Dr Marie Tidball
MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Penistone line, which runs through my constituency, serves over half a million people, eight constituencies, six hospitals, four universities and a network of colleges, schools and GP surgeries, but it has only one train an hour.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have been going to Penistone Paramount in my constituency since I was a child. This 110-year-old art deco cinema is the jewel in the crown of our town, yet the Reform-led Barnsley council has decided to shelve the £1.8 million in principal towns funding that was going to be used to build a second screen and a new café and bar area, as w…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am deeply frustrated on behalf of my constituent Adele Riddle, whose Townend Farm is currently included in the Sheffield local plan. She wants it taken out, especially because an inspector’s recent report says that the land is of higher quality than the plan rates it.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady is making an impassioned speech. On the point about cuts to community policing under Conservative and coalition Governments, they are having a direct effect on my constituents.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Constituents in Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Wharncliffe Side and Oughtibridge regularly tell me how important it is for them to have access closer to home to routine blood tests, X-rays, special educational needs and disability support, mental health support, NHS dentistry and mammograms, because of the poor transport links and delays in acces…”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 17 of the Bill—Jack and Paul’s law—fulfils my constituent Claire Throssell’s promise to her two beautiful boys after they were killed in a house fire set alight by their known domestically abusive father during a court-ordered contact visit.”
House of Commons13 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
370 held · 359 searchable for Dr Marie Tidball. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
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.
“I will make progress. Clause 4 creates no duty to raise assisted dying, a point supported by the BMA. Keeping things secret is not helpful for the patient making such difficult decisions about how best to live their death with dignity and respect.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Bill is passed by Parliament without them, it will exacerbate health inequalities rather than abating them. Together, the amendments expound and elaborate on the need for discussion of all appropriate palliative and other end-of-life options available to someone with a six-month terminal illness. I commend them to the Committee.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make progress. In reply to a question from me about those who are seeking assistance, Dr Jane Neerkin, a consultant physician in palliative medicine, said: “For them, it is about trying to regain some of that control and autonomy and being able to voice for themselves what they want. That is what I tend to see that people want back at the end of life.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 201, Q263.] Importantly, amendments 183 and 275 would strengthen clause 4 to ensure that we avoid a situation that gives those with the most social capital more choice, while leaving those who might otherwise be unaware of all other options available to them without that choice.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To build on the points the hon. Members for Reigate and for East Wiltshire were trying to make, does the Minister agree that a reasonable person on the street would believe that the act of disconnecting a respirator was a positive act? Currently, the Mental Capacity Act is applied to that act in relation to decision making; that is therefore analogous to the process for which it will be used in relation to this Bill.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sorry, Mrs Harris, but I may have risen too soon. I want to speak to amendment 339, but I would first like to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled it.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the hon. Member therefore disagree with the British Medical Association, whose evidence to the Committee has said specifically: “We support the Bill’s balanced position such that there is no prohibition on raising assisted dying with eligible patients where, in their professional judgement, the doctor considers this to be appropriate—but there is also no duty to raise it”. The implication is that the Bill gets that balance correct.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have worked closely with Mencap on the amendments that I am drawing up and will continue to do so, and I would welcome input from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Although I support his intent in principle, I will be tabling amendments to cover a broader group of individuals to access such appropriate adults and independent advocates, so that they can seek and access advocacy across the pathway and period of seeking assistance. My amendments would put access to appropriate adults and independent mental health advocates on a much firmer footing in the Bill.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend, but I want to make sure that we specifically include the language of “mental disorder”, to make sure that that particular group of people with mental health problems is able to access independent advocates, as well as those with learning disabilities and autism. I am also looking at whether we need a consequential amendment or new clause that would make the Secretary of State put in place provisions for regulations as to the appointment of persons as independent advocates in order to ensure that those seeking assistance under the legislation who have a learning disability, autism or a mental disorder can have proper access to such advocates. That would strengthen the resource provision and access for that group.