Jeremy Balfour
Independent · Scotland
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that ADP helps people to get into and stay in employment? If ADP is cut, more people in Scotland will have to claim other benefits because they are not able to work. I remind members that I am in receipt of higher-rate ADP.”
“I, too, thank Fulton MacGregor not only for only bringing the debate to the chamber but for all the work that he has done as the convener of the cross-party group on social work. I have had the pleasure of being part of that group, which has been very much driven by him. I am grateful for his contribution.”
“As my friend Roz McCall said, there is still a lot to do and this is not the end of the journey. In my short contribution, I will make three simple points from personal experience and from picking up on what the report says.”
“I made my maiden speech in a members’ debate like this one, so it seems fitting for me to conclude in this debate. As I said in the debate last week on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, my wife and I have had personal experience of breakdown of adoption.”
“Given the size of our nation, there must be some way in which we can pull together good practice from across Scotland to do this. Secondly, again, as Martin Whitfield said, there is the financial cost, which is often ignored. It is looked at well in fostering but less so in adoption.”
“She has grown in her role as a leader, and she has taken the bill through in a way that many others could learn lessons from. With both the minister and the former First Minister leaving, and with who knows who being elected in May, my worry is this: who will pick up the challenge after the election?”
The complete record
Every one of 390 lines we hold for Jeremy Balfour, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“I am grateful to Michael Marra for taking my intervention. One of my concerns with the white paper from his colleagues in London is that it does not recognise that in some sectors, such as the caring sector, there is a massive shortage because of the income that individuals in that sector earn. Is there a danger that people who give valuable care to disabled and older people in Scotland will be cut off from coming? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will give you the time back, Michael Marra. Michael Marra: I thank Jeremy Balfour for his intervention. I understand that he has personal experience of care, as he has often set out in the chamber. It is a very relevant point. The central challenge, which he alighted on, is the issue of income and the fact that those in the care sector have been far too low paid for far too long.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what the estimated value is of the contribution that disabled people make to the Scottish economy annually. (S6O-04772)”
“I have listened to stakeholders, including Scottish Care, that have highlighted a concern that a duty to facilitate visits might be taken to impose a positive obligation on care home service providers to physically take residents out on visits or arrange or pay someone else to do so. That was not my intention, so to address that concern, the limits on facilitating external visits are now clearly expressed by amendment 34. In summary, I support and welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendments 30 to 32 and 35 to 38. I also support Brian Whittle’s amendments 57 to 60 and 62. I urge members to support my amendments in the group—33 and 34—and reject Brian Whittle’s amendment 55 and Sandesh Gulhane’s amendments 56 and 61. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sandesh Gulhane to speak to amendment 56 and other amendments in the group.”
“It is reasonable to expect that any such resident would want or need the support of their family or friends. Although the resident’s death might not be anticipated in that period, it might be the last opportunity for them to interact with their family and loved ones. Amendment 33 is based on feedback from a number of stakeholders, including care home relatives Scotland. It is vital that care home residents can spend time with their loved ones outside of the care home and engage in the community if that is their wish and it is appropriate for them to do so, which is why Anne’s law will include a duty on care home providers to facilitate visits, both in and out of the home.”
“The Care Inspectorate will naturally be significantly involved in the report on the operation of Anne’s law. I consider that imposing a further requirement—the production of an annual report on Anne’s law—on the Care Inspectorate would be excessive and not the best use of resource. I turn briefly to my own amendments. Anne’s law will mean that, even when general visits need to be suspended due to risks to life, health or wellbeing, some visits should always be supported. That would include end-of-life situations, as they might be the last chance for family and friends to see and interact with the resident. Amendment 33 provides that visits should also be supported for people who have undergone, or are expected to undergo, a significant deterioration in their physical or mental condition, which can be very frightening.”
