Tom Gordon
MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“My understanding is that Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire, is bringing into force the Weaver Network, but in York and North Yorkshire we do not yet have an equivalent. One of the challenges that people face is that they often connect over the boundary of those two counties.”
“My constituency has loads of fantastic built heritage, including Knaresborough House, Knaresborough castle, Starbeck Baths and much more. I really enjoyed reading the report and noted the recommendation about safe harbour, where trusted bodies could temporarily take control of at-risk assets to stabilise them.”
“In my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cabin air quality, I recently met pilots and cabin crew about the impact of fume events and the lifelong consequences that they can have for them. What steps are the Government taking to investigate, research, regulate and mitigate those issues?”
“Earlier in this Parliament I raised the potential of Russia returning to Eurovision. Last week I raised the issue of a Russian animated children’s cartoon on British TV. This week we have heard that the International Olympic Committee is paving the way for Russia to return to the next Olympic games.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, a number of Conservative MPs visited my constituency. That is entirely understandable, as we have fantastic event spaces and hospitality. Most of those Conservative MPs notified me in advance that they would be attending, with one notable exception: the Leader of the Opposition.”
“The Foreign Secretary has rightly highlighted the UK’s unwavering commitment to our ally, Ukraine. Her Estonian counterpart recently said that “Russia wages war not only with missiles, but with narratives.” With that in mind, last week I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about “Masha and the Bear”, a Rus…”
The complete record
Every one of 609 lines we hold for Tom Gordon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 13.
“We must ensure that health and education professionals are trained in early trauma and care experiences. We cannot expect teachers, social workers or mental health professionals to support adopted children without properly training them and giving them the resources. I would like to see an extension of adoption support services to at least the age of 26. Trauma does not end at 18, and young people need continued access to support as they transition into adulthood. We need to provide a targeted support pathway for teens and young adults, including access to specialist advocacy services, mental health care and interventions to prevent exploitation and criminal involvement. Before I conclude, I would like to share a few other personal stories. There is one which stands out.”
“We can no longer allow adopted children and their families to fall through the cracks. Decisive action is required now. I will set out a few things that the Government could do to try to help with this issue. We need a commitment and guarantee that the adoption and special guardianship fund will be made permanent, and that we will never see a return to the year-by-year situation that has caused heartache and pain for children and parents this time around. We need to mandate regular keeping-in-touch opportunities for all adoptive families. Too many families feel isolated without a clear support network during times of crisis. We must improve local authority support structures. Families must have guaranteed access to crisis intervention services and mental health support before situations become unmanageable.”
“We need a system that places support at the centre of the adoption journey: from the moment a child is placed, to the challenges they face during adolescence. It is not enough to provide support just in the early stages and walk away once the adoption order is granted and the child appears settled. We need a cultural shift in how adoption breakdowns are viewed. Parents should never be made to feel guilty for seeking the support they so desperately need. The lived experiences of families impacted by adoption breakdown serve as a reminder of why change is necessary. Adoptive parents do not want to bear the blame for breakdowns, many of which are caused by systemic failures. They want to be part of the solution. These families have opened their hearts and homes, yet they feel abandoned.”
“Despite the child’s significant trauma, the family was dedicated to providing a loving and stable home. However, due to a lack of support and the inability of the local authority to help meet the child’s needs, eventually another adoption broke down. The parents feel ashamed and abandoned by the system that promised to support them. As we reflect on those stories, we must remember that behind every statistic is a child who has already endured more than enough and more than most. These children deserve the same opportunity to thrive as any other, but they cannot achieve that without the right support. It is our responsibility to ensure that adoptive families are equipped with the resources, tools and understanding to provide that.”
