(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, as a Welsh-speaking Welshman, who has, in this House, consistently supported Plaid’s perfectly right demand that there should be fairer funding for Wales—I am not a Plaid supporter, but I support that aspect—I hope that the House will have listened carefully to the fundamental comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. If the Bill is passed, the Welsh Government will have to make arrangements for its implementation in Wales. In Wales, the provision of palliative care is not as good as it ought to be—this is widely understood. Yet we would be imposing on the Welsh Government the necessity to make particular decisions about health in Wales, when they have no powers to make those decisions for themselves.
That is a very simple issue, and I recognise the problems stated by the noble and learned Lord. But the truth is that we have an underfunded Welsh Government who spend half their money on health and know that there are real gaps in the provision. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, told us that assisted suicide was part of palliative care. That, of course, has solved the case—we now know that it is just part of palliative care. But those of us who do not think that it is part of palliative care recognise that, in Wales, the issue is sharper than anywhere else because of the lack of funding, which is about the misuse of the way that funding from the centre is put out.
I beg this House to take very seriously what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said. If we were to ignore the amendments we are talking about here, we would be saying to the Welsh, “You just stuff it because we are going to decide”. We have had that issue before on abortion in Northern Ireland: they decided what they thought and we chose a moment when we had the power to decide they could stuff it. I believe in devolution, and I do not believe that this House should tell the Welsh people to stuff it; we should let them make their own decisions.
Finally, I will turn to what the noble Lord said. I know perfectly well—
Would my noble friend, who as ever makes passionate and eloquent interventions, first accept that point about the need for additional resources for palliative care across both England and Wales has been made repeatedly through these debates? I think the Committee does not need to hear more about the need for additional resources for palliative care in Wales or anywhere else. That is entirely clear.
The other point that I wonder if my noble friend would accept is that the need for a Bill on assisted dying—the desire for one—is as popular in Wales as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. To make arguments, therefore, about imposing something on the Welsh people or on the Welsh Senedd, as other noble Lords have made, seems to be wholly inappropriate. The Welsh people have clearly expressed a view that they would like to see legislative provision for assisted dying.
First, it is said on both sides that they want more money for palliative care, but we now know that palliative care includes assisted dying. I therefore do not accept that the demand for more money for palliative care from those in favour of this Bill is the same thing as those of us who are asking for more money for palliative care so there is a proper choice.
Secondly, the issue is not whether the people of Wales should make the decision on the issue of assisted suicide; the issue is whether decisions made on that subject—which have to be made, because the noble Lord is perfectly right that the legal issue is not devolved—should be made in circumstances in which the application and implementation of those decisions are excluded from the powers that the Welsh Government have. All we are saying here is that those are two different things. I accept entirely what the noble Lord said about the need to make a national decision because of criminal law. However, I am saying that the sponsors of this Bill have got to face that it will ask the Welsh to give up the important control they have in circumstances in which they are already impoverished by the way in which they are supported and where they have particular difficulties with what we call palliative care—not that which the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, calls palliative care.
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, my reason for speaking in this debate is that I also feel that the many people who have written to us deserve to know where each of us stands. I support the introduction of a carefully circumscribed assisted dying regime along the lines of the Bill.
I have seen two very severely ill immediate family members have the times of their deaths determined by a combination of medical practitioners and other close family members. If such decisions can be made on behalf of individuals who are very ill, who are not capable of making the decisions themselves, why should we deny a similar right to people who can make such decisions? I firmly believe that any moral or religious Rubicon over the determination of the time of a person’s death was crossed long ago in this country.
If I have significant doubts over the Bill, they are very much those of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, on whether the safeguards within it risk imposing excessive bureaucracy to the detriment of the effective protection of the individual. Many have criticised the Bill for the extent of its delegated powers and, if this were a government Bill, I would also be appalled. But in this case—it is a Private Member’s Bill and there is clearly not a question of the promoters taking powers for themselves without proper scrutiny—I am not unduly concerned. The committee raises important questions and those delegated power issues will, quite properly and importantly, be carefully considered in Committee.
On the passage of the Bill through the House, I feel strongly with others that we must return it to the other place. It is a Bill that has already been through the other place and that has wide public support. It will be extensively scrutinised and, no doubt, improved by this House; it should then be returned to the other place in the normal course. In that connection, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, and to the promoters of the Bill for agreeing to an improved scrutiny process.
So I believe that this is an important Bill. It needs much more scrutiny, but it would further improve the dignity of dying in this country. I hope the House gives it a Second Reading.
