Daniel Francis
MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford · Labour · United Kingdom
“I pay tribute to my fellow chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, Baroness Grey-Thompson, for the work that she has done on the Bill in the Lords, and for her work as chair of the aviation accessibility task and finish group, which this Government set up shortly after our election to ensure that the work on these…”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Sutton and Cheam, my daughter has not flown for 12 years, because I dread the thought of going through the process, quite frankly. Strengthening these rights will not only help people during their journeys, but encourage people to undertake them again.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister knows I will continue to press the Government on working with international partners to press for compensation. We cannot, of course, encompass that in the Bill, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what we can do on that matter.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There are themes within the aviation task and finish group report on that matter. Training is in theme 1, and passenger information is in theme 2. So there are recommendations there. There will be the consultation.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clauses that we have already discussed will require Ministers to give due regard to strengthening passenger rights, but clause 4 will, vitally, remove the compensation limit for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Shortly after my election the year before last, I was delighted to introduce my private Member’s Bill, the Aviation (Accessibility) Bill, and I welcome the fact that this Bill—and, in particular, the clauses that we have been debating—encompasses a number of its measures.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
673 held · 602 searchable for Daniel Francis. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“We hear about the resourcing of our NHS mental health services and the fact that we do not have enough psychiatrists, so I query whether we have enough senior social workers. A senior social worker visits my house every year, but I have never seen the same social worker twice, because of the turnover issues, capacity issues and the lack of staff. What will the Government do to ensure that the panels fulfil their responsibilities? We would be dealing with applicants who have very little time left, and being able to properly staff the panels must be a priority. We must not take psychiatrists and social workers away from their other work, while ensuring that people seeking an assisted death do not wait a long time. That is another matter on which we would have benefited from oral evidence from expert witnesses.”
House of Commons12 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we look at the per capita rates in the Australian and American states that have assisted dying, we can estimate that the number of cases of assisted dying each year in England and Wales would be in the low thousands. Any consultant psychiatrist or senior social worker who sits on these panels will have to spend hours on each case. We do not yet know how many hours it would be on average, but for complicated cases, it could be many hours. What analysis has been undertaken of the capacity of consultant psychiatrists and senior social workers? Their professional bodies are beginning to look at that, but again, we were not able to ask them that during oral evidence, and because the written evidence was submitted so heavily in advance of these amendments and new clauses being tabled, we do not have that information in front of us.”
House of Commons12 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hear what the hon. Member says. My concern has always been the scenario that I described. If this legislation is passed and we push it forward, one death that occurs where somebody has concerns about the process would be one too many. I said that clearly when we debated clause 3, and that remains my principal concern. It is not necessarily about two sides, but in cases where there are concerns, we need to do everything we can to ensure that that does not happen. I have a query about the resourcing of the panel. Part of the reason why we ended up here was the queries about the resourcing of the judicial role in the process. We would need to find skilled professionals, especially consultant psychiatrists and social workers, to sit on the panel.”
House of Commons12 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On that point, in our oral evidence we were not able to hear from witnesses about the changes to the clauses, because we did not understand what the repercussions would be at this stage.”
House of Commons12 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was once on a planning committee in which one member of the committee voted in favour and all the other members abstained, so the recommendation went through one to zero. Technically, given the way in which new schedule 2 reads to me, that could happen, because one member could vote in favour and two could abstain, and that would therefore be considered unanimous. Will the Minister comment on that?”