“Lived experiences are at the heart of this issue and countless adoptive parents have shared their stories of pain, struggle and heartache. They are not just statistics; they are real families grappling with unimaginable challenges and receiving little to no support. In the time left, I will try to briefly share some of those stories. One parent wrote to me about how an adopted child had suffered severe abuse. Despite their best efforts, the child’s behaviour became increasingly violent and unmanageable. When they reached out for help, they were met with indifference by the local authority. Eventually, the situation became so unbearable they had no choice but to disrupt the adoption, leaving heartbreak in its wake. Another adoptive parent shared the story of a child who had been through numerous foster placements before being adopted.”
“The impact is not just emotional; it can extend to physical and social challenges as well, and leads to behavioural problems, mental health struggles and difficulties in schools in some cases. A point made earlier by another Member was that a key barrier to providing that support is the lack of training for professionals working with adopted families. Teachers, social workers and healthcare providers all lack an understanding of the unique challenges that adoptive parents and adopted children face. That lack of knowledge results in misguided interventions and insufficient care. Adoptive parents require more than just financial assistance. They require access to specialists, including trauma-informed mental health care, educational support and respite care, too.”
“The prolonged period of uncertainty around the support fund has caused an exacerbation in woes and fears. Many families feel they have been abandoned by the system and have struggled to navigate a complex and fragmented network of support services. It is clear that the system is failing the families it was designed to support. The unpredictable nature of service access means children and families are left to fend for themselves. The Government must urgently address the chronic underfunding of adoption support services, and commit to ensuring that families have timely and reliable access. I have heard countless stories from adoptive parents and children who speak about the deep trauma of what happens when an adoption breaks down.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point he makes is one that I experienced at first hand when we had local government reorganisation in North Yorkshire. People have commented that the merging of services leads to an inferior outcome at the end. I agree with his point about needing greater funding for local authorities to help fix this problem. The Government must ensure swift distribution of the new funding announced earlier this week to prevent future delays. For many families that are already struggling, the support fund is a lifeline. A delay in therapy increases anxiety and distress not only for these children, but for their families as a whole, and it can cause huge disruption to their daily lives. In some cases, families have been left without support for months or even years.”
“I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham for securing this urgent question and the Minister for her commitment on the £50 million. I have secured an Adjournment debate on Thursday on adoption breakdown, and over the past few days I have been asking people to tell me their stories. I have heard that things such as the adoption and special guardianship fund are crucial to preventing it. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the fund on ensuring that adoptions can continue, and will she make that information publicly available, if possible?”
“I pay tribute to Brian Dunsby OBE, who was a pillar of the Harrogate business community. He tirelessly campaigned to improve our railways, including getting a direct service from London to Harrogate. One of the issues that we spoke about before he sadly passed away was how the Leeds to York line via Harrogate becomes a single track at Knaresborough, which has implications for running higher levels of services and for delays, as once one service is delayed, the entire day can quickly fall. I am launching a campaign for the dualling of the line between Knaresborough and York so that the railways serving our communities are fit for purpose. Will the Secretary of State join me in that? Will she offer any advice on how we can go about securing that investment?”
“As someone who lives with ulcerative colitis, I am all too acquainted with the fact that health conditions can vary wildly. We know that people with conditions such as Crohn’s and colitis and their carers already have issues accessing PIP and carer’s allowance. What consideration has the Minister given to conditions such as those in the context of these cuts?”
“At PMQs yesterday, we were joined by my constituent Harry Brown and his family, who were in the Speaker’s Gallery. Harry battled childhood cancer and overcame it. After PMQs, I spoke to him about his experience. He told me how, throughout his treatment, he had to travel from the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle to Great Ormond Street. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on how we can better support childhood cancers and treat people closer to home?”
“I am just trying to wrap my head around the argument. We already know that integrated care boards and other commissioning bodies have incentives given to them when they commission services, so it would be in their interests to diagnose or produce a demand for a service in a particular area. There is already an analogous situation within the NHS; I do not see how that is any different.”