“On amendment 62, I agree with Brian Whittle that reviewing the regulations’ operation after two years will provide an opportunity to check and follow what is working as intended. That will sit alongside other mechanisms for sharing, learning and best practice, locally and nationally, such as our national oversight group for Anne’s law, which brings together relatives, care home providers and health and social work professionals in order to share learning in a collaborative way. However, I am unable to support amendment 61, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane. Amendments 59 and 62 will provide sufficient mechanisms for reporting and feedback on the delivery of Anne’s law. When carrying out a review of the code of practice, Scottish ministers will be required to consult the Care Inspectorate on all the points that are specified in amendment 61.”
“I am pleased to support his amendment 57. I agree that residents and families should always be informed timeously about any changes to visiting. 15:45 I welcome amendment 59. From my experience of working with groups such as care home relatives Scotland during the preparation of the bill, I know the value of lived experience in developing and reviewing legislation and policy. Therefore, I recognise that gathering their feedback is vital in order to ensure that any review of the code is meaningful. I support Brian Whittle’s amendments 58 and 60. I agree that it is essential that the code of practice can be understood by the widest possible range of people, including people with learning difficulties or other conditions that affect how they process information.”
“The code of practice will be primarily for care home providers to have regard to in fulfilling their duties under Anne’s law. The code of practice cannot be used to create a new complaints process. There is an existing legal framework for complaints, which would include decisions relating to visiting. The code of practice will also set out how the requirements to review and notify that are imposed by virtue of amendment 35 are to be met. I welcome amendments 37 and 38, which are in Jackie Baillie’s name. I agree that Anne’s law will work in practice only if care home providers work collaboratively with residents and their friends and family. By having guidance in the code on how staff should do just that, residents’ care plans will fully reflect their needs. I turn to Brian Whittle’s other amendments in the group.”
“Based on our learning from the pandemic, there is general agreement that more should be done to ensure that there is greater oversight of decisions on suspending visiting. The amendments provide a requirement for care home providers to review a decision about the suspension of visits and notify the Care Inspectorate when it decides to suspend. The amendments will ensure that there are appropriate checks and balances in relation to providers’ decisions. I cannot support amendment 55, which has been lodged by Brian Whittle. However, as he said, the amendment is not necessary, because it broadly duplicates the notification process that is provided for by amendment 35. I appreciate Mr Whittle’s confirmation that he will not move amendment 55. I will also not support Sandesh Gulhane’s amendment 56.”
“I am grateful to Opposition members for lodging the amendments and for working with me to get them right. I thank members of care home relatives Scotland and many others for their constructive engagement with us to get the bill right. I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendments 30, 31 and 32. I recognise the role that essential care supporters play in providing their loved ones with regular care and support. I agree that it is only right that the identification of the individual is undertaken in a consultative manner and that it involves the resident and those closest to them. I also agree that there is a need for limited exceptions to the requirement to identify such a person. The amendments provide the appropriate flexibility. I also support Jackie Baillie’s amendments 35 and 36.”
“I am glad that the minister has supported my view that a requirement to produce a report on the operation of Anne’s law should be included in the bill. I know that that view is supported by the Law Society of Scotland, which has noted that the current provisions in the bill lack “a process of review or redress”, although I highlight that the Law Society does not take a specific view on individual amendments. I hope that my amendments 62, 59 and 57 can help to address that. Maree Todd: This group of amendments on Anne’s law is particularly important. It is everyone’s job to ensure that Anne’s law is delivered in practice. That is why the amendments focus on ensuring additional oversight and support around decisions on visiting, and on ensuring that the vital role of the essential care supporter in supporting wellbeing is fully recognised.”
“Amendment 58 omits the term “easy read format”, which I recognise does not have any concrete legal meaning. Amendment 60 sets out a better description of an easy-read format. It is essential that the code of practice for Anne’s law can be understood by a wide range of people, including people with learning difficulties or other conditions that affect how they process information. That is why I lodged amendment 60, which requires that, when ministers publish the code of practice for Anne’s law, a version is produced that can be “understood by people with learning difficulties or other conditions affecting how they process information.” On amendment 62, it is vital that we know whether Anne’s law is working as intended and that we ensure that any learning is captured and acted on in a meaningful and systematic way.”