House of Commons12 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The person who has been helped to make that decision may have decided, because they are a burden on their elderly parents, that they will not inform them. Again, that was the rationale of where I got to on Second Reading, frankly. I see people with elderly parents, often now in their 70s or 80s, who have cared for that person throughout their life. As the Bill and the Mental Capacity Act are laid out, that person could go to the doctor to say, “I do not want my parents to know. I hear what you say, doctor, but under this provision of the Act”—clause 9 of the Bill—“I am not going to tell them.” Under the Mental Capacity Act, if the doctor had any queries about the capacity of that person to make those decisions, that doctor would have to assist them in making them.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am torn by this amendment. I absolutely accept that it is the right, the autonomy, of an individual to make the decisions and to have confidentiality when making those decisions, but I will touch on a few things that I have said previously. First, briefly, I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said about coercion. Secondly, however, there are two other aspects. Let me go back to something I have talked long and hard about, which is learning disability. One amendment has been accepted and I hope more are to come, but given what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, in that scenario, someone might have to be helped by the doctor to make the decision, because of their level of capacity. When I have made the argument throughout our debates, that has never ever been doubted.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is what I have wrestled with. That conversation will happen, and at the end of it, I accept that the autonomy is with the individual, who may well make a decision that they believe is for the best but with which their loved one does not necessarily agree. I think there are examples from overseas of that having happened.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not entirely persuaded. I think there is currently a mixture of cases, and there will potentially be a mixture of cases in future. I hear what the right hon. Member says, but my primary concern is about the way things are. As I say, I am minded not to support the amendments on balance, but I am concerned that we could end up hearing stories about someone’s loved one of 50 years, or their child with a learning disability, having had an assisted death—and the first they knew about it was when it was too late.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would also require them to hear from the person seeking assistance to end their life and both assessing doctors, and to consider also hearing from family members and others involved in the person ’ s care.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 12, page 8, line 15, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert— “(4A) Rules of Court must secure that in relation to an application under subsection (1), the High Court must— (a) prescribe a procedure which in relation to each application appoints a person (the Official Solicitor in cases in brought in England and Wales) to act as advocate to the Court, (b) hear from and question, in person— (i) the person who made the application for the declaration, (ii) the coordinating doctor, (iii) the independent doctor, and (c) consider hearing from and questioning, in person— (i) persons properly interested in the welfare of the person who made the application for the declaration and other persons they are close to, and (ii) any other person who has provided treatment or care for the person being assessed in relation to that person’s terminal illness.” This amendment would require court rules to be made that would ensure an adversarial court process, by appointing an advocate to the court.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will withdraw amendment 105 later, but will speak to it briefly, as my name is on it. The amendment aims to require court rules to be made that would ensure an adversarial court process, by appointing an advocate to the court. It would also require them to hear from the person seeking assistance to end their life and both assessing doctors, and to consider also hearing from family members and others involved in the person’s care. In our oral evidence sessions, we heard from Nicholas Mostyn and Alex Ruck Keene about some of the merits of doing so, with reference to the Bill that was before us at that stage. Since then, a significant number of amendments and new clauses have been tabled, so I will not press this amendment to a vote, given the other amendments now before the Committee.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave , withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 410, in clause 12, page 8, line 27, leave out subsection (6). —(Juliet Campbell.) The amendment would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application for the declaration and the assessing doctors. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is about to refer to Spain, as am I. Article 10 of the relevant Spanish law gives a right of appeal on a point of law to a higher court. Does he believe that we will be in line with the position in Spain? How long does he envision judicial review taking, given that we are dealing with somebody who is at the end of their life?”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire has said about amendment 20. Putting that training in the Bill is hugely important, and I believe the same is true in relation to training for those with learning disabilities and autism, as set out in to amendments 340 and amendment (a) to amendment 186, particularly given my concerns and those of others about whether we end up with clause 3 relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He said: “I personally believe that it would be advantageous if there was formal training, as Dr Clarke has mentioned, specifically to have the kinds of conversations that we now talk about, such as about psychological issues and suicidal tendencies.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 69, Q82.] I now turn to two amendments in my name: amendment 340 and amendment (a) to amendment 186. Both amendments relate to training for those with learning disabilities and autism. We had a similar discussion on a previous clause, and I know that further amendments are likely to be tabled on the matter, but as I said yesterday, they are not currently on the amendment paper. I heard and welcome what my hon.