Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Apr 2025 · Civil Service Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say on the Government’s plans to make Whitehall more efficient and to make significant reforms to service delivery, and we on these Benches very much welcome the intention behind that statement. However, announcements have been made in the media about the intention to cut 2,100 jobs in the Cabinet Office and reduce the Department’s workforce by a third. Why have we not had a statement in this House about those job cuts specifically, and when will Members of Parliament get an opportunity to scrutinise exactly what that means for their constituents and their expectations about service delivery?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate and for his stirring opening remarks. The Government have repeatedly referenced the £22 billion black hole that they inherited, but there has been far less reference to the debt accrued by Thames Water, which is comparable with that figure. Company executives have received hefty bonuses, and shareholders have taken billions of pounds in dividends out of the company, but Thames Water customers are seeing their bills rise by an average of 35% over the next five years. During a cost of living crisis, and on top of other mounting bills, this rise is extremely concerning for many of my constituents. What is even more alarming is that Thames Water does not believe that the bill hike is sufficient to meet the targets set by Ofwat, and it has since referred the final determination to the Competition and Markets Authority. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for Thames Water to be placed into special administration, as it has shown that it cannot be trusted to provide a service that does not degrade our environment or line the pockets of its shareholders. In response to those calls, the Government have implied that Thames Water is not breaching its statutory duties, and therefore that intervention is not under immediate consideration. Thames Water has repeatedly shown an inability to undertake its basic duties. In my Richmond Park constituency, Kingston Vale residents have had to endure almost constant traffic chaos in their neighbourhood, as Thames Water has repeatedly had to attend to a burst sewage pipe. A constituent reported to my office that sewage spills over the road following a leak. Thames Water recently agreed to replace the pipe, having resisted it for years. I am sure that the Government would agree that people should not have to put up with unfiltered sludge spilling on to their pavements. Senior managers at Thames Water acknowledge that many departments are understaffed and, by their own admission, do not have the funds to invest in critical infrastructure to prevent leaks and sewage-dumping into our rivers. In a recent BBC documentary, some staff members even admitted to presenting favourable statistics when measuring the concentration of E. coli in the Thames. The cleanliness of our rivers should not be a public relations exercise. It is extremely important that Thames Water is held to account for polluting our rivers. In 2024, Thames Water was responsible for 298,081 hours-worth of sewage spills. A freedom of information request by the Liberal Democrats discovered that Ofwat has collected not a penny of fines for that disregard of our environment. By not replacing Ofwat with a regulator with teeth, the Government are not installing a sufficient deterrent to ensure that Thames Water takes action to prevent such environmental incidents. Given Thames Water’s current financial situation and operational capacity, as well as recent reports that KKR—which boasts a similarly poor environmental record with Northumbrian Water—plans to buy the company, does the Minister believe that Thames Water has the capabilities to prevent serious environmental hazards from repeatedly occurring?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Ham and north Kingston on the opposite bank of the river from my hon. Friend’s constituency in Twickenham are particularly concerned about how the construction impacts will affect the Ham Lands nature reserve. We have not heard enough from Thames Water about exactly what its plans are for that. Does she agree that Thames Water needs to be much more up front about what exactly it plans to do?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The use of hazardous chemical flame retardants in domestic furniture has been criticised by the Association of Master Upholsterers and Soft Furnishers and in a 2019 Environmental Audit Committee report, because those chemicals have been shown to cause more toxic smoke, increase the production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide and increase the prevalence of health conditions, including developmental disorders, breathing difficulties and reproductive disorders. As this Bill would provide the Government with more powers to act on that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers should outline how the Government plan to address the dangers associated with CFRs?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  During their time in government, the Conservatives broke our apprenticeship system and betrayed young people. The Liberal Democrats are thus calling on the Government, if they are serious about growth, to fix the apprenticeship sector by investing in education and training, including by increasing the availability of apprenticeships and career advice for young people. I wish to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), which would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the Executive agency to be known as Skills England. There should be greater emphasis on developing sector-specific skills that support the natural abilities and interests of each student. I believe that we should focus on strengthening careers advice and links with employers in schools and colleges to allow students clear alternative steps into a career that does not require them to go to university if that is not the best option. Any business will tell us that the apprenticeship levy does not work. Businesses cannot get the funding that they need to train staff, so hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of funding is returned unspent, only to