Lewis Atkinson
MP for Sunderland Central · Labour · United Kingdom
“T7. As the Government prepare their taxi and private hire vehicle Bill, will the Minister ensure that local authorities such as Sunderland have the enforcement powers and resources that they need to regulate all vehicles operating in their area, regardless of where those vehicles are registered?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this debate and I congratulate Members from across the Chamber on their contributions. It should not be said that issues facing our universities are the preserve of MPs from big cities or the leafy suburbs.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Home tuition income has fallen behind costs, and the visa landscape for international students has changed rapidly and unpredictably. As a result, the university has had to set out plans to save £40 million over the next two years, and staff are understandably worried about their jobs. That pressure did not come from nowhere.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is what widening participation looks like in practice: young people from Pallion, Hendon or Southwick in my constituency having the chance to get a degree and, by living at home, de-risking some of the financial issues facing students that we have talked about.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Nowhere is that clearer than in health. Sunderland trains the nurses, pharmacists, paramedics and doctors whom our NHS rely on. Its medical school was explicitly set up to bring more working class and local students into medicine. It is now moving into dental education, in a region where too many people struggle to see NHS dentists.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I, of course, welcome the return of targeted maintenance grants. But in previous responses the Government have been keen to highlight that universities have always been autonomous institutions. I understand that.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
547 held · 543 searchable for Lewis Atkinson. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Member for East Wiltshire, there are some hospices and end-of-life providers who have made it known that, if this law passes, they may wish to explore whether they will provide such services. Equally, others will not. This goes back to the conscience debate that we had last week. There will be no obligation, so a hospice in one part of the country may well say, “Yes, we wish to provide this service as an option to our patients,” whereas a hospice in another part of the country might say, “We do not.” We need to get past this metropolitan mindset, whereby ll the providers are within easy travelling distance from each other.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I do not agree with the hon. Member, and I will tell her why. The reality is that the shape of the health provider landscape is different in different parts of the country. For example, in Wolverhampton, there has been a significant amount of vertical integration, such that in many cases GP services are part of the NHS provider trust. Therefore, those amendments that would prohibit any public body from participating would explicitly prohibit GPs in Wolverhampton from that provision. Elsewhere, some hospices—a small number—are provided directly by the NHS. Given the history of the hospice sector in the UK, there is clearly a strong voluntary and charitable element of that provision, which is entirely right, but that varies in different parts of the country. To return to the point made by the hon.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. These powers need to provide for that patient-centric nature, in a service that is explicitly commissioned by the Secretary of State, which will vary in different parts of the country, and not just in the provision landscape. The services provided in rural North Northumberland will, by their nature, probably be different from those provided in London, and that is entirely appropriate.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the other point that some hon. Members have made about regulation, I remind the Committee that any provider will be regulated not only under this Act, but by the Care Quality Commission, in entirely uniform manner. I am therefore confused by the points made by opponents of the Bill. Some have said there should be no provision of this by the NHS or any public body, some say there should be no provision by charities—including, presumably, local hospices, should they make that decision—while others say there should be no provision by local GP practices to provide continuity of care. Perhaps those different points reflect different ideologies within the Committee that are deeper than this issue, but they perhaps also reflect the fact that opponents of the Bill simply do not want this service to be provided at all.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is providing a masterclass in scaremongering. I know he needs Labour votes to switch before Third Reading, but this service must be explicitly commissioned by the Secretary of State, and it is inconceivable that they would commission that in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. The co-ordinating doctor is of course one person, and they would be involved in the first assessment and the provision of assistance. Whether that is a doctor employed by the NHS or somebody else, it can only be one individual, but there are the other safeguards we have talked about, such as the panel, which the hon. Gentleman has spoken against. It is absolutely appropriate that the Secretary of State has the powers and the duty to commission the service, and that they will do so from range of providers, reflecting the differences.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just because he does not wish to have the option for himself, he does not believe that there should be free-at-the-point-of-use provision on the NHS for anyone else. I will take Bevan back to this side of the Committee Room. He said: “The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and that wealth is not advantaged”. At the moment, at the end of life, wealth clearly is advantaged. Those who are wealthy and are able to go to Switzerland do have choice at the end of life. Dignity and independence and autonomy should not be based on ability to pay. That is why we need to pass this Bill; that is why the powers to commission in new clause 36 are entirely appropriate and necessary; that is why I support it.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I am going to finish this point. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire did a good job of reading a Bevan quotation before—although I do not advise him to seek Labour party selection with such gravitas in his voice. However, I think he is the heir not to Bevan, but to Bernard Braine, the Member for South East Essex, who said in the 1967 debate on the David Steel abortion Bill: “The idea has been spread around that it will be available on the National Health Service.” In reference to the waiting lists, Braine went on to ask: “Are our consultant gynaecologists going to make that list longer by making beds available to those who want abortions?” —[ Official Report , 13 July 1967; Vol. 750, c. 1382.] That is the tradition of objection that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is in.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Throughout that time, the annual reporting requirement of the commissioner, who will undoubtedly have been appointed in advance, will kick in. I also draw the Committee’s attention to new clause 35, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, which speaks to some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I strongly support the new clause, and the establishment of a disability advisory board to report annually on the effect on disabled people of not just the Act but the implementation. Picking up any concerns or views about its effect on people with disabilities would happen in a timely manner under new clause 35.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will be brief. I am in favour of retaining the Bill as it stands. The key thing is the interplay between this clause and clause 42, on commencement. I would have been minded to support changes to the reporting period had the Bill been commencing within two years, as clause 42 as drafted sets out, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled an amendment that will change the backstop of the commencement period to four years. The timescales set out in this clause are from the day on which the Bill is passed. It makes no sense to carry out a formal review of the operation of the legislation before the services have come into being. We will have a four-year timetable, potentially, for the backstop of the commencement.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is exactly right. For those reasons, I think we need to retain the full five-year review period. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley outlined, the review of the Act by the Secretary of State will be in addition to the annual reporting from the commissioner and, if we accept new clause 35, in addition to annual reports from the disability advisory board. Clearly, over the course of multiple amendments, we will have strengthened the reporting requirements both in advance of and post implementation.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford makes good points around the earlier assessment of palliative care; I do not think that is something that divides the Committee. There have been amendments tabled by many Members over the course of the Committee that have sought to improve and strengthen palliative care as part of a holistic package at the end of life. I wonder if that is something that I could work on with my hon. Friend on Report, even if it is not possible to agree to new clause 28 tonight.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak in support of new clause 40. Given the implementation period that we are talking about, the repeated and routine reporting to Parliament on progress is essential, especially for those who want to see this Bill implemented safely and properly. Nevertheless, there are people—some of whom have joined us in the Public Gallery in recent weeks—for whom that needs to be done with deliberate speed, but without any compromise on the safety and thoroughness of implementation. New clause 40 achieves that, and I commend it. In a different world there would have been a way of us compositing new clause 28 with new clause 40, and I regret that the two are not compatible. My hon.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand somewhat where the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is coming from, but as a fundamental matter, people have to be paid for time worked. I feel that an interpretation of his amendment is that people would not be able to be paid for time worked. This is not about performance-related pay, as he suggests in that continuation of his—I suggest—scaremongering theme from before, but about remuneration for time worked. For example, if someone is referred for an additional capacity assessment, it is right that the person doing the assessment is paid for their time worked, not as an incentive, but as a normal payment for time worked. I think that the amendment is poorly drafted and not workable. I will therefore vote no.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member is making an interesting point, particularly in relation to the commissioning of the service. In the NHS, we generally commission on a block basis and a fee-per-activity basis. I can entirely see that that block basis would be appropriate for this commission, and I am happy to work with him on Report to make that the case. That is not what this amendment says, though. It talks about payment for individual doctors, which gets into the issue of people being fairly paid for their time, which he referenced. I invite him to collaborate on the commissioning arrangements on Report, rather than pressing this amendment.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although I await the Minister’s comments, I do not think it is possible to support new clause 9 in its current form, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman lays out. We have set out that there will potentially be a small number of doctors providing these services. A GP—not a member of the public—would need to know where to direct their patient. I cannot see how, other than by having some form of electronic directory or email correspondence, it would be possible for such people to become available. I am not able to vote for the new clause at this stage, but I will put it on my notepad of things on which I am keen to work with colleagues on Report, perhaps by learning the lessons from the surrogacy advice and taking advice from Minister.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have great sympathy with the intent behind the amendment, and I would like us to get it into a workable form. The hon. Member for Reigate may wish to confirm this, but there is a similar offence in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985—the advertising of surrogacy arrangements is an offence. The important difference in the Surrogacy Act is that there are some further caveats beyond those in the draft amendment— for example, to ensure that there is not inadvertent creation of offences of the type that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley mentioned. The Surrogacy Act sets out that resulting prosecutions would be carried out only with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to ensure that such safeguards were in place.”
