Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater]

Absolutely, Ms McVey—thank you for allowing me to make some introductory comments.

Amendments 178 to 180, 182 and 193 simply clarify that only persons in England and Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Act, and only medical practitioners in England and Wales can carry out the required roles at each stage of the process. Hopefully, this is a nice straightforward one to get us started.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for her introductory comments. The Government will continue to remain neutral on the Bill and do not hold a position on assisted dying. I want to make it clear that I, along with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, are speaking in Committee not as Members of Parliament, but as Government Ministers responsible for ensuring that the Bill, if passed, is effective, legally robust and workable.

To that end, we have been working closely with the hon. Member for Spen Valley and, where changes have been mutually agreed on by herself and the Government, we will offer a technical, factual explanation for the amendments. Therefore, I will not be offering up a Government view on the merits of any proposed changes put forward by other Members, but I will make brief remarks on an amendment’s legal and practical impact to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

May I ask how what the Minister has just said interacts with voting? He set out clearly his involvement in the Committee, so how does that impact any votes that he will take part in during it?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am on the Committee as a Member of Parliament and I vote as such. When I speak on the Committee, I speak as a Government Minister in order to provide factual and technical explanations. As the Bill is a matter of conscience, I will be voting with my conscience on all the amendments as they come forward.

The amendments that we are now debating have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in consultation with the Government. They relate to the location of the person seeking assistance under the Bill and are designed to ensure that the service can only be accessed by an individual present in England and Wales, with a view to preventing medical tourism.

I will take the amendments in turn. Amendments 178 and 193 would ensure that only a terminally ill person in England or Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Bill. Further to that, a requirement is placed on the co-ordinating doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person who made the first declaration is in England and Wales as part of their first assessment. Amendment 179 would limit the assistance that may be provided in accordance with the Bill to assistance in England or Wales only. Amendment 180 would require the steps taken under clauses 5, 7, 8 and 13 that relate to both declarations and both doctors’ assessments to be taken by persons in England or Wales.

Amendment 182 would limit the provision of clause 4(3), where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life, to cases where the person is physically present in England or Wales. It would prevent people who are outside of England or Wales from accessing assistance in accordance with the Act—for example, by online consultations from abroad.

As I said earlier, the Government will continue to remain neutral on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. That is, as I have made clear, a matter for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to Members in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Amendment 178 agreed to.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.

This replaces the concept of capacity based on the Mental Capacity Act and replaces it with a new concept of ability which is defined in NC1.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank the Committee for allowing me to reiterate the importance of a stand-alone approach. The use of the Mental Capacity Act must be questioned, as the Act was never intended to legislate for assisted dying. Much of what has been said in favour of using the Mental Capacity Act has been about it being tried and tested, so people understand it and to use anything else would make life complicated for professionals who use it as part of their day-to-day activities in assessing capacity.

On the surface, those reasons do seem reasonable and make the Mental Capacity Act an easy option. If, however, the Act does not pass the threshold of meeting everyone’s needs, convenience should not be the deciding factor. Convenience cannot be considered a sufficient reason to use the Mental Capacity Act, as it is a fundamental element of the Bill. The Bill is in itself enough reason to have an alternative or stand-alone approach to determine an individual’s eligibility to be considered for an assisted death.

Capacity is a complicated issue and cannot be oversimplified for convenience. The MCA may be fit for its current purpose, but it is not fit for the purpose of the assisted dying Bill. I have spent more than 20 years working on the equalities agenda, and one of the things that I have learned—this has been a consistent shortfall—is that we try to address new challenges with old solutions, rather than trying to meet the needs of the people we intend to serve. That is the reason why I will be supporting the amendment.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. As was noted earlier, the Government remain neutral. My role here is not to offer a Government view on the merits of the amendments but to provide a factual explanation of their technical and practical effect, to assist the Committee in its scrutiny. This group of amendments focuses on the concept of mental capacity. As drafted, the Bill, in clause 3, states that

“references to a person having capacity are to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005”,

with sections 1 to 3 of that Act establishing the principles and criteria for assessing a person’s capacity to make decisions. New clause 1, which would replace clause 3, and amendments 34 to 47, would collectively introduce the concept of an individual having the ability to make the decision to request assistance to end their life. A person’s ability would be determined by whether they could

“fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

That is intended to replace the term “capacity”, used in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which provides a very specific definition of what it means to lack capacity in relation to a particular decision. A lack of capacity under this framework means that a person must be unable to understand, use and weigh information relevant to the decision, and that that must be directly caused by

“an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”

The “ability” proposal, as drafted, deals only with the use and weight of information.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

To go back to the point I made this morning—I am happy to stand corrected, but nobody has disputed it—two issues continue to concern me in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and the code of conduct. The first is that the doctor would have a choice, under chapter 5 of the guidance, as to whether it is practical and appropriate to consult other people—with regard to learning disability, for instance.

Also, we have not discussed principle 2 in chapter 2, which says that the doctor has to do everything practicable to try to help the person to make the decision for themselves, before concluding that they do not have the capacity to do so. The principal concern for some Members remains those issues in relation to the Mental Capacity Act, which have not been considered for this scenario. I would like the Minister to address them and the fact that that Act, which was written 20 years ago, was not written for this scenario.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The fundamental position of the Government is that the Mental Capacity Act as it stands is a known quantity. It provides the legal base for a whole range of measures and interventions, and the Government’s view is that it would be an adequate legal base to operationalise the Bill should it receive Royal Assent. Our position on it goes no further than that; it is simply a matter of fact that there is a piece of legislation that is a known quantity.

[Naz Shah]

The Minister makes an important point. I just want to understand something. He speaks on behalf of the Government and says that the Mental Capacity Act is an adequate legal base as it stands. Perhaps the issue is just that I am new to the process—I am happy to be guided, Sir Roger—but we have not had an impact assessment. Normally, Bills do have impact assessments beforehand and the Government go out to consult; they have a consultation process. None of that has happened because the Bill is a private Member’s Bill. I am just trying to understand: is what has been said still true? How do the Government come to that conclusion without all those robust mechanisms that would normally go before a Government Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I set out from the Dispatch Box when we had the money resolution, the Government will publish an impact assessment before Report. Given that this is a highly dynamic Bill, with a whole range of amendments having been tabled, and that it is not really possible to publish an impact assessment on the basis of a Bill that has not cleared a Bill Committee, there is a simple point of sequencing. That is why we are going to publish the impact assessment after the Bill Committee has completed.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I was glad to hear what the Minister said about the Government accepting the Mental Capacity Act as a basis. We should remember that in 2005, that Act widened the availability of autonomy for individuals. We are discussing that here: how to enable autonomy for individuals. I also really welcome what the hon. Member for Bradford West said about impact assessments. Can the Minister commit now to an impact assessment specifically for Wales? The context of health and social care there is very different from that in England.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention. We have had a conversation about the need to ensure that the impact assessment has a clear and specific focus on the impact in Wales. I can absolutely assure her that either there will be a separate impact assessment for Wales, or we will ensure that the impact assessment that we produce is absolutely clear in terms of the impact that it will have in Wales; it will be one of those two.

Personally, I am agnostic as to which of those it is. It is simply a question of what works best given the highly integrated nature of the conversation because the criminal justice aspects of it are a reserved competence, while health and care are a devolved competence. What is the best way to present that—having a single document or two separate documents? I am not entirely clear, but I have undertaken to check the matter with officials. I will get back to the right hon. Lady as soon as possible on that point.