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My amendments will go beyond amendment 339 and amend the code of practice so that seeking advocacy and access to an appropriate adult applies across the pathway to those seeking assistance, not merely in relation to the content of clause 4, as in that amendment. I want to ensure that access to an independent advocate or appropriate adult is expanded to cover those with autism, a learning disability or a mental disorder, which is not currently covered by amendment 339. That will enable those people to engage with any of the provisions under this Bill through the support that they would receive from an independent advocate or appropriate adult. As I say, I am also seeking to strengthen access to such advocacy across the pathway, through seeking assistance at each stage. I have huge respect for my hon.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will be supporting amendments 319 and 320 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend’s work in championing people with learning disabilities, and his mission to give them a strong voice in this Bill. It is an area very close to my heart, having spent over a decade and a half working with people with learning disabilities and the advocacy organisations that support them. I will, however, not be supporting my hon. Friend’s amendment 339, merely because I am drafting something to strengthen those measures even further.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister agree that the language of clause 2(1)(a)— “cannot be reversed by treatment”— is reassuring? Indeed, the written evidence from Professor Emily Jackson notes: “Someone with a condition that is not inevitably progressive, or which could be reversed by treatment, would be ineligible under the Act.” That covers the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I stand here as a disabled woman. Under the Bill, as a disabled woman, I would not —by reason only of being a disabled woman—be eligible to have access to assisted dying. The amendment clarifies that I would not be eligible only through being a woman who has a disability. However, if I develop a condition that means that I have a terminal illness, leaving me with only six months left to live, I would be permitted to have that choice. It is right, I think, that I should have that choice. As I said in my Second Reading speech, this is about giving people access to a good death and living a good death. This is about giving that choice, where they choose to make it, to disabled people, while building in sufficient safeguards so that this is not something pressed upon them—”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is correct in his interpretation of the judgments in those cases, but does he agree that the evidence given by Chris Whitty to clarify his statement was helpful in clarifying that the application of the test for capacity is heavily orientated towards the gravity and complexity of the decisions to be made? That is also underpinned, as my hon. Friend underlined, by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate the hon. Lady raising the need to use accurate legal language. Does she agree, therefore, that introducing “undue influence”, which is used regularly in the law of equity but not in the criminal law, would unhelpfully complicate matters, considering that coercive behaviour is defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 where it provides for an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in that context? We have 10 years of case law. The hon. Lady rightly pointed to the importance of looking at case law and at how courts have dealt with this; the understanding of coercion in the criminal law offences is well known and well rehearsed, whereas the use of undue influence in the context of criminal law offences, which is what we are dealing with in clause 26, is not.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree, as Max Hill did in oral evidence, that it would be helpful to have definitions of the three concepts in clause 26? Although we are discussing an earlier clause, it is important to thread the needle with this statute and ensure that we are looking ahead, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Lady for the work she has done today. As a fellow new Member who sat on the Employment Rights Bill Committee, I can tell her that we debated many amendments from both sides. Sometimes, they arrived from both sides on the day and we had to absorb them on the day.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Okay. Would the hon. Lady not agree that it has been an extraordinarily rich discussion that reflects our ability to build on the oral evidence that we heard the week before last to develop amendments that reflect that evidence in an extraordinary scenario? This discussion is among the most deliberative that we have had.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. Inserting the amendment—and the language of, and focus on, “benefit”—in a paragraph that deals with the two criminal concepts of coercion and pressure, actually undermines the existing focus of the paragraph. Does he agree that it is better and stronger to keep the focus on the two criminal concepts, which would require the mens rea—which I think some colleagues are indicating—and the actus reus, and that that is not achieved by inserting the language about benefits?”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid that the amendments would undermine that and, for the reasons that I set out on Second Reading and have just highlighted, I do not support them.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman may remember the speech that I made in the Chamber about my own experience of extreme physical pain, and indeed extreme physical suffering, as a child. The level of morphine that I needed was so high that my skin began to itch. I would not have voted for the Bill to proceed to Committee if it had been based on suffering. I voted for it because it was defined very tightly around the language of terminal illness. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think he undermines that case by arguing that we should move to the extremis and focus on pain. We all want to ensure that the Bill gives people the choice to seek assistance with six months’ terminality, set among other choices, including the ability to palliate and achieve other support at the end of life.”