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords Chamber
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conclusions they have reached from the discussions of European Union Finance Ministers in Luxembourg on 4 October concerning the case for member states to work together to solve their current economic problems.
My Lords, the Government support the euro area’s commitment to ensure financial stability of the euro area. A comprehensive and sustainable solution is urgently needed and is in the UK’s interest. This can be achieved only by the euro area working closely together. The Government also recognise the urgent need to boost growth across the EU and are pushing completion of the single market, promotion of trade, reduction in regulation and greater innovation.
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the whole Government for having shown steady and firm solidarity with our eurozone partner countries and for their strenuous efforts to solve current financial and economic problems. Does he agree that such a firm stance must be maintained to stop deep market panic despite the monumental shock of the Greek referendum decision?
I am grateful to my noble friend for recognising the constructive role which the UK Government have played in pushing forward the many strands of important discussion in the EU at the moment. I indeed agree that the agreement signed last week has to be delivered by all member states, including Greece. We will be working hard to play our part to that end.
Does the Minister agree that, in this very grave moment of crisis for Europe and for Greece, we should be urging the Greeks to recognise that, for all the inevitability of hard and painful times that lie ahead for them, it is the eurozone that is forgiving half their debts, rescuing their banks and providing the financial support to keep their economy afloat? Should the British Government not hold out a hand of friendship to Greece, for whose democracy we have a proud historical record of support, and not indulge in arrogant lecturing by a Government whose economic policies are leading to depression in this country?
My Lords, we hold out a hand of friendship to all our EU partners and to many other countries, but it is for Greece to make its own decisions. I am not going to lecture the Greeks, but it is clear that all parties to the deal last week have to deliver on their commitments.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, is it not high time that the usual channels got together and arranged for a debate in this House on the crisis in the eurozone, since we have had no opportunity other than on Statements and Questions to pursue the matter so far? In particular, should we not have some views expressed on the contingency plans which need to be made should a country leave the eurozone?
My Lords, without wishing to encourage a huge rush of additional speakers, we already have a decent number of very interested and expert noble Lords down for a debate on Europe tomorrow. Indeed, this House is taking the matter very seriously.
My Lords, is it not obvious to all but the most blinkered zealot that, whether the Greeks default or not, in the medium to long term the only prospect of survival for the eurozone—even that is not guaranteed—is with such a centralisation of political and fiscal ancillary powers that we would effectively have created qualitatively two different European structures? Will the Government enlighten us on what contingency planning they are making for the day that will inevitably come when that decision or those decisions have to be made?
My Lords, I do not accept the very simplistic idea that we are headed for a two-speed Europe. There is already a variable geometry in Europe in other areas apart from the euro, such as justice and home affairs, where there are different arrangements for certain member states. The critical lesson out of all this is that the UK must stick to its own fiscal deficit reduction policies because it is those which are giving us the benefit of 10-year interest rates today at 2.2 per cent, whereas countries such as Italy, which had interest rates very similar to ours before the financial crisis, have interest rates not at 2.2 per cent but at 6.2 per cent. So we must stick to keeping our own house in order.
My Lords, further to the question put by the Minister’s noble friend Lord Higgins, have the Government given any thought to the cost of returning first Greece and in due course the other crippled economies of the eurozone to their national currencies and, if necessary, supporting that transition with some variation of the Marshall plan? Have they thought about that concept, compared with continuing to throw unknown trillions at a project which cannot be saved?
My Lords, the first thing to understand is that the UK is not part of the stability mechanism that the eurozone is putting in place, and we will not contribute to specific bailouts. On the other hand, the eurozone takes about 40 per cent of our exports and it continues to be the principal interest of the UK Government to make sure that the eurozone and the whole of the EU prosper and grow, to the benefit of our own economy.
Could the Minister spell out the difference between a variable geometry Europe and a two-speed Europe?
My Lords, I think that I have already done so. The two-speed Europe that people seek to paint is one between the eurozone and the rest, but thanks to the work of the Prime Minister at the 23 October Council, the very important principle was accepted that those matters which relate to all EU members and the whole of the EU, such as the single market, will of course continue to be the province of the EU 27. That is the critical acceptance which has been made by the Council and the Commission at the prompting of the Prime Minister.
NHS: Private HealthcareQuestion3.22 pmAsked By To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether general practitioner practices are permitted to advertise their own private healthcare services using the NHS logo.