[Danny Kruger]

I am very puzzled, on two grounds. The first is about the impact assessment. I simply do not understand the argument that the Government have to wait until the end of the Committee stage before they can have a view on the Bill and present it for Report. The fact is that the Bill could change again on Report, and the impact assessment would have to be updated further. Why on earth do we not have an impact assessment, which could advise the members of the Committee and the Government themselves on the appropriateness of the measures?

That brings me to my second point of confusion: I simply do not understand what on earth the Minister means when he says that he is neutral about the clauses. He has just given the view, from his position, that he objects to the amendment and that he supports the use of the Mental Capacity Act. He is basing his view— I had understood that, as a neutral member of the Committee, he was not going to express one—on something. What is he basing it on? Secondly, how can he express a view when he is supposed to be neutral?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government choose when to bring forward an impact assessment based on the passage of the Bill through the House. We have had reports today about a very substantial amendment to clause 12 that may well be brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, for example. It is not possible for the Government to conduct and publish an impact assessment when quite significant changes are being made.

I also gently point out to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that this is not a Government Bill; it is a private Member’s Bill. It is also worth noting that it is unprecedented, as far as I know, to have oral evidence sessions for a private Member’s Bill, so we are already on relatively uncharted territory. It is also relatively uncharted territory to have, on a Bill Committee, Ministers who are neutral because the position of the Government is neutral. But that reflects the fact that this is indeed uncharted territory, so that is where we stand.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about our own positions on the subject; I speak also for the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green. It is a matter of public record that I supported the Bill on Second Reading. It is also the case that we vote, as members of the Committee, on the basis of our conscience because this is a matter of conscience; that is why the Government are neutral on it. There is no whipping from the usual channels.

At the same time, we are articulating the position of the Government. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire asked how we come to that position. It is through the usual process of engaging with officials and experts in the field, and through taking into account all the considerations that the Government need to take into account for the operationalisation of the Bill. The Government then come to a view, and that is the view that I express when I am on the Committee.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Minister says that the Government have made their own choice about when to do the impact assessment on the Bill. Does he not accept that it would have made sense to have done it before the Committee stage? Then, any evidence that the assessment threw up could have given rise to amendments tabled during the Committee stage—that would have made it an appropriate time to have done the impact assessment. The impact assessment could then always have been updated depending on how the Bill was then amended during Committee.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I simply reiterate that this is a very dynamic Bill Committee; I believe that 362 amendments have been tabled. Given the Government’s focus on establishing the Bill’s implementability, the coherence of the statute, the legal dimensions and the complexity of what we are dealing with, we took the position that it was better to wait for the Bill to clear Committee stage before producing an impact assessment. To do otherwise could have involved a large amount of second-guessing based on radical changes that might well have come out of the Bill Committee. I reiterate the logic of that sequencing.

On the point about the established legal framework, which clinicians have been applying since 2007, “capacity” would still be used for other decisions about care and treatment.

I turn to amendment 202, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on the advice of the Government. It ensures that the assessment of “capacity” is utilised by the assessing doctor, and corrects a typographical error in clause 9 to ensure that an assessment of capacity will apply consistently throughout the Bill. As I said earlier, how and whether the law on assisted dying should change is a matter for this Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to the Committee when considering potential changes put forward.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will try to keep my comments brief. It is excellent that we have had such a thorough debate on this particular issue, but I am also very conscious of time.

I will do the quick and easy bit first. As the Minister has just said, amendment 202 is to correct a typographical error in the initial drafting of the Bill—despite the high level of expertise involved in the initial drafting of the Bill, that one managed to sneak through. The amendment would simply change the word “capability” to “capacity”, to be consistent with the rest of the Bill.

I now come to amendments 34 to 47 and new clause 1. As we have discussed, those would replace the concept of “capacity”, which is based on the Mental Capacity Act, with a new concept of “ability”. I think that suggestion is coming from a good place and is made with good intention by the hon. Member for Richmond Park; I thank her for her positive engagement with the Bill. However, based on the oral evidence that we received, particularly from the chief medical officer and many other experts, the suggestion would seem unnecessary given that we already have—as has been discussed at length this afternoon—a very well established piece of legislation that is effective in this regard.

The primary purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is to promote and safeguard decision making within a legal framework. As the CMO and other colleagues have said, issues around mental capacity

“are dealt with every day, in every hospital up and down the country; every doctor and nurse above a certain level of seniority should be able to do that normally.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 31, Q3.]

That view was supported by Yogi Amin, an expert in Court of Protection work, human rights and civil liberties, who told us during the oral evidence sessions:

“It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 140, Q176.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Happily, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, let me make it clear that the two Ministers present are members of the Committee in their own right as Members of Parliament and are therefore permitted to speak and vote, as are all other Committee members. Were any Minister to feel that there was a conflict between their personal view and the view that the Government wish to express, my understanding is that that would be a matter for discussion between that Minister and the Government. More than that I am afraid I cannot offer.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his question. Let us take this back to first principles.

This is a private Member’s Bill. A Bill Committee had to be formed. The Committee was formed in discussions between the Member sponsoring the Bill, the Whips and the House authorities. The principle of formulating the Committee was based in large part on the steer given by the debate and the vote on Second Reading, which delivered a majority of 55 in the House. The numerical composition of this Committee was therefore based on that majority of 55, broadly speaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley needed to put together a Committee that reflected that.

The position was also taken that there should be Government Ministers on the Committee who had to speak for the Government with neutrality. It is with those two factors in mind that the Committee was put together. The two functions that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green and I have reflect the two purposes that were in mind when the Committee was put together.

[The Chair]

Again, that is not a matter for the Chair. Points of order are not matters for debate; they are points of order.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My apologies, Sir Roger. It was just a point of clarification.

[The Chair]

That is all right. Nevertheless, I am minded to refer the matter to the Clerk of the House for his consideration. This is no reflection on either of the hon. Gentlemen, or indeed on the Committee, but there are issues here that I think the Clerk of the House perhaps needs to consider in the broader context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments relate to the criteria that individuals would need to meet to request assistance to die under the Bill. All the amendments seek to amend the eligibility criteria in some manner. To reiterate, the Government have no view on the policy questions pertaining to the amendments, and my role here is to offer observations on the legal and practical impact of amendments tabled. The legal impact of these amendments will be the main focus of my remarks.

Amendment 353 seeks to make prisoners ineligible for assisted dying services even if they meet the definition of having a terminal illness. Amendments 354 and 355 are consequential amendments that would make it a requirement for the co-ordinating doctor in the first assessment and the court process to ascertain whether a person seeking assistance to end their own life is a prisoner.

Aside from the right to liberty, article 5 of the European convention on human rights requires that prisoners should have the same rights as those who are not prisoners. The rights engaged by the amendment are article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life and article 14 on the protection from discrimination. Making prisoners ineligible for assisted dying would, on the face of it, lead to a difference in treatment between prisoners and non-prisoners that would need to be objectively and reasonably justified. The justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

[Naz Shah]

I note that the Minister used the word “treatment” twice, but we are not talking about a treatment; we are talking about assisted death. I think someone mentioned earlier that it is a treatment, but it is not a treatment, is it? I would welcome his clarification on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My understanding is that it is termed as a treatment under the law. The Government do not take a view on the semantics of the word; my understanding is that that is how it is classified under the law.

[Sarah Olney]

It is really important that we establish whether this will be defined as a treatment or indeed as something quite distinct in law. My understanding is that the word “treatment” should never apply to assisted dying. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I apologise; I think I misunderstood the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, so my comments were not clear. I meant the treatment of this matter under the law. As I said, the justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That means the way in which the matter is treated under the law. That is what I meant; I think we got our wires crossed.