“Amendment 59 will create a mechanism for feedback on Anne’s law and the code of practice, and will ensure that ministers have to consider that feedback during revision of the code. It is important that the experience of those who are most affected by a code of practice on care home residents’ rights to visits—the residents themselves and their family and friends as well as providers of care home accommodation and their staff—is taken into consideration when each review of the code is undertaken. In addition, the Care Inspectorate is uniquely placed to offer an informed view of how well the code is working in practice and any changes that could improve it. During stage 2, my amendment that required Anne’s law to be published publicly and “in easy read format” was agreed to.”
“Amendment 57 will ensure that, in respect of Anne’s law and the code of practice, there will be timely written communication about any changes to visiting arrangements with the people who are affected, such as those who are living in care homes and their friends and family, including essential care supporters. That communication should include the reasons for any changes and they must be provided in writing. I am pushing for written communication to be part of the code of practice so that those who are in care and their essential care supporters have a record of why a visit has been denied. We learned much from our experience during the pandemic, and I think that the need for such records is an important part of what we learned.”
“That is why I have lodged amendment 38 and the related amendment 37. Amendment 38 will allow Scottish ministers to include in the code of practice what they consider to be best practice in how that work should be done. It will mean that visits are facilitated in a way that best supports residents’ needs, which puts them and their families at the heart of decisions. Taken together, my amendments in this group will strengthen Anne’s law so that we do not have a repeat of the experience of relatives trying to visit loved ones during the pandemic. I move amendment 30. Brian Whittle: I will not move amendment 55, because it is a similar amendment to Jackie Baillie’s amendment 35. I was happy to work with the minister and her officials on amendments 57 to 60 and 62, which I will move.”
“The suspension of care home visits cast a long shadow during the pandemic, and I very much welcome the collaborative approach that the minister has taken with care home relatives Scotland and the Care Inspectorate to get these amendments over the line. In finishing talking about amendments 35 and 36, I set out to members that they require care homes to review, when asked to do so, a decision about the suspension of visits, and to notify the Care Inspectorate when they decide to suspend visiting. Amendment 36 ensures that those provisions are included in the code of practice that will be published by Scottish ministers. I turn to amendments 37 and 38. Anne’s law will be realised only if care home staff work collaboratively with people who are living in care homes and their friends and family, including essential care supporters.”
“We can all agree that when the story of our pandemic is written, the tragedy of that story will be in our care homes, because of the suspension of visits and the isolation that people felt when they were deprived of the love and support of their family members and those close to them. It led to the exacerbation of things such as dementia. Does Jackie Baillie agree that, with her amendments, we will take a big leap forward to ensuring that a story like that can never be told again? Jackie Baillie: I absolutely agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton’s comments, and I have to say that I think that the chamber would unanimously agree with them.”
“I have listened to care home relatives’ concerns on this issue and I know that the minister has, too. That is why I lodged amendments 35 and 36, which ensure oversight of decisions on visiting. They have been developed in consultation with relatives and others, including the Care Inspectorate. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I think that with these amendments we have come to the meat of the legislation. They are the principal reason that it will enjoy the Liberal Democrats’ support. I offer Jackie Baillie the support of the Liberal Democrats for her amendments in this group and in particular the amendments on decisions to suspend care home visiting.”
“I am sure that everyone will agree that, although it is important that everybody has the right to identify an essential care supporter, they also have the right not to choose someone. I turn to amendment 32. The vital role of the essential care supporter is the essence of Anne’s law. With this amendment, I seek to put beyond doubt that the identification of the essential care supporter will be undertaken in a consultative manner with the care home resident and others. That will mean that care home providers will not make those decisions on their own and will be required to consult with relatives and others to identify an appropriate essential care supporter. On amendments 35 and 36, I think that we can all agree that the process of suspending visits should require a high bar. We need to get this right.”