House of Commons12 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With respect to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, I do not support her amendments, which seek to replace the references in the Bill to the Mental Capacity Act with the concept of “ability”. First, medical practitioners already know, regularly use and well understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005. As a result, as Professor Chris Whitty said in evidence, where practitioners conduct such an assessment of an individual separately, they are usually in agreement in their decisions about the outcome in relation to that individual. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. Secondly, the term “ability”, unlike mental capacity, is not an existing concept in law that we can draw upon in the context of complex medical decision making about consent to medical treatment. I therefore do not accept that it is a low bar.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want also to reflect on the robust language in clause 2(3), which states: “For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only of the person having one or both of— (a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983; (b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.” That provision, the tightly drawn limit on the need for the person’s terminal illness to leave them with only six months to live, and the third stage of the test—using the Mental Capacity Act to understand their decision making—mean that we have a strong set of safeguards.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Richmond Park seeks so carefully to protect. It is therefore worth laying out the paradigm that underpins the MCA and the principles it legislates for, and why it is so important to retain this at the heart of the Bill. The presumption of capacity in the Mental Capacity Act exists because it is considered a fundamental principle of respecting individual autonomy, meaning that every adult is assumed to have the ability to make their own decisions unless there is clear evidence proving otherwise. This protects against unnecessary interference in people’s lives and ensures that they are treated with dignity and respect, even if they may have a disability or medical condition that could potentially impact their decision-making abilities.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In oral evidence, chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty stated that the Mental Capacity Act “is used up and down the country by doctors and nurses every day; they know it and they understand it. Although…it is a large piece of legislation, it is one that people have worked through in practice multiple times. If you ask six or seven doctors, ‘Does this person have capacity?’, in almost all cases you will get six or seven identical answers, because people are used to using it.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 33, Q7.] To unleash the tiger of an unknown and untested concept of ability into a Bill that would benefit better from the well understood, measured and principled approach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not best serve the patients that I know the hon.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Fourthly, I have deep concerns that the use of the term “ability” and the concept expounded in new clause 1 imports an ableist approach, which I do not welcome, as someone who has worked in disability rights and policy for more than a decade and a half. To return to my first argument, about the familiarity and usage of the Mental Capacity Act by medical practitioners, clinicians and the wider social care profession for two decades, many family members will be familiar with the term and used to using it as part of the wider care of people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health problems. The boundaries of those who are familiar with the concept go well beyond the walls of only medical practitioners.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thirdly, the use and application of the Mental Capacity Act has been applied and litigated upon in our court system over the last 20 years, further nuancing its application in complex medical decision making and explicating, for example, the five principles in the MCA and the subsequent two-stage test for capacity. Contrary to what colleagues on the Opposition Benches have said already, it is used in cases where treatment is withdrawn. It is important to understand that in those circumstances, such withdrawal is not seen as an omission; it is seen as a deliberate act. It is therefore analogous to the usage in the Bill as proposed.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I will make some progress. To replace the established concept of mental capacity with “ability” would create more problems than it seeks to solve, and is not underpinned by a clear statutory basis. Furthermore, the language the hon. Lady uses in her new clause 1 only echoes the wording of the second leg of the two-stage test in the MCA, in its language of fully understanding, using and weighing the relevant information. It does not, however, have the scaffolding and clarity of the five principles set out in the Mental Capacity Act, and it is a pale imitation of the second stage of the test of capacity, which is already in section 3 of the MCA.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that statement. That is not the assumption. As I will say later, the term “ableism” is very much grounded in a deficit model of disability, which assumes that somebody is not capable of doing something themselves—for instance, making important decisions—whereas the Mental Capacity Act starts from a different perspective: it presumes that the person will have the ability to do something until proven otherwise. That is why I feel that the concept of ability does not align well with what is needed in understanding and providing autonomy to people making very difficult decisions at the end of their lives.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is only one step, then, which is followed by the fact that decisions must be taken in the person’s best interest, and there is well-worn and well-trodden understanding of how we ascertain that. It is important that those things all work together. The issue is already addressed under the MCA; if we do away with the MCA, we lose not only the scaffolding of the five principles, but the important safeguards of the two-stage test.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Elements of the language in the new concept of ability proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park appear to attempt to echo the second stage of the Mental Capacity Act test, as just described. That has four elements: understanding information about the decision to be made, retaining that information in the mind, using or weighing that information as part of the decision-making process, and communicating the decision by talking, using sign language or any other means. It is important to say that those core elements are built on the scaffolding of the five principles of the MCA, working in a progressive way. Opposition Members talked about the unwise decision, but the principles in the Mental Capacity Act work collectively and cumulatively together.