Finally, let me address amendments 356, 357 and 358, whose purpose is to exclude those who are homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 from the definition of a “terminally ill person”. The effect of amendment 356 would be to amend the definition of a “terminally ill person”, as set out in clause 1 of the Bill, to expressly exclude a person who, notwithstanding that they met all the other requirements set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1), was homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996.

Amendments 357 and 358 seek to make consequential amendments to clause 7 on the first doctor’s assessment and clause 12 on court approval. These amendments would require the co-ordinating doctor and the court to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person was not homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 before making their statement or declaration to allow the person to proceed to the next stage of the assisted dying process.

Article 14 states that the rights set out in the ECHR should be secured for everyone without discrimination on any ground. This amendment engages article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life. Making those who are homeless ineligible for assisted dying would lead to a difference in treatment that will need to be objectively and reasonably justified. The justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I hope these observations may be helpful to Members in considering these amendments and making a determination about who should be eligible for accessing assisted dying services, should the Bill pass.

[Danny Kruger]

What an interesting debate—I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated.

I am interested in what the Minister was saying about the ECHR. Notwithstanding my general point about the sovereignty of Parliament, when Lord Sumption gave evidence to the Committee two weeks ago, he stressed the wide margin of appreciation given to member states on the ECHR. Does the Minister think that that will apply in this case to ensure that the British Parliament could vote to exclude these categories of people? If his view is that the Bill could be subject to challenges on discrimination grounds, however, particularly under article 14, I think we will have a lot of problems in applying the Bill. I wonder whether, in due course, we will be able to tease out how the ECHR will intersect with the Bill.

As the Minister says, the crucial point is that any discrimination must be justified on the basis of achieving a legitimate and proportionate aim. My suggestion is that there is an absolutely legitimate aim, and that this is a proportionate means of achieving it.

The debate got quite philosophical, which I found very interesting. I observe that my constituency neighbour, esteemed colleague and great Conservative, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, has a vision of our particular political creed that is entirely individualistic. He stresses the absolute importance of individual autonomy, treating everybody as an individual without reference to the context in which they live. I suggest to him, and to the Committee, that our freedom and autonomy depend on our relationships. Our autonomy proceeds from our socialisation. We do not emerge fully formed into the world with all our values and attributes; we acquire them by virtue of the people around us.

The crucial thing about the prison experience is that it disrupts the relationships that can make an individual genuinely free. Homelessness does likewise, and it sets up all sorts of new relationships and new socialisations that can often be very negative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand what the hon. Member for Broxtowe is trying to achieve, but I believe that her amendments are unnecessary. “Demonstrably” is a word that is commonly used in British law, effectively to emphasise that something is important, but also to ensure that something is proven. She will have seen that I have tabled amendments to the Bill to require two declarations to be produced: one by the patient, to say that they have had the conversation about all their options, understand their options and understand what their prognosis is likely to be; and one by the co-ordinating doctor, to say that they have had the conversation and that the patient is in full possession of all the facts they need and understands what has been communicated to them.

My view is that those declarations, as well as the assessment that the doctor has to go through to confirm that the person has a settled wish to do this, are enough to show that the person demonstrably wants to access the service for themselves. I am concerned that amendment 109, like other amendments that we will debate later, would insert into the Bill a series of individual words that will unnecessarily complicate its contemplation by doctors. We heard in evidence that for the Bill to work, it needs to be simple and understandable by everybody who is dealing with it. The more we can minimise the number of words that may be open to interpretation by lawyers —and we certainly have plenty of lawyers in the room— the better. From that point of view, I will oppose the amendment. I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but I believe that we have achieved it by different means.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe relate to an individual who seeks to access assisted dying services demonstrating their wish to end their own life and demonstrating their understanding of the process by which that happens. To support the Committee’s deliberations, I will briefly summarise the Government’s analysis of the effect of the amendments.

Amendments 109, 110 and 111 would modify the requirement that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must undertake an assessment to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life. That would be amended to require the person to have a clear, settled and demonstrably informed wish. The term “demonstrably” would not provide further practical guidance beyond the words already in the Bill and could create uncertainty as to what constitutes being demonstrably informed.

I turn to amendment 112. Clause 9 currently provides that the co-ordinating and independent doctors must explain and discuss a number of matters with the person being assessed. These matters are set out in clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). In the interests of time, I will not go through each of those matters, but they include an explanation and discussion of the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatment available and the likely effect of it, and the further steps that must be taken before assistance can lawfully be provided to the person under the Act.

The amendment would create an additional requirement for the co-ordinating and independent doctors. It would require them both to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person seeking assistance has demonstrated their understanding of the matters that have been discussed under clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). The amendment does not specify in any further detail what the doctors would be required to look for to satisfy themselves that a person has demonstrated their understanding. That would be left to their professional judgment, with training, support and guidance, as with other concepts in the Bill. The amendment would leave it to the co-ordinating and independent doctor’s professional judgment to determine what “demonstrated their understanding” looked like in respect of each individual person.

I hope that those observations are helpful to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I have just a few points to make. I very much applaud the hon. Member for Broxtowe for her amendment, which would genuinely—demonstrably, I might say—strengthen the Bill. It does not seem in any sense hostile to the principle or purpose of the Bill; it supports it.

To make a gentle criticism, I think that there is a concern about the lack, throughout the Bill, of a proper trail of documentary evidence following the applicant through the process. For example, the two conversations with the doctor would take place behind closed doors, and no record of their discussion would be made. I do not think that conducive to trust. There is no way to assess whether the safeguards are actually in operation.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Abbott]

Q I will keep my question quite short. Is there anything about the law in either of your jurisdictions where you think there could be improvement, and that we can learn from in drafting our legislation here?

Dr Kaan: The thing I have been reading about that is concerning to me is the court approval that you seem to have written into your law. I heard your discussion this morning about how that might be done and whether it is a committee or the High Court and so on. I think that that is really going to limit access to this, and that makes the process a much lengthier one.

Again, these are people at the end of their life. People are not looking, by and large, to cut off a huge amount of their life; they are looking to shorten their death, not shorten their life. By making people go through a court appeal in addition to two qualified physicians, as well as the waiting period, I think that you are going to limit access for people who desperately want this option. It seems like that might be baked into your law, but I would say that that is a concerning feature to me. I think that you are going to limit access that way.

Dr Spielvogel: Something that it turned out was not in our law, but everyone thought that it was for a few years, and it really limited our practice, was that many people were under the impression that the physician could not bring up assisted dying with the patients, and that the patients had to bring it up themselves. That turned out not to be in our law, but that idea really hampered our ability to take care of patients, so I would strongly recommend that there not be anything like that in your Bill. People cannot make informed decisions for themselves if they do not know what their options are. While this is top of mind for all of you and for the doctors—we all know that this exists—even if this Bill becomes law, the general population is still not going to realise that it is an option.

I eat, sleep and breathe this. I am a primary care physician, and when I am going through the options with patients who are newly diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness, I say, “Okay, here’s what disease-directed treatment would look like. We can continue with your chemo. Here are some side effects and complications that you might have, and here are the benefits of that. Here’s what palliative care or hospice care would look like.” Then I say, “I don’t know if you know this, but in our state we have this other option for people nearing the end of their lives when they have intolerable suffering. You can ask me to fill a lethal prescription for you to help end your suffering sooner.”

The number of times that people look at me and say, “You can do that? That’s an option here?” is astounding. I would say that nine out of 10 of patients I have conversations with have no idea that that is even legal. If they do not know it is an option, they are never going to ask for it. For physicians to do their jobs properly and deliver care to people, and for people to actually have a choice, physicians need to be able to discuss it with their patients.