“It is a decision to force more families into impossible situations—watching their loved ones suffer, facing investigations for simply accompanying them abroad, being unable to grieve properly because they cannot even bring the body home. That is the reality of such a delay, and we have the power to stop it. We cannot allow interference from Government, or wherever this has come from, at the last moment. This is my frustration: the amendment was tabled at the very last moment, without an explanation of where it has come from. We must listen to the people who are at the heart of the Bill. We must listen to the public and all the people who have given us input, to make sure that we end up with a Bill that takes into account the need for compassion and does not prolong the timetable for people.”
“We have drawn from the best of international practices. We have learned from the experience of jurisdictions that have successfully implemented assisted dying laws with compassion and care. The Bill is not a rushed or reckless piece of legislation; it is carefully crafted, and it balances the right to choose with the need for stringent protections. To delay its implementation from two years to four years, after such thorough debate, scrutiny and refinement, would undermine the very care and diligence that the Bill has been shaped by. Delaying implementation is not simply a neutral decision; it is a decision to prolong the lack of choice for people with terminal illnesses. It is a decision to deny them the ability to die on their own terms.”
“The only example of a particularly protracted and prolonged process was in Oregon, and that was because of legal challenges. The NHS has demonstrated time and again, particularly during covid, that when there is a need, it can act swiftly and decisively. When we set a deadline, civil servants will work towards it. We have some of the best civil servants in the world, and I commend them for their work. Throughout this process, we have examined the Bill line by line to ensure that it is the strongest, most robust assisted dying legislation in the world. We have strengthened its safeguards and refined the eligibility criteria, although I appreciate that I have had different views from some on the Committee about that. We have embedded rigorous oversight mechanisms and ensured that every step is guided by medical expertise.”
“Every time I have spoken to her, she has been really heartened to hear the progress that the Committee has been making on the Bill, and when we spoke about this delay, it crushed her heart—and it has mine, too. Just having the option would give her—someone who does not have a terminal diagnosis or anything, necessarily, just yet—peace and comfort. Supporters of amendment 548 will say that we need four years to get this right, but I want to know where the evidence for that claim is. It has not been clearly set out. Other countries have managed to implement similar laws in far less time. Spain implemented its law in just three months after the passage of a Bill; Jersey and the Isle of Man are aiming for an 18-month implementation period. Indeed, no country has taken longer than two years.”
“When she was diagnosed, she had two independent tumours, and her mum and her sister—my gran and my aunt—had both had breast cancer too. While there was no genetic testing to show a link, the doctor said, “This is probably going to come back, and you will probably end up with breast cancer again.” My mum had post-traumatic stress disorder from that experience of going through cancer treatment—through the mastectomy and the recovery. It was prolonged and, to this day, there are complications as a result of the procedure and the chemotherapy. It was traumatic for the entire family, and my mum has long said that, if she had to go through something like that again, or if she ended up with secondary breast cancer at a later date, she would want this option.”
“Every delay means more suffering, more people forced to endure unbearable pain against their will. This Government needs to stop dragging its feet and act now.” I appreciate that it is not the Government who are promoting the Bill, but that is the reality for people and, as uncomfortable as it is to hear those stories, we must hear them and we must listen. It is not just people who are terminally ill who are anxious about a change in the law. Every time that I have spoken to my mum on the phone during this Committee process, she has asked me how it is going, what the process is and what the end date will be. It popped up on Facebook yesterday that it is eight years since she received her all-clear from breast cancer, but it still hangs over her.”
“No Parliament can bind the next, and legislation that has been passed but not enacted could be quickly abandoned. We cannot allow that to happen; the cost would be too great. For people out there who have been campaigning for years, that would be a catastrophe. This is not an abstract policy debate; it is about real people who are suffering right now and cannot afford to wait. A number of people have been in touch to make clear their views on the amendment. Tim Wardle, a terminally ill man from Devon with bladder, prostate and lung cancer, said that “even a slight delay beyond the two years currently proposed is not fair or reasonable. I hope the proposal is defeated.” Clare Turner, a mother of two with stage 4 breast cancer, made it even clearer, saying, “This is outrageous for terminally ill people like me.”
