Suicide: Reducing the Stigma

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Sojan Joseph

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock]

Absolutely—we believe the sky is the limit. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, we are clear that we see this as the first step. Clearly, premier league clubs are high profile, so hopefully people will look at the partnership, learn from it and say, “Yes, that is something that we can do.” Fingers crossed that it takes off.

As part of the men’s health strategy launch, we also announced the suicide prevention support pathfinders programme for middle-aged men. The programme will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men and create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems. For over a decade, middle-aged men have faced the highest suicide rates of any age group. They account for around a quarter of all deaths by suicide in England. That is a shocking statistic, and it is why middle-aged men are identified as a priority group in the suicide prevention strategy for England.

It is important that we do not simplify the picture. The national confidential inquiry into suicide and safety in mental health found that of men aged 40 to 54 who died by suicide, 67% had been in contact with health and partner agencies in the three months before they took their own life, and 43% had been in contact with primary care services in the three months before they died. That tells us something vital: a significant proportion of men do reach out, presenting an opportunity to make the most of every interaction with men who may be at risk of suicide. Our responsibility as a Government is to ensure that when men take that step, the services they encounter are accessible, joined up and genuinely equipped to meet their needs. That is what the pathfinders programme will do.

By improving engagement with healthcare and improving access to the right support, we can begin to dismantle the stigma that continues to cost too many men their lives. In April this year, NHS England published its “Staying safe from suicide” guidance, which strengthens the approach to suicide prevention across mental health settings. It promotes a holistic, person-centred approach, rather than using stratification tools to determine risk. The guidance directly aligns with the aim of our suicide prevention strategy and reflects our commitment to continually improving mental health services, particularly by identifying risk assessment as an area where we must go further.

The implementation of the guidance has been supported by a new NHS England e-learning module, which launched in September, to help ensure that staff across services are confident and equipped to apply the guidance in practice. The NHS medium-term planning framework, published last month, states that in 2026-27, integrated care boards must

“ensure that mental health practitioners across all providers”

undertake the e-learning

“and deliver care in line with the Staying safe from suicide guidance.”

The Minister with responsibility for women’s health and mental health, who sits in the other place, wrote directly to crucial stakeholders across the sector—including the chief coroner, the Charity Commission, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, and the British Psychological Society—to promote the guidance and the e-learning module, and I am pleased to say that the response has been overwhelmingly positive. By way of example, the Charity Commission circulated information about the e-learning to around 5,000 charities involved in suicide prevention or mental health support—an encouraging demonstration of the sector’s commitment to improving safety and support for those at risk.

More widely, we are improving mental health services so that people are met with the right support. We recognise that expanding and equipping the workforce will take time, but I am pleased to say that we have hired almost 7,000 extra mental health workers since July 2024. Mental health remains a core priority for the NHS. That is why we are investing £688 million to transform services, including £26 million to support people in mental health crisis.

As part of the 10-year health plan’s commitment to transforming how the whole health and care system works, we are introducing neighbourhood mental health care for adults, which will bring community, crisis and in-patient care together in a single, seamless offer. Six neighbourhood mental health centres are already operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, offering open-access support to anyone who needs it. Co-delivered with primary care, the voluntary and faith sectors, and local specialist services, the centres make it easier for people to seek help in their own communities, without judgment or barriers.

[Sojan Joseph]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am very tight on time, but I will give way briefly before wrapping up.

[Sojan Joseph]

A recent study shows that many people are reaching out to artificial intelligence chatbots to seek mental health support. The Government are putting so many new initiatives in place; does the Minister agree that we need to publicise them more, so that people do not seek incorrect information from AI chatbots?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely agree. This is a human challenge, and humans need to take it on. That is what we will do. There is nothing more human that going to a premier league football match, so I hope that that will be a good way of raising awareness, just as my hon. Friend says.

As we reflect on the lives lost and the families forever changed, we reaffirm our commitment to tackling stigma, improving support and ensuring that everyone feels able to speak up, ask for help and be heard. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park again for raising this crucial issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Sojan Joseph

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that we provided £100 million—an unprecedented amount—in capital funding for hospices, and £26 million a year and £80 million over three years for children’s hospices. We recognise that hospices benefit from being rooted in their communities, with amazing charity and philanthropy support, but of course we know that the Government need to do their bit as well, and that is precisely what we were doing. I was very pleased to visit Noah’s Ark children’s hospice in Barnet last week and to speak to the chief executive, who warmly welcomed the stability and certainty that the three-year allocation has provided.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

T6. After a decade of under-investment in our NHS under the Conservatives, I welcome the progress that has been made on reducing A&E waiting times under this Government, but there is no immediate fix. Just last month, a coffee shop at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford was converted into an emergency ward to treat A&E patients. Will the Secretary of State visit the hospital to see the continuing problems with corridor care, and will he update the House on what the Government are doing to ensure that the hospital can manage winter pressures and maintain safe, high-quality care?