Dr Kaan: I will just piggyback on that. I cannot count the number of times I have given a presentation or a talk to communities, and people—usually family members of someone who have died, not using this law—have come up to me afterwards and said, “Thank you for what you said. My loved one was interested in having this information, or wanted to talk to their doctor about it, but their doctor never brought it up, so we weren’t sure if we should be bringing it up.” It is a huge burden to put on patients and their loved ones if they have to bring it up themselves. I would highly caution against any sort of language that requires that, because it is just not fair to them. They are already going through so much and, as Dr Spielvogel said, you cannot have an informed decision-making discussion with a patient if they do not have all the options available for discussion.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Q I want to drill down a bit more on the question of training. Could you say a bit more about how the training works? Is it mandatory for everyone who takes a medical qualification to a certain standard? How many class hours are required? Is there an in-practice shadowing process? Is there an assessment process to verify that the person is qualified as a result of the training? I am just trying to get a better sense of the detail of the training. I will perhaps start with Dr Kaan.

Dr Kaan: That is a really important question, because this is a really important topic in the United States. Our laws are very clear that participation is voluntary, so there is no such mandatory training across medical training in general. It is always voluntary. If a physician or provider wishes to have training, they can seek it out. What is available and the standard of care differ from state to state. Certainly, in the state of Washington, where I am the medical director of the organisation that is most largely involved with this, the bulk of my job is doing training, mentoring and shadowing. There is no exam at the end of that process, but there is certainly shadowing and a feedback process.

I am also heavily involved with the Academy of Aid-in-Dying Medicine, which has been very active in creating professional training. We have a Journal of Aid-in-Dying Medicine, which is a peer-reviewed journal that puts out articles that are relevant to the topic. The Academy of Aid-in-Dying Medicine is now undertaking certification pathways, so each level of provider—social workers, chaplains, physicians and anyone else who might be involved in the aid-in-dying process—will be able to take these certifications. A more uniform education system will be available. We are just at the beginning of creating those, but it is very exciting, and we are very happy to have those out. A lot of resources are out there in the world already, in general, to train providers in how to do this well, and it would be really smart to have something in your Bill that outlines what the training should be, whether you will make it mandatory or voluntary and perhaps some sort of certification pathway.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Dr Spielvogel, I do not know whether you have anything new to add to that. If not, that is fine.

Dr Spielvogel: Without repeating anything that Dr Kaan said, I was just going to say that in addition to my assisted dying hat, I am also the programme director for the family medicine residency programme, so my main job is actually training young physicians who are becoming what you would call GPs.

We have instituted curricula as part of our residency programme here to train interested physicians in learning how to do assisted dying. We go through a whole process for that, including lectures, them shadowing me and me shadowing them, listening in on their conversations, giving them pointers and walking them through the steps of the process. They then do this with multiple patients through the course of their residency, so when they graduate, they feel confident in being able to offer this care. As with most medical training, this should be included in that part of the training process. All the other things, such as pathways in continuing medical education, are very important for physicians out there in practice who want to start doing this, but really getting this into medical training at its roots is vital for normalising the practice.

Speaking of which, something else I have heard a lot is that this might be distressing to physicians, or that physicians would not want to offer this care. I would like to say that 80% of our residents on our programme opt to receive this training. When we did a study on this of graduates from our programme who were continuing to offer assisted dying, 70% of the surveyed residents said that their assisted dying work was more rewarding to them than the rest of their primary care work—70% said that it was more rewarding.

I want to come back to the notion that physicians would feel burdened or that this would be some sort of psychological negative to physicians practising it, because it is actually quite rewarding work. It has led me to be a better physician to all my patients because it has helped me with having these difficult end-of-life conversations with them. That was a bit of a twofer, sorry—I added that on there.

[Danny Kruger]

Q I have four very quick questions. I would be grateful if you could try to answer them quickly, because we have to let everybody else in before the end of the session. Dr Spielvogel, I was struck by you saying that nine out of 10 patients to whom you have suggested this option were not aware of it. How many people who did not know about it before and to whom you might have suggested assisted dying as an option do you think have taken it up? How many people do you think benefited from you telling them about the option?

Dr Spielvogel: A lot. I have actually been quite surprised. Everybody is different. This is the whole point: different people have different goals, objectives and values. I have mentioned it to people who say, “No, I would never do that,” and I never bring it up to them again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. This is a tragedy for all those concerned. He knows that the families have legal aid in relation to the inquest. Legislation on legal aid for judicial review and for inquests is different.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

19. What plans he has to construct a prison in Port Talbot.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his amazingly assiduous campaign. He asked exactly the same question, with exactly the same words, at the last Justice questions, since when I have met him another half dozen times. We have had a good meeting with his constituents, and I am now aware of their individual and general concerns. However, we need prison places in Wales.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is further evidence of the KBO principle. The Minister said what he said non-pejoratively, but I simply make the innocent and prosaic, but valid, point that repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Repetition can be a form of flattery, Mr Speaker. I should like to thank the Minister for meeting me and the representatives of the NPT Prison Group for a constructive discussion, and for agreeing to put plans for the Baglan prison on hold. I am sure he will also have noted the decision of the Welsh Government to put all plans on hold pending a strategic review. Can he assure me that all plans for the Baglan prison are well and truly on hold, and that the UK Government will engage in a constructive and positive manner with the Welsh Government in the strategic review?

[Rory Stewart]

I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that we are engaged in a constructive and positive manner and that we have very much taken on board the concerns around that site, but it is important to bear in mind that more than 1,500 prisoners with Welsh addresses are currently being held in English prisons. We need to think about how to provide accommodation for them in Wales, because that is important for reducing reoffending, resettling them in their communities and keeping the links with their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the important role that magistrates play within our legal justice system. The Secretary of State told the House of Lords Constitution Committee that the judicial age in general is being looked at in the round.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

T4. It is me again, as I am sure the Minister is delighted to see. The Welsh Government’s strategic review has been mentioned. Can he advise on the timeframe for when he will be meeting his counterpart in the Welsh Government for these vital talks? Can he also advise on how hon. Members on both sides of the House can get involved in that dialogue?

[Rory Stewart]

I will be meeting the Welsh Secretary specifically on this issue next week. We are setting up a meeting with the Head of the Welsh Government, who of course will be changing, and I would very much like the hon. Gentleman to join that meeting. I reiterate that, so long as offending rates in Wales remain as they are, although it is laudable that the Welsh Government wish to divert people away from prison, we currently need places for Welsh prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen surveys suggesting that some 50% of employers simply will not engage. It is frustrating that when one speaks to employers who do take on ex-offenders, their experience is frequently very positive indeed. If we can increasingly build a culture whereby these offenders are given that opportunity, that is good for the offenders and good for society, as it will reduce reoffending.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of building a new prison in Port Talbot.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this issue about five times in the past six weeks. I pay tribute to him for being a very firm advocate for his community. We have listened very carefully to his complaints. A decision on this prison is not likely to be imminent, as construction is not likely to be imminent. I would like to say, however, in addition to having listened to his complaints, that a prison built in the right place in the right way can provide significant economic opportunities for an area.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but the problem is that the proposed site is right next to residential areas, schools and a care home; is served by very poor transport links; is on a designated enterprise zone; is on marshland; and is restricted by a covenant saying that it can only be used as an industrial park. The Minister must surely agree therefore that the whole idea is a non-starter and should be scrapped with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I am very aware of the importance of looking at family law, in the context of the fact that relationship breakdown leads to unwelcome life chances for the children of that relationship. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, who should know that I have already met the president of the family division and the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and to discuss this issue.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

T5. As the Minister knows, there has already been a public meeting in my constituency about the prison there. He will be delighted to know that we have organised another on 12 April, to which he has been invited. May I encourage him to come and meet my constituents to hear directly their concerns, and I can guarantee that he will receive a warm welcome in the valleys?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

I am very grateful. There is almost no Member of Parliament who has been more assiduous on this subject, with, I think, five meetings in the past six weeks. There was a vigorous encounter between my officials and the hon. Gentleman’s community on their last visit. I would like very much to have the next meeting here in London, if that is possible, and I would be delighted to discuss the issues on that occasion.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

That will be addressed in the written ministerial statement and the strategy that will be forthcoming very shortly, and the hon. Lady will have an opportunity for scrutiny then.

