Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am conscious that we have probably exchanged views enough. There is a clear breach of the Sewel convention. It is not usual for the UK Parliament to vote on such matters. I do not want to get into further exchanges, but I have spoken to Senedd Members and they believe—I do not want to use an inflammatory word—there was a perceived threat of this being imposed without their say. That is also why, as I repeat, the Health Secretary for Wales and the First Minister of Wales both voted against the legislative consent Motion. That, to me, is extraordinary in itself. I will not go into all the details on that, but it needs to be considered carefully as we continue to debate this group.

As I say, we covered a lot of these issues on day one, so it is not my intention to extend debate. It is useful to switch to other noble Lords who have tabled, in particular, amendments regarding the Government of Wales Act. I am grateful to those Peers who have signed some of my amendments in terms of the shift of power to the Welsh Senedd on this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 844, 903 and 905 in this group, but I first turn the Committee’s attention to the LCM debate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, just did, that took place in the Senedd on 24 February. At the beginning of the debate, Jeremy Miles, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, set out to the Senedd:

“I … wish to be clear about what may happen if the Senedd were to withhold consent today. The sponsors of the Bill have confirmed that, in those circumstances, they would seek to remove clause 42 from the Bill. That would mean the law in England and Wales would change to permit assisted dying, but there would be no powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to implement assisted dying services in Wales or to oversee or regulate such services”.

That clarification is important for the Committee. Throughout the debate, many MSs stated dissatisfaction with how the Senedd was being treated. I apologise, but I will quote several MSs today because I think it is important that they are heard here. One said:

“We are being asked to vote in the dark”,


and another

“we’re … being asked to sign a blank cheque”.

Another said

“we are … legislating with a blindfold over our eyes … This is no way to treat a Parliament. This is no way to treat a nation”.

The Senedd was put in an impossible situation by this Parliament. A vote against this LCM would result in assisted dying services being available only privately, and a vote in favour at least retains some power for the Senedd to shape such services through the NHS in Wales. That was what the vote was about specifically. I thought this was concisely put—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

The reason that the Senedd was voting in the dark was that this Bill had not reached its conclusion in the House of Lords. If it had done so, the Senedd would have been legislating in the daylight.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. However, that is not the case in terms of the practical reason why the Senedd Members raised those points; it is also in relation to the fact that they passed an amendment to this LCM, which I was lately going to touch on, which states that the Senedd “regrets” that this Parliament has not properly considered the

“constitutional implications of this Bill for Wales”.

It is important to note that, yes, they passed the LCM, but they amended it with a point about this Parliament not having done its duty and gone through the implications for Wales in detail. A lot of those in Wales who support the Bill just do not feel that they have had an opportunity to shape this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, and I hope that that clarifies my point a little further.

The point was concisely put by Adam Price during that debate:

“Supporters of assisted dying do not argue for access determined by wealth. Opponents do not argue for a system outside NHS governance in a matter as grave as this … No country’s Parliament should have to stand aside while another decides the terms on which its own citizens live and die”.


He went on to say that he sincerely hoped that the vote was the last time that the Senedd—and other devolved Parliaments—was put in that situation.

The Senedd passed the LCM with an amendment stating, as I just mentioned, that the Senedd:

“Regrets the lack of thorough consideration of the constitutional implications of this Bill for Wales during the legislative process”.


As I just said, the passing of that amendment also showcases that we have failed in our own duty here in relation to those implications.

Amendments 903 and 905 in my name aim to restore an amendment that was agreed in Committee in the other place. The amendment was later taken out on Report without resolving the purpose behind it having been put forward and agreed in Committee. Simply, my amendments would give the Senedd a vote on the final Bill passed here before regulations could be created by Welsh Ministers for the delivery of an assisted dying service in Wales. The reason for this amendment is simple: as I highlighted at Second Reading, although the criminal law is a reserved matter, the legality of assisted dying in this case, and the delivery of such a service, is a devolved matter. Not allowing the Senedd to have a vote nor the opportunity to fully scrutinise and amend this Bill infringes on devolution and disrespects the roles and duties of Members of the Senedd.

Health and social care makes up over half of all spending from the Welsh Government’s budget. Do noble Lords not agree that it is therefore essential that Members of the Senedd are able to scrutinise all health spending? Not allowing Members of the Senedd to shape this Bill limits their ability to do that. The Covid pandemic is the most recent prominent example of how Wales does things differently when it comes to health. This Parliament needs to wake up to this reality and let devolved Parliaments do their job. This matter is an anomaly from a devolution perspective. As in Scotland, this is a fully devolved area. The Scottish Parliament recently had the opportunity to debate and shape its own Bill that could be suitable for Scotland. If the Scottish Parliament has the right, why can this not be the case for Wales?