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Sojan Joseph

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph]

Not at all. I am not claiming that there should not be training for people who work in any settings; I am saying that more and more training has been added every time we learn something and yet compliance with the training requirement is not being monitored. That is the point I am making—not that we do not need the training.

I support training, because appropriate training is necessary, but we also need to ensure that the people who work in those settings are compliant with the training. That is the larger point I am making. This is not about the amount of training we might want to add to this legislation; we need to ensure that existing training is completed by the staff working in those areas.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Health and Social Care Act 2008, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022, already requires that all CQC-registered health and adult social care providers ensure that their staff receive specific training, appropriate to their role, on learning disability and autism. The associated code of practice has been consulted on and is expected to be published and laid before Parliament soon.

The code sets out four standards that outline minimum training requirements, including expectations of training content at different levels; that training is co-produced and co-delivered alongside people with a learning disability and autistic people—that addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock about co-production and things not being done in an ivory tower; and that staff complete training at least every three years. To set out separate standards in secondary legislation, as the amendment asks, would cut across that existing legal requirement and the forthcoming code. Inadvertently, that could lead to confusion. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Guildford enough to persuade her to withdraw the amendment.

Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Sojan Joseph

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are moving to a nuanced position that is about defining where there are co-occurring conditions and where there are not. I think everybody recognises that that is, by definition, a complex process, so the training and the code of practice that go around it will be vital.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

In the past, many people with mental health disorders have been detained in hospitals for months or even years because of a lack of proper social care provision in the community. Will the Minister also ensure that local communities, which will be providing social care for patients who are discharged from hospital, are part of that discussion?

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is absolutely a team effort. Sadly, when people have severe and acute mental health disorders, a multi-agency effort is often required to support them and to help them to get the treatment they need. The process should not be about trying to isolate people. We are keen to ensure that people stay in mainstream society and remain as integrated as possible, because that is often an important part of supporting their mental health condition.

All of that means that local authorities, mental health professionals, social workers, and often children’s social care professionals or adult social care professionals are important in the process—it requires a team effort. That integrated approach will be really important as we build the community services that we want to see.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Sojan Joseph

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Before I speak to amendments 497 and 498, on which the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, let me address amendments 462 and 463.

Amendment 462 would amend clause 18 to require the co-ordinating doctor to explain to the person that they do not have to proceed and self-administer the approved substance, and that they may still cancel their declaration. Although it is not specified, it is presumed that the amendment refers to the second declaration that the person will have made. The Committee may wish to note that there is already a requirement in clause 18(4)(b) that,

“at the time the approved substance is provided”,

the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied that the person

“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

The purpose of amendment 463 is to limit what the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to do in relation to providing the person with an approved substance under clause 18. As the clause stands, subsection (6) sets out the activities that the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to carry out in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2). It states that the co-ordinating doctor may

“(a) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person,

(b) prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and

(c) assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

Additionally, subsection (7) provides that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.”

Amendment 463 would remove subsection (6)(c), which would result in the co-ordinating doctor being unable to assist the person

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer”

the approved substance. The co-ordinating doctor would still be permitted to prepare that substance for self-administration and to prepare a medical device to enable the person to self-administer the substance. This could mean that a co-ordinating doctor may not be able to provide assistance such as helping the person to sit up to help with swallowing, or explaining how the medical device for self-administering the substance works. This could result in practical difficulties in self-administration of the substance and/or place the co-ordinating doctor in a difficult position.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that it is confusing for health professionals when we say that they can assist the patient to sit up or hold a cup of water or put the medication into their mouth? Is it not confusing for medical professionals that we are giving contradictory statements?