“We know that the British public overwhelming support a change in the law. People want to see assisted dying laws in place during this Parliament, not in some uncertain future. They will not accept delay, and I do not think they will be particularly forgiving of excuses. If we allow the implementation period to be extended to four years, we will be seen to be kicking the can down the road. Comments have been made about how the implementation would potentially be before the next general election, but there is no guarantee or certainty of that. It is in the gift of the Prime Minister to decide when the next general election is called. I cannot think of a more worrying instance of a newly elected Government having to implement a big societal change, but the amendment could make that a possibility.”
“It forces people who are terminally ill and in unbearable pain to make impossible choices; it compels them to travel overseas, away from the comfort of home, to die in unfamiliar surroundings; it punishes grieving families by forcing them to endure police investigations for simply standing by their loved ones; and it denies dignity in death and peace in grief. We have recognised that as unacceptable, and that is why we are here debating the Bill. The delay brought about by the amendment would tell those same people that they must wait. People have already been waiting far too long. The amendment would tell them that their suffering is not seen as important enough and that their right to a peaceful death has to be postponed. It is not justice, and we must not allow it.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise regretfully to speak in opposition to amendment 548, which would extend the implementation period from two to four years. I start by saying that I have had complete and utter admiration for the hon. Member for Spen Valley throughout this process, and I appreciate that she said herself that she had tabled the amendment in disappointment—I will echo a lot of what she said. We are here today because we acknowledge that there is an injustice—that the current law for assisted dying is failing people.”
“Harrogate relies on tourism too. Local businesses that used to employ people coming over from the EU say that they are now struggling to recruit, so they have had to shut up and close early, which has cost jobs. Does the right hon. Lady agree that a return to freedom of movement to allow those opportunities would benefit those businesses, which might help the Chancellor with the mission for growth?”
“Harrogate is a proud armed forces town and the location of the Army Foundation College, and Menwith Hill and Catterick are nearby. North Yorkshire as a whole plays an important part for our armed forces. Veterans in my constituency have told me that they often move back there after postings throughout their careers, but they then have problems accessing housing through the local authority. What conversations is the Minister having with local government colleagues to ensure that local authorities have a better understanding of how to listen to what veterans say about the adaptations they need?”
“The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is actually one that I made yesterday. I appreciate that we are on entirely different sides of the debate, but that is exactly why I was talking about ensuring wider eligibility—the point he makes in relation to My Death, My Decision—and ensuring the provision of assistance for people who might have illnesses such as motor neurone disease. We have had to put a cut-off somewhere, and some people fall outside it, but does he accept that fundamentally this is about making sure that there are safeguards? That is the key point: that we should ensure safeguards. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is exactly that.”
“1. Whether she has had discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the upcoming health and disability Green Paper on the finances of disabled people.”
“In recent weeks, I have been inundated with messages from constituents who are worried sick about changes to the disability benefits system, but yesterday’s announcement goes further than even the Conservatives managed, or dared, to. Disabled people already face systemic barriers in society, including in accessing health, transport and housing. Inadequate financial support already means that some of the most vulnerable have to access food banks. These cuts will exacerbate their pain, and fuel hunger and debt. What assessment has the Department made of the cuts, the impact on finances, and the harm that they will cause?”
“I beg to move amendment 350, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, at end insert— “(d) subject to subsection (6A), provide additional assistance to administer the substance in the presence of an independent witness. (6A) The coordinating doctor may provide the additional assistance under subsection (6)(d) when— (a) the coordinating doctor is satisfied that the person is permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance due to— (i) significant risk of choking as a result of dysphagia, or (ii) the loss of use of the limbs; and (b) the person has authorised that the additional assistance be provided.” This amendment would define the eligibility criteria for those who are permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance and are therefore eligible for additional assistance to administer the substance.”
“If the Bill is about compassion, then we must ensure that that compassion extends to everyone; if it is about choice, then we should not deny that choice to those with severe physical limitations; and if it is about justice, then we should not allow injustice to be written into the law.”
