MPs debate how much say Senedd should have on assisted dying
A Labour politician said that some parliamentarians were "confused" about what is and is not devolved.Olney said the Welsh Parliament had already rejected the idea last year.Members of the Senedd (MSs) voted against the principle of an assisted dying law last October - with 19 in support and 26 against the motion that was tabled by Labour MS Julie Morgan.Among those opposed at the time were the First Minister Eluned Morgan and the Health Minister Jeremy Miles - senior figures in the government that would be tasked with implementing the bill in Wales.The Senedd is likely to have to vote again on the bill at least once, and despite the last result, what might happen is unclear.Nine people abstained in October - enough to allow the motion to pass if they changed their mind.The motion itself also did not ask Senedd members if they supported Leadbeater's private members bill, which is narrower in scope than what Labour MS Julie Morgan had tabled the Senedd.However, Miles told S4C's Y Byd yn ei Le in April that his view had not changed on the "principle of it"."I think the question in terms of the pressure on people at the end of their life is very complex, and there are important responsibilities related to that," he said.Mr Miles said "we have the principle of the Sewell convention, which requires that every devolved parliament has a voice on this, and the voice of the Senedd here in Wales has been clear on this so far".The Cardiff parliament will need to debate whether it gives legislative consent over the bill - a move that would not be legally binding but would say whether or not the Senedd is in support.MPs on Friday debated how much legal power MSs should have.
If the changes pass, the Welsh government will still be able to table regulations in the Senedd, but only on devolved matters.The UK government will also have powers to make its own regulations.At the bill's committee stage, Olney amended the bill to add powers for the Senedd to vote on regulations that would bring the bill into force - effectively giving MSs a say on when it becomes law.The proposal was opposed by UK Labour ministers Stephen Kinnock and Sarah Sackman, as well as Leadbeater herself.Aberavon MP Kinnock said the clause could potentially "create a disparity, particularly in relation to the introduction of the criminal offences, and a lack of certainty".In the Commons on Friday Leadbeater said she had recognised "from the outset that the legislation must respect devolution".She said her changes "ensure that the devolution settlement is respected and adhered to".
'Loophole'
Two Welsh Labour MPs spoke in favour of removing the Senedd's ability to decide when to bring the bill into force.Alex Barros-Curtis, MP for Cardiff West, said they "fully respect the devolution settlement by ensuring that Welsh ministers have all necessary powers on devolved aspects of the bill - health - while retaining the powers of UK ministers over aspects that are not devolved".Catherine Fookes, Labour MP for Monmouth, argued that some MPs "seem confused about what is and is not devolved".She said UK ministers would retain powers over aspects that are not devolved "such as criminal justice provisions and, crucially, changes to the Suicide Act 1961".Richmond Park MP Sarah Olney told the Commons the bill "gives the UK Parliament the power to impose on the Senedd in Wales a measure that it has expressly said it does not want", and said Leadbeater's amendment would "deprive the Senedd of the right to exercise its legitimate powers"."It is not just that the amendment would restore the constitutional loophole that the committee had closed; it threatens to create real problems and risks for Welsh citizens if the Senedd is forced to implement the Bill before its devolved healthcare system is ready," she said.
Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville Roberts, who is in support of the bill more broadly, also spoke against the removal of the commencement power.She said there was a "question of respect for decisions already made in the Senedd".After the debate, she said the bill could create a situation where "assisted dying would be legalised in Wales, but available only outside the NHS, in private settings"."That outcome would be unacceptable to those of us who believe in the importance of the NHS as a universal public service," she added.The amendments did not come to a vote on Friday - they are expected to be voted on at a later stage.
Meanwhile provisions for Welsh speakers were passed.Leadbeater said if "a patient in Wales has Welsh as their first or preferred language, all efforts should be made to ensure they can communicate with voluntary assisted dying services in Welsh".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Epping ruling is the last thing Yvette Cooper needs
It is another scratchy, difficult week for the government. Inflation is up, to 3.8 per cent in July – the highest level since January 2024. Asylum applications are now at record levels with 111,000 applying during Keir Starmer's first year in office. But the real body blow is the interim High Court injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at The Bell Hotel in Epping. Unsurprisingly, dozens of councils of the country are now poised to launch similar action. That creates a very difficult dilemma for Yvette Cooper. The Home Secretary has sought to downplay and depoliticise the housing of asylum seekers, pointing, not unfairly, to the industrial scale under which this occurred for many years under the Tories. But now, it seems, local authorities have reached their breaking point. It is not just Conservative and Reform councils considering appeals: both Tamworth and Wirral – two Labour-run authorities – are reportedly doing the same. That makes it harder for the government to suggest this is merely partisan gamesmanship. With ministers now scrambling to devise contingency plans, we could potentially be witnessing the complete unravelling of the existing system of dispersing migrants across the country. The obvious resort for the Home Office is to turn from hotels to smaller private dwellings instead, which would fit with the Chancellor's pledge at the Spending Review to stop using hotels by 2029. But the risk is in piling even more pressure on the private rental sector, as asylum seekers will add to competition for places among young renters. The government had reportedly been expecting the co-operation of councils in this goal; after Epping, this hope looks increasingly to be a forlorn one. For Cooper and the Home Office, working out where to house the 106,000 asylum seekers in receipt of taxpayer-ended support, is a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour's first year sees 111,000 asylum claims