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention, but I do not agree. Taken together, the parameters around the six-month limit, clause 2(3) and the requirement for a mental capacity test cumulatively create a safeguard in the Bill. Importantly, the MCA’s two-stage capacity test is already underpinned by robust safeguards, which address exactly the issue the hon. Gentleman raised. Stage one asks whether there is a disturbance or impairment in the person’s brain or mind, and stage two asks whether the disturbance or impairment is severe enough that the person cannot make a specific decision. That two-stage test already deals with the issue he raised. The references to the Mental Capacity Act in the relevant clauses of the Bill ensure, crucially, that we import that test too.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not have a list of the case law in front of me—I am sure it will be possible for that to be found for my hon. Friend—but it is done regularly. The Mental Capacity Act is used regularly in decisions about the withdrawal of life-support treatment. That is the case, and she is welcome to search for the case law.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady’s agreement. As someone who has worked in this space for a long time, I say that if she does not want to have the impact in law of putting in place a concept that would be ableist and take a deficit model of disability, we need those five principles that are already embedded in the Mental Capacity Act. We also need the stringent two-stage test, the second stage of which has the four elements that I set out. Only then can we be certain that we are approaching the paradigm of this complex and important decision making as one where we understand the autonomy and best interests of groups of people we all wish to best protect.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“141, Q177.] Finally, for further clarity, I will vote against the amendment because of the ableist assumption in both language and concept. Ableist language assumes that disabled people are inferior to non-disabled people and perpetuates deficit discourses about such groups. I believe that this does not take the approach that we see in the paradigm of the Mental Capacity Act, which puts disabled people’s choices, autonomy and control over their choices at the heart of this legislation.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have been working in this area for over 20 years, before and after the Mental Capacity Act came in, and I have done cases all the way up to the Supreme Court, as well as day-to-day different cases around the country. It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained into the practice of practitioners generally and of legal practitioners in the courts.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 140, Q176.] He continued: “It is a well settled and understood approach to the law, and producing a new one would throw up a whole new conundrum, where people would be questioning how to approach it, etc. It is not broken—it works well.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Therefore, to practitioners like me, it feels like a piece of robust and predictable legislation.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 33, Q7.] He continued later: “If there were no Mental Capacity Act, there would be an argument, which has been used for a long time, that the Bill would have to define what was meant with a fair degree of clarity.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 36, Q14.] I do not see sufficient clarity in the hon. Lady’s concept as set out in the amendment. At a later evidence session, Yogi Amin, a solicitor and partner at Irwin Mitchell, augmented Sir Chris Whitty’s argument by saying: “I wholly recommend and support the idea…to defer to the Mental Capacity Act for capacity assessments.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make some progress. The concept set out by the hon. Member for Richmond Park is the bare bones of what is needed in the complex decision making required across various stages of the Bill. In such decision making, the MCA has a wide and well-used toolkit to determine capacity. That leads to my third point. The Mental Capacity Act has been applied and litigated in our court system over the past 20 years. The chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, said in his evidence that the Act “has the advantage of being tested in the courts. That has gone as far as the Supreme Court, and the various ambiguities that were inevitably in the legislation have been clarified by senior judges.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under the Bill as currently drafted, those people who have not got capacity as a result of the Mental Capacity Act would not be able to have access to the provisions in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central suggests that we augment that even further so that there can be no doubt that, where it has been determined that the person does not have capacity, following the Mental Capacity Act, we should also add a very clear exception—”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Sunderland Central is suggesting is that we table an amendment that would add to the list of specific exclusions; that would further strengthen the two stages. First, there would be the full Mental Capacity Act tests that may determine that the person does not have capacity. Such an amendment would give us belt and braces in circumstances where the person does not have capacity. Under the Bill currently, the person would fall out of scope and not be able to seek assistance if it had been determined that they did not have capacity. A belt-and-braces approach would make sure that there is no circumstance in which it could be determined by a medical practitioner or any other that it was in their best interests to follow this course of action.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For clarity, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central on what would strengthen the Bill. The exceptions only apply where the right and proper Mental Capacity Act process has been gone through and the person doing that assessment has arrived at the point that that person does not have capacity. It is only in that very narrow set of circumstances where they have determined that the person before them does not have capacity to make the decision at hand that they then go to the second look at whether making such a decision would be in the individual’s best interest. The specific exclusions listed in the MCA only apply in that stage. What my hon.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate my hon. Friend bringing up that point. It is important to note that all Commonwealth jurisdictions that have assisted dying use the concept of mental capacity. We are basing the utility of the Mental Capacity Act not only on 20 years of the courts and medics dealing with it, but on the learning of other jurisdictions that have put assisted dying in place. The concept of ability, however, has no basis in law.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the hon. Lady’s point about being clear-eyed, it is important that we look closely at the drafting of the Bill and the utility of the Mental Capacity Act. There are eight occasions on which a person who might seek assistance can formally consider their decision making, and the Mental Capacity Act would come into play at each of those stages. A person with a terminal illness who wishes to seek assistance does not make a one-off decision; they make the decision eight times during the process, so we have a wide variety of opportunities to ensure that their consent is ongoing.”
