Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst
MP for Solihull West and Shirley · Conservative · United Kingdom
“A consequence of having a plan for a road map to 3% of GDP is that there is no strategy whatsoever. I am afraid that the absence of that plan, from this particular Chancellor especially, does nothing to enhance his credibility in front of the British public and the markets. The second area, which I will touch on briefly, is welfare.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), although I suspect that we will have slightly different assessments of this Budget.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am one of those individuals, from my historical earnings at the Bar and my aged debt. Under the new proposal, individuals will pay their taxes perhaps on a monthly or quarterly basis—it is unclear yet—and some 50% of tax returns will almost certainly be brought forward in terms of when they are paid.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I start by associating myself with your remarks on the tragic events involving Helen Haines over the last 24 hours?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It described young carers as “one of the least visible groups in the NEET conversation and one of the most systematically miscounted.” A young person who misses college, declines an apprenticeship interview or struggles to attend a job or university may be managing responsibilities that somebody has simply not asked about.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That risks leaving the carer carrying entirely the same burden and responsibility as they had beforehand, but with less confidence that if they ask in the future it will make an iota of difference, and consequently, potentially, with declining physical and mental wellbeing.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
645 held · 618 searchable for Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst. 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.
“The test would make the Bill less operable in reality, and it undermines everything that comes before it—there is no purpose to having criteria that we have to move through if we are then to say, “Actually, that is null and void, because I have a sense that I am just not comfortable with it.” If one is not comfortable with one stage of the criteria, that is enough for it to fall or to be referred to someone else—for example, to a capacity assessment, as has been suggested. The amendment is legal nonsense. I see where it is coming from, but it is legal nonsense in how it is drafted, and it does not assist in making a more meaningful or operable Bill. Therefore, I cannot support it.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mrs Harris. I will speak to this octet of amendments and set out why I cannot support them. In my view, they are a classic example of legislative embroidery. If we wanted a better example, we could not find one. Sadly, they would achieve nothing but add a great deal of confusion to the situation. Throughout the Bill, a clear set of criteria must be fulfilled in order to move from one stage of the process to another. To lay on, additionally, a frankly woolly and ill-defined legal test that has not been set out in in this legislation and that overrides those criteria, without any reasoning to underpin it or any sense of purpose behind it, is simply confusing.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a concept of family, but the concept of family to me may be very different from that of my neighbour, or from that of someone who lives in another city. For example, for some people stepbrothers, stepsisters and step-parents are very much part of their family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples with children are a family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples without children are a family; for others, they are not.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to set out why—reluctantly—I cannot support amendments 403 and 404, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire. It is not because of the principle involved, because my hon. Friend was very clear in setting out the amendments. They would not provide for a prescriptive situation where an individual must tell their family. A range of options are set out, which I anticipate that any sensible and responsible doctor or clinician would take a patient through, encouraging them to involve their family in their decision making. The issue that I have is around the legal clarity of the wording of the amendments, because under the English and Welsh legal system there is no statutory definition of “family”.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That would satisfy me. The reason I say that is because at the moment the wording is too broad and ill-defined. The question is: is this about the closeness and proximity of a relationship? The suggested wording that my hon. Friend just put forward would be much closer to that and much clearer, and more akin with the language of medical registration. When someone turns up in A&E, they are asked to give the name of their next of kin. That defines the closeness, the proximity and the permanency of that relationship. If my hon. Friend was perhaps to consider withdrawing this amendment and tabling it again in an alternative form, or rewording it, that would certainly be something that I would be open to supporting. I have outlined why, as the amendments currently stand, I cannot support them.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I join others in commending the Prime Minister for his diplomatic leadership over the last few days? Can he set out what steps he is taking to discourage third nations from providing hardware that the Russian military can use to prosecute its illegal war?”
House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we are to turn the tide on our recruitment policy and difficulties in this country, we need to tailor the medical requirements to the specific role. We must become more versatile and adaptive as a fighting force—like our friends in Ukraine. As a country, we are often guilty of preparing for the war that we have had, rather than the war that we will face in the future. As we reflect on the three years since Putin’s illegal invasion, I say to the Government that we should not waste any more time or waste what we have learned at the cost of so many thousand Ukrainian lives.”