House of Commons25 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 481 would insert a new subsection (3)(a) into clause 23, which suggests that an employer has the power to veto an employee doing an act on their time. That is moot: it is not necessary. In the healthcare environments in which I have worked, a doctor may practise elsewhere, doing their own thing, but while they are employed in a certain NHS trust to do an NHS service, they cannot suddenly decide to do something else.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I reassure Members that I think it entirely appropriate for hospices or other providers of palliative care to consider whether they want to participate, should the Bill become law. I imagine we will get to a situation in which some will and some will not, which is absolutely appropriate. Particularly in end-of-life cases, a patient will make a choice on the back of that. I am aware that some end-of-life care providers in my area are actively considering whether this is something that they will do; I am equally aware that there are others that think it is not for them. We heard in evidence that in Australia some providers of palliative care provide integrated, holistic care in which it is one of a number of options, whereas other providers do not.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Healthcare organisations up and down the land now make decisions about what is appropriate for them to deliver, based on skills, expertise and demand and whether they think they are well placed to provide care. I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate, but it does not follow that the amendments are required to enforce that principle. As I understand it, because it is permissible, every organisation and every individual practising healthcare professional will be able to say, “On my own bat, I’m not going to participate in this, regardless of what my employer believes,” not least because of clinical governance and regulation. There is already a strong body of healthcare regulation around the acts and services that are provided. It is currently overseen by the Care Quality Commission. We do not need to reinvent that regime.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On organisations providing assistance, I want to reset things with a common-sense approach to how it will work in practice. The hon. Member for Reigate made the point that hospices should be under no obligation as organisations to provide specific services. I agree. The powers set out under clause 32 for the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the provision of these services, which we will come on to debate at some point, will operate as they do elsewhere across the health service. An NHS organisation or another organisation will say, “This is the set of services that we provide as an organisation.” I see nothing in this Bill that will compel them to do anything other than that.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If they may not be the exact right words today, I repeat the offer that my hon. Friend has made to work across the divide, as it were, to ensure that such provisions are included in the Bill. With the benefit of an overnight reflection, I feel that last night we got somewhat muddled around some of the objections on conscience, particularly when we go beyond the individual. Amendment 480 and equivalent amendments deal very clearly with individuals not having an obligation to carry out acts that would offend their conscience in the provision of these services. I think we can broadly agree on that. The remainder of the debate got rather muddled between organisations providing assistance under the Bill and the locations at which the final act of an assisted death may take place. I think those are importantly different.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, fortified as I am now with a touch of breakfast. I wish to open my comments on this set of amendments by reiterating the importance of respecting people’s beliefs in healthcare and the contribution that people of different faiths, beliefs and positions make, no matter where they come from, in the context of the activities under the Bill. I accept and recognise that amendment 480, in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, would do an important job in strengthening the Bill’s provisions. I obviously want to hear what the Minister says, and I note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, but I would want to see this sort of expansion in the final Bill when it goes back to the House.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At a deeper level, if we accept that there is going to be mixed provision, I would argue—and I think this Committee, in a small way, has shown this—that there is some benefit to that. We should not get to a position where every medic of a certain viewpoint on assisted dying works for one organisation and every healthcare professional of a different viewpoint works for another. That is not to say, by any stretch, that organisations would be forced to offer assisted dying. Clearly they would not. If the Bill becomes law, however, I want a society that is relatively at peace with it in healthcare, recognising people’s ability to conscientiously object as individuals. Setting up a dichotomy from the start, in which where a medic decides to work is determined by their views on such and such a procedure, is not a road that we should go down.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree that that is what the wording says, but my point is that it is moot. The hon. Lady herself states that the amendment is to prevent an employee from going against the policies of the employer. That power already exists. No healthcare professional says, “Even though I’m employed as a doctor today by such and such a trust, I’m going to do a set of procedures or practices that I want to do.” It is moot. I have no issue with subsection (3)(a) in amendment 481, although I think it is unnecessary. However, I think subsection (3)(b) is deeply problematic. It cuts across employment law protections by referring to selection when hiring employees. There is a reference to the Equality Act, but as others have noted, it is not clear what protected characteristics we are talking about.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid I cannot agree. The situation that I set out, in which a hospice makes an organisational decision that it does not wish to provide assisted dying services, is entirely legitimate under the Bill, as drafted. I do not, however, think it should screen which applicants have a certain view, which would be legal under the amendment. The example that the hon. Lady gives is rather different, because it relates to a particular protected characteristic. I am not an expert in the area, so maybe colleagues can help me, but this relates to specific services.