Stephen Kinnock
MP for Aberafan Maesteg · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I am ready to engage with her on getting the maximum benefits for the people of Wales.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady and look forward to working with her. My understanding is that there were challenges around the helicopter capability. Decisions were taken by Natural Resources Wales some time ago to change the way that the tendering for helicopter capability works. We certainly need to look at that.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Like him, I pay tribute to all those involved in the collective and heroic response to the wildfires.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Many of the ideas coming forward for devolving power right across our United Kingdom, beyond Cardiff Bay and Holyrood, are very exciting, and I look forward to exploring them with her.”
“Just to be clear, this is not about staying out of the issue; it is about respecting the devolution settlement, but being prepared to work constructively where we can in partnership with the Welsh Government. The hon.”
“I know about and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s strong connections to Wales. I recognise the connectivity benefits that WSMR’s proposal could deliver, particularly for passengers in Wales and the west midlands.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,341 lines we hold for Stephen Kinnock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 107.
“Secondly, it removes subsection (5), which states that regulations under new clause 36 “must provide that section 1(4) of” the NHS Act “applies in relation to commissioned VAD services”, which provides that health services must be free of charge unless exceptions apply. Finally, amendment (b) to new clause 36 explicitly provides that regulations made under subsection (1) “may not amend, modify or repeal section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.” If accepted, the proposed amendment may impact the provision of assisted dying services through the health service in England. The effect would be that section 1 of the NHS Act could not be amended, modified or repealed via regulations under new clause 36(1). The proposed amendment applies only to England, and the restriction does not apply to Welsh Ministers.”
“I think we are all moving in a direction where, if this Bill passes, we would like its delivery in England and Wales to be compatible, based on full respect for the devolution settlement and for the legislative consent motions. Divergence in the context of the devolution settlement is what the right hon. Lady is keen to achieve, and I think she is working with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to achieve that aim. Amendment (b) to new clause 36 would provide that the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make arrangements for the provision of assisted dying services in England. The amendment would remove the provision that regulations under new clause 36 may provide that specified references to the health service in the NHS Act include reference to commissioned assisted dying services.”
“The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a different situation from the point of view of devolution. Perhaps my answer was conditioned by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, so I perhaps jumped to a conclusion.”
“Secondly, the impact assessment would need to include “an assessment of the impact of such regulations on the workforce of health professionals and on the National Health Service.” An impact assessment is routinely prepared to accompany secondary legislation. The amendment would impose a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare an impact assessment that must be laid before both Houses to assess the impact on the workforce of health professionals and on the NHS in England. Practically, this could cause delays in making regulations under the Bill, by requiring a duplicative impact assessment to accompany each set of regulations, including regulations that make minor or consequential amendments. [ Interruption. ]”
“If the amendment were agreed, the Secretary of State would not be able to make, via regulation, the required amendments to relevant legislation for the purpose of enabling the provision of assisted dying services in England. The Committee may wish to note that the amendment would apply only to England, which could lead to a divergence in provision between England and Wales. Amendment (e) to new clause 36 would add two requirements. First, it would provide that the Secretary of State could not lay regulations concerning the provision of voluntary assisted dying services in England unless an impact assessment of the regulations is also laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
“The right hon. Lady makes a valid point, although Scotland has a different legal system from the one that governs England and Wales. That takes us back to the legal jurisdiction question versus the devolution of health service delivery. How to make those two work compatibly is a key challenge that the Committee is seeking to address. Amendment (d) to new clause 36 could limit the Secretary of State’s ability to make provision for assisted dying services via the health service in England. For example, it could limit who can commission and regulate assisted dying services, as the Secretary of State will not have the power to amend primary legislation.”
“However, they could not amend the provisions in the Bill. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.”
“I was cut off in my prime, but I am ready to start again. New clause 37 will give the Welsh Ministers a power to make regulations about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales, including regulations to secure that arrangements are made for voluntary assisted dying services to be provided in Wales. Such regulations can make any provision that could be made by an Act of Senedd Cymru and that would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in such an Act. The Secretary of State will be able to make regulations about such services where this would be outside the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru. Subsection (6) confirms that regulations made under the new clause can make provisions with the same effect as an Act of Parliament, including amending other primary legislation.”