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That only those who undergo specialised, tailored training on assisted dying could provide the service – during the oral evidence sessions, there has been much discussion about the importance of specialised training for those who opt in to carry out the service. Specialised training for those providing the service is essential for doctors and provides additional protection and safeguards for patients—it should be explicitly referenced in the Bill.” We heard in our oral evidence sessions from others, including Dr Ahmedzai, on the need for training.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Reinforcing this, we believe NC12 and Amendments 335-337 would make two important aspects of this provision in the Bill clearer: 1. That providing assisted dying is not, and would not in the future, be expected of all doctors—the Bill’s current all-encompassing reference simply to ‘training’ does not preclude this training being prescribed as standard general medical training via the regulations, in which case it would apply to all doctors and make the opt-in redundant. Specifying that it is ‘specialised’ training on the face of the Bill, and making clear that there is no obligation on doctors to undergo the training, would safeguard the opt-in model in the Bill’s first principles. 2.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to the amendments in my name—namely, new clause 12 and amendments 336, 337 and 335. Yesterday, we spoke about the evidence we received from the British Medical Association. I accept that there is some crossover between my amendments and the amendments of the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, on training. The British Medical Association stated, with regard to my amendments: “We strongly urge MPs to support these amendments which would define the ‘training’ explicitly in the Bill as specialised training to provide assisted dying, undertaken by those who opt in…We have been vocal that the Bill should be based on an opt-in model…during the Committee’s oral evidence sessions.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would welcome that as a positive step forward—I think there is probably still some work to do in that regard. My hon. Friend and I will have conversations on the wording of that future amendment, but at the moment we are discussing the amendments that stand before us. Any future amendments that may be tabled are not for us currently to consider.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hear that, and I think my hon. Friend and I are on the same page on many of these matters. I think there were some drafting issues when I discussed amendments with Mencap at an earlier stage. I commend to the Committee the six amendments in my name in this group: new clause 12 and amendments 336, 337, 335, 340 and amendment (a) to amendment 186.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Spen Valley, as it would ensure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is consulted. We await its comments, which hopefully we will have before Report, on whether the concerns that it raised, both in writing before Second Reading and in their oral evidence, have been allayed. However, I welcome this initial commitment, and we will see where that brings us on Report.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We recognise that this bill is focused on assisted dying for adults who are terminally ill, and does not propose access to assisted dying on the basis of disability or chronic conditions. However, there is not always a clear line between terminal illness and disability. Disabled people can also suffer from terminal illness, and illness may itself amount to a disability.” It has also stated: “A vital factor in determining how to manage access to assisted dying will be the concept of mental capacity…It will be important to ensure that all decision-makers involved in the process have a full and clear understanding of the law around mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.” I welcome new clause 8, which is in the name of my hon.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. It would be remiss of me not to comment briefly on new clause 8, given that throughout this process I have consistently raised issues around evidence given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and given that new clause 8 states that before making a recommendation the Secretary of State must consult the commission. I remind hon. Members that the commission has told us that it strongly recommends that “at the earliest opportunity, Parliament is provided with further information and assurance about the bill’s compatibility with equality and human rights.” It went on to say that its concerns were that the Bill “may also particularly impact disabled people.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 347, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out from “to” to the second “the” in line 5 and insert— “ensure that steps have been taken to confirm that”. This amendment would remove the emphasis on the role of the coordinating doctor in making these assessments.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As it stands, the Bill has no mention of the doctors giving assessments having psychiatric specialisms. These amendments would ensure that a specialist meets the patient, which is vital. We have heard already how difficult it can be to spot coercion, especially repeat coercion.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These amendments do not suggest a separate body for assessors in the context of assisted dying, instead suggesting that the assessor should be a registered psychiatrist or someone qualified, as decided by the Secretary of State. This ensures control over who can be an assessor while also being flexible. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the Bill’s promoter, said in oral evidence that she had looked at the model of assessment for capacity and coercion that is used for living organ donation, so I will be interested, when we get to that point of the debate, to know why the Bill does not model its assessments on those that are already done for organ donation. These amendments would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that patients are properly assessed as having capacity to make such a huge decision and would help to spot coercion.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we use a psychiatrist’s assessment for those who are donating an organ—a serious decision—how much more serious is this decision to end one’s life, and how much more necessary is the psychiatric assessment? It feels illogical to offer psychiatric assessments to patients who may donate organs, but not to those who may end their life. The wording of these amendments mirrors the regulations that have been applied through the Human Tissue Act 2004 (Persons who Lack Capacity to Consent and Transplants) Regulations 2006. For organ donation, there is a separate body—the Human Tissue Authority—which oversees the network of assessors.