I turn to Amendment 844, which would create a new clause to address this exact issue. The amendment would deliver parity between Scotland and Wales on this matter by amending the Government of Wales Act to remove offences related to suicide from reserved matters. This would allow the Senedd, if it chose to do so, to introduce its own Bill on assisted dying. It would allow the Senedd’s health committee to take its own evidence, including from NHS Wales and the Welsh Government’s Health Secretary. Your Lordships will be aware of the list of witnesses who were called to recent Select Committees ahead of this Bill. The chief executive of NHS England was called to give evidence, but there were no representations from Wales. I respect the work that members on that committee carried out; however, would they agree that the Senedd should also be able to take evidence from within Wales and be able to make decisions on the establishment of a new service in Wales for the people of Wales, based on Wales-specific information? Amendment 844 would be the best course of action in order to recognise that this Bill has not been designed with Wales or for Wales and to align Wales with Scotland in making a decision on this matter.

I turn finally to the amendments in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. In the hypothetical scenario that we passed her amendments alone, we would be leaving Wales in a grey area. Wales would be taken out of this Bill, but with no way for the Senedd to legislate on this matter. In this Committee, we must consider the full consequences and where those decisions will then lie. My Amendment 844 would avoid that scenario and ensure that the Senedd had a way of legislating on this matter if it chose to do so.

To conclude, and as I already highlighted at Second Reading, I support people’s right to choose how they die. However, in the case of services being made available in Wales, they must be shaped and designed by the people of Wales. That must be an ability for the Senedd and not for us here in Westminster.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes; that was a tour de force. Goodness knows, we rarely agree, and I am hardly a Plaid supporter, but I am from Wales. I want to reflect on couple of tiny things that she said in why I wanted to speak.

Family and friends in Wales were completely confused about what the vote meant when it happened. They asked, “Have we just voted for assisted dying?” It was not clear, the way it came across. They were not sure what was being voted on. In a way, they were not alone, because when I talk to people, I also feel very uncomfortable that the Senedd was basically asked to vote on a blank cheque, as was said, because Members of the Senedd did not, do not and could not yet know what the Bill will look like. You can blame us here for that—we have not got very far—but the truth is that it seems presumptive for the Senedd to be asked to give consent in advance when we do not yet know whether amendments will get through this place and how they will change the Bill. By the way, that includes amendments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the Bill’s sponsor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I want to touch on a number of points. First, I join the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in welcoming my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis back to these Benches. I do not think she will mind my saying that she has been following our debates assiduously from home—she cannot get enough of them. It is a delight to see her come back to hear them in person.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put his finger on one of the issues by asking what reason there could be for us not legislating for Wales. Well, the rather obvious reason was set out clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes: the Welsh Senedd has debated the principle of assisted suicide and has decided that it does not want it to apply in Wales. I think we should respect that.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I want to clarify that that is not what I said in relation to the debate on the principle. That was a separate debate, and I do not think that it is necessarily relevant to the discussion, given that the LCM has been voted on.

[Lord Harper]

I recognise the noble Baroness’s view, but the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why we should not just go ahead and legislate for Wales. The point is that the Welsh Senedd has debated this matter, which is a perfectly good reason for us not to proceed without its consent. I will come on to some of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that all noble Lords welcome that report and its comments but, as the noble Baroness is aware, it is a matter for the sponsor to decide the response to that rather than the Government.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

What is His Majesty’s Government’s approach to the legislative consent Motion process and making sure that the Sewel convention is kept to? What intergovernmental discussions have this Government had with the Welsh Government on the constitutional implications of this Bill in particular?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As noble Lords will be aware, engaging with the devolved Governments is a matter for the sponsor, not the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

Our approach to this has been to respect the devolution settlement, which, for better or for worse, unquestionably leaves criminal justice to this Parliament, not to the Welsh Parliament. I thought that was the substance of the argument that I was making. We should not change the devolution settlement in this Bill. I respect and understand the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, are making, but I do not accept it.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

Will the noble and learned Lord clarify whether, if the Bill were to pass, the Welsh Government would be able to widen or limit eligibility for the service in Wales?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The Welsh Government would not be able to widen or reduce the eligibility of an individual for assisted dying. A person would not be in breach of the criminal law in Wales only if they complied with every aspect of the safeguards in the Bill. The Welsh Government’s role would not be to determine who qualifies for an assisted death. In the light of those provisions, it would be only how they introduce delivery of it in the Welsh health service.