“New clause 39 provides that where there is a disclosure of information that is required or authorised under the Bill, it will not amount to a breach of confidence or any other restrictions placed on the disclosure of information. The new clause makes clear that data protection legislation still applies and will need to be complied with. It is essential that any provisions under the Bill that require data to be shared do not undermine the public’s trust, security and privacy in terms of their personal data. I hope that those observations will be helpful to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“It would create an information-sharing gateway between the voluntary assisted dying commissioner and the Care Quality Commission, the General Medical Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The new clause includes a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to specify any other person that the commissioner may share information with and vice versa. It also creates an information-sharing gateway between the commissioner and the Secretary of State, to enable the sharing of information for the purpose of any function of the commissioner, or any function of the Secretary of State, relating to the operation of the Bill.”
“As introduced, clause 33(1) provides that “The Secretary of State may, by regulations, require any registered medical practitioner to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of any notifiable event.” A list of such events is provided in clause 33(2). The effect of amendment 172 would be that the Secretary of State would instead be required to make regulations under clause 33(1), requiring any registered medical practitioner to notify the CMO of any notifiable event. Amendment 173 would require any regulations under clause 33 to be made under the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure, meaning that they would be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament. The purpose of new clause 38 is to allow the sharing of information between the voluntary assisted dying commissioner and certain persons.”
“Amendment 540 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the commissioner to require persons or specified descriptions of persons to provide information. For example, this could be access to medical records to inform panel deliberation. The regulations made by the Secretary of State under amendments 539 and 540 may also provide for how such regulations are to be enforced. The enforcement mechanism would help ensure compliance regarding the notification of provision of information to the commissioner under the regulations. Amendments 541 to 544 are consequential amendments. I turn to amendment 172.”
“These amendments seek to ensure that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner receives the necessary information to fulfil their functions in monitoring the operation of the Bill. Amendment 539 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring registered medical practitioners to notify the commissioner, instead of the relevant chief medical officer, of any event specified in such regulations. That could include the events currently listed under clause 33(2), such as where a practitioner carries out a first or second assessment and provides or refuses to provide a supporting statement. Setting out these events in regulations would allow for greater flexibility.”
“It is also noted that there will be an implementation period following Royal Assent. It is unclear if the intention is to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the operation of the Bill and prepare a report during this implementation period.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Amendments 452 and 453 would amend the review provisions in clause 35. As the Bill stands, clause 35(1) provides that the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the operation of the Bill and lay a report before Parliament. This is a one-off obligation that must take place after a period of five years, beginning from the date the Bill is passed. Amendment 452 would amend that requirement, and instead require the Secretary of State to undertake a review, and prepare and publish a report every 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Amendment 453 would remove the definition of the initial five-year period and is consequential on amendment 452. That increased frequency of reporting would naturally increase the administrative burden and cost of the Bill.”
“The amendments would instead require the review of the operation of the Act and the preparation and laying of the report to take place within 12 months of the end of the three-year period that immediately follows the day on which the Bill is passed. [ Interruption. ]”
“I make these comments without a value judgment; it is simply a statement of fact that an increase in the amount of reporting, and the time and resource that that would take, would inevitably lead to a cost. I make no value judgment on that; I am merely here to point out to the Committee the Government’s view on all aspects of the Bill’s technical implementation, and the consequences of any changes that the Committee may wish to make to it. Amendments 493 to 495 would change the period after which a review of the Bill is required from five years to three years. As I mentioned, clause 35 provides that the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the operation of the Act and lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of the end of the five-year period after the Bill is passed.”
“Amendment 526 would impose a duty on a Minister to arrange for the report on the review of the operation of the Act to be debated by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords within 14 sitting days, beginning with the day after the laying of the report. That goes further than laying the report before Parliament as currently required under clause 35. I hope those observations were helpful.”
“However, I note that there is an existing definition of “learning disability” in section 1(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983, which could be considered to mitigate this uncertainty if the amendment were agreed to.”
“Clause 35(1) requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the operation of the Act, prepare a report on that review, and publish and lay the report before Parliament. The Secretary of State is required to do that during a period of 12 months beginning after the period of five years from the day on which the Bill is passed. Clause 35(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of what the report must set out. Amendment 397 would require that the report includes an assessment of the impact of the legislation on people with learning disabilities, including any concerns about the operation of the Act in relation to them. The amendment does not include a definition of “learning disabilities” and so may introduce legal uncertainty as to what must be included in the report.”