disappear into the Treasury. If that money were ringfenced to boost the further education budget, it would at least benefit the employers that contribute, but it does not. I am glad that the Government are reforming the current system, but I urge them to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, which would require a clear plan for their new proposals. We must improve not only the quality of vocational education, including skills for entrepreneurship and self-employment, but pupils’ awareness of such skills as they make initial decisions about their further education and career. I have spoken to young people in my constituency who are undertaking apprenticeships in the hospitality industry. They have spoken positively about the opportunities to develop their skills while earning a wage. However, I have also heard that many apprenticeship jobs do not pay enough for people to meet their living expenses. It is extremely important that young people are provided with a footing solid enough not to discourage them from pursuing apprenticeships in their field of interest. I believe that the lower minimum wage for apprentices should be scrapped. We should ensure that apprentices are paid at least the same minimum wage as other employees their age. I constantly hear from small and medium-sized businesses across my constituency who are struggling with workforce shortages. We need to build capacity in the workforce and within the economy to drive growth and ensure that British businesses can hire people with the correct skills to allow industries to thrive. Apprenticeships have a huge role to play in upskilling. Although I am glad that the Government are taking action to reform the current system, I urge them to accept new clause 1, which would give us proper detail on what the new system will look like. Apprenticeships could play a crucial part in addressing many of the staff shortages that businesses face, by equipping people across the country with the skills that they need to thrive. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to truly invest in skills. I urge the Minister to accept the new clause.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It clearly remains to be seen, but that may be an outcome as we do not yet know what model we are proposing for the delivery of assisted dying. Perhaps doctors will feel pressured to deliver an outcome because that is how the model has been set up. If we have a model that incentivises profits, particularly if we do not have a similar service within the NHS itself, it is quite possible that that will happen. It will not necessarily affect the care that doctors give to patients at the end of life, but the point is that we do not know. We cannot fully explore that matter in Committee, because we do not have the full clarity of exactly how the process will be delivered, so we cannot examine the proposed model and identify its potential risks and pitfalls. That continues to be a real concern. Perhaps doctors will feel that pressure; perhaps the service will be precisely designed to encourage them to, for example, diagnose someone with having fewer than six months to live even when it is a slightly more subjective judgment and a different doctor operating in a different system may come to a different view.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but those incentives are not about creating profits that make money for individuals. They are about directing the way that resources are allocated to ensure that a broader range of health outcomes are achieved. When I talk about a profit incentive, it is an entirely different kind of incentive from the one he has just raised.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think I said very clearly to the hon. Member for Stroud that it is not about the doctors. It is about the people who are commissioning them. I absolutely do not believe that about doctors operating in the private sector, who in my experience are often the same doctors as the ones in the NHS. It is about who is commissioning them and who is asking them to carry out this work, and whether those commissioners are motivated by a profit incentive as opposed to the incentive in the NHS to provide the best possible care.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The issue is who is commissioning the service. The issue is not the doctors or how they are recompensed for the work that they do, but who is doing the recompensing and what their incentives are. If the process is part of an NHS-provided service where it is agreed that it is a compassionate end of life choice, and where it is properly regulated within the wider NHS service and connects with other NHS services, that is one thing. If the person commissioning that doctor has any kind of incentive around making a profit—and any profit-making organisation will be incentivised to increase the amount of profits that it makes—then, however carefully regulated, there will be subtle influence, pressure, coercion or persuasion that assisted dying is an option that patients should choose, or possibly not-so-subtle influence, to take the example from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Under other circumstances, in an NHS model, that may not have been a solution they would have been persuaded to choose. It is that issue of persuasion and of incentives that really troubles me.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I am talking about the companies that are running the service. I am not questioning the ethics of the doctors involved. I am merely suggesting that the people who are commissioning the doctors to carry out the service will have their own priorities that are not directly related to the safety or welfare of patients.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not associate myself with his use of the word “corrupt”; I am absolutely not implying that in any way, and I want to be very clear about that. However, there is a grave risk—even for the most ethical person, if they are offered money to carry out an action that they are inclined to carry out anyway as part of their professional practice—that those incentives drive behaviour that leads to worse outcomes for patients, specifically in relation to assisted dying.