Dr Marie Tidball
MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the summer holidays approach and with all the lovely sunny weather, I really hope that children across my constituency take the chance to spend plenty of time playing outside.”
“Yesterday I had the pleasure of welcoming the Barnsley-based charity LimbBo Foundation, along with the Limb Loss and Limb Difference UK alliance to Parliament to celebrate Disability Pride Month. The alliance launched its campaign to end the postcode lottery of services and support for people with limb loss and limb difference.”
“Today we are launching our petition to save Scout Dike activity centre in my constituency with fantastic local campaigners Darren Padgett and Nick Stubbs. We are campaigning against Barnsley council’s plans to sell off this valuable community asset for development.”
“I welcome the review and thank disabled people, who have shaped it. Last year, I was pleased that the Minister accepted my amendment to the Universal Credit Bill to ensure that co-production with disabled people was put at the heart of the Timms review before any future changes to PIP were brought forward.”
“Will the Minister agree to come back to the House with the full findings of his report and to ensure that changes to PIP are joined up with the findings of the two other reviews, so that there is strategic coherence across Government policy on getting more disabled people into work?”
“I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the work of Baroness Amos on this vital report. Disabled women are 44% more likely to suffer a stillbirth than non-disabled women.”
The complete record
Every one of 386 lines we hold for Dr Marie Tidball, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Let us not just imagine a world in which the voices of children are put at the heart of our family court system, where children such as Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored, and no more towns such as mine are left to grieve—”
“It already ensures that the justice system serves victims, rather than subjecting them to further trauma on top of what they have already suffered. Labour’s important mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade will require a national effort and the use of every single tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence. Now we need to do what the previous Conservative Government failed to do and hold family courts to the same standard by taking a child-centred approach and repealing the presumption of contact where a parent is a known domestic abuser. The Government must act now to save the lives of children for generations to come by ending contact at any cost.”
“The only time Jack’s voice was heard was when, as he was held in the fireman’s arms, he used the last of his strength to say, “My dad did this and he did it on purpose.” There must be urgent reform of the presumption of contact in law, on the basis of evidence, principle and to ensure children’s voices are put at the heart of our family courts system. Legal principle means that parents should always be given contact with their children, even in circumstances where there is a known domestic abuser. The harm report, published in 2020 by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm, was clear that the presumption should not remain in its present form. The Bill before us today presents the ideal opportunity to make changes to the family courts and to deliver for the victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls.”
“Then imagine a situation where, despite knowing all of that, a family court permitted that father of those two boys five hours of unsupervised contact per week. My constituent Claire Throssell does not need to imagine this nightmare: she and her two sons, Jack and Paul Sykes, lived it. On a two-hour contact visit, permitted by that court and allowed to go ahead by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Jack and Paul Sykes were locked in the attic by their father. Using gasoline, their dad set multiple fires alight across their home. Paul, aged nine, died at the scene after his older brother tried to save him, and then Jack, aged just 12, died later in hospital. The father also killed himself in the blaze. Jack and Paul’s voices were not heard by social services, by CAFCASS or by the family court.”
“Imagine a school night with a child being repeatedly asked by his father if he had completed his homework. The child replied, in an exasperated tone, “Yes”. His dad came towards him with his fist, ready to punch him, but the boy’s mum stepped into the space in front of that fist and pushed her son out of its way. The full force of that fist hit her so hard that she was spun around and fell down the stairs, bruising her arms, legs and back. From the top of the stairs, the child’s father shouted to his son, “Look what you made me do.” The boy’s mother left her husband, taking the children with her. Social services were aware that the same father made statements that he was capable of killing.”
“It is all the richer where autistic people and people with learning disabilities are included within it to fulfil their potential. I commend this Bill to the House.”
“He is also doing an incredible job to move to a prevention-led health system, and that provides an opportunity for an integrated approach to community support, including working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure there is adequate housing in every integrated care system. The exclusion and marginalisation of autistic people and those with learning disabilities through their institutionalisation in hospital perpetuates their exclusion from our society. I am proud that our Government are tackling these issues so early on in this Parliament, alongside their commitment to the mental health investment standard, the recruitment of 8,500 mental health workers, and work to deliver a long-term plan for the reform of adult social care. Society is an order of equality and non-discrimination.”
“The responsible commissioner, clinician, integrated care board and local authority must have regard to the recommendations arising from them. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, I am aware that recommendations are often not followed in an expeditious manner. Therefore, there is an opportunity to strengthen the duty on responsible parties to follow recommendations from those reviews. The Health Secretary has been moving mountains to work on our 10-year plan. I therefore hope that the Bill’s 10-year implementation period for the changes to detention criteria will align with his important work.”