House of Commons11 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T3. Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency has world-leading specialist capability to produce high-grade steel parts currently used in aerospace. I am proud of this Government’s steel strategy, which will ensure we buy British for new infrastructure, and Great British Energy provides an ambitious opportunity to bring down bills and ensure energy security. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the potential for using specialist steel capacity at Liberty Steel in Stocksbridge for new, net zero energy infrastructure?”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I just want to make sure that it is on the record that I have been taught by Professor Hoyano; indeed, well before I was elected, she was a colleague at work.”
House of Commons30 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the things I would like to see is that anybody who is involved in the process is constantly asking the patient, “What about palliative care? Have you actually accessed it?” Right now, if they have not raised their hand and asked for assisted dying, no one has that conversation with them. They are in a vacuum and a bubble, and not receiving palliative care, whereas this provision would possibly make it more available.”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They often come from a background of palliative care and pain medicine, so they are making options available that other doctors in the process, for instance, have not brought up. In Australia, there is clear evidence that palliative care is becoming more available. The European Association for Palliative Care produced a report more than 10 years ago in which it examined all the countries in Europe at the time, and it found there was evidence that palliative care was improving in scope and availability alongside the forms of assisted dying that were happening there. I am reassured that bringing in some form of assisted dying, particularly the form proposed here, would be a boost to palliative care.”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Dr Ahmedzai: I have visited many of the jurisdictions around the world—such as Oregon, where I met the original judge who brought in the law, as well as the doctors, nurses and patients involved—and it was clear to me that if patients had not accessed palliative care, they were pointed towards it. Obviously, you cannot force anybody to go and have palliative care, but they were certainly informed about it. In the Netherlands, I commend a system for doctors called SCEN—support and consultation on euthanasia in the Netherlands. These are trained doctors working for the equivalent of the BMA, I believe, who, as Dr Clarke has referred to, are going and supporting doctors who are not familiar with things.”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q My question is for Dr Ahmedzai. The Select Committee inquiry into assisted dying received evidence that there were not any indications of palliative or end-of-life care deteriorating in quality or provision following the introduction of assisted dying. Indeed, the introduction of it has been linked with an improvement in palliative care in several jurisdictions. I have two questions, if I may. What more could the Bill do to strengthen the available choice at the end of life and the regulation of these choices as set out in the codes of practice? If you could answer that one first, I will come back to my second question.”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend has worked so hard to ensure that the voices of disabled people are integrated across a number of the panels that we will see over the next two days, and the addition in her amendment is really helpful. I commend her for it.”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I, too, support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and in particular I want to highlight the helpful addition of Kamran Mallick of Disability Rights UK. That augments an already comprehensive list of expert disabled people, which includes: Professor Tom Shakespeare, an internationally renowned disability rights academic; Dr Miro Griffiths, a Disability Studies scholar at the University of Leeds; and Chelsea Roff, the founder of Eat Breathe Thrive. On the panel, we will also have a representative of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who will be able to give a good overview on the intersection between protected characteristics. Finally, there will be Jon Sparkes, the representative of Mencap. I am really pleased that my hon.”
House of Commons28 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