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am reflecting on the earlier intervention on me by the hon. Member for Stroud about how the only payment under assisted dying would be made at the very end, so therefore there would no possibility of a doctor making an assessment at an earlier stage in the process being influenced. Now the hon. Member for Sunderland Central is saying—this is obviously implied by the drafting—that the different bits of the approval process would need to be delivered separately. Whether that involved a payment from the NHS or a private provider, the doctor making those assessments will clearly be paid at different stages in the process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this points to the fundamental problem we have in this Committee, which is that we do not have a proposed model that we can properly scrutinise? All of us are just talking about potential suppositions about how things might work. We are effectively talking about a range of straw men.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will conclude my remarks by observing that the only reason that we are looking at contracting out assisted dying services to a private provider is that the country is simply not ready for assisted dying. We know how overstretched and under-resourced our NHS is, and we are looking at cutting corners in the Bill, in our policymaking, in our scrutiny of this legislation, and in how this legislation and the service is delivered.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  He paid a hefty fine, I think. The efforts of Henry VIII’s descendants to try to enclose the park and maintain the powers for the exclusive benefit of the royal family were defeated by a popular and somewhat genteel uprising of the residents of Richmond. I stand here today as the Member for Richmond Park to do a similar job: to assert the rights of the House of Commons and the Houses of Parliament to determine what legislation is, and not to allow it to be delegated under Henry VIII powers. The normal approach is that legislation made by Ministers is delegated legislation, and such legislation is therefore of subsidiary character to primary legislation. However, there is a type of power, known as a Henry VIII power, that gives Ministers the power to amend even primary legislation. The glossary on Parliament’s website says: “The expression is a reference to King Henry VIII’s supposed preference for legislating directly by proclamation rather than through Parliament.” We may in the course of time start to refer to them as President Trump powers—who knows?—but that is the precedent we act on. The Hansard Society, a non-partisan organisation that is neutral on assisted dying, issued a report that was critical of the power in the Bill. It said this: “little can be deduced about how it is thought this power will be used in practice, beyond the fact that it may, in particular, be used to enable the provision of assisted deaths through the National Health Service. But as the DPRRC”— the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee— “has previously stated, where a power provides that delegated legislation may ‘in particular’ include a specified matter, it implies the legislation may deal with matters beyond that specified matter. The explanatory notes shed little more light, except to clarify that the power could be used to make arrangements for the funding of any provision made by the regulations. Could the regulations thus be used to enable the provision of assistance through the private sector on behalf of the health service in England and in Wales? If the intention is that the regulations will be used only to establish an assisted dying service, either within or separately to the NHS, would they require that the service be free at the point of access to the person requesting assistance? A key principle that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has applied to delegated powers is that they ‘should not be framed in such a way that gives little indication of how they should be used.’ The DPRRC’s Guidance to Departments states that the Delegated Powers Memorandum should set out how it is proposed that a power should be exercised. In the current absence of the DPM, MPs may therefore wish to seek clarification from the sponsor of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater, about how she envisages the power being used, and similarly from Ministers how they expect to use this power if it were granted to them.” The drafter of the Bill, Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, appeared on the Hansard Society podcast and gave some further detail on this power and how it arose: “In other areas, like, is it going to be delivered through the National Health Service or in some other way, indeed the regulation of any substances that might be involved, in the time available, we didn’t have time to go into all the detail of how those regimes work and to make the provision on the face of the Bill, and so there are regulation making powers there, which enable that provision to be set out in detail, as you say, when the Government has looked at it and decided how it would implement it.” Given the time available and the constraints of the private Member’s Bill process, the hon. Member for Spen Valley can be forgiven for not including the detail of how assisted dying will be provided on the NHS in the Bill on its introduction, but she and the Government have now had months to think about it. Many people had hoped that clause 32 would be replaced with detailed arrangements for the delivery of the service, to be put on the face of the Bill by way of an amendment, which the Committee could properly scrutinise. On 5 March, the hon. Member for Spen Valley repeatedly said that it would be made clear by clause 32. When the hon. Member for East Wiltshire called for clarity in the Bill as to how the service would be delivered, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said: “It will be.” The Minister said: “Officials are working on amendments to later clauses to establish the operating model for her consideration.