There were a large number of other interventions, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. It was completely unclear whether he is in favour of the Welsh health service having the ability to do that. Whatever his view, I make it absolutely clear that it is for the Welsh health service or Welsh Ministers to decide how it is introduced. It must be in accordance with the statute, but it is for them to decide, and that is why we have given them that power.

I shall go on to the third category. This is not a Welsh Ministers issue, but a Secretary of State issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Landaff, made the point that he should not have a Henry VIII power as wide as the one given. I see considerable force in what she said. She asked whether I have an answer that says that this is a parallel with the Brexit provisions, which is the only time that this has been done. I do not have an adequate answer in relation to that, so I should go back and think about how I can appropriately limit that power. However, I make it clear that that is not about the Welsh issue but about the width of the power that the Executive should have. I see the force of what the noble Baroness and the Delegated Powers Committee said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I have sympathy with what the noble Lord says. I do not think it is appropriate for that sort of issue to be resolved in a Bill such as this, and it goes far wider than assisted dying.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I have one final question of clarity. If the Bill were to pass here, what would happen if the Welsh Ministers, whoever they may be, did not lay the regulations but the Senedd as a whole supported having those services delivered in Wales? What power would the Senedd have to be able to push for an assisted dying service if Welsh Ministers did not lay the regulations?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I have two points. First, we have made it clear in the Bill that there is no obligation on Welsh Ministers to lay the regulations. In England, they must lay the regulations. In Wales, they may do so; they have a discretion because we thought it appropriate that they should have that choice. If they do not exercise that power, my understanding is that it would be open to the Senedd to pass an Act saying that this has to be done. If no such Act were passed, or the Ministers did not decide to exercise their power under the regulation-making power in this Bill, the consequence would be that the National Health Service would not offer assisted dying in Wales.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I am not an expert on delegated powers, so I must admit to a bit of confusion. I hope that either the Minister or the Bill’s sponsor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—or maybe both—can help clear this up.

My understanding of what the Bill is trying to do is to enable the Welsh Senedd to make a choice. If the amendments were to go through as drafted, they would deny that choice, because they would rule out people living in Wales from being able to choose whether they have assisted dying, whereas what I think the Bill is trying to do—I hope that can be clarified in the response—is state that the legislation will enable the Welsh Senedd to decide whether and how it wants to implement the Bill. When the Senedd does that, it can take into account the points that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made about how the two services could sit alongside each other.

If we were to pass this amendment, we would deny the people of Wales that choice. That cuts right across the principles that the noble Lord, Lord Weir, set out when he said that the decision should be taken in Wales. The amendment would mean that the decision was taken here, which would deny the people of Wales that choice.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing this debate and raising very important questions about devolution, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I will first address the amendments specifically and then respond to some of the comments raised in the debate.

These amendments, along with a number of others in future groups, would remove Wales from the Bill. Ultimately, I am concerned that this steals the ability of the people of Wales to exercise their choice over how they spend the end of their lives. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, that could create a two-tier system, where people in England can decide while people in Wales are not granted that choice. By removing Wales from the Bill, we leave people in Wales in limbo. That is not the case for Scotland, because Scotland would be able to decide for itself.

It would be irresponsible of us neither to include Wales as part of this legislation nor to allow the Senedd to have the powers to legislate on this important matter. While criminal law remains reserved, health is not. If this Bill shall pass, it will have serious consequences for a completely devolved matter in Wales. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. To address this matter, I have tabled amendments that will be debated in a future group that could resolve this very issue.

As I urged at Second Reading, we must reflect carefully not only on the moral weight of the question before us but on the constitutional responsibility we bear. We must respect and protect the role of devolved Parliaments in matters that are clearly within their responsibility. As noble Lords have mentioned, in a future debate we will discuss giving the Senedd the complete right to legislate in this area. We must not deny people an important choice just because of their postcode.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be aware, as will your Lordships’ House generally, that Ministers have been absolutely consistent in setting out the right and proper role of officials, as is usual for a Private Member’s Bill. I will refer to that shortly. Also, if noble Lords have individual concerns, they are welcome to raise them with me.