“My book on the treatment of autistic people in the criminal justice system demonstrated that ensuring that there is an appropriate level of services in the community is essential in preventing the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability from becoming too complex, leading to admission to mental health hospitals. It also demonstrated the need to support safe discharge out of hospital. Critical to reducing the numbers of those currently detained in hospital under the current law are care, education and treatment reviews for adults and children who are autistic or have a learning disability, which will help speed up discharges, prevent admission and ensure that the person is being given appropriate care. I am delighted that the Bill will make those reviews statutory in in-patient settings.”
“This vital change means that autistic people and people with a learning disability cannot be detained for treatment unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition that requires in-patient mental health care. The Government have said that “the proposed changes to the detention criteria for people with a learning disability and autistic people will only be switched on when systems are able to demonstrate a sufficient level of community support”. It is crucial for that to happen quickly, through the Government working closely with autistic people and those with a learning disability, as well with as advocacy groups, to publish a plan to build sufficient support in our communities up and down the country.”
“In my 15-year career working with autistic people and those with learning disabilities, along with autism organisations up and down the country, including the National Autistic Society and the Autism Alliance, I have seen the tragedy of autistic people cycling through the mental health system because of those measures and the failure of public services to provide adequate social care on discharge from hospital orders. As an MP, I know from my constituency that too many people are still being detained who could be supported to live well in our communities by organisations such as Greave House Farm Trust and Action for Autism Barnsley which are on my doorstep. The most significant change in the Bill is the removal of autism and learning disability from the definition of mental disorder under section 3 of the existing Act.”
“Some 92% of those people are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and the average length of stay for in-patients is almost five years. This is a human rights scandal, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded in 2019. The current situation is simply wrong. Autism and learning disabilities are not mental health conditions, and yet under the current Mental Health Act, autistic people and people with a learning disability can be detained in mental health hospitals indefinitely.”
“One of the reasons I stood for Parliament was to work hard to create a society that values disabled people, that treats us with dignity and respect, and that ensures there is nothing about us without us. It is right that this Government will fix the broken system to ensure that we give mental health the same attention as physical health. I am pleased to see the four key principles from the independent review of the Mental Health Act at the heart of the Bill: choice and autonomy, least restriction, the principle of therapeutic benefit and, most importantly, treating people as individuals. After 14 years of a Conservative Government, over 2,000 autistic people and people with a learning disability are in mental health hospitals in England.”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that clause 2(3) makes it very clear that no one can qualify for assistance under the Bill by reason only of either disability or mental disorder unless they also have six months’ terminality and capacity?”
“I moved motions to introduce clause 20 on independent advocates and clause 44, which would create a disability advisory board. These provisions are augmented today by amendments 75 and 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Clause 20 would establish the role of independent advocate. They would advocate for qualifying persons who engage with the Bill, so that those persons can effectively understand their options around end of life care. This would empower disabled people to be treated with the dignity and respect that we deserve. These independent advocates would be required to undertake specialist training, and would be available regardless of whether the individual is ultimately found to be eligible to request an assisted death.”
“My decision to support the Bill on Second Reading was one of the hardest I have ever had to make. It required me to go into the very depths of myself and draw on my experience as a child in excruciating pain, as well as the extensive poignant experiences shared with me by my constituents. As I said then, my support was conditional on specific changes being made to the Bill in Committee. I am pleased to say that all those changes have been made. As a member of the Committee, I can tell the House that it was the most extraordinary cross-party deliberative process I have ever witnessed in my 20 years of analysing legislation as an academic and policy researcher working in disability law and policy. In Committee, I worked to strengthen the voices of disabled people, and their protection under the Bill.”
“To conclude, there were many moments in Committee when I reflected on how I would want to live a good death, but the most poignant was when Julie Thienpont described the death of her terminally ill husband, Guy, who sought an assisted death in Spain: “Guy had always been a bit of an old cowboy, and he always said that he wanted to die with his boots on. I am proud to say that that is what he did. At the end, we were holding hands, and I said to him, ‘Don’t be afraid.’ He said, ‘I’m not afraid,’ and he winked at me just before he closed his eyes.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 258, Q334.] May we all have the opportunity to choose a good death, wearing our cowboy boots with the love of our life by our side.”