“That said, I understand that, in practice, there will be situations in which, sadly, it will not be possible to identify someone because a resident has no family or friends. Of course, some residents might not wish to identify someone at all. To allow for those circumstances, I have lodged amendment 31 in addition to amendment 30. Following on from amendment 30, which would remove the words “use their best endeavours”, I wish to ensure that care home providers take into account people’s wishes and circumstances when identifying an essential care supporter. Therefore, I have suggested some exceptions to the identification of an essential care supporter, namely in circumstances where the resident does not want one or where “nobody can be identified who is able and willing” to take on that role.”
“Jackie Baillie: This group of amendments relates to Anne’s law. The amendments set out a clear system that will protect the rights of family members to visit their loved ones in care homes. I pay tribute to the care homes relatives Scotland group, Campbell Duke, who is Anne’s husband, and their daughter Natasha for their patience and for getting us here today. I will speak to amendments 30 to 32 and 35 to 38. With amendment 30, I wish to remove the words “use their best endeavours” in relation to the duty on care home providers to identify for every resident at least one individual as an essential care supporter. That would strengthen the duty on care home providers to identify an essential care supporter for each resident, to ensure that that is not an optional extra or a tick- box exercise.”
“Amendment 16 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to. Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to. Section 38A—Duty to prepare adult carer support plan Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to. Section 38B—Duty to prepare young carer statement Amendment 21 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to. Section 39—Enactments relating to carers: minor modifications Amendments 22 and 23 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to. Section 39A—Short break services statement Amendments 24 to 29 moved—[Maree Todd]— and agreed to. After Section 39A Amendment 1 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to. Section 40—Visits to or by care home residents The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 4 is on care homes: rights to visits. Amendment 30, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 31, 32, 55, 33 to 36, 56, 57, 37, 38, 58 to 61, 61A and 62.”
“You asked about amendment 10 and its reference to subsection (10A). Is the clarity that you are seeking to do with the definition of breaks? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Speak through the chair, please. Brian Whittle: I just want to understand why we are removing subsection (10) and inserting subsection (10A). What is the difference between subsection (10) and subsection (10A)? Maree Todd: Subsection (10A), which was introduced at stage 2, removes the concern that the current definition encompasses breaks that are unrelated to the caring role. It explicitly confirms that breaks can be taken with the cared-for person, and it describes different arrangements for such breaks when taken together and how they are linked to the caring role. Amendment 10 agreed to. Amendments 11 to 15 moved—[Maree Todd]— and agreed to.”
“Maree Todd: IJBs have a responsibility to publish transparent information on finances. We have said repeatedly at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and at the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it is really important that we are able to follow the money. We do not feel—not even I feel—adequately empowered to follow the money with regard to the spending that relates to the 2016 act. However, I do not think that the amendment will improve the situation. We need to work with stakeholders and partners, including our local authority colleagues and IJBs, to make sure that we can spot where the money goes and follow it through from source to spending. I share the frustration of carers organisations that they are unable to do that. As I said, the amendment will not bring any more clarity to the powers that we already have.”
“However, the amendment that Mr Whittle has lodged will not do that. In fact, it will cause confusion around and duplication of reporting requirements, which runs counter to the intent behind the amendment. Amendment 63 also refers to health and social care partnerships, but HSCPs are not a legal entity; they are simply working arrangements between the various actors that are involved in the delivery of community health and social care services. The amendment also refers to “unpaid carers”. That term is not used in the 2016 act. 15:30 Brian Whittle: The IJBs are in the control of and are funded by the Scottish Government. It is their responsibility to ensure that any finances that are to go into carers’ pockets make it into their pockets. Surely it is the IJBs’ responsibility to follow that money.”