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I therefore cannot agree with new clause 22. People are legally resident in these premises. They are registered to vote. In some cases, such as in warden-provided accommodation, they have a lease. It is not a landlord in absentia. I know that the hon. Gentleman has provided an opt-out for some situations, but what about warden and supported housing situations? We would not accept operators or owners policing what lawful activities should happen in someone’s own home within that environment. That is entirely different from the situation that the hon. Gentleman sketched out, in which everyone has to be involved. There would be no obligation whatever on any staff of that establishment to participate in an ancillary manner or otherwise, but in a private residence, such as someone’s room in a care home, we cannot allow that to be prohibited.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will move on, because we have started slightly late and I am not sure that we are going to add anything on this point. There is a fundamental distinction between providing assistance and being the location in which people may self-administer an assisted death. In his speech on new clause 22, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire somewhat overlapped those two things, if I may say so. Having established that a hospice would be under no obligation to provide, an individual would clearly not be able to turn up and say, “Your staff must help me to do this.” However, that is different from a situation in which someone living in their own private home— that might include a room in a care home or sheltered accommodation—decides that they want their healthcare team to carry out entirely lawful and appropriate activities under the Bill.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My instinct is that it would not. If the Bill becomes law, it would be a lawful choice. The hon. Gentleman may not characterise it as healthcare, but it would be part of healthcare and end-of-life services. We would not accept such stipulations on other healthcare services. I can see a sketch that some may choose to draw; someone mentioned housing supported by a religious institution. The reality is that people do not go out of their way to offend, and they try to live in harmony with those around them. If people are clear that they might actively explore assisted dying as an option, they will not choose to spend their last days in a community where others are ideologically opposed to their choice; it would be uncomfortable for the individual. They would, however, have the legal right to do so.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No one is asking for the right to do it in a communal area, where staff or neighbours are forced to observe or participate in any way. Where people live in their own home, they should have rights and dignity at the end of life, whether that is in a care home or in a private residence. We cannot deny them the choice to access end-of-life options, as set out in the Bill. I therefore cannot support new clause 22.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is entirely right. The response of public bodies such as NHS trusts is a slightly different issue. I would not want to speak for the Government or imagine what the Secretary of State might say, but it would be inconceivable to me for a quasi-independent public body to decide, on a vote on principle by some local governors, not to offer citizens choices that have been enshrined in law. That is a slightly different point, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire suggested yesterday that if someone chooses to have an assisted death, everyone in the care home or wherever would be part of it. That fundamentally misunderstands the point; I will go for “misunderstands” rather than doubting his intentions, but some would see it as scaremongering.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is entirely possible. Clearly it is up to the individual concerned to discuss how far they wish to share with neighbours or friends, in the home or elsewhere, but we must not get to a situation in which, as a policy default, someone’s intentions at end of life are broadcast within a certain radius. My hon. Friend is entirely right and helpful in making that point.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In considering the offer of any health or care-related activity, the appropriateness and suitability of the place is always in people’s mind, and clearly that varies. As I mentioned yesterday, we already have a licensing regime under which the CQC specifically licenses places for particular activity. I think my hon. Friend is right, but this is a normal part of decision making in the provision of health services and I do not think we should try to constrain it in primary legislation. However, as I started by saying, I recognise that we must enshrine the rights of individual conscientious objectors, which I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is trying to do with amendment 480, and I hope that we can do that, through some route, with the Bill.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I just want to nail this point about employers and recruitment. We have said that no organisation will be obliged to provide these services, in exactly the same way as with abortion. The example I would give is this: a provider of women’s services says, “We are not providing abortion. But, in addition, we are going to ask staff members we are recruiting if they believe it is ever legal for abortion to take place.” That is exactly the same test of belief, although on a different medical procedure, that my hon. Friend is proposing in this instance.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I check that the hon. Member’s understanding is the same as mine—that nothing in the Bill compels an organisation to participate in the way that he describes?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the hon. Member accept the distinction that I made between an organisation choosing to provide assisted dying services and the instance he outlined of this being done in someone’s home that happens to be a care home? They are entirely different points, and I fear that, particularly with regard to hospices, he is conflating the two.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman says that he is clear that those actions are assisting suicide and that he thinks that they are illegal. Is it right that members of the public, in the instance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred, be investigated by the police on their return from trips to Switzerland?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and I absolutely expect this information to be collected. My observation, as ever, is that I do not think we should put the exact details in primary legislation. The powers are clearly there for the Secretary of State to specify what information should be collected. I am struggling to find it, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will move an amendment to require the Secretary of State, when they make provisions and issues guidance under the Bill, to consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others in respect of protected characteristics.