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not press amendment 347 to a vote, but I will speak to it, and to this group of amendments. First, I shall turn to amendments 14 to 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), which would require a co-ordinating doctor to refer the patient to an independent psychiatrist, or someone else qualified, as decided by the Secretary of State. That practitioner would then produce a report that the co-ordinating doctor must take into account when assessing whether the person has capacity, has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their life, and has not been coerced or pressured. These amendments would replicate the existing practice of assessment for living organ donors.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we have already noted, those diagnosed with terminal illnesses are likely to also have mental health issues. Dr Sarah Cox, in her oral evidence, cited a study by Professor Louis Appleby, the Government’s suicide prevention adviser. Dr Cox said: “If we look at the evidence of suicide, we know that it is increased in people with serious illnesses.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 82, Q105.]”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree. An assessment by a specialist would protect patients and give another opportunity to spot coercion—something that we all want to safeguard against. I welcome the acceptance of amendment 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), ensuring that doctors will be better trained to spot these issues, but that is only the start. We need the same in-depth assessment that living organ donors would get. Patients must fully understand the decision they are taking, and doctors must be convinced that they are capable of making it. For organ donation, the NHS recommends that potential donors meet a mental health professional at an early stage, particularly in cases where people have a history of mental illness.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not once have I heard anyone say ‘you should have let me die when I wanted to do it’.” A meeting with a psychiatrist or other psychological specialist will protect people who may otherwise not have chosen assisted dying. I emphasise again that we already ensure that patients who will donate an organ have this assessment, so why not those seeking an assisted death? We must protect vulnerable terminally ill people from being coerced into assisted death, and psychiatrists and other specialists are best placed to spot that. That is why the assessment is included for living organ donation.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In her written evidence, Dr Virginia Goncalves, a retired clinical psychiatrist with over 30 years of experience in the NHS, writes: “In my consultant psychiatrist role, I have encountered many desperate and suicidal patients wanting to end their lives after struggling with longstanding mental distress, who could have easily sought the option of assisted suicide if it had been available to them! But however depressed and hopeless they felt, with a compassionate and hope filled approach from their care givers and the correct medical and psychological treatment, the vast majority recovered enough to be able to have a ‘life worth living’. In so many cases, these patients have thanked me later for not giving up on them!”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with my hon. Friend about the number of amendments in this vein, but clearly the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch bring us into line with existing regulations. In her evidence, Dr Cox said: “If we look at the evidence of suicide, we know that it is increased in people with serious illnesses, but it is actually increased in the first six months after diagnosis, not in the last six months of their lives, so it is about the trauma of the diagnosis.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 82, Q105.] It is likely, therefore, that those diagnosed with a terminal illness will experience mental distress that could affect their capacity to make a decision about an assisted death.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If a doctor has doubts about the capacity of an applicant, it is good practice for them to refer that person to a doctor or a specialist in that field.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Currently, that subsection lays out, and I will quote the language of the Bill, that the assessing doctor, “(b) may, if they have doubt as to the capacity of the person being assessed, refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who is registered in the specialism of psychiatry in the Specialist Register kept by the General Medical Council or who otherwise holds qualifications in or has experience of the assessment of capability;” This amendment would change the word “may” to “must”. In other words, the assessing doctor would have a duty to refer the person being assessed to a consultant psychiatrist if they had any doubt about that person’s capacity. I argue that this is a change that we both should make, and can easily make.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely. This amendment, of course, is widely supported by Committee members for that very reason. As I was saying, we already use that assessment for organ donation, and Members supporting this amendment believe that should be the case for those that are seeking an assisted death. I now move on to amendment 284, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. This amendment would change clause 9(3).”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Alongside my concerns about clause 3, which she has heard at length, this matter was a key concern of mine going into Second Reading. I was therefore an early supporter of this amendment to change the wording around the referral from “may” to “must”. That was discussed on Second Reading. I do not want to speak for my hon. Friend, but I think she shares similar views to mine on the matter and suspect that the matter may be supported when we get to that debate.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are about things to which we need to give due consideration, as we are doing in scrutinising the Bill, because we need to understand the issues that arise. Those laws can introduce powers that could be dangerous if not properly safeguarded. This Bill, as has been accepted, needs strong safeguards. The aim of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central in tabling this amendment was to spell out that a doctor’s assessment of someone seeking assisted dying should be based on evidence. That would make it much less likely that any doctor would not pay sufficient attention to evidence they were presented with. Lastly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley knows, I am a long-standing of supporter amendment 6—I was in that base going into Second Reading.