We will work with the Commission on addressing those international agreements when the parties have a shared stake, and a shared interest, in continuity. Similarly, the Government recognise the need to maintain a strong relationship with the EU in the future. We are seeking to forge a deep and special partnership with our EU friends, and our relationship with the EU’s agencies and bodies on exit will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. No final decisions have yet been made on our future relationship with the EU’s agencies and bodies after leaving the EU, and we are carefully considering a range of options. Where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with an agency or other EU body, the Government will look very carefully at whether and how we can pursue that, and of course it is a matter for negotiations.

That brings me to why these amendments are, while well-intentioned, unhelpful. The first reason is because negotiations are ongoing and we cannot allow our negotiating position to be prejudiced or pre-empted. The Government are working to achieve the best possible deal with the EU. We welcome the constructive and thoughtful amendments from hon. Members, but we cannot accept any that might undermine the Government’s negotiating position or restrict our room for manoeuvre, not least in terms of striking the kind of arrangements that hon. Members in tabling these amendments want to see.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dominic Raab]

I am going to make some more progress, if I may.

Secondly, the Government have committed to ensuring that the withdrawal agreement with the EU can be fully implemented in UK law by exit day. The clause 9 power to implement the withdrawal agreement will be crucial in achieving this in the way I have described. This power will help to ensure we are in a position to swiftly implement the contents of the withdrawal agreement required to be in place for day one, ensuring maximum legal certainty upon exit. Again, I respectfully remind hon. Members that, if the UK is unable to implement the withdrawal agreement in time, that risks us being unable to meet our obligations under international law and scuppering the prospects of the very deal I think Members on all sides want to achieve.

To ensure a smooth and orderly exit, it is essential that appropriate legislative changes have been made by the point of exit. We want to give ourselves the capability to make those appropriate changes swiftly, and to support businesses and individuals and make sure the country is ready. The power in the Bill enables that, and those aims will be put at risk by these amendments.

I now turn briefly to amendments 227, 228 and 229, which prevent the clause 9 power from being used until a number of economic assessments have been published. The Government have been undertaking rigorous and extensive analysis to support our exit negotiations, to define our future partnership with the EU and to inform our understanding of how EU exit will affect the UK’s domestic policies. The Government have already established a process for providing economic and fiscal reports. The OBR independently produces official forecasts for the Government and is required to produce detailed five-year forecasts for the economy and public finances twice a year at autumn Budget and spring statement. Those forecasts reflect publicly stated Government policy at the time that those forecasts are made, and that includes policy on leaving the EU.

We have been very clear that we will not disclose material that might undermine the UK in the negotiations. In particular, in any negotiation, information on potential economic considerations is very important to the negotiating capital and negotiating position of all parties.

The Government want to get the best deal for the UK and hope—and, indeed, are confident—that this House is united in that goal, even if the means to achieve it may differ on some aspects of detail, and we do not want the UK’s negotiating position to be undermined. For that reason, we cannot support those amendments.

Amendment 230 requests an assessment of the broader responsibility of the Treasury. That is unnecessary. The Treasury’s core purpose is to be an effective finance and economics Ministry. As a finance Ministry, the Treasury will continue to account for public expenditure and manage the public finances. As an economics Ministry, it will continue to prioritise policy that reduces obstacles to growth, and manage key relationships with finance Ministries overseas. The Government do not see the UK’s withdrawal from the EU changing those core responsibilities of the Treasury, and an assessment to confirm that would be a waste of valuable public finances and is unnecessary.

I turn now to amendments 262 and 263. The Government recognise the huge importance of the legal services sector to the UK economy; it contributed £24 billion in 2015. The Government also recognise that legal services underpin many other important parts of the UK economy, including financial services, manufacturing and the creative industries. We propose a bold and ambitious partnership between the UK and the EU, and we will prioritise securing the freest trade possible in services. The Government are committed to securing the best deal for the legal profession.

In the Government’s July position paper, “Ongoing Union judicial and administrative proceedings”, the Government also made it clear that leaving the EU will end the direct jurisdiction of the European Court. At the same time, the UK is committed to minimising uncertainty and disruption for individuals and businesses, including those arising from changes in the treatment of cases pending at the time of exit. That is why we want an agreement on an implementation period based on the existing structure of rules and regulations, so that there is only one set of changes. The laying of such reports, as proposed in the amendments, would delay and impede the important legislative work necessary to prepare the legal services sector for all possible negotiation outcomes, and I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment 343 would prevent regulations from being made under clause 9 before the Secretary of State had laid before Parliament a strategy for a food standards framework after EU withdrawal. The UK has a world-leading set of standards on food safety and quality, backed up by a rigorous legislative framework. The Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and other relevant Government bodies are working closely together to ensure that the regulatory regime for food safety remains robust as Britain leaves the EU. The Government are committed to ensuring high food standards at home and promoting high standards internationally. There will be opportunities to build on our world-leading reputation for quality and standards, but it would not be appropriate for the Government to tie their use of the clause 9 power to the publishing of any individual or particular reports.

The purpose of clause 9 is to incorporate the withdrawal agreement fully and comprehensively into UK law, so that we can fulfil our obligations under the withdrawal agreement and under international law. The power is not intended to be used to report on the Government’s post-exit domestic strategy. To caveat the power or to define it in that way would cause uncertainty, both for our EU partners and for businesses and citizens in this country. I hope that I have addressed as many of the amendments relating to clause 9 as possible, and that clause 9 will now stand part of the Bill unamended.

I shall now turn briefly to clauses 16 and 17 and schedule 7. Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 7, which provides for the parliamentary scrutiny of the secondary legislation made under the powers in the Bill, including under clause 9. The Bill attempts to strike a balance between the need to prepare our statute book in time for the end of the article 50 process and the need, on the other side, for Parliament to undertake proper scrutiny. The Bill does this using long-established parliamentary procedures. These are the usual procedures that have been used by all Governments for decades with no dilution of the normal scrutiny process.

However, the Government have always said that we would listen and reflect on the concerns raised by the House. We understand the concern that there might not be enough scrutiny of the instruments made under the Bill. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), made it clear in the Committee yesterday that the Government would support the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which I hope will be supported by the whole of this Committee.

These amendments draw on the Procedure Committee’s expertise and its recent interim report, and will ensure that the House has an opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of the use of the procedure for instruments made under the three main powers in the Bill. The amendments do this without undermining the certainty that we wish to provide. For instruments brought forward under clause 9, as with the other powers in the Bill, this means that where the Government propose the negative procedure for an instrument, the House will be able to recommend that it should instead be debated and voted on as an affirmative instrument, giving an even clearer voice to this House in scrutinising how these powers are used. Other instruments, if not made using the urgency procedure—which I will come to—will be affirmative, guaranteeing the opportunity for a debate on the instrument.

