Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Committee (12th Day)

Clause 5: Preliminary discussions with registered medical practitioners

Amendment 165

165: Clause 5, page 3, line 11, leave out “or Wales”

My Lords, in this group I have tabled 28 amendments and signed another one. Most of them are connected to the fact that I do not believe the Bill should apply to Wales. We had something of a debate on the first day in Committee, but I was conscious at that point that we did not want to spend the entire first day debating Wales and that we would come back to the legal importance of aspects of this Bill in regard to that. I will of course not speak to every single amendment because a lot of them are just on that theme, but it is an important theme.

I am conscious that, since we debated, the Welsh Senedd has voted for the legislative consent Motion. I remind the Committee that at no point was the Welsh Senedd invited to vote on the principle of legislating for assisted dying, because a change in criminal law would not be within its purview. However, in this group, with amendments tabled by other Peers, there is an opportunity for us to consider—

It was asked to vote on the principle of whether this should be dealt with by the Welsh Senedd, because one of the amendments to the Motion for legislative consent was that it believes that

“Wales should have full powers to choose to legislate or not regarding the legality and implementation of assisted dying services, as is the case in Scotland”.

That was beaten by 25 to 13.

The Welsh Senedd’s legislative consent Motion was not about whether it could accept or reject the Bill. People perceived a threat, although I appreciate that this is not what Kim Leadbeater or the noble and learned Lord will have suggested. This perceived threat, explicitly put in a letter by the sponsors of the Bill, was that if the Welsh Senedd rejected the legislative consent Motion, various clauses—particularly Clause 42—would be removed from the Bill, which would effectively remove any involvement of the Welsh Senedd in how the Bill would be put into effect in Wales.

Even then, the Welsh Health Minister voted against that, as did the First Minister of Wales, and they continued to say they felt the Bill was unsafe. I do not want to get into a rehearsal or a repeat of what happened in the Welsh Senedd—but it did vote. Interestingly, the Government have to deal with another issue where the Welsh Senedd voted down a legislative consent Motion on the Crime and Policing Bill, but that is not a debate for today.

Here we are into an important part of the Bill, where the UK Government can override any decisions made by the Welsh Government and the Welsh Senedd. That is particularly singled out in aspects of Clause 42. I have co-signed Amendment 764 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which seeks to address that by removing certain powers in that regard so that the UK Government cannot determine what happens in Wales. Since the introduction of the Bill a very long time ago, this has evolved into basically a health matter. It is certainly how the Bill’s promoters have tried to shift this. That is why I feel so strongly about it, as I set out on our first day in Committee.

I will turn briefly to some of the amendments we are debating today. Amendment 736 would amend Clause 40, which suggests that guidance “may relate to matters” for Welsh Ministers. Coming from a UK Minister, that is not right. The Welsh Government, working with the Welsh Senedd, should determine that.

In Committee in the Commons, one amendment that Kim Leadbeater opposed in a Division actually got through. It would effectively give power to the Senedd to make the decision about whether this could start in Wales. Amendments 903 and 905 are a sensible way of making sure that principle comes back, because on Report in the Commons the original amendment was overturned. I indicate my support for the Welsh Government taking control, if the Bill goes through, and for allowing the Senedd to vote on the regulations and have control over whether this applies.

Clause 42(3) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales”.

I strongly believe that this breaks the Sewel convention. This is one area where I genuinely hope the Government can give us a proper answer to a question about what they think, putting aside all the prevarication, and in what way they have provided advice to the sponsors of the Bill about whether the Government believe this is the right or wrong thing to do, in terms of breaking the Sewel convention. I assume by the very fact that this is in the Bill—

My Lords—

Let me just finish my sentence, then of course I will come back to the noble and learned Lord. So far, the UK Government have refused to share any correspondence or to say which of these clauses should be devolved or which should come under a legislative consent Motion. That is why it has been rather unsatisfactory.

The noble Baroness is saying it is a breach of the Sewel convention. The Sewel convention is that if you legislate in a different legislature from that which would be normal—the Senedd, in this case—you need the consent of the Senedd. The Senedd gave its consent in the legislative consent Motion, so perhaps the noble Baroness could explain why it is a breach of the Sewel convention.