[Stephen Kinnock]

One of the fundamental principles of the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has prioritised, is self-administration. It is not for me as a Minister to opine on that; it is simply there in the Bill. Once that fundamental principle is established, it is about defining what “assistance” means, compared with what “self-administration” means. As I was setting out, I think “assistance” can mean things like helping the patient to sit up; it does not mean actually administering the substance to the patient. It is about the dividing line between assistance and self-administration—hence the term “assisted dying”, I suppose, which is very different from the doctor actually administering the substance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with considerable clinical expertise. It is about exactly that difference between self-administration and administration. If we cleave to those two principles, that is the basis on which we will achieve the stated aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

[Sojan Joseph]

Does the Minister agree that assisting a person to ingest is different from assisting a person to self-administer?

[Stephen Kinnock]

In order to ingest, there has to be self-administration. The self-administration is the precondition for ingesting the substance. That is my reading. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fourth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Sojan Joseph

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Record keeping is a huge issue in our healthcare system. A huge number of coroners’ reviews have identified that record keeping has been an issue. By specifying only that clinicians need record a “recordable event”, we are leaving it as the responsibility of individual clinicians to decide what a recordable event is.

It is important that a good record be available to prevent future incidents and learn good practice. Leaving it open to a clinician to decide whether something is a recordable event could lead to most issues not getting recorded. For example, if a clinician has identified that there was coercion, it will be for the clinician to decide how much documentation to do. In my view, if they have identified a coercion, that should be recorded as an incident and further investigation should be done, but the Bill leaves it up to the clinician to decide. There is no standard for record keeping across the healthcare system, so a care home’s may be different from an NHS ward’s. I think it is for the Committee to look into what “recordable event” actually means.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The purpose of amendments 474 to 478 is to improve the drafting of the Bill by creating a new definition of “recordable event”. Recordable events are the events set out in clause 16(1) related to the recording of declarations and statements.

The amendments would also make consequential changes to clause 16, which refer to the occurrence of the recordable event, as per the new definition, and include reference to a report in addition to a statement or declaration. The reference to a report is consequential on the amendments already agreed by the Committee to clauses 7 and 8.

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

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Sojan Joseph

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

Yes, I believe so. Photographic ID would be the standard to which we would aspire. I do not know whether there was anything else under her question? I think the answer is yes.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Could the Minister clarify whether the requirement for one year of residency in the UK means that a foreign citizen studying at a university here would be able to consider assisted dying?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have the term “ordinarily resident” in the UK in clause 1. Obviously if the Committee sees fit to accept the amendment it would change to “resident”, which is a looser term. This matter would also be one for the Home Office, as the custodian of our rules and regulations on immigration, but my sense would be that if we stick with “ordinarily resident” then someone who is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom would not qualify for assisted dying.

As the Bill currently stands, the Secretary of State has the power but not the obligation to set these requirements in regulations. This amendment would remove this discretion and require the Secretary of State to specify what forms of ID must be provided.

Amendment 293 ensures that regulations on acceptable forms of proof of identify must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before coming into force, by requiring these regulations to follow the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. As I said earlier, the Government’s position is neutral, but I hope my observations—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree. It highlights the point that the impact assessment will be very important here, to see from where the resources are being pulled to provide this. The Committee should acknowledge amendment 296.

[Stephen Kinnock]

These amendments introduce requirements on the timing within which the co-ordinating doctor must carry out a first assessment once the first declaration is made by a person. I will turn first to amendment 296. As currently drafted, clause 7(1) requires that the co-ordinating doctor must carry out a first assessment

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

after a person has made a first declaration. Amendment 296 would require that after the first declaration is made, the co-ordinating doctor must arrange a mutually convenient time and date for the first assessment to take place, but it removes the stipulation that the assessment must be carried out as soon as reasonably practicable. The amendment would also require the date and time agreed not to jeopardise the care of other patients. The effect of the amendment may be to lengthen the period between the first declaration and the first assessment, in some cases.

Amendments 127 to 141 seek to ensure that the assessments, declarations and statements made throughout the Bill are finalised and recorded within 10 working days of being started. The amendments achieve this by inserting the term “within 10 working days” in place of

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

in clauses 7, 8, 16, 17, 21 and 22. This would put in place a time-bound limit that the medical practitioner must adhere to when carrying out the first and second assessments, when recording information in medical records at various stages, including the High Court declaration, and when recording other matters in medical records.

Our assessment suggests that in most circumstances, although it would depend on the facts of a particular case, the requirement to do an action as soon as practicable would generally amount to a requirement to do the action sooner than in 10 working days’ time. In terms of the operational effects, having a set timeline may give greater certainty to individuals seeking assistance. However, it may limit doctors’ discretion to set the timeline based around the patient’s wishes. These are matters for the Committee to weigh up and consider.