The amendments in this group seek to restrict the eligibility criteria to apply to individuals in England only, rather than in England and Wales, as at present. These amendments would have minimal legal effect unless they are coupled with amendments to later clauses. Clause 1 is largely declaratory. This group of amendments would conflict with later operative provisions in the Bill unless consistent amendments are made to later provisions. 

I will pick up a few of the points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised a number of points about engagement and I would be pleased to write to her further. I have done my very best to ensure that all the questions that she laid have been answered. I hope she will accept my apologies if that is not the case, but I have certainly endeavoured to do so. I will also review points made by other noble Lords in this debate, where they are relevant to the Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised a question regarding legislative consent Motions. As would be expected, UK government officials have discussed these matters with Welsh government officials, and the management of the legislative consent process in the Senedd is, of course, a matter for the Welsh Government.

In closing, I will make a few general comments about engagement.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

On the LCM point, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in the Senedd has made a statement about it not having received enough information on the conversations between the UK and Welsh Governments about why certain clauses do not engage with the LCM process. Can the Minister respond directly to that point about why this information has not been shared with the Senedd?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will certainly look into the matter that the noble Baroness raised and would be pleased to write to her. However, the first point I wanted to make here was about engagement with the Welsh Government. Of course, Ministers themselves have not met with the Welsh Government in relation to this Bill, as again would be expected, as it is not a government Bill. I know that the sponsors have met with the Welsh Government to discuss the policy intent and to negotiate which clauses require a legislative consent Motion.

The sponsors are also leading engagement with Scotland and Northern Ireland while—on the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others—UK government officials are providing technical support to support the sponsor and are engaging with Welsh government officials to discuss technical matters in relation to clauses that require a legislative consent Motion or those to which Wales has requested that further changes are made. Officials have regular meetings; they can be as frequent as weekly, as was the case at some points over the last few months.

Artificial Intelligence: Safeguarding

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The first thing is to ensure the application of the Online Safety Act, and we look to Ofcom in that regard. We will increase access to evidence-based digital interventions, to help patients access treatment in a variety of ways but also potentially to reduce unnecessary GP appointments and A&E attendances, as well as assisting people who are waiting for treatment to wait well.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, is there not a wider lesson here that many young people are turning to ChatGPT instead of calling their GP for health advice? Have the Government reviewed how they communicate different health information, particularly to the younger generation? Are they talking to the younger generation through the channels that they are using?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Sadly, I cannot say I am young myself, so I cannot testify to this, but the answer to that is yes, the department does that. I refer to the point that the noble Baroness has emphasised: over a third of five to seven year-olds are using social media in 2025, and that proportion rises as young children get older. We ignore this at our peril. I assure the noble Baroness that the Online Safety Act is providing support, as are the digital interventions that we are providing through the NHS, in particular, the improved NHS app.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the hundreds of people who have written to many of us about the Bill. Their letters, often deeply personal, deserve our attention and respect: diolch yn fawr iawn—thank you.

I have also listened carefully, last Friday and again today, to the many thoughtful contributions from noble Lords, each informed by personal and professional experiences. As this is a matter of conscience, I will share my own perspective. My view on the principle of the Bill has been shaped in part by my own experiences as a carer for my late father and by the experiences of my friend Claire O’Shea, who recently passed away at the age of 42.

Claire was initially misdiagnosed with IBS and was later diagnosed with terminal gynaecological cancer. In the face of her devastating diagnosis, she founded Claire’s Campaign, turning her own difficult experience into a campaign for change in Wales and building a platform to amplify the voices of women who had long gone unheard. Claire said last November:

“This Bill legislates for people with a terminal diagnosis and 6 months to live. Thankfully there aren’t many of us who are facing those circumstances imminently. So for those of us, who will face this reality sooner rather than later, this bill offers something really important. I have excellent palliative care; but it doesn’t address all of my needs and how I imagine a good death. It’s not just about pain management”.


For many people facing the end of life, simply having the choice, even if they never act on that choice, can bring immense comfort. For those reasons, I support the principle of the Bill.

Clear communication in healthcare is vital, especially when people face complex decisions. That is why I want to highlight the clause in the Bill, secured by my colleague in the other place, Liz Saville-Roberts, which requires that “all reasonable steps” be taken to ensure access to assisted dying services in the Welsh medium. Imagine discussing such sensitive matters with your GP and being unable to use your first language. Welsh speakers must be able to receive care yn eu mamiaith —in their mother tongue.