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 802.] This does not appear to have happened, which means Parliament will be limited to a 90-minute debate on this issue when the regulations are eventually made, and such a motion will be unamendable. Surely the issue of how the service is to be delivered is much more important than that and deserves greater scrutiny. It is disappointing to see new clauses 36 and 37 as the replacement clauses. Ideally, instead of the new clauses we would have had a detailed set of amendments to specify exactly how assisted dying is to be delivered. We do not have that; instead, we have a Henry VIII power that provides even more power than the one in clause 32, because the new one includes a power to modify Acts of Parliament passed subsequent to this legislation. New clause 36 provides very little guidance on how the Henry VIII power would be exercised. Will assisted dying be provided by the state? If so, would that be on the NHS or through another body? Subsection (1) one does not specify that it must be on the NHS. Subsection (4) gives the power, but not the duty, to change section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006—a foundational piece of Labour legislation if there ever was one, as the hon. Member for Banbury said—but subsection (5) requires it to be free at the point of use. The question of whether assisted dying should be provided as part of normal NHS services, or in a parallel service, as requested by both the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners, is not answered by new clause 36, although hopefully it can be fleshed out in the debate on the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. Alternatively, it would seem that the power can be used to commission private providers to deliver the service on behalf of the state. Instead of deciding between the various models, new clause 36 simply leaves it open. It therefore gives very little indication about how it should be used. When giving the Gray’s Inn reading at Gresham College last year, Lord Falconer said: “The wider the power—because there is less material in primary legislation to define how it should be exercised—the greater the reduction in parliamentary scrutiny, but also the harder”— it would be— “to identify any legal basis of challenge.” He went as far as to suggest that such wide Henry VIII powers were “unconstitutional”. Given his great support for the Bill, it would be interesting to hear the response of the hon. Member for Spen Valley and the Minister to Lord Falconer’s remarks.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We do not have the model to scrutinise, and we do not know within that whether the first or second co-ordinating doctor will be paid for their services in carrying out those initial assessments. To say that there is no incentive for making the final decision ignores the fact that people might be incentivised for making those initial decisions, where the professional judgment is required and may differ between doctors. That is why there is a risk.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is not a prospect I particularly want to reflect on, but it is worth noting that the particular risk in assisted dying services is that, as we heard in oral evidence from the chief medical officer, it is really hard to define, first, whether an illness is going to be terminal and, secondly, that somebody has only six months to live. There is an element of subjective judgment in assessing who is going to be eligible for assisted dying. Aligning subjective judgment to a profit incentive could create a serious ethical minefield. I want to state absolutely clearly for the record that I am not questioning the ethics of doctors or the ethical standards of doctors or of any of the bodies that represent them in any way at all. My question is merely about introducing a profit incentive to this issue. As I said, this process could be contrasted with something like the provision of abortion services. Abortion services are clearly available only to pregnant women. The fact that the qualification, as it were, for this service is on a rather more subjective basis creates a risk. Without this amendment, I am concerned that the Bill commodifies the end-of-life process and pushes what should be a sensitive, careful process towards being a transactional one. It also increases the risk that everything becomes focused on facilitating ending the patient’s life rather than supporting the holistic ethos of the NHS in addressing all the patient’s needs. Without the amendment, I worry that the Bill opens a door to the commodification of death, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has so graphically anticipated. What should be a careful, compassionate process could slide into something more transactional: a service that is marketed, packaged and sold. We need look only to the parallel of care homes to see that danger writ large. In England, social care has been quietly overtaken by for-profit providers. Today, 75% of adult care homes, and over 80% of children’s homes, are run for profit—not by design or explicit policy, but by the slow creep of market forces. The Economics Observatory, drawing on studies such as Patwardhan et al. 2022, Barron and West 2017 and Bach-Mortensen et al. 2022, reveals a stark truth: for-profit care, particularly where private equity is involved, consistently delivers worse outcomes. Similarly, a 2019 BMJ study found that private providers running NHS-funded services had higher rates of complications in procedures such as hip replacements compared with NHS trusts. The focus on cost efficiency can lead to skimping on follow-up care or using less experienced staff. Why does that happen? Profit-seeking behaviour drives cuts to staff, to resources and to time. Now, if we transpose that to assisted dying, let us imagine the pressures on a private provider to trim costs and the pressures on the quality of assessments. How thoroughly are mental health conditions, or the risk that something else might be going on, explored? How great is the depth of attention to medical records? Is what is relevant to the doctor influenced by the ticking clock? Will they tick a box rather than a safeguard?