“Amendment 492 would extend the people the assessment will cover to include those receiving end-of-life care as well as those with palliative care needs. The Committee may find it helpful to note that, while palliative care focuses on improving quality of life for individuals with life-limiting illnesses at any stage, end-of-life care specifically addresses the needs of an individual in their final year. The Committee may also find it helpful to note that, under clause 2(1) as amended by the Committee, a person is considered terminally ill if their death, in consequence of an inevitably progressive illness or disease that cannot be reversed by treatment, can reasonably be expected within six months.”
“This group of amendments relates to clause 35, which sets out requirements for review of the Act. Amendments 491 and 492 aim to broaden the scope of the assessment criteria for the review. Amendment 491 would expand the scope of the report that the Secretary of State must prepare at the end of the initial five-year period to include an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate care services, as well as health services, to persons with palliative care needs. Care services play an important role in supporting terminally ill individuals with care needs in settings such as care homes and in the community. However, it is not clear what the term “care services” would cover. It could include, for example, unpaid care, private or local authority-funded care, or non-statutory care services such as befriending.”
“The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendment 546 and new clause 40, which are consequential and linked to other amendments to clause 42, relating to the commencement of the legislation. New clause 40 would require the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report about progress made towards implementing the Bill, and the Secretary of State’s plans for implementation in subsequent reporting periods. The reporting periods are one year after Royal Assent, and every six months thereafter, until the sixth and final reporting period. Amendment 546 provides that new clause 40 will come into force on the day the Bill is passed.”
“That sounds like a sensible approach. New clause 40 sets out the report about progress made towards implementing the Bill. If I have correctly understood what he is saying, the right hon. Gentleman is looking for more flesh on the bones of what that plan should be and look like.”
“I get what the right hon. Gentleman is saying now: in essence, there will be different parts of the implementation period that will be done at different times. Data may take so long, training may take so long, and so on. I think what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for is a breakdown of which parts of the Bill could be implemented—”
“Palliative and end-of-life care services are broad, holistic services, provided by a range of professionals and providers—generalist and specialist—across the NHS, social care and voluntary sector organisations. Therefore, measuring the provision is difficult, as relevant consultations and tasks are not always coded as palliative or end-of-life care. Commissioning and contracting processes do not consistently support data collection, with block contracts and grants commonplace. It is also practically difficult to identify the Bill as the catalyst of the implications on those services over the specific period, as they are affected by multiple factors. Question put and agreed to. Clause 35, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36 Disqualification from being witness or proxy”
“The Committee may wish to note that, given the 12-month timeframe, the reporting requirement may start before implementation is complete. Under the new clause, the assessment must cover the extent to which the Bill is on course to meet its aims; the state of health and care services for persons receiving palliative and end-of-life care; the implications of the Bill on those services; any emerging concerns relating to the operation of the Bill; and any steps the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to those concerns. That requirement is in addition to clause 35, which requires a review by the Secretary of State at the end of the initial five-year period after the Bill is passed. That new requirement is wider in scope, and would be required after one year.”
“The Committee may wish to note that, given the 12-month timeframe, the reporting requirement may start before implementation is complete. Protected characteristics are defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010; however, socioeconomic status is undefined in the new clause, and is not defined elsewhere in the Bill. It is therefore not clear what the assessment of those factors is intended to involve, and it may be difficult in practice for the Secretary of State to determine whether they have fulfilled this duty. New clause 28 would introduce a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the Bill within 12 months of it being passed, and to publish and lay a report of that assessment in both Houses of Parliament.”
“Yes. I am very happy to take that up with officials and I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in short order. New clause 20 would introduce a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay an annual report in both Houses of Parliament on the impact of the Bill. The report would include the effect of an assisted dying service on access to healthcare, palliative care and assisted dying, and an analysis in relation to people’s socioeconomic status and protected characteristics. That report would sit alongside the existing requirement in clause 35 for a report five years after the Bill is passed. The new clause would require that the first annual report be laid before each House on its first sitting day after one calendar year from the passing of the Bill.”