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 284 would put a duty on doctors to do something that is good practice. Most doctors in most circumstances would do it anyway, but in some cases, some may not. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central, who tabled this amendment, believes that we should write this law as tightly as possible so that doctors have that duty. Amendment 294, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would require the doctor to base their assessment on provided evidence. Again, that is something that most doctors would do anyway in the extremely serious circumstances of a person’s applying for assisted death. Many laws that we consider in this House relate to things that we are familiar with and understand well; but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West said last week, some laws, such as this one, concern new matters.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As my hon. Friend will know, my name is down as a supporter of amendment 6. I will get to that in due course. At the moment, I am speaking to amendment 284. I hear what my hon. Friend says—I am talking about the merits of amendment 284, but will get to amendment 6 in my closing comments. On amendment 284, if a doctor has doubts about the capacity of an applicant, it is good practice to refer that person to a doctor with specialist expertise in that field. That would be true if the doctor was assessing the capacity of a patient to take any important decision, and is surely especially true when we are talking about a decision of this importance. I accept that people will have different views on amendment 6, when we get to it, from those they hold on amendment 284.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not come back on anything but, obviously, I will press some of these amendments in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 294, in clause 7, page 4, line 5, after “doctor” insert “based on provided evidence that”.— (Daniel Francis.) This amendment would require that the doctor bases their assessment on provided evidence. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I echo the points that have been made about the importance of the initial conversations, particularly for those who do not have English as their first language. I made a commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that in his absence I would press amendments 414 and 415 to a Division, as he requested. I support the general principles of the amendments relating to those who are seeking or who need interpretation to explain aspects of assisted dying to them. I support the merit of that principle and the intention behind amendments 414 and 415.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Reigate mentioned, a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners also said: “The BMA referred to the word “refer”—referring to a colleague, for those who did not want to do it. We agree that signposting is a better process.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 279, Q365.] He went on to say: “Similar to other services, such as termination of pregnancy, we think that the best option would probably be that the GP could signpost to an information service, such as something like what the BMA suggested the other day. They would not have to do anything more than that, and they would not withhold any option from the patient.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has said: “In tandem, we believe creating an official body to provide individual information and advice to patients, to which doctors could direct (rather than refer) patients, would ensure that the doctor’s views are respected, whilst also—crucially—ensuring that patients can easily access the information and support they need. Currently, whilst the Bill acknowledges the need for accurate, impartial information and advice for patients, it gives no indication of how this might be delivered—generic published information would not be sufficient. Patients would need individual advice, guidance, and support so that they can make informed decisions, and an independent information service could meet this need.” As the hon.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“48, Q40.] He also said: “The word “referral”, to a doctor, means writing a letter or communicating with another doctor to see, but some doctors would find themselves not able to do that. For that reason, we believe that there should be an information service for the doctor to direct to.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 48, Q41.] The BMA’s position is that the proposal is analogous to doctors’ professional legal obligations regarding abortion, and consistent with the Bill’s inclusion in clause 23 of a right to refuse, for any reason, to carry out activities directly related to assisted dying.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for East Wiltshire mentioned, Dr Green, in his oral evidence, said: “The provision of information would be very useful, because in a situation where a doctor was unwilling to have an initial discussion with the patient, it would provide a way for the patient to get that information that was in no way obstructive.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 46, Q37.] He went on to say: “I do not believe that it is ever appropriate for a doctor to recommend that a patient goes through an assisted dying process.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that she is minded to accept amendment 341. I will, however, still briefly speak to amendment 338 and new clause 13, which stand in my name. The British Medical Association has said that it strongly urges MPs to support the amendments, which would remove the referral requirement in relation to preliminary discussions and establish an official body to provide factual information to patients about the range of options available to them. As the hon.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Question put and agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Initial request for assistance: first declaration”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I regret that, as clause 4 now stands, the paperwork and initial discussion must be completed after someone is 18, but that will not necessarily apply to a preliminary conversation. Equally, I have some regrets in relation to learning disability issues. I welcome the commitment from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge on the amendment that she aims to bring forward, but I am conscious that it is not on the amendment paper for everybody to see. Just as she committed to work with me, I will continue to work with her on bringing it forward. We have debated clause 4 long and hard, but I do believe that we have a clause that has loopholes in relation to people under 18 and to people with learning disabilities and autism. I will not press it to a Division, but I regret the fact that we have reached this place.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