When it rains for Sir Keir Starmer, it pours. Now it has emerged that during the Labour lot's first year in office to June 2025, a whopping 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK amid a surge in small boat crossings – up by a staggering 14 per cent on the previous 12 months. So much for smashing the gangs, eh? Figures reveal that the numbers of those claiming asylum during this period was 8 per cent greater than the last asylum claim peak in 2002. Half of those looking for asylum entered the UK irregularly: four in ten arrived by small boat while an additional one in ten arrived via lorries, shipping containers or without the correct documents. Good heavens… The areas with the highest proportions of asylum seekers included 'red wall' areas, such as England's North West and North East which have approximately 2,700 and 2,600 people per million residents respectively. However, while the number of people receiving asylum support in the UK has increased by 5 per cent year on year, this remains lower – by 14 per cent – than at the end of September 2023, when it reached 123,758. And as if that wasn't enough bad news, while the use of hotels has fallen since last September, the number of people in migrant hotels has, in fact, increased under Starmer. In June 2024, just under 30,000 people were living in asylum hotels with 67,000 staying in other accommodations. In June 2025, 32,000 were being housed in hotels with 70,800 staying elsewhere. And, as James Heale writes on Coffee House, local authorities seem to be reaching their breaking point… Immigration remains a top priority for Brits, while the taxpayer coughed up £3.1bn for asylum hotels last year. After Tuesday's landmark High Court ruling – which saw Epping Forest district council granted a temporary injunction that requires the area's Bell Hotel to stop housing asylum seekers within 24 days – more councils across the country are considering similar legal action. Yet the Labour lot don't seem all that sure where migrants will go, with security minister Dan Jarvis conducting a pretty disastrous interview on the airwaves on Wednesday morning. Starmer's army certainly has its work cut out…
Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Spectator
Britain shouldn't be cowed by China in the Taiwan Strait
It has only been a few months since Labour's much-trailed 'China audit' – touted as the masterplan that would finally bring coherence to Britain's China policy – yet once again the government's China position looks as muddled as ever. The latest furore is over Operation High Mast, Britain's first carrier strike group deployment to the Far East under the Labour government. Defence Secretary John Healey wants HMS Richmond, a Royal Navy frigate, to conduct a transit of the Taiwan Strait – which separates China and Taiwan. It's the sort of routine passage that Britain and its allies have long treated as normal. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, however, is said to be blocking the move, anxious not to ruffle feathers in Beijing. The decision now sits with the Prime Minister, who continues to dither. For Starmer the choice should be clear. Failure to sail the HMS Richmond through the Taiwan Strait would be a major surrender to Beijing. We have been here before. Despite only a fraction of the Strait falling within China's territorial waters, Beijing claims the right to police all traffic through the passage. When a British frigate last sailed through in 2021, Beijing raged about London's 'evil intentions'. When the patrol vessel HMS Spey did so more recently, China accused Britain of 'causing trouble' and 'undermining peace'. To duck out now would be an admission that Beijing's threats work – and that the Royal Navy takes its orders from junior apparatchiks in China's foreign ministry. Equally damaging is the signal that avoiding the Strait would send to Beijing: that Britain tacitly accepts China's expansionist claims. Britain's stance has always been clear – the Taiwan Strait is international waters, with freedom of navigation for all. This isn't about goading Beijing it's about protecting Britain's prosperity. The Strait is one of the world's vital shipping arteries, a choke-point between Asia and Europe. Chinese control of the Strait would be devastating for global free trade. Failing to uphold this position seems particularly strange for Starmer – for whom international law is supposedly sacrosanct – given how blatantly China's claims flout maritime law. Foreign Office mandarins attempting to block the passage will claim that the HMS Richmond's passage would be seen by China as a provocation. Beijing will certainly say as much. But the alternative is far worse. In recent years Beijing has massively escalated its military pressure on Taiwan: fighter jets cross into its air space almost daily, shadowy vessels have repeatedly cut its undersea cables, and the island is the target of over half of the cyber-attacks in the region. Choosing to step back now sends all the wrong signals to Beijing, and will only encourage it to go further and faster – edging the world closer to a catastrophic Taiwan crisis. Capitulation to Beijing would also seriously undermine Britain's credibility in the region. Ever since the much-trumpeted 'Indo-Pacific tilt' of 2021, London has been at pains to demonstrate that it can still project influence in the region. Longstanding alliances with Australia, and a deepening security partnership with Japan, rest on Britain's ability to stand firm in the face of Chinese threats. Allies would be right to question Britain's commitment to the region if it collapses at the first whiff of diplomatic protest from Beijing. The carrier strike group, meant to reassure allies on Britain's ability to flex its muscle in the region, may as well sail home now if it falls at the first hurdle. Above all, conceding that China enjoys 'special rights' over the Taiwan Strait would not only betray Britain's interests, but also disregard the wishes of Taiwan's 23 million citizens. Even Beijing's most zealous propagandists cannot deny that Taiwan has never been ruled by the People's Republic of China, nor assented to the rule of the Chinese Communist party. Placing the Taiwan Strait within Chinese 'sphere of influence' is exactly the same kind of defeatist logic that justified Western inaction in the face of Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014 – with devastating consequences. Starmer must learn the lessons of history: peace is secured through strength, not surrender.