House of Commons27 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Rather than making a generic medical exemption list for the whole force, I invite the Minister at least to consider tailoring the medical requirements to the position being applied for. For example, what are the chances of a person’s glasses being blown off if they are operating from a chair in a drone centre hundreds of miles away? What is the reality of an intelligence officer in a remote location looking at satellite information losing the feeling in their fingers due to the cold because of Raynaud’s phenomenon? What are the chances of a Royal Navy dental officer not being able to complete a check-up because of pain in his knee? We need to be much more flexible. Although I accept that there is a certain degree of hyperbole in my argument, the point I am making is a serious one.”
House of Commons27 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“War is now in a much more hybrid state, fought not only in traditional land and maritime realms, but back in bases in remote locations, yet we still follow traditional medical guidelines setting out who can serve and who does not have the opportunity to do so. This where I feel we can learn from Ukraine, which, very early on in the conflict, amended and adjusted many of the medical requirements for its serving personnel. In our military, there is often a mindset of “soldier first”, which may well exempt someone who has suffered a knee injury while playing sport at school, anyone with Raynaud’s phenomenon, for example, or anyone wearing glasses over a certain prescription.”
House of Commons27 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, over the past eight months or so, we have entered a much more dangerous arena, and we need to be ready for any outcome. In the time available to me, I want to raise two further points. First, I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on the increasingly pressing need to release the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid the Ukrainian Government in the rebuilding of their country. Secondly, I want to pick up on my right hon. Friend’s comments about what we can and must learn as an armed forces from this conflict and from the heroic efforts of the Ukrainian military, with many making the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the sovereignty of their country. The war has shown a clear shift in the nature of warfare and in the nature of each serving person’s working realities.”
House of Commons27 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many Members have spoken before me—not just in this debate, but through the course of the week—about the importance of the Government’s welcome announcement of increased defence spending and the need for our allies also to step up to the plate. While I do not intend to repeat those arguments today, I will add that we alone do not determine our defence spending: it is our enemies too, but it is also our allies. With the United States announcing a potential step back from their support for Ukraine, it is clear that we as a nation have an overriding obligation not only to Ukraine but to our citizens and the wider world to step up and keep Putin’s war machine at bay. If we fail to do so, we will be opening the gates to totalitarian regimes across the world. The reality is that the United Kingdom has armed forces that are fit for peace.”
House of Commons27 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate, and saluting him for the incredible work he has done in leading on this issue. As always, it is hugely heartening to see so many colleagues from across the House in the Chamber. It serves as a timely reminder of the united approach that we have taken on this issue and of our resolute and undiminished support for the Ukrainian people. In my constituency, we have welcomed many Ukrainian families, and I am always touched and moved by their stories of resilience in the face of the greatest hardship.”
House of Commons27 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The mischief that I was seeking to address is that there are patients who, were this law to be enacted, would continue with their palliative care treatment right to the very end, before they chose to have an assisted death. Technically, there could be a scenario where that person, from the point at which they have gone through the two-stage assessment by a doctor and it is been approved by the panel—if that is approved in subsequent amendments—loses capacity after they have set out a desire to end their life through an assisted death, but there would be the option to remove the palliative treatment options at that point. There is a conflict in respect of an advanced directive that would enable the assisted death to take place, which would involve the removal of care.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 6, which I tabled, but also to speak to amendments 8 and 124. To be clear, new clause 6 is a probing amendment that was tabled to air the debate on the record. I tabled it because of the interplay between the Bill as currently drafted and section 26(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, which sets out that a “decision has effect as if” the individual “had made it, and had had capacity to make it, at the time when the question arises whether the treatment should be carried out or continued.” Of course, an advance directive relates to decisions around the removal of treatment.