
Politicians to face assisted dying decision after Senedd election
The current crop of 60 Senedd politicians rejected a proposal on assisted dying last year.It has a significant decision to take before the election when it votes on whether Kim Leadbeater's legislation should apply in the areas it usually controls.However it is not legally binding, and it would still be for a government formed after the next Senedd election to decide whether to provide a service on the NHS, and for the new Welsh Parliament to agree to it in a further vote.Under Leadbeater's bill assisted death for terminally ill people would be legalised in England and Wales regardless of what the Senedd decides.That means the decision the Welsh Parliament faces is about how or if it is provided - and not whether it's a criminal offence.As is usual with matters of conscience, Labour, the Welsh Conservatives, Reform and the Liberal Democrats said they would maintain a neutral position on the issue at the next election.Plaid Cymru has allowed its politicians a free vote in the past.Kim Leadbeater's bill has passed the House of Commons and now has to be examined by the House of Lords before it becomes law.
There is a difference of opinion within the Senedd's three main parties and Jeremy Miles was among the ministers who opposed the assisted dying vote in the Senedd last October.He told BBC Wales he remained opposed to the legislation - "that is still my view", he said.The legislation gives the Welsh government the power to set the legal rules for how an assisted dying service would be provided by the NHS.Miles told the Senedd's health committee on Wednesday morning said the Welsh government "would need to make a policy decision to be open to introducing the service".The health secretary said that given the "timing of the legislation and the Senedd term" that would "effectively be a government in the new Senedd".Pushed by Tory chair Peter Fox on whether the government could choose to refuse to implement elements of the bill, Miles said: "In devolved competence, certainly"."And even if the government wanted to and the Senedd didn't want to approve it the Senedd would have that ability as well".
Labour MS John Griffiths asked what the implications would be for the Welsh NHS if the Senedd voted against.Miles said if a service was operating in England, but not in Wales because of the Senedd or because of timing, "the sorts of things we would be thinking about [are] people crossing the border for services, distances to services" and "equality of experience".Miles said there would be "options in England and Wales for services to be provided other than in the public sector"."The Welsh government already has regulatory powers in relation to some independent healthcare provision, so the precise mix of regulatory powers for non-public provision in Wales would depend upon who is providing it and what they are providing."
Raising the idea that some people could access assisted dying services privately, Conservative MS James Evans said: "You could have a situation in Wales where those who could afford to pay for assisted dying could access it, and those who cannot afford it would not be able to access it."Asked if the "equality of access to the service" would need to be a consideration for future ministers, Miles said "yes".However, he pointed out there were lots of decisions to make before that scenario could arise.Miles told the committee that the legislation provides for services to be implemented "no later than October 2029"."There's a substantial period of time, but there are a number of things which, both in Wales and England, would need to be settled in advance of that."Who is providing the service, where, what the workforce implications of that are," he said. "There's a very significant level of work that would need to follow from the decision by a government that they are open to introducing this service."
The first vote on the legislation in the Senedd - a legislative consent motion (LCM) - is expected later this year.It would not decide how a service is provided but would indicate whether this Senedd is happy for the UK Parliament to legislate. It is not legally binding but the vote is meant to be respected by Westminster. Miles indicated it would be "influential" on decisions taken by the Welsh government whether to press ahead or not.Additional reporting by Cemlyn Davies

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


North Wales Chronicle
14 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Tory ex-ministers defend record as pressure mounts after Afghan data leak
Members of the previous administration are distancing themselves from the handling of a breach which saw a defence official release the details of nearly 19,000 people seeking to flee Kabul. Shadow justice secretary and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick said he first learned of the 2022 data breach after a legal gagging order had been put in place the following year. Former home secretary Suella Braverman said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD (Ministry of Defence), both ministers and officials' and that she was not involved in the superinjunction decision. Ex-veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul but said it was 'absurd' to accuse him of failing to grasp the scale of the crisis. 'I know who is covering their tracks, and who has the courage to be honest,' he said. 'I would caution those who might attempt to rewrite history.' Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of an £850 million scheme set up after the leak, which was kept secret as a result of a superinjunction imposed in 2023 which was only lifted on Tuesday. At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir Starmer insisted there would be scrutiny of the decision, telling MPs: 'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.' Former prime minister Liz Truss, who was foreign secretary at the time of the breach in February 2022, but a backbencher when the superinjunction was sought, said she was 'shocked' by the 'cover-up'. She said the revelations pointed to a 'huge betrayal of public trust' and 'those responsible in both governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account'. Mr Mercer said: 'I've spilt my own blood fighting for a better Afghanistan, lost friends, fought to get operators out of the country and away from the Taliban, and visited hundreds of resettled families and hotels in the UK under direct commission from the previous prime minister after the schemes were dangerously failing. 