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. In Richmond Park, a Henry VIII power has traditionally meant the right of the monarch to hunt the deer in the large open space that gives my constituency its name—something that I am sorry to say he has in common with the dog of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  But the Bill does not say that. It does not say that the payment to the doctor should not include any consideration of profit. Regarding hip operations, someone would have one only if they needed it. My point is that assisted dying is one of a range of options at the end of life being presented here. The concern is that people motivated by profit would be incentivised to push for assisted dying at the expense of other options for the patient that do not attract the same level of reward. That is the issue. It is not a binary decision in the way that most treatments are.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, because it provides a comparison. We are talking about there potentially being a market for end-of-life services. I do not think that is the way we should be going.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the hon. Member’s comment about clause 40, “reasonable” is a fairly elastic term. We will find in time that the word “reasonable” will come to have its own accepted definition, but it does not preclude a profit margin.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I say, we do not have a model before us that we can fully scrutinise or test for risks, and we will not have the opportunity to propose amendments to address those risks—nor will we at any stage. There is a serious risk about all the different parts of the system, not just the doctors, being incentivised by private profit. My amendment would comprehensively remove that, so it would not be a risk. Given that we cannot fully and properly scrutinise the proposed model, my amendment is the best we can do.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I again refer to what I said earlier: I fear this is another example where, instead of debating and agreeing these points in Committee or elsewhere in Parliament, we are delegating these matters to be decided elsewhere by some other people, not in the legislation that we are debating and voting on. I reiterate that the Senedd has already made its view clear. It may not have been a binding vote. It may not have been voting on this specific piece of legislation. However, I think the will of the Senedd is clear: they do not want an assisted dying Bill imposed upon them, and that is what the evidence of Professor Emyr Lewis told us.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels that. The complicating factor here is that the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, but health is, as is safeguarding. One possibility is to seek to respect devolution strictly, by either changing the law or giving the power to the Secretary of State to change the law in respect of what is reserved, while giving to the Welsh Ministers the powers in respect of what is devolved. The problem is that the Bill does not quite do that, even with the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Those amendments fail to properly identify what is and what is not devolved; instead, they kick the can down the road. Future litigation might be required to figure out the precise boundaries. For example, regulation of health professionals is a reserved matter, but adult safeguarding is a devolved matter, so is the training of those health professionals on spotting coercive control a reserved or a devolved matter? The Bill does not answer that question. The solution therefore carries a real risk. If Wales decides that it does not want assisted dying and therefore does not provide it on its NHS, and the Welsh Ministers decide not to set up proper training and regulatory programmes in respect of the safeguarding issues raised, the position in Wales will be that it is decriminalised, so the service can be provided by private providers charging a fee and not necessarily properly trained in safeguarding. That is not a sustainable middle ground, so it would naturally pressure Wales to move towards commissioning such services itself. In other words, the Bill either respects devolution at the risk of creating a legal limbo, or it puts pressure on Wales to catch up with England, neither of which are desirable. Another alternative is to take away any choice that Wales might have on the matter entirely, and have the law apply in Wales in exactly the same way it does in England, including when it comes to the actual delivery of services. That would avoid the legal limbo problem, but at the cost of acting in a way that is constitutionally quite wrong. That brings us to the solution that Professor Lewis proposed in his blog: “How then might the Bill be amended to respect the Senedd’s vote on the matter of principle? One straightforward way would be to provide for different commencement provisions in the Bill. As things stand, under clause 42 of the Bill, most of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State has brought it into force, with the approval of the UK Parliament. Why not provide that the Bill will only come into force in Wales when and if the Welsh Ministers bring it into force with the approval of the Senedd?” That is what I seek to do through my amendment. I can foresee three objections. First, it might be said that the criminal law is a reserved matter and therefore Parliament ought not to refrain from legislating for Wales or have different commencement arrangements for the criminal law in England compared with Wales, but Parliament is sovereign and can do what it wants. By the same reasoning, Parliament should never grant a temporary power to a devolved legislature to legislate on matters that are normally reserved, yet Parliament does do that. The second objection might be that England and Wales are a single jurisdiction, and that there should not be a difference in the criminal law between them, but this misunderstands that, as a result of the devolution settlement, there are already differences in the criminal law of England and Wales. For example, in our law there is a defence of reasonable chastisement, which means that parents smacking their children would not be committing a criminal offence. Although the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, child welfare is and, using those powers on child welfare, the Senedd voted to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement in Wales. That means that there is a difference in the criminal law of