“To build on those clauses, amendment 91 expands the duty to collect additional information about whether, immediately before death, the person seeking assistance had a disability as defined in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, other than the disability amounting to terminal illness as defined in the Bill. So often, control is taken away from disabled people in all sorts of circumstances. I passionately believe in inclusive healthcare for disabled people. Together, all those measures will create a solid foundation to enable disabled people to have a strong voice when advocating for themselves about their choices on end-of-life care and, importantly, a seat at the table in shaping the monitoring of the Bill and providing continued scrutiny and accountability.”
“Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and, to my delight, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for these independent advocates, and for the Committee’s unanimous support for clause 44, which would set up the disability advisory board. That advisory board entrenches the voices of disabled people in the Bill, embedding a long-term and iterative structure for it to report on the Bill’s implementation and its impact on disabled people to the Secretary of State. Crucially, the board must consist of disabled people and representatives of disabled people’s organisations.”
“I will make progress, out of respect for all those on both sides of the House who wish to make a speech. The clause flowed directly from evidence that we heard from oral witnesses, including leading disability scholars and disability policy experts. In conjunction with amendment 75, which is before us today, those with autism, along with a learning disability or a mental disorder as defined under the Mental Health Act 1983, would all qualify for the services of an independent advocate. Amendment 75, which defines a learning disability, would also apply to clause 7, which provides for specific, up-to-date training for registered practitioners on reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with a learning disability. In Committee, I was grateful for the support of my hon.”
“I welcome the news that waiting lists have gone down, but will the Secretary of State set out how his work will be targeted at bringing down waiting lists for ADHD diagnoses in my constituency, to ensure consistency in diagnosis rates across trusts?”
“I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the work that he and his team have done to reduce NHS waiting times month on month for the last six months. However, the backlog that grew under the last Conservative Government is still impacting on my constituents. I have listened to countless constituents who have told me about the upsetting impact of long waiting times for an ADHD diagnosis for children. That is having a detrimental knock-on impact on access to support, including child and adolescent mental health services and shared care agreements, and there is a lack of support for adopted children.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her remarkable speech, remembering those who contributed to our war effort. Will she join me in remembering all those who fought and fell in world war two from across my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, in particular those who worked at Samuel Fox’s steelworks in Stocksbridge to make munitions and equipment to enable a successful outcome to the war?”
“There is currently no tram network from central Sheffield to Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side, Deepcar or Stocksbridge, and no operational train service to those areas. My constituents want the Sheffield tram network to be extended to Stocksbridge and to connect those rural communities with jobs, education and hospitals, as well as supporting the advanced manufacturing district and the steel plant in Stocksbridge. Will the Minister meet me and the Mayor of South Yorkshire before the spending review to discuss the next steps to establish the Stocksbridge extension to the Sheffield tram-train service?”
“A retired postmistress in my constituency served our communities at the post office in Parson Cross from 1994 to 2002 and was affected by the Horizon scandal, leaving her mentally and physically unwell. She has not been paid the compensation she is owed from the fixed sum payment scheme. Please will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can help my constituent and her husband Michael to expedite access to their compensation payment?”
“I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s commitment to steel. Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency is a strategically significant site with world-class, unique capability for creating specialist parts that will be essential in increasing our defence capacity and net zero infrastructure. Last week, I held a community listening event on the Government’s excellent steel strategy. The message was clear: let us ensure that British-made steel is best. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s news further demonstrates why it is so important that this Government are committed to a £2.5 billion plan for steel?”
“I beg to move amendment 518, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert— “‘coercion’ means behaviour of a controlling or threatening character, including but not limited to emotional or financial control, or improper interference with another person’s decision-making autonomy, which is exerted by a person or organisation, with the intention of inducing that other person to make the relevant declarations or to self-administer an approved substance under this Act against that other person’s will (and ‘coerced’ is to be read accordingly);”. This amendment provides a definition of coercion for the purposes of the Act. The terminology of “person” and “another person” reflects that used in clause 26.”
“The case provides not a definition but a two-stage test. The courts are familiar with the legal elements of dishonesty from case law: for a long time the part-subjective and part-objective Ghosh test was applied. That was amended in 2020 by the Supreme Court in the Ivey case, which disapproved the former test but retained the question: “Was his or her conduct dishonest by the standards of an ordinary decent person?” Similarly, “pressure” does not have a statutory definition in criminal law, but essentially means forcing someone to do something against their will. Having looked at this issue carefully, I am satisfied that the wording in clause 26 is enough to signal to anyone involved in a relevant application to bring a criminal prosecution what they should look for in terms of acts and intent.”