'Others were with me in this process and we have all the receipts.' Shadow justice secretary Mr Jenrick said he had 'strongly opposed plans to bring over' thousands of Afghan nationals during 'internal government discussions in the short period before my resignation' in December 2023. 'I first learned of the data leak and plan to resettle people after the superinjunction was in place,' he said. 'Parliamentary privilege is not unlimited; I was bound by the Official Secrets Act.' Mr Jenrick said the secret scheme had been 'a complete disaster' and that the previous government 'made serious mistakes' but that 'thousands more (Afghan people) have come since Labour came to power'. The Commons Defence Committee will be setting out plans for an inquiry straight after the parliamentary recess in September. A dataset of 18,714 who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme was released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the blunder when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak. Then-defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he had applied for a four-month standard injunction shortly before leaving office but, on September 1 2023, when Grant Shapps took the role, the government was given a superinjunction. Mr Shapps has not yet publicly commented on the revelations. Sir Ben has insisted he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction, saying it was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million. The key facts on the Afghan Resettlement data incident that took place in 2022, and the action we are taking to support those impacted. Defence Minister @LukePollard explains 👇 — Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) July 16, 2025 A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked. The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak, telling LBC: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people, yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there … and we are sorry for that.'


South Wales Guardian
14 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Care home workers ‘almost twice as likely to be in poverty as average UK worker'
Earlier this month, following the launch of the Government's 10-year health plan focused on the NHS, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said he would 'shortly be setting out how we will deliver the first ever fair pay agreements for the care workforce, building a real social care progression'. The adult social care sector has long faced problems with staff retention and recruitment, with an estimated 131,000 vacancies on any given day. No date has yet been announced for details to be given on the Fair Pay Agreement as part of the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently making its way through the House of Lords. It is expected the Government will confirm how much funding will be available to support it and launch a consultation at some point later this year into how it should work. The spending review published last month stated there would be an increase of more than £4 billion of funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26. But the Health Foundation has estimated this might not be enough to both fund the sector more generally to meet rising demand for social care and to ensure better pay for workers. The charity estimated an extra £3.4 billion would be necessary just to meet demand for publicly-funded social care in England in 2028/29, while increasing pay for the care workforce to at least NHS band three levels could cost a further £2.3 billion. Current band three annual salaries for full-time workers in roles such as emergency care assistants and occupational therapy support in the NHS are between £24,937 and £26,598. Such an increase could lead to a 6.6% rise on average in household income for care home staff and their families, leading to 'a modest but important reduction in poverty', the charity said. For the poorest fifth of care home staff and their families, household income could rise by 14.7%, it added. According to Health Foundation analysis of national data from 2021/22 to 2023/24, someone working in a care home in the UK is almost twice as likely to live in poverty as the average UK worker, while children in those families are three times more likely to be materially deprived as those in the average working household. The analysis, which used data from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) and the Family Resources Survey (FRS), found that over the three-year period, care home workers were twice as likely to live in a food-insecure household as the average UK worker and twice as likely to have used a food bank in the past year compared with other workers. While 2.9% of workers in residential care had used a food bank, this compared with 1.5% of all workers. The charity said its findings 'likely underestimate poverty rates for the whole care workforce' as they focused their research on staff in care homes rather than those looking after people in their own homes, where the organisation said 'problems with insecure employment and underpayment are even greater'. The report states that, given its estimates of how much funding is needed to meet demand in the sector and provide better pay, the current £4 billion announced by Government risks 'leaving local authorities to choose between providing people with the care they need and funding much needed wage rises for the care workforce'. Lucinda Allen, policy fellow at the foundation, said while social care is 'vital and fulfilling work', it has 'long been underpaid and undervalued'. She added: 'Around one in every 20 working people in England is employed in social care. Enhancing pay and working conditions in the care sector could be an important part of the Government's growth agenda, improve people's lives, and help fill the 131,000 social care vacancies. 