“If the minister could explain to us why that amendment leaves out subsection (10) from section 38 and inserts subsection (10A), and what will be missed out by that, that would be helpful to our deliberations. Maree Todd: Just to be absolutely clear, the Government is happy to support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 16 and Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1. I have concerns about amendment 63. I share Brian Whittle’s concern; ministers and officials repeatedly hear concerns from carer stakeholders about there being a lack of transparency in relation to spending on carer support. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has agreed to work with local authorities and IJBs to improve that. We are committed to improving the financial transparency of integration authority spending, including on social care.”
“In 2024, Policy in Practice reported that 529,000 carers who were eligible for carers allowance across the United Kingdom had not claimed it. Scottish figures do not exist, but, when we factor in Scotland’s share of the UK population, that equates to around 42,000 carers who are missing out on an average of £4,259 per annum. Mr Balfour’s amendment seeks to facilitate access to that benefit if a carer presents themselves to a relevant body. If you ask for help, help should be facilitated. I support that, and I am glad that the Government supports it as well. We are minded to support the Scottish Government amendments in the group, with a caveat regarding amendment 10.”
“Amendment 63 creates a duty to prioritise, in one place, the reporting of the information that people need to understand how the money is spent and what the effect of that spending is. It covers any misunderstandings that there might be about what should or should not be disclosed. Brian Whittle: Martin Whitfield is absolutely right. If the money has been designated as spending that is to be put into carers’ pockets, we must be able to follow that money and make sure that it enters their pockets. We heard in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that, currently, that is not necessarily happening. All that amendment 63 is trying to do is to make sure that that information is readily available. I also lend my support to amendment 1, in the name of Jeremy Balfour.”
“That means that they are unsure how money is spent to deliver support for carers. We heard evidence in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that money that is designated as spending to support carers is not reaching them. We must support carers, and we must make sure that they receive the support that they need. I will move the amendment— Martin Whitfield: Will the member give way? Brian Whittle: Yes. Martin Whitfield: My intervention will develop what Brian Whittle is talking about. The minister said that there should be confidence that information is available through other means and via other vehicles. Does Brian Whittle share my concern that that is not actually the case, and that people are sometimes unable to obtain crucial parts of the information?”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 63 and all amendments in the group. Brian Whittle: My amendment 63 seeks to improve reporting on spending on carer support and was co-drafted with, and is supported by, the Coalition of Carers in Scotland. The amendment seeks to provide transparency in relation to how funding is spent to ensure that it delivers for carers. I understand that integration joint boards and health and social care partnerships already report on the spending that is used to support carers in their annual accounts and other reports. However, that reporting is not detailed enough to understand the impact of the spending on carers. Equally, in some cases, IJBs and HSCPs have been unable to break down spending on the implementation of the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 in response to FOI requests.”
“That already happens in local authorities in many cases, but we have heard many stories of local authorities not being able to provide those services, or of people slipping through the net. In addition, local authorities are not responsible for any work with external bodies. The same is true for Social Security Scotland, which is getting good at signposting individuals to the benefits that they are entitled to in Scotland but has no duty to signpost to local authorities or other appropriate groups. Amendment 1 will clarify the situation. It will allow stakeholders, the Government and other interested parties to make sure that we get the regulations right when they are made and that they are correctly consulted on. I hope that the Parliament will accept the amendment.”