“If we fail to include such provision here, we risk excluding some of the most vulnerable people or, even worse, creating a perverse incentive for them to seek an assisted death earlier, possibly abroad, when they may still have physical function. These amendments are not about lowering safeguards in any way, shape or form. As we know, the Bill has robust safeguards, which these amendments would maintain. It would only be applicable in instances where doctors deem it necessary, and it would not be open to more than those with conditions restricting their ability to self-administer.”
“Many lose all limb function, leaving them unable to lift even a glass of water, let alone self-administer medication. There is a common theme here that relates to a point I made in an earlier sitting, when we debated the period of time for eligibility. For these individuals, the Bill in its current form creates a barrier. It states that the final act of ingesting or administering an approved substance must be taken by the person themselves. For someone with advanced MND, that may simply not physically be possible. The MND Association’s evidence highlights that in other jurisdictions, such as Queensland in Australia, allowances have been made for people unable to swallow or self-administer.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I speak in support of this group of amendments, which address the issue of fairness and accessibility in the Bill. The amendments seek to ensure that those who are physically unable to self-administer the approved substance due to their condition are not excluded from the choice of an assisted death. The principle at stake here is equity: making sure that this opportunity would be available to not only those with the physical ability to self-administer but all eligible individuals, regardless of their condition. The Motor Neurone Disease Association made it clear in its written evidence that conditions like motor neurone disease can be cruel, devastating and progressive, locking people inside their own failing bodies. More than 80% of people with MND lose the ability to speak.”
“The hon. Member mentioned that down the line the Bill could be changed through guidance. I do not think there would be any scope or ability to do that. Does he agree that that point might be a little bit beyond what we all think might be possible under the terms of guidance?”
“I will keep it short and sweet. I had not intended to push the amendments to a vote and will not be doing so. A lot of important points have been raised. Irrespective of whether the amendments were going to be pushed to a vote or would have been successful, it is important that we listen to and take into account the voices of people with different diseases who might wish to access an assisted death. We must also take into account the evidence that organisations have submitted, because it is important that those voices are heard too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I completely understand where the hon. Member is coming from, but the reality is that although that may well be the case in urban areas, where there are lots of care homes and people can make that choice, in rural areas in particular terminally ill people might have to move to access an assisted death. Does he acknowledge the problem with that?”
“The hon. Lady has highlighted a few different legal cases from around the world; is she aware of the case currently going on in Spain, where a family member is challenging his daughter’s wish to have an assisted death? That challenge has been funded by religious groups—Christian groups—and is not actually going through the parent. He had the option and ability to raise the case, and it has then been funded and hijacked by outside groups. How would the hon. Lady see her amendment as helping to protect against that sort of thing?”
“The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me, because I am a relatively new MP and there are still bits of parliamentary procedure that I have not yet got my head round, but is it not the case that MPs will have a say on Report, when they can table amendments to take the Bill back to how it was? That point could therefore be debated on Report.”
“I speak only one language and it is definitely not Welsh, even though I did have a stint working in Wales. With any language, things can be lost in translation. When we are talking about something like assisted dying, does the Minister acknowledge that even with very skilled interpreters, there would have to be a suitable level of training to make sure that everything was fully thought through and there were no cracks—that nothing would slip through the net. That is not covered under the Welsh Language Act currently, and that is why the amendment has been tabled. Does she appreciate the severity of that?”
“The point that the hon. Member makes is, I think, exactly the case—raising this conversation and talking about it is probably not in anyone’s best interests in the first instance. I think about my own situation. If I were to find myself terminally ill and falling within the scope of this law, and my mum had passed away, then my dad, who I have not spoken to in over a decade, with whom I have a very difficult and estranged relationship, would have to be notified and we would have to have a conversation about it. On my deathbed, the last thing I want to be thinking about is some childhood trauma being brought back before me in the confines of that terminal illness. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the intention might be good, the consequences could be damaging to the patient and their best interests?”