Schedule 7 sets out a series of triggers for the use of the affirmative procedure. These are for some of the substantial uses of the power or for those where more complex decisions are required—for example, creating a new public body, creating new fees or other charges, or creating new powers to legislate. The Minister responsible for the instrument can also choose the affirmative procedure even where the instrument does not meet any of the tests in schedule 7. We have taken the same approach to changes to either primary or secondary legislation. Some changes to primary legislation can be mechanistic and minor, and adopting the affirmative procedure for small corrections to primary legislation would be impractical. Instead, the requirement for affirmative procedures is based on the type of change rather than the type of legislation in which the change is being made.

In rare cases, there are urgency procedures, both in the Bill as introduced and in the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. I can assure the Committee that we would only use those procedures very sparingly—for example, in cases where there was a clear practical reason to have a correction made in time for exit day or for a particular other day when limited time was available. Such a situation could arise, for example, because the content of a particular statutory instrument was dependent on a negotiation that took place nearer the end of the exit process. I know there are amendments on the paper today, such as those in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie)—I am trying to see whether he is still in his place, but no, he is not at the moment—which seek to restrict the use of this power to “emergency” situations. I hope the Committee will understand that the word “emergency” is not quite right in these circumstances, and that “urgency” is the more accurate description if we are to ensure that we have legal certainty.

Finally—I am grateful to the Committee for its patience—clause 17 is designed to make consequential and transitional provision to other laws as a result, not of our exit from the EU, but of the operation of the Bill. It contains powers to ensure that the Bill is properly bedded into the statute book and could be used, for instance, for housekeeping tasks such as revoking designation orders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I have listened to this entire debate with close interest. I think that we are all agreed that we want an orderly process for leaving the EU, which means a sensible withdrawal agreement along with a clear and detailed commitment to an EU-UK trade agreement and a period of implementation, but I also think we all agree that if no satisfactory agreement arrives, we still all voted to leave the EU. Well, we nearly all voted to leave the EU: I respect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), but he voted against the triggering of article 50, as did some others. Those of us who voted to trigger article 50 voted to leave on 29 March 2019.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Article 50 clearly states that an extension can be requested, so when we voted to trigger it, we voted to trigger a clause that included the possibility of requesting an extension.

[Mr Jenkin]

I will come back to the way Parliament interacts with the process, but it would be really rather foolish for this House and the Government to premise all their plans on the basis that that request would be acceded to, because it would require unanimity. I have not heard a single public statement from the EU or a European diplomat that suggested for a moment that they would countenance extending the deadline. Of course, why would they? The deadline written into article 50 is to their advantage. I expect that the hon. Gentleman would have voted for the Lisbon treaty, which contains article 50, but I did not vote for it. I have always thought that article 50 was a snare and a trap. It sets a deadline, against which we are now negotiating, and that is the only prudent way to negotiate.

I loathe secondary legislation that amends primary legislation expressed in Acts of Parliament. It is an odious practice that has entered the legislative process in this House—this is by no means the first Bill that contains so-called Henry VIII clauses—but I can justify such powers as a basis for reversing the effects of our membership of the EU. It may seem to be an irony, but it is by the process of secondary legislation that we have been gradually integrated into the EU.

We have seen order after order coming under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. More often than not, it was a “take it or take it” option: we did not even have a “take it or leave it” option once it was expressed in EU law. The advantages of allowing secondary legislation under this Bill are that, first, the legislation will ultimately be answerable to the House; secondly, the powers are temporary; thirdly, they can be subject to revision or annulment at any future time; and finally, they are underpinned by the democratic authority of a referendum.

On a “take it or leave it” vote, I do not remember debating a single new treaty that was offered to the House on the basis that we could amend the treaty by passing an Act of Parliament. Whether to accept the Lisbon treaty was a “take it or leave it” decision. We were told that if we did not accept the treaty, it would create such chaos that it would force us to leave the EU.

I do not doubt the bona fides of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others on the Government Benches, but my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) exposed very ably the fact that there are people in the House who want to use amendment 7 as a means to extend the negotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was absolutely explicit on that point. I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), did his best to avoid answering the question, but he made it clear that he thinks the deadline will have to be extended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Throughout the referendum campaign, leave campaigners spoke about taking back control, and it was seemingly a powerful message that resonated with the electorate. There is no doubt that the message, which was one of the crucial undertones of the campaign, meant bringing powers back to this Parliament, not to the Executive. That is why amendment 7 is so crucial.

It may be stating the obvious, but it cannot be reiterated enough that the Government are presiding over a monumental task of immense importance for the future of this country. In any such change, it is imperative that Parliament maintains close scrutiny and oversight of the process—of all aspects of the withdrawal agreement, from security co-operation to ease of trade with our European partners—so that we, as Members of Parliament, can best represent our constituents. These aspects must be scrutinised and debated by this House. If we are not given a say on that detail, we cannot fulfil our responsibilities to our constituents, and those responsibilities are the most motivating factor behind my support for a meaningful vote on the deal.

Clause 9 provides sweeping powers to the Government to deal with some residual situation, as the Minister described it, that he would like to retain control over. I am afraid that I am not willing to vote to give away the parliamentary sovereignty that I exercise on behalf of my constituents for some residual control to the Executive. If the Minister needs that power in relation to the withdrawal Bill, he needs to come back to this House and ask for it and explain why. I am afraid I found his explanation at the Dispatch Box today utterly unconvincing. Although I am grateful for the indication he has given about Report stage, unless that amendment is submitted in manuscript now, or amendment 7 is accepted, I will vote for amendment 7 tonight.

We have been pushing discussions with this Government for weeks and we have made our point very clear. I fully back the Prime Minister. I support her in trying to get the best deal for Britain, but I will not give away parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive on the basis of a request for them to have residual powers in this Bill.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I rise to support the—

[Mr Grieve]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Yes, of course.

[Mr Grieve]

While I was briefly out of the Chamber, an announcement was made of a Government concession, but I have to say, it is too late. I am sorry, but you cannot treat the House in this fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) may agree with me that the best way of getting progress in this area is by moving amendment 7 and thereafter we can co-operate with the Government in trying to achieve its aim.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I rise to support amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I have listened with great interest to all the excellent speeches and interventions by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon and, for me, three key themes have emerged. First, there is real disagreement about the meaning of “meaningful”. Secondly, there is confusion about the terms of article 50. Thirdly, there is an issue of trust.

On the first point, it is crystal clear that this vote cannot be meaningful if it is binary. It has to be taken on the basis of us having an opportunity to instruct the Government to extend article 50 if necessary. On the second point, article 50 clearly gives the Government the opportunity to seek an extension of the period, and there is no reason whatever why the EU27 would reject that request. It is enshrined in the treaties, and for that to have meaning, they would clearly have to listen to our request. Why on earth would they not accept that request if it was in our mutual interest to do so?

[Anna Soubry]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a moment comes in one’s life when, on the most important issue that this nation has faced in decades, we have to set aside party differences and even party loyalty and be true to our principles and to what we believe in? It could be that that moment is now.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree absolutely with the right hon. Lady. I pay tribute to her and to a range of other right hon. and hon. Members across the House. This is not an easy choice to make. It is always difficult in these circumstances when there is a huge amount of interest and focus on what we are about to do in this House. It is essential that hon. Members stick with their principles, and sometimes that means putting country before party. I pay tribute to every right hon. and hon. Member who will do that this evening. This is indeed a matter of trust. The challenge that we face is that if this provision is not put on the face of the Bill, we will not have the confidence and the assurance that we in this place can indeed take back control and reassert the sovereignty of this place, which is what 17 million people voted for on 23 June 2016.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am afraid I must push on, because we are moving towards the deadline.