“As drafted, clause 36 sets out individuals who are disqualified from acting as a witness or proxy. Amendment 454 would add to that list and exclude anyone from acting as a witness or proxy who would not themselves have capacity to request to end to their own life under the Bill. This would require there to be an assessment of the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies. There is no corresponding obligation placed on medical practitioners in the Bill to assess the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies, so it is not clear how a person would request, and be provided with, the required capacity assessment.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation. Clause 38 is a form of insurance policy that enables the Secretary of State to respond to the evolving landscape and changes that may take place, including in the implementation period—for example, to respond to issues relating to data, substances, training or the setting up of the system. It ensures that there is a safety net or fall-back position to enable the Government to make changes that might be required.”
“That is a good description of it. The wording used in the clause is “consequential and transitional provision”, which is another way of saying exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has described. Question put and agreed to. Clause 38, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 39 Regulations”
“(4) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (5) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”— (Kim Leadbeater.) This amendment brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations. It also makes regulations under clauses 5 and 8 about training, qualifications and experience, and regulations under NC36 and NC37, subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendment 223, which would broaden the regulation-making power using standard legal wording so that any regulations made under the Bill can ensure that it works effectively with other legislation. Amendment 223 agreed to. Amendment proposed : 545, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert— “(3) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A),30(3), (Voluntary assisted dying services: England) or (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
“Amendment 424, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert— “‘preliminary discussion’ means a discussion of a kind mentioned in section 4(3);” This is a drafting change. Amendment 393, in clause 40, page 24, line 5, at end insert— “‘second assessment’ has the same meaning as in section 8; “‘second declaration’ has the same meaning as in section 13;”.— (Kim Leadbeater.) This is a drafting change.”
“These are: “(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis; (b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it; (c) all appropriate palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support”. The preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of and discussion about these matters. Amendment 424 would add a definition of “preliminary discussion” to the list of definitions in clause 40 to ensure that all references to a “preliminary discussion” in the Bill are interpreted in line with the description of the discussion in clause 4(3). Amendment 392 agreed to. Amendments made: 226, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 37. The amendment is consequential on Amendment 545.”
“The effect of the amendment is to ensure that all references to “second assessment” and “second declaration” throughout the Bill are interpreted consistently. I turn to amendment 424. Clause 4(3) states: “Where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act, the registered medical practitioner may…conduct a preliminary discussion about the requirements that need to be met for such assistance to be provided.” Clause 4(4), as amended, sets out that where a practitioner conducts a preliminary discussion, they must explain and discuss certain matters with the person concerned.”
“The Government have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and some amendments—including all three in this group—have been mutually agreed by her and the Government with the aim of ensuring the workability of the Bill. I shall provide a brief technical, factual explanation and rationale for the amendments. Amendment 392 would add the meaning of “first assessment” and “first declaration” to the list of definitions in the interpretation provision in clause 40. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that all references to “first assessment” and “first declaration” throughout the Bill are interpreted consistently. Amendment 393 would insert the meaning of “second assessment” and “second declaration” to the list of definitions in the interpretation provision in clause 40.”
“However, as drafted, it is not possible to determine the effect of the amendment with certainty, so further amending is likely to be required at a later stage should the Committee accept the amendment.”
“The amendment is linked to clauses 5 and 8, which define who can and cannot be a co-ordinating or independent doctor. According to the clauses, a person who benefits financially from the death of the person cannot be a co-ordinating or independent doctor. As the Bill stands, clause 40(4) provides that a registered medical practitioner is not to be regarded as benefiting financially, or in any other material way, from the death of a person by reason only of the practitioner receiving reasonable remuneration for the provision of services in accordance with the Bill. The amendment may broaden what is meant by “benefiting financially”, so that its effect may be to prohibit a person from being a co-ordinating or independent doctor if their remuneration is greater for applications that are accepted than for ones that are rejected.”