England and Wales. A position whereby assisting suicide was partially decriminalised in England but fully criminalised in Wales would not be an oddity. There is no principle of our constitution that says that the criminal law must be the same on both sides of the border. The key issue is that the decriminalisation of assisted suicide, which the Bill will bring about, is not a stand-alone measure. What we are introducing is not something like the Swiss criminal code, for example, which does not criminalise assisted suicide when the person acted for non-selfish motives. Rather, it is a decriminalisation of assisted suicide that is contingent with complying with a detailed healthcare regulatory scheme, which is an issue that is devolved to Wales. Finally, it might be objected that this might create difficult cross-border issues. As Professor Lewis put it in his blog, “that would be true also if, for instance, the Scottish Bill did not become law. Far more difficult cross-border issues were successfully accommodated in the context of legislation, also involving profound ethical considerations, when the National Assembly for Wales (as the Senedd was then called) changed the law on organ donations.” I accept that such a situation might require constitutional amendments at subsequent stages, but these could easily be made by the Government on Report. Ultimately, when one looks at it in detail, having a different commencement provision for Wales is the only practical way of respecting the vote of the Senedd while not running the risk of creating a legal limbo. Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the supplementary written evidence of Professor Lewis, in which he commends my amendment 535. Regardless of where we stand on assisted dying, we should respect democracy. The people of Wales, through their elected representatives—acting as they should, as representatives—have voted against assisted dying. We should respect that choice and not impose it on them, in whole or in part, without their consent.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause, when amended by amendment 545, which we will vote on shortly, brings into stark relief how much of the Bill is to be left to regulations and how little say MPs will eventually get over it. When it comes to voting on Third Reading, MPs will have little certainty on how the Bill will actually operate—so much is to be taken on trust. If, through the gaps and grey areas, people come to harm, that will be on Parliament for failing to address these issues while we had the chance. Let us consider all the powers that the Bill creates. Clause 5 creates a power to determine what goes into the first declaration, subject to the requirements of amendment 418. Clauses 5, 8 and 19 create powers to determine the training, qualifications and experience of the medical practitioners, with no minimum floor, and we do not even know who will ultimately decide the training—that, too, is to be left to regulations under amendment 186. Clause 6 creates powers to determine the forms of proof of identity, with no requirement for those to be photographic or to prove residency. Clauses 7, 13 and 21 create powers to determine the statements, declarations and reports required from the doctors and the applicant. Clause 11 creates powers to make regulations for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor if they have died, are ill or are otherwise unable or unwilling. Clause 15 creates a new power to determine who can be a proxy. Clause 20 creates a power for the approval of drugs and substances to end people’s lives. Clause 28 creates a power to determine the prescribing, dispensing and transporting of approved lethal substances —the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire has called this purely administrative. Clause 29 creates a power to make regulations relating to the registration, certification and recording of deaths. Clause 30 creates a power to issue codes of practice that practitioners must simply “have regard to”. Clause 32 will create an extraordinarily broad Henry VIII power, as we are completely in the dark as to how the assistance will actually be provided. Clause 33 creates a power to determine which events should be notified to the commissioner and how to enable the exchange of information. That is all to be decided by the Secretary of State, with the detail removed from the Bill. All those things are to be subject to the negative procedure, except the training and qualification requirement for the first and second doctor, the codes of conduct, and the power for the Secretary of State to arrange for delivery of assisted dying. When a statutory instrument is made through the negative procedure, there is no need for a vote. The only exception, by convention, is when the Leader of the Opposition asks for one, but they understandably would not do so on a conscience issue. In practice, Parliament will never get a say on these matters. Is the Committee content with that? Even on affirmative statutory instruments, Parliament’s say is limited to a 90-minute debate on a motion that cannot be amended. Suppose that the Secretary of State published a code of practice on the assessment of capacity that MPs felt did not take sufficient account of mental health conditions. They would be faced with the option to vote for it despite its inadequacy, or to vote against it and risk creating a position where there are no codes of practice at all. That is an impossible position to place parliamentarians in, yet that is what the Bill does. It is a massive blank cheque to the Executive. I say to Government Members, who I know have great faith in the Health Secretary, that according to the Interpretation Act 1978, “Secretary of State” means any Secretary of State. The powers will not necessarily be exercised by the Health Secretary; they could be exercised by another Secretary of State. Indeed, under the doctrine of ministerial delegation, they could be delegated to another Minister who is not a Secretary of State. I make these points to illustrate that there is an issue of principle that cannot be waved away on the basis that we think someone sensible will exercise the powers. Parliamentary scrutiny matters, and I very much regret that the Bill avoids it through these wide regulation-making powers.