Having paid tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members for what they are doing this evening, I commend the terms of amendment 7 to the Committee. I will be honoured to go through the Division Lobby with those right hon. and hon. Members this evening.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The Committee will know that, from my point of view, we cannot get out of the European Union fast enough. Time and again, I have said that we need to be ready on day one and be prepared for every eventuality, deal or no deal—or, should I say, regional deal or global deal—but we must remember why we are taking back control. It is because of the vision we have for our country and because of our values. Those values include the rule of law, natural justice and the sovereignty of Parliament. The rule of law exists to ensure that executive power is not abused, and that is why I object to clause 9. It is not right that a measure of this sort should be put through by any form of statutory instrument.

I welcome the fact that the Government are going to bring forward a withdrawal agreement and an implementation Bill, and nothing I have heard today has indicated to me any sense of urgency or any reason why a statutory instrument will need to be put through in a hurry. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay up all night long to pass legislation to get us out of the European Union as soon as possible. For that reason, I urge the Government to withdraw clause 9, and I have to say that I will not be able to support it on stand part.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that a transition deal is required and that the Prime Minister’s Florence speech said that that would be on the basis of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and the EU institutions have also said that it has to be on the basis of the ECJ. With that remarkable degree of alignment between the British Government and the EU, should we not now get the Government to confirm once and for all that the transition deal is on the basis of ECJ jurisdiction?

[Robert Neill]

I must confess that I do not see what some people’s difficulty is with the jurisdiction of the ECJ for a short period. At the end of the day, as everybody concedes, there has to be an arbitral mechanism. I rather agree that it will be difficult to invent one in time, and there may be alternatives, but, as the Justice Committee’s report in the last Parliament pointed out, the involvement of the ECJ in these areas is often extremely limited in terms of the overall amount of our jurisprudence in the courts. It would be foolish to rule out accepting it for a limited period to see us through transition.

Let me move on to the specific points here. We do need to pick up on certain areas. We have to have greater clarity on the interpretation of retained EU law. With every respect to Ministers, I do not think that the Bill will achieve that in its current form, although I think that it can, with further work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his party conference speech, one scanner was trialled in Wandsworth and we are looking at doing that across the entire estate. There has been an evaluation. Full-body scanners are not the only way to combat drugs and to prevent drugs from getting into prisons, as using intelligence, going after organised crime and working with law enforcement are also ways of dealing with drugs. We will use every measure possible to make sure that we stop the epidemic of drugs in our prisons and the flow of drugs into them.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Minister will now be aware that there is a covenant on the land on the Baglan industrial park, in my constituency, where he wishes to build a prison. That covenant states that the land should not be used

“other than as an industrial park”,

or for

“any offensive, noisy or dangerous trade business manufacture or occupation or for any purpose or in any manner which may be a nuisance to the Agency or the occupiers of neighbouring or adjacent premises.”

Does he agree that the covenant is the final nail in the coffin of the Ministry’s plans to build a prison on the Baglan industrial park?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman is incredibly persistent and tenacious in fighting for his constituents. Before moving ahead with any building project, we will of course carry out all the necessary legal and local authority searches. If they turn up any objections, we will take those into account accordingly.

Proposed Prison: Port Talbot

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I thank the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for securing this debate.

The proposals for a new prison in my constituency have caused consternation among many local residents. Their frustration has been exacerbated by the Minister’s reluctance to visit the constituency and to hear the concerns of residents directly from them. Back in March, I warned the Minister that if he did not engage comprehensively with the local community, speculation would grow. Six months on, the Minister has failed to engage with the community, with the result that speculation is indeed rife, and there is guesswork and hearsay. When the Government fail to give us the information we need, what else do they expect?

Every piece of information we have had on the proposals has had to be teased out of the Ministry of Justice by letters, questions in the House and written parliamentary questions. Fundamentally, the argument has come down to why the land in the Baglan industrial estate was selected by the Ministry when a far more suitable location is just 10 minutes down the M4 at Felindre. The Minister said that the Felindre site came a close second in the evaluation that the Ministry of Justice conducted. I strongly urge him and his officials to look at it again. The site meets the Ministry’s criteria and ticks boxes that Baglan does not.

My argument has three key components, of which the first is health and safety. The road infrastructure around the Baglan site is already well used, and at peak periods in the morning and at the end of the school and working days, traffic comes to a standstill from the sheer volume of vehicles on the surrounding roads and the M4. Port Talbot is a well known pinch point on the M4, and as recently as two years ago junction 41 underwent a trial closure. Given the proximity of the proposed prison to a large residential area and to local schools, with traffic movements at peak periods creating bottlenecks and no alternative route to alleviate the problem, should there be a serious incident at the prison, during those peak periods emergency service vehicles would struggle to attend, potentially putting the lives of prisoners and prison officers at risk.

The Felindre site, on the other hand, has good access from the M4, with a dedicated exit at junction 46 and its own access road along the B4489. The volume of traffic dissipates by the time it reaches junction 46, making access for emergency vehicles easier in the event of a serious incident. The site is also much closer to a full accident and emergency unit, whereas the hospital close to the Baglan site has only a minor injuries unit.

The second component of my argument relates to the economy. The Minister indicated to me that he ruled out the Felindre site because it had been awarded European Union funding for business park development. But the Baglan industrial site is part of the Port Talbot enterprise zone, created at the height of the steel crisis to encourage business activity in the area. The steel crisis demonstrated the need for the labour market in Port Talbot to diversify and not to be so reliant on the steel industry. The creation of the enterprise zone and the enhanced capital allowance that came with it, which the site has, are key components in encouraging business not reliant on the steel industry to come to the area. A prison simply does not fit into that objective and would undo the hard work carried out to make the area attractive to business. The land should therefore be used for the purposes for which it was intended and not for the construction of a prison. Conversely, the proposals are having the opposite effect on businesses in the industrial estate, a number of which have expressed to me and publicly that they will leave the area if the prison is given the green light.

Thirdly, there is the matter of construction. The Felindre site is more suitable because of its status as a brownfield site; the Baglan site is a greenfield site and it is marshland. Were the Government to push ahead with building on the Baglan site, they would incur substantial additional cost by having to build on marshland. Businesses that built on other parts of the land had to pile-drive to a considerable depth to put down foundations, only to construct buildings considerably lighter than a prison. That would have huge consequences for neighbouring properties and businesses, and the costs would balloon. The Felindre site has already been developed and the Government would encounter none of those problems there. The site already has developed infrastructure works and land reclamation, as well as the good access links I mentioned.

The Felindre site offers the Minister the same benefits as the Baglan one, but with the additional benefits that I have set out. The fact that the Felindre site is further away from residential areas and schools also means that it does not carry with it the same hurdles that the Baglan site does, certainly in terms of local community consent. I therefore conclude by urging the Minister to guarantee that he will go back to his Department and look again at Felindre as a more appropriate site to locate the prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

The probation service review is ongoing. As the hon. Lady may know, the results of the first part were published in a written ministerial statement just before the summer recess, outlining the additional investment that has gone into the probation companies. We will be publishing the next set of results as and when they are ready. I cannot give her a firm date, but it will be shortly.

The substance of the debate is the Port Talbot location of the proposed prison, as discussed by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). When assessing where to build new prisons, the Ministry of Justice worked closely with the Welsh Government to identify suitable sites for a new prison build in Wales. We undertook a comprehensive evaluation of more than 20 sites in south Wales, ensuring that various factors were taken into consideration, such as preference for sites located along the M4 corridor because of their accessibility and the travel time benefits they would bring.

