wales, on the assumption of the same rate of assisted death as in Oregon, 47 people would suffer from serious complications and 13 would regain consciousness each year. Is this death with dignity?

It is fascinating to look at the way that members of the public reassess their support for assisted suicide when acquainted with these facts. This is illustrated by the ComRes poll commissioned by CARE that was published this morning, which demonstrates how 73% support to 12% opposition becomes just 43% support to 43% opposition when people are made aware of the public safety considerations. I have no doubt that those who support the Bill have noble intentions, but I must say that I regard it as a dangerous piece of legislation.

Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Friday 19th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, while I recognise that the Bill is motivated by the best of intentions to ensure that injustices do not occur with respect to cohabitation and intestacy, I believe that its net contribution would be negative. There has been far too much legislation in recent years, and the Bill will add to the complexity of family law without increasing its fairness.

The underlying premise of the noble Lord’s Bill seems to be that because the automatically available protections for the surviving partner, with respect to the estate of the deceased partner, are so limited, the law surrounding cohabitation should be changed. That ignores two facts. First, if a couple want to access protections, they have the option of marriage. Secondly, if they do not wish to marry but to avail themselves of protections, they can. The primary available remedy to them is found in the writing of a will, providing for what will happen on death and avoiding either intestacy or diminishing disputed claims by family relatives against the surviving cohabitant. Other available remedies include letters of wishes, nominations and assignments of pension and life policies, a simple deed of trust, a cohabitation contract and powers of attorney.

I am aware that some may respond, “Yes, that is true but we still need to change the law because so many couples do not avail themselves of these protections”. I struggle with that argument, which seems to me profoundly illiberal. Changing the law so that cohabitees who have been together for more than two years and have children, and cohabitees who have been together for more than five years and do not have children, become effectively, in some real sense, married seems profoundly anti-choice. It offends the choice of those who wish to cohabit but not marry and have not chosen to avail themselves of any of the additional protective mechanisms that are available to them in law. It also offends the choice of those who are prepared to make the very significant—but very worth while, I might add—sacrifice that marriage involves. When a couple marry, they make a public “Till death us do part” commitment that is recognised in law and so it consequently seems logical that the level of protection surrounding their relationship should be more robust than that for those who have not made that commitment.

The truth is that we live in a culture that is increasingly nervous about commitment. If people can get automatic protections without anything remotely resembling the level of the marriage commitment, the rationale for marriage is eroded to some not insignificant degree. The truth is that society badly needs conscious, explicit and deliberate public commitment. We should be encouraging commitment, not creating a new legal framework that makes it less necessary. That is why the Prime Minister is exactly right to seek to encourage commitment by promoting the policy of recognising marriage in the tax system.

That point is very relevant to today’s debate. As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pointed out in February 2011, it is particularly striking that, despite the current fear of commitment, 90% of young people still aspire to marry. Why then do they not? It seems very likely that it is partly because the operational public policy context is such that it makes marriage too difficult.

The truth is that for the year 2010, the tax burden in the UK on a one-earner married couple with two children on average wage was a staggering 52% greater than the OECD average. Of particular interest to me is the fact that the tax burden on such a family as a proportion of that placed on a single person on the same wage was 74.5%, while the OECD average was just 51.4%. That differential highlights the extraordinary fiscal individualism of our tax and benefit arrangements compared with other developed countries—the vast majority of which recognise marriage in the tax system—which makes commitment so much harder here than elsewhere.

Those findings are hugely important, because the social science evidence is so clear that marriage is beneficial for society, helping both adult and child well-being. In particular, marriage is a far more stable environment than cohabitation. That is crucial for children, whose development is much stronger, on average, in a stable two-parent rather than a one-parent family. Moreover, as the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, pointed out in your Lordships’ House on 10 February 2011 at col. 389, this benefit is not actually a function of standard of living. The poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples.

Mindful of those considerations, it seems to me that rather than striving to make the option of cohabitating, commitment-light relationship easier, we should prioritise making the expression of the public, lifelong, “Till death us do part” commitment that is marriage no more difficult in the UK than in comparable developed countries.

Finally, although current law is in some cases unsatisfactory, rather than introduce a dramatic change in the law, especially equivalence to marriage, it would be better to acquaint and educate cohabitants with their lack of legal protection and make them aware of the existing remedies available.