“I, too thank the minister for her constructive engagement over the past few days. I recognise that I am late to the show on this matter, but I think that amendment 1 is important, and I ask members to agree to it this afternoon. We all want unpaid carers to be able to maximise the amount of money to which they are entitled. We hear often from constituents that they go to one public body and fill out a form and then they have to go to other public bodies and do the same. For people who already have stressful, busy lives, that can put them off maximising the benefits to which they are entitled. Amendment 1 will ensure that, for that reason, the first appropriate body that someone goes to will be responsible for not only signposting but helping them to complete the necessary forms.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the removal of dangerous building cladding, in light of the recent publications by Scotland’s cladding remediation programme. (S6T-02570)”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to part 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, when the homelessness prevention pilots will commence. (S6O-04761)”
“For example, the local authorities that are using money that could be spent otherwise on temporary accommodation should turn that money into permanent homes. That type of practice is happening more in some areas of the country than in others. Regardless of whether that is a local authority responsibility, there is an onus on the Government to use its facilitation and convening powers to share that best practice with Edinburgh and other councils to assist in the reduction of unsuitable temporary accommodation usage.”
“The City of Edinburgh Council pays out millions of pounds of public funds to private businesses to provide unsuitable temporary accommodation in which people do not feel safe. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the recommendation of the 36 organisations that are represented by Everyone Home that that money would be better spent creating “a Challenge Fund for councils, housing associations and/or the third sector to replace unsuitable temporary accommodation”? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Jeremy Balfour has raised an important point about the money in the system that is used for temporary accommodation or, indeed, unsuitable temporary accommodation. Part of the focused work that the Scottish Government has undertaken in our reaction to the housing emergency is to deliver learning to all local authorities about good practice elsewhere.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When I asked my question, I should have said that I am in receipt of adult disability payment. I apologise for not declaring that. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Balfour. That is on the record. That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the gallery and the chamber to do so before the next item of business begins. 12:47 Meeting suspended. 12:49 On resuming— Second Home Ownership”
“Not only is such an approach damaging and short sighted; it will undermine individuals’ ability to make an economic contribution in the long term. That is but one of the many aspects of its folly. I am very happy to endorse the points that Mr Balfour makes. NHS 24 (Performance) 5.”
“The first principle underlying the adult disability payment is to help people to get employment and stay in it; it was never intended to be an income replacement benefit. Does the First Minister agree that the proposed reductions to that benefit, whereby people who require help to wash, dress and prepare meals will no longer qualify, will risk their ability to maintain employment and so go against the benefit’s fundamental principle? The First Minister: I agree with Mr Balfour on that point. The structure of that payment is designed to support people to make as much of a contribution to wider society, particularly through employment, as they can. However, if the proposals that Mr Balfour mentions are enacted, the practical issues that he legitimately raises will impede individuals’ doing that.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with the music sector to enable up-and-coming artists to hold concerts in Scotland. (S6O-04642)”
“To support the bill as presented is to roll the dice with the lives and dignity of the one in five people in Scotland who have a disability. I ask my colleagues who will vote for the bill— believing that it is narrow enough and that adequate safeguards can be brought in at stage 2—to consider that, in every jurisdiction in which assisted dying has been introduced, the parameters have widened and the safeguards have been watered down. That is not a sentimental, slippery-slope argument; it recognises the evidence that is in front of us. As MSPs, we are bound to vote on behalf of the best interests of our constituents. I beg and urge members to consider the most vulnerable in their constituency or region and to say no to playing dice with the sanctity of their lives. 16:46”
“As I have said previously in the chamber, I am here today only because someone came this morning to help me to shower and dress. I can function in this Parliament only because my assistant is willing to give me personal care. I can imagine, in a few years’ time—hopefully a number of years’ time—having some terminal illness and feeling that a burden could be put on my wife and children because of the care that they give me day in, day out. I have spoken to other disabled people who have felt and feel the same. They are concerned that they will turn and put pressure on their family. To take that pressure away, they could take a course that they did not necessarily want to, but that they felt they should take for the sake of their children or their partner.”
“That is not only because we, as a society, have considered and should always consider life as being worthy of value, no matter the circumstances, but because of the inherent danger that the abandonment of that principle would pose to disabled people and other vulnerable people. The truth is that there are no safeguards that can be put in place to completely remove the dangers that this legislation poses for disabled people. Whether explicit or implicit, disabled and older people will feel pressure to consider whether to keep on living if dying is an option. That could come in the form of not wanting to burden loved ones with the financial or personal costs of continued care or of believing that they are a drain on a society in which they are no longer seen as valued members.”
