---

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

My Lords, it is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Prentis, back in her place, and I am sure the whole Committee welcomes her back.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I cannot claim to have a background in representing Wales—the closest I have been is on a few childhood holidays—but I have experience in one of the three main devolved Parliaments in the United Kingdom. We have a unique constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom, part of which is the slight irregularity and rough edges so that in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales devolution does not happen in exactly the same format.

I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who made an excellent speech. I do not know whether she should be more worried that I agree with her or I should be more worried that I find myself in full agreement. The reality is that her speech clearly indicates that the amendments in this group, which are worthy of support, go to the heart of important issues relating to the constitutional settlement that we have in the United Kingdom. They are worthy of support, regardless of whether you are the strongest supporter of this Bill and the principle behind it or you are the most fervent opponent.

It is important that the will of the Parliaments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is fully respected. On occasion, there is a danger that the Parliament in Westminster shows a bit of a tin ear to the desires of the Parliaments in the devolved nations. As has been alluded to, we have at times seen—I will not go into the details—things imposed on Northern Ireland against the wishes of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Similarly, we need to be sensitive to the wishes of the Welsh Senedd. On the consent Motion, the Senedd was left in a virtually impossible situation. It is concerning that that has been misrepresented by some as the Welsh Senedd embracing a Bill on assisted dying. That has been the spin, but we know that the one vote that has taken place on the principle saw the Senedd say that it did not support legislation of this nature.

Clearly, there are health service implications of assisted dying. As such, we should respect the positions of the devolved Parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This week, Scotland has looked at its legislation, which I agree is not the same as the Bill before this Committee. We were told by supporters of the legislation in Scotland that it was “bulletproof”, but then we were told that it did not have the same level of safeguards. That slightly calls into question the oft-repeated phrase that this Bill is “the safest in the world”—those phrases seem very similar. It is important that we respect the wishes of the devolved institutions.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right on one particular point. On the very first day in Committee, a number of amendments touched on this area, particularly those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. One of the disappointments, which is symptomatic of the way that this Bill has been dealt with, is that concerns were raised on day one, yet they have not been properly addressed. It seems to me that, rather than Wales falling into line with what is brought forward in Westminster, we should be taking action that enables this place to retrofit whatever decisions are made in Wales for the Welsh people.

I conclude by slightly oddly agreeing with one point that was made in an intervention. One noble Lord said that, essentially, we have had enough talk about the lack of funding for palliative care. In one sense, he is right. It is important that we have less talk about funding palliative care and more action on funding palliative care.