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is interplay with the principles of Montgomery, which is clear that a doctor should discuss issues where a reasonable person in the patient’s position would attach significance to them or the doctor is, or should reasonably be aware, that that particular patient would attach significance to them. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wilshire asked for examples of that. There are scenarios where there are subtle hints from a patient who has been given a terminal diagnosis. They ask, “What is the implication of this terminal diagnosis? How am I going to die, doctor?” The doctor says, “There are variety of ways in which this may manifest itself” and goes through them. Some of them may be more tolerable to the patient than others.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My concern about the amendments is that while it is quite right that there should be no requirement to instigate those discussions, it would be equally wrong not to allow the flexibility to have that conversation in appropriate circumstances. The reality of clinical practice is that there are consultations within consultations. A patient who comes to a surgery to see their doctor may not feel able to articulate what they truly feel. They may give subtle hints, which doctors pick up during the course of a long career—to put it in lay terms, doctors read between the lines.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There has been much discussion and worthy debate on the position of Montgomery, which takes me back to my days as a pupil barrister grappling with issues of consent. I fear that we may be going down a rabbit hole in discussing Montgomery in this context. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire that an assisted death is not typical medical treatment in the normal sense of those words; it is a wider holistic medical intervention. Therefore, my understanding is that Montgomery would not apply in those circumstances. However, some of the principles around Montgomery way well have justification.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is an element of mischief in my probing new clause, but it is to air the matter in debate. In truth, intervention there are a variety of options with any withdrawal of treatment or any treatment. I wanted that on the record. I have had assurances from the hon. Member for Spen Valley that that is clearly not the Bill’s intention—in many ways, I am arguing against my own new clause. Of course, this is a distinct scenario from an advance statement—the much more proactive step of, “These are the treatments or options that I would like if I lose capacity at a future date”—which has no legal footing. An advance directive, in comparison, is very much concentrated on the withdrawal of care. I do not propose to divide the Committee on the new clause; I merely tabled it so that this could be discussed. Let me turn to amendments 8 and 124.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The purpose of new clause 6 is to get clarity on that issue, because of the interplay with section 26 of the Mental Capacity Act, which states that if a patient “has made an advance decision which is...valid, and...applicable to a treatment...the decision has effect as if he had made it, and had had capacity to make it, at the time when the question arises whether the treatment should be carried out or continued.” I am not suggesting for a moment that seeking an assisted death is conventional treatment in the normal sense, but there will be patients who seek an assisted death and have palliative care treatment along the way, so there could be a technical scenario whereby the palliative care treatment is withdrawn for the assisted death to take place.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand where the amendment comes from, but without trusting in the judgment of clinicians, who know their patients well, we are setting them up to fail. We are setting the system up to be more clandestine. We are going to prevent what are very genuine and important conversations from taking place, because people are too scared of the operational framework that would be imposed on them. In those circumstances, we would put forward a Bill that does not function as intended. For those reasons, I will not support amendments 8 and 124.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the scenario where that conversation arises, a patient has very clearly indicated that they want to know all the options available for how they would manage their death, and the doctor feels that is a cue, quite understandably and, in my view, rightly, to have a wider conversation that involves assisted death, along with other options, because he or she believes that the patient has indicated that that is what they wish. If we say that a doctor cannot have that conversation in any circumstances, we open up the clinician to the accusation, perhaps from a relative, who says, “Hang on a minute, doctor. My relative didn’t raise that with you. You raised it with them.” These are very subtle and carefully balanced conversations.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend summarises a much more complicated conversation; I think he distils it down to an over-simplistic representation of how the conversation would go. A patient says, “I hadn’t envisaged that I may die while vomiting up faeces. What could we do?” The clinician would go through a variety of options that would be available in that scenario, but that would include, potentially, having a discussion about assisted death, as that would be one way of avoiding that situation coming across the hills. This is the issue I have particular concern about.”