After careful consideration, Port Talbot was selected as the best potential site for a new category C prison build in Wales. That was for a number of reasons, including the capacity of local infrastructure to support the prison and the potential to maximise the benefits of investment in the local community. In addition, the site is owned by the Welsh Government, who are supportive of our work to progress these plans. As I mentioned, supply and demand for prison places are misaligned. For example, we do not have enough category C prison places in south Wales; the proposed prison at Port Talbot would address that shortfall.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister began to explain the infrastructure decision and why the Baglan site was considered to have better infrastructure than the Felindre site, but he did not give any more detail. As I said, junction 46 gives far easier access than junction 41, so why was Felindre considered to have poorer infrastructure than Baglan?

[Mr Gyimah]

Infrastructure is not just motorway access but the local infrastructure of the area. For a category C prison, which would effectively be a resettlement prison, ease of access to employment is important, so that prisoners can be released on temporary licence and come back easily. It is also important that local people can work in the prison without having to commute long distances, not to mention ease of access for prisoners’ families to visit them. All those things are taken into account when we look at local infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

Thank you, Mr Brady—as ever, you are hot on procedure.

A modern prison at Port Talbot will support the rehabilitative culture that is essential to making communities safer. A fit-for-purpose establishment will ensure that families can visit inmates in a relaxed atmosphere, which is particularly important for children. We will ensure, as far as possible, that local labour is sought from Port Talbot and the surrounding area and that local businesses benefit. As a guide, in the design and build of HMP Berwyn, around £83 million was spent with small and medium-sized enterprises in addition to the £38.2 million that was spent on local businesses. The construction of HMP Berwyn provided jobs for unemployed people, apprenticeships and more than 2,000 days of educational work experience for local young people.

Based on the success of HMP Berwyn, where we estimate that up to 1,000 jobs will be created, the new prison at Port Talbot could generate up to 500 jobs and contribute £11 million a year to the regional economy. Some 66% of HMP Berwyn’s staff came from the local area.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We are talking about job creation and enterprise. What does the Minister advise me to say to local businesses in the Baglan area that have already said that they will shut up shop if the prison goes ahead, which would mean the loss of hundreds of local jobs?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman passionately represents the views of his constituents. As he is aware, there is a statutory consultation process. We have extended the time available for that consultation, which will give us the opportunity to listen to the concerns of residents and respond appropriately. When a change of this scale is proposed, it is not unusual to get the kind of reaction that he has received. The onus is on the Ministry of Justice to explain to local residents what is happening and what the benefits are, and we will do that as we go through this process.

I know that the hon. Gentleman would like me to personally engage in this process, but the Prisons Minister does not have expertise in taking residents through a consultation—no MP does. However, experts in the Department have been through this process in other parts of the country, including Berwyn, and they will take his constituents through their understandable concerns.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister is being generous with his time. We have invited him to a public meeting in Port Talbot on 20 September, but he has said he is unable to attend. Can he confirm that someone from his team can attend that meeting?

[Mr Gyimah]

There will definitely be officials from the Ministry of Justice there. I want us to go through this process, as we do with every other prison in the country. The Minister cannot just start popping around the country running consultations for all the new prisons we are building, but the hon. Gentleman has exchanged letters with me all summer and my door is always open for him to come and represent the views of his constituents, as he has done by raising the issues here. I promise that I will take everything he raises on board. Contrary to what he said about having to winkle out answers from the Department, he has used all the formal channels available to a Member of Parliament, and I dare say that he has received a response every time he has made an inquiry about this prison.

We are obviously focused on infrastructure and the benefits for the community. We are working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority to develop innovation in the construction and delivery of new prison buildings. That is in line with the UK industrial strategy and will create new job sectors in the industry.

We have touched on stakeholder engagement, which is important. As I said, we are engaging with the Welsh Government and Members of Parliament, and with Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council to develop its plans for the Port Talbot site. We are pleased to have had the support of the leader of the council, Councillor Rob Jones, and the Welsh Government throughout the process.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton).

Last June, the British people voted to leave the European Union. It was an outcome that I campaigned against, but it is a decision that I fully accept and respect as a democrat. That is why I voted to trigger article 50, and I have spent the past 15 months considering how to make Brexit work. It is precisely in that vein, driven by a desire to defend and advance our national interest and to enact the will of the British people, that I have risen today to urge hon. Members to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading.

This Bill frustrates the will of the British people and it fails on its own terms. Brexit was supposed to be about Britain and her sovereign Parliament taking back control. Whatever a vote for Brexit meant, it was surely not a vote for the degradation of our fundamental constitutional values. The first principle of our constitution is parliamentary sovereignty under a constitutional monarch. That means that it is Parliament, not the Executive, that determines the rules and laws that govern this country. The Bill seeks to turn that fundamental principle on its head. Without substantial amendment, this Bill will usurp the sovereign power of this House, giving Ministers the absolute powers of feudal lords, and the Prime Minister the power of a 16th century monarch. It would emasculate this House, giving the Government, who were denied a majority in this House at the ballot box just three months ago, unaccountable power. As Lord Acton famously remarked,

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The relationship between the legislature and the Executive works only if it is one of equals. This Bill, if passed in its current form, would fundamentally undermine Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account and to apply the checks and balances that are the lifeblood of our democratic processes and institutions.

If this Bill does pass tonight, we must work together across the Floor of this House to fix it. First, we need a substantive impact clause, which would codify and formalise the promise that this Bill will make only technical changes and would mean that substantive rights and protections originating in EU law could not be removed without a vote in Parliament. Secondly, we need a limitation on the use and scope of the discretionary powers in the Bill—this will likely take the form of the “necessary and proportionate” requirement—and a protection for substantive rights. Giving Ministers the power to determine what is “appropriate” is an inadequate safeguard, as it hands Ministers absolute and unaccountable power that they need justify to no one.

Thirdly, we need an enhanced scrutiny requirement. This could take the form of the “sift and scrutiny” Committee that has been proposed by the Hansard Society. Failing that, the task could be delegated to the European Scrutiny Committee, with the aid of a beefed-up explanatory memorandum. That type of amendment is required so that this House has the power to determine what will be done by statutory instrument, what by the affirmative principle, and what by the whole House.

Fourthly, there must be an institutional parity clause. Without UK institutions to take on the job of EU bodies, we will see fundamental rights removed by the back door, having been rendered unenforceable. Fifthly, we need proper explanatory statements from Ministers. That would be a further layer of protection; it would mean Ministers having to sign an explanatory statement whenever an instrument was made under the Bill, stating that it was not intended to impact on substantive rights and protections.

Lastly, but by no means least, we need a clause to enforce the principle of presumed competency for devolved institutions. There is presumed competence for devolved institutions when it comes to enforcing EU policy at present, so competency for these matters should be transferred not to Whitehall, but closer to the people through our devolved institutions.

Amendments to cover those six areas would produce a Bill that protects the sovereignty of this House and gives back control to the people of this country, and not simply to those around the Cabinet table, but the Government have shown absolutely no willingness even to consider any such amendments. Rather, they seem determined to impose a tight time limit on Committee stage, in an attempt to ram the Bill through before anyone can appreciate its full implications.

As Lady Macbeth muses,

“What need we fear…when none can call our power to account?”.

Lady Macbeth knew that as long as her husband was on the throne, they would escape punishment for their crimes, because there was no check on their power. This Bill seeks to strip Parliament of its sovereign power, create a Cabinet of kings and transform the Floor of this House from the beating heart of our democracy into a spectators’ gallery, turning us from legislators to bystanders, wholly dependent on the benevolence of Ministers. Let us make no mistake: this Bill is not about delivering the will of the people; rather, it is about gagging our democracy and this House by way of a false discourse. It is a silent coup d’état, masquerading as a technical necessity. It is for that reason that I urge us all to decline giving the Bill a Second Reading, and the Government to return with a dramatically altered Bill that respects this House, our constitution and the will of the British people.