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree that we need the data to ensure that we understand how assisted dying operates in relation to different protected characteristics and geographical distribution, but I am not sure that amendment 273 is the way to do that.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree that to keep the list of characteristics on which we have to collect information up to date, we need a level of flexibility—not in primary legislation? Would she comment on the fact that no information regarding sexuality or other protected characteristics is included in the Bill?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have some sympathy with amendments 532 and 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, on the Secretary of State setting out regulations, but I fear the hon. Member for East Wiltshire did an excellent job of persuading me that they should not be accepted, because when a “must” is included in that way, we get into saying, “The Secretary of State must tell a doctor exactly what they must do in every situation.” The legal parameters are clearly set out in the Bill as drafted. There is no administration by a doctor on a person’s behalf; it must all be self-done. Additionally, we have not yet mentioned the existing provisions in clause 9(2)(c), which requires, at the point of assessment, a conversation between the assessing doctor and the patient about their wishes in the event of complications or any sort of delay.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On amendment 429, on the doctor being in the same room, I can think of many instances in healthcare in which a healthcare professional is in an adjoining room, potentially even with a door open so there is a line of sight, and that is entirely appropriate. I think of observations, for example, in various settings. That provision is absolutely necessary and allows an appropriateness of proximity without intrusion. I am sure the doctor will be in the room at the point at which the substance is taken, but if someone then goes into unconsciousness fairly quickly, as would happen in the vast majority of cases, and then takes half an hour or so to die, it is entirely unnecessary for a doctor to be standing there in the same room, towering over the family, when they could be near at hand. I just do not think we need to specify that in the Bill.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will cover a few of the amendments, and follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, whose points I broadly agree with. When it comes to the location and, actually, a lot of the elements, I fear we are trying to over-specify practical matters. As in so many cases, this is not about capacity, coercion, assessment and so on; it is about the practicalities of death, and it is right that we allow the healthcare team for dying people and their families to operate with the professional skill with which they currently operate.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To me, amendment 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, strikes the right balance. Under clause 30 the Secretary of State “may” make provision for codes of practice on these matters if that is required; I am uncomfortable with saying that the Secretary of State “must” do so, when it is likely that it will be more appropriate for the GMC or some other body to make those regulations. We get into a difficult precedent if the Secretary of State must specify the reaction in certain medical circumstances but we routinely leave that to medical regulation and practice more widely. I think a “may” power, as set out in amendment 430, would allow that backstop provision, but would not get into the issue of “must”. It is also likely to be more respectful of the conversations as outlined in clause 9.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the Bill is very clear on the legal parameters. A doctor may not act, in terms of administering the substance, in a way to hasten death. Within that, we are back into the realms of normal medical practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out. I am sure that there will be legal guidance, whether that be from the GMC or elsewhere, if and when the Bill were to pass. The Secretary of State would have the powers anyway under clause 30, but for the avoidance of doubt, amendment 430 strikes the right balance in giving backstop permissions to the Secretary of State to clarify anything if needed.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I disagree. As clause 9 makes clear, the doctor will have had a conversation with the patient about their wishes in advance, in exactly the same way as a surgeon would have a conversation with a patient in advance of high-risk surgery—”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not going to take any further interventions; I am going to answer this point and make some progress. The surgeon would say, “If this procedure fails, would you wish me to attempt resuscitation? Would you wish to be put on a support system?” The hon. Gentleman misunderstands current practice on consultation with patients, in advance of procedures, about their wishes, which is where there is significant established evidence.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to finish on this point. On amendment 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, I suspect that, in dealing with a later clause, we will have a conversation about issues around hospices and care homes, but again I find the requirements under the amendment unduly onerous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and others have said, often people’s preferred place of death is at home. Are we really saying that the Secretary of State would specify addresses or the nature of places where these procedures should take place?”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is by no means clear that doctors would not go out to people’s homes, but my hon. Friend asks whether doctors would have to do that—there are no powers of compulsion anywhere in the Bill, because the entire model is an opt-in model at every stage, including the example he gave in respect of hospices. It is a matter between the resident of the home and the treating medical practitioner. In reality, healthcare procedures do not happen ubiquitously: they happen in appropriate places with appropriate cultural sensitivity. We do not specify in primary legislation for that to happen. Health professionals, and those involved in the management and commissioning of health services, currently have ample opportunities to co-ordinate and consider such matters.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is exactly right. That will quite possibly include people’s individual homes as well as not in their homes, in places of appropriate care and peace and tranquillity.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Another point we have not yet mentioned is that the Care Quality Commission regulates healthcare on the basis of location of delivery. Hospice services cannot just be provided from a random place: the place has to be registered with the CQC as suitable for the provision. I am sure that regime would continue in this instance.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