House of Commons26 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I start by gently pushing back on what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire said about this being a fork in the road. I do not see the Bill giving patients that ultimate option. They have the choice to opt for an assisted death while continuing with their palliative care all the way along; in fact, they could then decide that they did not wish to have an assisted death, although that opportunity would be open to them. I do not think that the choice is the binary one that has been presented; I am sure that was not the intention, but I just wanted to gently push back.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Stroud will know particularly well given his former profession, there is another body of general practitioners, community nurses, district nurses, advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists and social workers, who are all involved in this process. I think the amendment comes from a good place; at first blush, I can see absolutely where it is coming from. But despite that, it leads us down the bureaucratic thicket that Chris Whitty spoke about.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But are we saying that only a palliative care specialist is capable of having those discussions? Of course, those who work in the field are highly trained individuals, but we must not be unfair or do a huge disservice to other healthcare practitioners who provide excellent palliative care in this country. My father was a general practitioner for more than 40 years. He provided a huge amount of palliative care throughout his career, both in the community and in hospices. Look at Marie Curie’s own website, which talks about the provision of palliative care in this country and very much about primary care provision and secondary care provision. Within secondary care, of course, are the specialists—clinical nurse specialists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists; I could go on. But of course, as the hon.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to you, Chair, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate for her intervention. She is right: it is absolutely critical that patients are given the full information in order to make an informed choice. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. But actually that goes entirely with the wording of the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member for Stroud has already highlighted the relevant provision—clause (4)(4)(c), which states that the initial discussion must explain and discuss with the patient “any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.” Therefore a requirement to have those discussions is already stipulated in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate makes an interesting point about who has that discussion.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That may not be applicable to each and every general practitioner, but those having those conversations should have that knowledge.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which leads on to the point I was going to make. We are getting bogged down in nomenclature about what speciality is involved when this is actually about training. It is about whether the individual having the conversation has the requisite skills to have a meaningful conversation. Clauses 5(3)(a) and 8(6)(a) stipulate that the co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor “has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”. That is the key part. This is about ensuring that people having incredibly sensitive, challenging and difficult conversations with patients about choices available to them at the end of life have the requisite skills and knowledge to do so.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I fear that my hon. Friend may be oversimplifying what I was saying. Perhaps I was not clear enough, so I will elucidate. I was certainly not suggesting that the required skills were merely those of being able to have a consultation and a conversation. I was talking about having the skills to have the information that needs to be imparted and the knowledge that underpins that and being able to articulate that within a consultation. It is a much wider picture than just having the communication skills—it is having the knowledge that underpins that. I am saying that that is not necessarily the domain only of someone who works in palliative care. There are a number of specialists who work within this field—it is a multidisciplinary field—and they all bring their expertise.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This comes back to the central point that Professor Whitty made in his evidence about overcomplicating Bills: we overcomplicate Bills out of good intentions, but rarely make the safeguards more robust—in truth, we make them less safe.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will try to make some progress. I want to move on to the other point I want to address, which is around bogging down the whole process with layer upon layer of bureaucracy. We are talking about a relatively small group of patients who are in the last six months of life and are then battling against the system that is meant to be helping them. If we put in layer upon layer and hurdle upon hurdle, it will become a much more difficult system for people to navigate. That does not mean that it would be a less robust system, but it would be a more difficult system. We are trying to make life easier, not harder, for those patients.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We cannot be removing the autonomy of patients when their decision-making process is that they choose not to engage with that. They may want to speak to their GP because they have had a relationship with them over 30 or 40 years and have the patient-doctor relationship that is so important when dealing with these important discussions. Perhaps they would feel less comfortable having that discussion with a clinician they had just met for the very first time.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member makes a valid point. The reality is that, regardless of specialty title, there will be individuals who are better placed to have certain conversations and discuss certain issues than others. I look back at my own clinical practice: some colleagues would have had a better bedside manner than others, for example. I do not think this comes down to the name of the specialty; it comes down to the underpinning skills and knowledge. That is the point I am trying to make. We can get bogged down by saying, “Everybody has to see a palliative care specialist”. Of course, that is open to people: if they wish to have a referral to a palliative care specialist, they can see one. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people may not want that.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill as it stands allows that flexibility for patients without confining them. But it gives them the very welcome option of a palliative care referral; that is entirely open to them—it is not closed off from them. Of course, they will be fed into the palliative care route anyway, following the trigger of their terminal diagnosis. They will be going on the journey, and having further conversations around their end of life care. Those are the points that I wish to make.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That, of course, will be set down in regulation. The other point that the hon. Member for Bradford West made is that clause 4(4)(c) says that any clinician having that discussion must be able to explain “any available palliative, hospice or other care.” It therefore follows that if the clinician is unable to do that because of a lack of skill or knowledge, they should refer on to somebody who can do it. That is the fundamental principle of having informed consent and discussion with patients. If a clinician cannot provide that information, they ask for somebody who can. That was not uncommon in my practice: if I had something that was outside of my area of knowledge or specialist interest, I would refer it to a colleague. That is how those conversations take place.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a number of points. First, may I say that I am sorry about her own health issues? I think she hit the nail on the head when she said that the GP may not be able to offer that service. For instance, take shoulder injections. Some GPs can do a shoulder injection with steroids; some will refer to the hospital for it. My father was a GP who could do them, but others would have referred to me when I was an orthopaedic surgeon and I would have done them in clinic. This will not be right for every single general practitioner; the issue is about having a cohort of general practitioners who have the skill and ability, and about having a flexible system that works for patients. It all circles back to the training point. The individuals who do this have to have the requisite skills.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not think that offends the principle at all. Whether I was working within the NHS or the private sector, if a patient requested an onward referral to a different specialist, I would action that. If I did not have the requisite skills or knowledge, or felt that they would be better served by a different speciality, I would refer on to another clinician. I do not see how it would be treated any differently in the NHS than it would be privately. I am afraid that I do not follow that argument.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is making a valid argument, but I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud. He talked about illnesses that are inevitably progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment. For type 1 diabetes—I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is addressing, as opposed to other forms of diabetes—a person either has insulin or does not.”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Forgive me, Chair. I will come to the point. If the person does not have insulin, the diabetes could be treated by administering it. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in those circumstances, it would fall within this clause?”
