Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, got a complete answer to her very interesting question. I remind the Committee that she asked what the powers of the Welsh Ministers would be in this regard. Of course, the noble and learned Lord is obviously correct when he says that the Welsh Ministers could not say, for example, “If you have nine months to live, we are going to allow you to access the service”, because that would go beyond the scope of the Act and impinge on a criminal law issue, which is the purview of Westminster. What if they were to say, “We will only, as a matter of health service, allow you to access this if you have three months or less to live”? Would that be within their competence, with their health hat and not their criminal law hat on? I wonder whether that was the point behind the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I am not sure she got an answer to that point.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The health service could determine who it is going to make it available to free, but it could not prevent other people—for example, private providers—having different provisions in relation to it.

The next category of amendments was in relation to removing Scotland. I gave an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in relation to that in the course of the debate.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Committee stage
Friday 23rd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord is asking that in the context of giving information or of doing it negligently. The effect of Clause 33(2) is that nothing prevents the obligation on the doctor to act with reasonable care towards the patient. If, carelessly, the doctor failed to set out all the risks or maladministered the assistance, either the patient or the estate of the patient would have a claim against that doctor for negligence. There might be a dependency claim as well.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am sorry, but I think the noble and learned Lord has not quite picked up the noble Lord’s point. Of course, if the doctor does not explain it properly, or if the doctor maladministers the drug, there is liability in tort. As I understood the point being put, the doctor has explained it properly and the patient has administered the drug properly under supervision, but the patient has not died and is writhing around, for example. What is the doctor then meant to do, consistent with their duty of care to the patient? As I understand it, that is the question. I do not know the answer, but that, I think, at least is the question.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, regarding the complications, that has to be agreed in advance. I did not think that that was the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might take the opportunity to respond to the point I put to him on confirming the drafting of that amendment. He must have overlooked it.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

That is in the notes, but I will write to the noble Lord on that.