“On the other hand, we could choose to maintain the dignity of all human life and to make real and meaningful investments in the palliative care system. Make no mistake: I am not arguing for the status quo. The conversations that the bill has prompted in the past three or four years have brought to light the failings in our palliative care system. Speakers on both sides have commented on the chronic underfunding of services that are supposed to care for our vulnerable neighbours as they approach the end of life, but the answer to inadequate palliative care cannot be to deliberately end a patient’s life.”
“That is naturally where I lie as a Conservative, and I would even say that there have been times in my life when I found myself agreeing with some of the points that have been strongly made this afternoon. However, during my time in Parliament, I have interacted more and more with disabled people, organisations and charities, and I have become convinced that the introduction of assisted dying would put the most vulnerable in our society at risk. This afternoon, as a Parliament, we stand at a crossroads. If we go along one path, we face introducing death as a viable treatment for suffering, fundamentally redefining both our society’s belief in the inherent value of human life and the relationship between doctor and patient.”
“I echo what colleagues have said about the tone of the debate thus far. As we have just heard, this is an emotional topic and it is good to see colleagues engaging positively with each other and disagreeing well. As many in the chamber know, I am a Christian. I believe that all people are created in the image of God, which means that life is always sacred and worthy of protection, and that ultimately leads me to oppose this legislation. However, I understand that not everyone shares that belief in God, so I will focus today on issues that can speak to everyone, regardless of whether they have faith. I am sympathetic to the argument regarding personal choice and freedom that is made by supporters of assisted dying.”
“Finally, we must continue to improve palliative and hospice care. This is a painful and difficult debate, but we owe it to the public to hold the debate openly, respectfully and with care. The bill will not bring comfort to everyone, but, for some, it might offer peace, dignity and a final sense of control in the face of death. With compassion for those who oppose the bill and care for those who suffer, I support the bill at stage 1 and urge colleagues to let it proceed to full scrutiny. 15:25”
“The bill has not been rushed. It is the product of years of consultation, legal and ethical consideration and careful medical advice. It has been shaped by deep listening across society, professions and Parliament. Its focus is narrow and compassionate, to give those who are dying and suffering an option for peace at the end, under the law, with dignity and safety. That said, I must acknowledge my own reservations. We must ensure strong conscientious protections for clinicians. No doctor, nurse or pharmacist should feel pressured to be part of a procedure that they do not believe in. We must invest in the systems to implement this proposal safely. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will Sandesh Gulhane take an intervention? Sandesh Gulhane: I am sorry—I am desperately out of time. We must be fair across communities.”
“It would allow mentally competent terminally ill adults, explicitly those aged 16 or over—although I agree that we should increase that to 18—to request assistance to end their lives if they freely and consistently choose to do so. It would allow mentally competent terminally ill adults to request assistance at the end of their lives if they freely choose that route and then choose to go through with it—because they are not forced to do so. Two independent doctors would have to confirm that the person met strict criteria, and there would be a mandatory reflection period. I mention those protections because I know that the proposal is distressing for many, especially those in the public gallery who oppose the bill on grounds of faith or principles. As a Hindu and a person of faith, I understand and respect those concerns.”
“I have heard families plead through tears that they “wouldn’t let a dog die like this.” I have seen the quiet devastation of loved ones forced to watch suffering, knowing that there is nothing more that they can do. Those experiences stay with you— they shape you—and they have led me to believe that we must do better. Where possible, we must offer compassion, choice and dignity at the end of life. That is what the bill seeks to do. Let me emphasise that this is only stage 1. We are not passing the bill today; we are deciding on its principles and merits, with detailed scrutiny in committee. I believe that it is of merit. The bill proposes a limited, careful, controlled change in the law.”