'The Government must deliver on its promise of fair pay for care workers, alongside wider improvements to our care system.' The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) urged the Government to swiftly introduce a fair pay agreement, after the report highlighted 'the urgent need to improve pay and conditions for care workers'. RCN England executive director Patricia Marquis said: 'It is a sad state of affairs that such a vital workforce is so poorly valued and little wonder that there are so many vacancies. When care homes cannot recruit enough staff it leaves too many without access to the care they deserve. 'Ministers must not delay in introducing a fair pay agreement and a new body to improve conditions for care workers, as well as rooting out exploitation. Failure to do so will only undermine ambitions to move care into the community and deepen a social care workforce crisis that harms the vulnerable.' Unison general secretary Christina McAnea described it as a 'national scandal those looking after some of the most vulnerable are more likely to be on poverty pay and struggling to make ends meet'. She added: 'By finding the funding for a fair pay agreement that should see care workers rewarded properly, the Government will be showing it's serious about transforming the crisis-ridden sector. 'Decent wages have to be at the heart of the promised national care service the country needs so desperately.' A Government spokesperson said: 'Care workers play a vital role in society caring for our most vulnerable and deserve to be paid properly for their hard work. 'That's why we've launched the first ever Fair Pay Agreement for carers, increased the National Living Wage – worth £1,400 more a year for full-time workers – and delivered the biggest ever rise in the Carer's Allowance earnings threshold. 'We have also launched an independent review into social care to build a National Care Service, which will also look at how we can improve working conditions and retention.' The Casey Commission, launched earlier this year, aims to set out a plan to implement a national care service, but social care leaders have previously raised concerns over the potential timeline of 2036 for some recommended reforms to be introduced.


South Wales Guardian
14 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Tory ex-ministers defend record as pressure mounts after Afghan data leak
Members of the previous administration are distancing themselves from the handling of a breach which saw a defence official release the details of nearly 19,000 people seeking to flee Kabul. Shadow justice secretary and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick said he first learned of the 2022 data breach after a legal gagging order had been put in place the following year. Former home secretary Suella Braverman said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD (Ministry of Defence), both ministers and officials' and that she was not involved in the superinjunction decision. Ex-veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul but said it was 'absurd' to accuse him of failing to grasp the scale of the crisis. 'I know who is covering their tracks, and who has the courage to be honest,' he said. 'I would caution those who might attempt to rewrite history.' Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of an £850 million scheme set up after the leak, which was kept secret as a result of a superinjunction imposed in 2023 which was only lifted on Tuesday. At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir Starmer insisted there would be scrutiny of the decision, telling MPs: 'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.' Former prime minister Liz Truss, who was foreign secretary at the time of the breach in February 2022, but a backbencher when the superinjunction was sought, said she was 'shocked' by the 'cover-up'. She said the revelations pointed to a 'huge betrayal of public trust' and 'those responsible in both governments and the bureaucracy need to be held to account'. Mr Mercer said: 'I've spilt my own blood fighting for a better Afghanistan, lost friends, fought to get operators out of the country and away from the Taliban, and visited hundreds of resettled families and hotels in the UK under direct commission from the previous prime minister after the schemes were dangerously failing. 'Others were with me in this process and we have all the receipts.' Shadow justice secretary Mr Jenrick said he had 'strongly opposed plans to bring over' thousands of Afghan nationals during 'internal government discussions in the short period before my resignation' in December 2023. 'I first learned of the data leak and plan to resettle people after the superinjunction was in place,' he said. 'Parliamentary privilege is not unlimited; I was bound by the Official Secrets Act.' Mr Jenrick said the secret scheme had been 'a complete disaster' and that the previous government 'made serious mistakes' but that 'thousands more (Afghan people) have come since Labour came to power'. The Commons Defence Committee will be setting out plans for an inquiry straight after the parliamentary recess in September. A dataset of 18,714 who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme was released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the blunder when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak. Then-defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace said he had applied for a four-month standard injunction shortly before leaving office but, on September 1 2023, when Grant Shapps took the role, the government was given a superinjunction. Mr Shapps has not yet publicly commented on the revelations. Sir Ben has insisted he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction, saying it was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million. The key facts on the Afghan Resettlement data incident that took place in 2022, and the action we are taking to support those impacted. Defence Minister @LukePollard explains 👇 — Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) July 16, 2025 A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked. The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak, telling LBC: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people, yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there … and we are sorry for that.'