“I believe that instead, mirroring the approach to coercion taken in the Serious Crime Act 2015—a point I will return to—the Ministry of Justice must draw up details of the concepts and examples of their application in the context of the offences set out in clause 26. Doing so will be helpful for the medical practitioners, along with other professionals, who use the Bill if it becomes law, and in the training to be provided for them under the Bill to enable medical practitioners to evaluate whether each patient has been subjected to coercion, pressure or dishonesty by another person in applying for assisted dying. In criminal law, definitions of coercion, dishonesty and pressure are not placed on a statutory footing. First, on dishonesty, Ivey v. Genting Casinos is the lead case because there is no statutory definition of dishonesty.”
“Although I will not be press the amendments to a vote, for reasons I will outline, it is important to ensure that our discussions of the concepts are on the public record. I will not press the amendments to a vote as I am convinced, after discussions with legal colleagues and having considered the issues very carefully, that the risks of setting the parameters on the face of the Bill are too great. It would risk ossifying the courts rather than ensuring that they use the full parameters of the concepts to encompass scenarios for the offences under clause 26 in circumstances that the Committee may not currently conceive of. In other words, I am convinced that to limit the definitions of the concepts in statute would create the risk of excluding criminal behaviour where the threshold of the offence would otherwise be met under common law.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to amendments 518 to 520, which respectively provide definitions of coercion, dishonesty and pressure for the purposes of the Bill. In my speech on Second Reading, I said I would want to ensure that the final stages of the Bill define dishonesty, coercion and pressure. I have sketched out the definitions based on oral evidence given to the Committee, and am grateful for the extremely helpful input from Laura Hoyano and Max Hill, after the witness sessions, in establishing the content and parameters of the definitions. We have spent a considerable amount of time in Committee discussing the safeguards against coercion, for example, but I felt we had not spent much time discussing the content and parameters of the concepts.”
“I want to make sure that, where it is right and proper that those courts interpret the law on the basis of those facts, they are able to do so and are not restricted by too limited a definition in the Bill. I want to ensure that more, not fewer, cases can be encompassed. As I said in my speech, we have talked about these concepts in quite an abstract sense. I wanted us to ground that in the reality of what we might want guidance and further advice on those concepts to look like. That would follow the convention, as I have said already, in other areas of the law, such as domestic abuse, where the primary legislation does not define the concepts but secondary legislation provides further details and real-life examples for practitioners and the courts.”
“Clause 26 puts in place the elements of the offences under the Bill. It is right that it does that and draws the parameters very tightly and firmly. Under criminal law, those concepts are defined nowhere else on the face of a statute. My severe concern, having listened to the Committee and its worries about concepts such as coercion, is that we risk restricting our understanding of the concepts too tightly, and therefore excluding cases of the kinds that we want to include. By leaving them in the Bill but not defining them, we enable the common law courts to interpret the facts on the basis of the lives of the real people that come before them.”
“I give that as just one example of the risk created by adding language, rather than leaving it more broadly for a court to interpret on the basis of the facts of the case.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. I think we are united in principle, but perhaps take different views on the best way to ensure that this happens in practice. To give an example, if the word “intimate” is used in those circumstances, were a court to interpret it, it might include a husband, wife or partner, but not a brother, sister or parent. So already, in using that one word, we have potentially created further risks. By defining it, in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, we are excluding a relationship that we would want the court to look at, to weigh and judge whether there was potential dishonesty, coercion or pressure by that person, in that relationship with the person seeking assistance.”
“There is a risk that the more we narrow it by example, rather than leaving the term broad, as it is currently—“person”—we risk delimiting it too far. We do not want to exclude a situation involving an offence that we hope would be brought before the courts for prosecution.”
“Alex Ruck Keene’s sage words to me were that the problem with putting in more words is that it creates an opportunity for lawyers to find loopholes. In the example that the hon. Lady has just given, when we are talking about family relationships, I think we would all agree that, having thoroughly considered the evidence in this Committee, we do not want any interpretation of the offences set out in section 26 to exclude, for example, carer relationships. That is not a family member, but a carer might give close personal care to someone with a terminal illness. We do not want the courts to think that it was the parliamentary intention of the Committee to delimit it to only intimate or family relationships.”
“Just to put this one to bed, which is where we all need to go at this stage, I did seek advice from those that have worked in this field, and it is not a concept used commonly in the criminal law. It is instead used in the law of equity and would not be as relevant in this context. There were other, sharper elements that could make up this concept of coercion that were better and more well understood in the context of the criminal law.”
“Does the hon. Member agree that it is helpful to have it on record that we have evaluated these concepts from all sides, but determined that putting them in the Bill is not the right thing to do and would be too restrictive at this point?”