“Amendment proposed : 531, in clause 42, page 24, line 21, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (2) bringing sections 1 or 24 into force unless they have previously laid before Parliament a report containing an analysis of— (a) the readiness of services to provide assistance and related functions of this Act, and (b) training that has been provided under the provisions of this Act.”— (Sarah Olney.) Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“The amendment would change the regulation-making procedure so that the Secretary of State could not make commencement regulations unless a draft is laid before and approved by each House of Parliament. It would also add a new requirement that the Secretary of State may not lay the draft regulations until they have laid a report before each House that provides an analysis of the expected efficacy of services and functions performed under the Bill. The amendment provides a non-exhaustive list of the information that the report must contain. The amendment could cause delays to the making of commencement regulations under the Bill. Amendment 547 agreed to.”
“Apart from clauses 37 to 41 and 43, which would come into force on Royal Assent, the provisions of the Bill would come into force in Wales on a date or dates appointed by Welsh Ministers in regulations. There would be no automatic two-year backstop for those provisions to come into force in Wales. The amendment would also require that regulations made by Welsh Ministers be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in the Senedd. That may have devolution settlement consequences, as the impact could be that the Bill is differentially commenced in England and Wales, potentially creating a disparity, particularly in relation to the introduction of the criminal offences, and a lack of certainty. I turn to amendment 490. As the Bill stands, regulations made under clause 42(2) will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.”
“Friend the Member for Spen Valley to explore the potential options for Report, to capture the need both for timely implementation and for ensuring the provision of a high-quality service for people seeking assistance under the Bill. Amendment 536 would increase the length of time specified under clause 42(3) from two years to five years. That would mean that any provisions that had not been commenced five years after the date on which the Act is passed will automatically come into force at that time. I turn to amendment 535. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State may make regulations to commence the provisions of the Bill for England and Wales. The amendment would, in relation to Wales, require Welsh Ministers instead of the Secretary of State to commence the Bill via regulations.”
“Were Parliament to approve the provision of assisted dying services, it would be the role of Government to ensure that a fully functioning, safe and high-quality service is in place for those who wish to access the assistance provided for under the Bill. The delivery of an entirely new service with robust safeguards will need to be carefully and thoroughly developed and tested. As the Bill has rightly been amended by Members in Committee and several new requirements have been added, the Government now have to assess the critical path to implementation. We will therefore provide clarity to Members, ahead of Report, as to whether any further amendments related to commencement are needed. We will continue to develop our thinking on the matter and will work with my hon.”
“As the Bill stands, provisions that have not already been brought into force will automatically come into force two years after the date on which the Act passes. Amendment 548, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and drafted with the technical support of Government officials and lawyers, would change that provision from two years to four years. We have already discussed the proposition to have regular reports on progress towards implementation, as per amendment 546 and new clause 40. The time required to prepare for the implementation of the Bill is clearly a critical point to be weighed when considering the question of workability.”
“That would mean that the Secretary of State will need to make regulations to bring into force all provisions of the Bill except clauses 37 to 41 and clauses 43, which come into force when the Act is passed. In addition, the amendment provides that clause 18 may not be brought into force until a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to both Houses of Parliament that all regulations necessary for the effective provision of assistance have been made. The Minister’s statement must list those regulations. The amendment does not specify which regulations are necessary for the effective provision of assistance, which could create uncertainty. Amendment 489, which is linked to amendment 488, would likewise remove clause 42(3).”
“Powers to second staff under schedule 1 may be a necessary tool in resourcing the commissioner in the interim period before the wider Bill comes into force. Amendment 531 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report before assisted dying can be provided and is decriminalised. That report must contain an analysis of the readiness of services to provide assistance and of the training that has been provided under the Bill. The effect of the amendment might be to delay the commencement of the Bill until the specified reports have been laid before Parliament. Amendment 488 would remove clause 42(3), which provides that any provisions that are not already in force two years after the Act is passed will come into force at that point.”
“This group of amendments relates to clause 42, which contains the commencement provisions. Amendment 547, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, provides that clauses relating to the office of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, which will be introduced under her new clause 14 and new schedule 1, would come into force one year after the Act is passed. Subsection (4) of new clause 14, which relates to the functions of the commissioner, including arranging the work of panels and monitoring the operation of the Bill, would not come into force at this point. The amendment would require the process of recruiting the commissioner and their deputy to begin shortly after Royal Assent.”
“However, article 10 is a qualified right, which means that interference can be justified provided that it is in accordance with the law, pursuant of a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society, so although the new clause could engage article 10, it may not violate it.”