However, I must raise a serious concern: the constitutional implications of the Bill for Wales. While the criminal law remains reserved, health is not. The Bill, if passed, will have serious consequences on a completely devolved matter in Wales. Just less than a year ago, the Senedd debated assisted dying. The result was 19 in favour and 26 against. Those voting against included the First Minister and the Health Minister. So I ask this House: if the Bill proceeds at Westminster, are we comfortable asking a Welsh Government Minister who has voted against the principle of assisted dying to make the decision on whether to deliver this service within the NHS in Wales? Should the Senedd not have the first say on whether such a service should be introduced at all in Wales? It is the Senedd’s role to scrutinise the delivery of health services in Wales, and the Welsh Government’s budget would fund any new service.

In Committee in the other place, a provision was inserted to reflect the need for devolved consent. Regrettably, this was removed on Report. This is deeply problematic. There is a strong argument that the entirety of the Bill engages devolved responsibilities. Restoring a requirement for the Senedd’s consent makes sense, regardless of what your view is on the Bill’s principle.

As the Bill continues its passage through this House, I urge all noble Lords to reflect carefully on not only the moral weight of the matter before us but the constitutional responsibility we bear. We must respect the role of devolved Parliaments in matters that are clearly their responsibility.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, in the lead-up to today’s Second Reading, I was contacted by several people from Llanfaes, the community where I grew up, who expressed just how important the Bill is to them. One voice in particular stood out—Sylvia Evans’. Sylvia underwent a laryngectomy 26 years ago, after developing cancer of the voice box caused by smoking. At the time, her diagnosis was rare, but today she told me that three others in her local area have received the same operation. If current trends persist, around 350 new cancer cases caused by smoking are expected in Ynys Môn over the next five years. Across Wales, that figure could exceed 15,000 people. That is the reality of inaction.

Smoking remains the leading cause of cancer in the UK. According to Cancer Research UK, more than 40,000 cases have been attributed to smoking since the last general election alone. That is a staggering number, and it is preventable. The Bill offers a historic opportunity to protect future generations from the harms of smoking and sends a clear message: we can and must act now to break this cycle.

A Race for Life volunteer, Trefor Hughes-Morris, recently reached out to me regarding the Bill. He often asks the thousands of participants at his events to raise their hand if they or someone they know has been affected by cancer. He told me that every hand goes up. That is the scale of the challenge and the urgency.

Smoking rates do not fall on their own; they fall when the Government lead. The Bill represents the most significant opportunity in over a decade to prevent cancer before it starts. It secured cross-party support in the other place. Of course, there are concerns, including from Trading Standards Wales, about how realistic it is to believe that people born before January 2009 will be challenged about their age in the future when they are decades older, and about the lack of a strategy for dealing with the legislation’s impact on the illegal tobacco and vapes market. Indeed, this legislation must draw a clear distinction between legal and illegal vapes, which are already posing problems.

When used responsibly, as we have heard, legal vapes can be a powerful tool to help people quit smoking. According to Action on Smoking and Health, over half of those who quit smoking in the last five years used a vape to do so. ASH Wales actively encourages smokers to switch to vaping, based on

“the most up-to-date evidence”.

That said, we urgently need more research into the long-term effects of vaping to better inform regulation as the industry evolves. In the meantime, the lack of clear standards has allowed illegal and non-compliant products to proliferate. Some contain illegally high levels of nicotine or e-liquid, and even dangerous substances such as mercury and lead.

According to Trading Standards, already one in three disposable vapes sold is illegal. This matters because the bright colours and flashy branding of disposable vapes are attracting children and young people. In Wales, 24% of pupils in years 7 to 11 have vaped. Of those who vape regularly, 92% use products containing nicotine. Nearly half report being unable to get through a school day without vaping, impacting on their focus and education. Better regulation of the vape industry is not optional, it is essential.

In the Senedd, Plaid Cymru has long advocated a national mandatory register of all retailers selling tobacco and nicotine products in Wales. This would ensure that only compliant businesses operate and allow for enforcement action against those that break the rules. This proposal is backed by Public Health Wales’s youth vaping response group, which includes leading health charities, trading standards officials and medical professionals. We have also called for and supported Senedd legislation to ban the sale of disposable vapes, which will curb the rise in youth vaping and tackle their detrimental environmental impact.

In conclusion, I support effective, forward-looking legislation that protects people and encourages collaboration across all four nations of the UK. The biggest cause of cancer has no place in our future. While we will work through some concerns in Committee, I urge Members across your Lordships’ House to support the Bill.