“That is a nice point to reach as the Committee comes towards the end of its journey, and it reflects the essence and the intention that were so evident on Second Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I am grateful for the thorough and thoughtful discussion that we have had from Members on both sides of the Committee Room. I am pleased and reassured that we have that discussion on record, so that those looking at the work that we have done in this Committee will understand the depths and levels at which we have thought about these important concepts in this space and the extent to which we have challenged and checked Ministers in making sure that they understand our concern about these provisions being properly put in place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for her important input, which I hope will be reflected in the training. I am glad that we have come this far and that we have a level of unanimity across both sides of the Committee Room.”
“175, Q227.] There is, and there should be, nothing about us without us. As a disabled Member of Parliament, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for inviting me to sit on this Committee. Through this new clause and my earlier new clause 25, I have worked hard to put together a structure that ensures that disabled people are firmly at the table in the process of monitoring the implementation and impact of the Bill. I urge members of the Committee to support new clause 35.”
“Professor Tom Shakespeare corroborated the benefits of such an advisory board, calling it a “very good idea.” Importantly, Fazilet Hadi, from Disability Rights UK, stated: “Should the Bill go through, it would be good to see a monitoring mechanism. I cannot say what that should be, but it would be good to see disabled people shape it. Some 45% of older people are disabled people, so disabled people are going to be very affected by the Bill.” Poignantly, she went on: “It is often our experience that we are the last people who are spoken to; maybe that is what is behind the question. We should of course be at the table now in respect of whatever mechanisms, and in the shaping of any implementation, should the Bill be passed.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c.”
“Dr Miro Griffiths said: “I think there needs to be further robust action around how to collect data and allow it to be analysed, to see the trends that are occurring in why people are pursuing this option and how that may play into broader political and socioeconomic issues, such as a lack of services elsewhere or frustrations for disabled people and their families in trying to access particular services…I would therefore encourage their representation on any form of advisory council. I would also request that disability studies scholars, who are often left out of the discourse around disability policy, are part of any form of mechanism to advise or scrutinise.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 145, Q183.] Subsection (2)(b) and (c) would provide for this.”
“My new clause would go further, by including a rigorous reporting process that requires the advisory board to report to the Secretary of State and the commissioner within six months of the commissioner being appointed, and annually thereafter. It also provides: “The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of any report under subsection (3), lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.” In the oral evidence sessions, I asked witnesses for their views on what structures or mechanisms could work to facilitate the opportunity to hear the voices of disabled people in monitoring the implementation and impact of the Bill were it to pass through Parliament.”
“280-81, Q367.] The board must therefore consist of “(a) people who have a disability under the Equality Act 2010, (b) representatives from disabled people’s organisations, and (c) other such persons or organisations as the Commissioner considers relevant to the impact of the Act on disabled people.” The commissioner would, within six months of being appointed, have to appoint a programme board to advise on the implementation of the Bill, and annually thereafter report on the impact of the Bill’s operation on disabled people. The clause reflects the learning of Dr Greg Mewett, the specialist palliative care physician from Australia who gave oral evidence to the Committee about the Australian implementation taskforce, which includes a strong disability advocate.”
“Including a disability advisory board structure on the face of the Bill would entrench the board in the work of the commission, enabling a long-term and iterative structure in which disabled people could report on the reality of the impact of the Bill on disabled people across this country. This reflects comments made by Dan Scorer of Mencap in oral evidence. He said that if the Bill was passed, “We would want to see strong representation from patient groups…as well as from people who have been involved in the process, such as family members, advocates and clinicians, to make sure that if serious issues are being raised, they can be picked up early and addressed.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is the final new clause of the Committee. As I said in support of new clause 25 and associated amendments last week, I want to strengthen the voice of disabled people in the Bill. New clause 35 would require the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to establish a disability advisory board that would report annually on the implementation and impact of the Act on disabled people. The new clause has been designed to ensure that disabled people have a voice at the heart of the Bill and an ongoing role in monitoring its impact. The disability advisory board model reflects a structure that was used at the Department of Health to implement the Autism Act 2009 and monitor the implementation of its provisions, statutory guidance and strategy. It was a highly effective body.”
“Just so I am clear, if a young woman is escaping domestic abuse and goes to a domestic violence space close to her home so that her children can carry on going to school, but finds out once she is there that she is pregnant by the abuser, does my hon. Friend think that that is acceptable?”
“That the domestic violence protection centre or home can refuse to let that lady stay there because she has latterly discovered that she is pregnant as a result of the abuse and wants to seek an abortion.”