“I have been in communication with Liberal Democrat councillors in the East Riding of Yorkshire and also the Liberal Democrat administration in Hull. Yesterday, the leader of the council, Mike Ross, raised the call for a rapid response from Government, and I really push the Minister to provide clarity on what exactly we should be seeing from a tactical co-ordination group and whether there is Government commitment to cover any environmental or economic impact. Moreover, what more support will we see down the line if there are long-term consequences as a result of the pollution?”
“I recently visited the beautiful village of Burton Leonard in my constituency for the 100th anniversary of its women’s institute branch. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the fact that it has made it to 100 and hope that it has many more years to come? Will she also consider whether there is time for a Government debate on the importance of local community organisations and how we can ensure that they have funding support?”
“I congratulate my friend, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), on securing this debate. As was mentioned, I used to work for the type 1 diabetes charity JDRF, as it was then—it is now Breakthrough T1D. We used to regularly have meetings with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care. One of the key things that I and, I am sure, Members across the House would like to see is the new Government taking up the recommendations of the report by Theresa May and Sir George Howarth. Will the Minister agree to meet the APPG for diabetes to talk about how those recommendations can be implemented?”
“I recently met volunteers who run the Harrogate Competitive Festival for Music, Speech and Drama, a charity that has been going for almost 90 years. It has over 250 different classes and categories, 800 entries to its competitions, and more than 1,300 children taking part every year. I heard about how it gives confidence, and boosts people’s skills and ability to speak and perform in front of large audiences. The charity used to receive funding from the local authority, but that has been stopped since 2016. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on the importance of supporting the performing arts?”
“When people are in what is often termed a “crisis”, that would indicate that they are not in a situation where they have capacity. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can think that it is reasonable to make a comparison between these two things; they are entirely different, and I am sure everyone here would broadly agree with that—I think, on this one, he is sort of on his own. Would the hon. Gentleman be able to offer any further insight into why he thinks that two wildly different situations are analogous—one is in a medical context where people have all the safeguards, and that layer of security and checking, and the other is someone who might be doing something in a moment of desperation?”
“I think there is already broad consensus in this country: people would like the option of assisted dying. Polling shows overwhelming support for it. I accept that there are disagreements about what the option looks like, but this is not something that people have never thought about before and would suddenly pop into their minds; they have been talking about it for decades and decades. What would the hon. Gentleman say to that?”
“Marie Curie’s definition of a terminal illness is “an illness or condition which cannot be cured and is likely to lead to someone’s death”. It is obviously one of the best-known end of life charities, so how does the hon. Member reconcile the differences he has with its professional expertise?”
“Conditions that would be affected by the change include motor neurone disease, Huntington’s disease, multiple system atrophy, progressive supranuclear palsy, Parkinson’s and many others. Although Alzheimer’s is a neuro-degenerative condition, those with Alzheimer’s would not be eligible for an assisted death should the amendment pass because they would not have the mental capacity.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I speak in support of amendment 234, which is tabled in my name and seeks to ensure that people suffering from neurodegenerative conditions are not excluded from the dignity and autonomy that the Bill seeks to provide. The amendment would extend the eligibility period for those with neurodegenerative conditions from six months to 12 months—a simple yet crucial change that could alleviate needless suffering and ensure fairness in our approach to end of life care. The intention of the amendment is to change the law to match that in five of the six Australian states. The wording mirrors that found in those jurisdictions.”
“Professor Meredith Blake and Chloe Furst testified to the importance of a 12-month eligibility period, not just for fairness but for the practicality of allowing patients to navigate the process in time. Everyone wants to see a Bill that is about dignity. If it is truly about that, we must ensure that it works for those who need it most. It is not about opening the floodgates or trying to expand the criteria. It is about ensuring equal access. From speaking to colleagues across the Committee, I know that a lot of thought and consideration has gone into this issue. With that in mind, I will not push the amendment to a vote, but it is important that the voices of people with neurodegenerative diseases are considered as part of the process.”