House of Commons25 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we aim to create a better future for our children, if we truly believe in progress and not merely maintaining the status quo, and if we are to be believed when we talk of improving life chances for generations to come, the Minister should commit to reforming this outdated and harmful system, and ensure that all child arrangement cases are appropriately considered by a qualified judge.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The system in England and Wales is virtually unique in permitting lay magistrates to determine such matters, with most jurisdictions across the world entrusting the decision to a suitably qualified judge. In more complex cases, we should consider the use of specialised panels, as deployed in other tribunals. Such panels could have a judge as chair and suitably qualified wing members, who may include experts in child psychology. By adopting this model, the panel can take a more holistic approach to decision making. My ask of the Minister is very simple.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Far too often, one hears of cases simply being decided as a timetabling exercise, and of a child’s weekly diary being carved up without proper thought or consideration of the impact on that child. Removing the role of magistrates in private law family cases, and ensuring that all such cases are heard by a specialist family judge, would ensure greater consistency of decision making, applying a more judicious and impartial approach. On this most consequential of issues, we should ensure that those who preside over family cases are not only appropriately legally trained but well versed in the emotional, psychological and social factors at play. There should be much greater focus on ensuring that decision makers are trained in childhood development, domestic abuse dynamics and trauma-informed practices.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Furthermore, in the absence of formal legal training, subconscious bias is likely to run higher among magistrates than among members of the judiciary. We can also take note of the approach taken by other courts in England and Wales. Specialist judges preside over employment, immigration, business and property, and social entitlement cases. Even in cases where a panel of three hears the case, it is a legally qualified, specialist judge who sits in the chair. Given the importance of such decisions to a child’s long-term prospects, the outdated practice of magistrates hearing private law children’s cases should, in my humble opinion, be abolished. It is an inefficient and unreliable system of dispensing justice in the modern world, and it runs the risk of reaching inconsistent decisions of varying and questionable quality.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In comparison, a district judge hearing such cases undergoes much more rigorous training and must have a law qualification as a prerequisite. The stakes in cases such as these could not be higher. This singular, most important decision, if misjudged, can set in motion a truly devastating series of events, thereby irreversibly damaging a child and their life chances. Let us contrast that with the role of magistrates in the criminal courts. The maximum sentence that magistrates can hand down is 12 months. Sentences beyond that are remitted to the Crown court to be heard by a circuit judge. In comparison, a decision about a child’s domestic arrangements until adulthood are frequently made by individuals with no specialist knowledge or training in family law.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The reason for mounting this argument is simple: there is an inequality in our legal system when it comes to private law family cases. These are cases that decide the nature and degree of contact a child has with each parent, determine the long-term future of a child and, by their very nature, have a significant, lasting impact upon any child. Presently in this country, private law children’s cases can be heard before a bench of three magistrates or a district judge with a family ticket. Magistrates are a lay bench who, well-meaning as they may be, are not required to hold any formal legal qualification. While magistrates undergo some specific training following their appointment, it is not more than a handful of days a year.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Magistrates have formed an integral element of the England and Wales legal system since the 12th century and the reign of Richard I, who appointed the first keepers of the peace. Almost 200 years later, pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, the term “justice of the peace” was formally introduced. I do not propose reform of the role of magistrates lightly. However, I have reached the view that there is an overwhelming policy argument for doing so. I am not for one moment suggesting that magistrates do not have an important role to play in the justice system; self-evidently, that would be a fallacy. However, I am increasingly convinced that the nature and focus of their work should be reconsidered, and in the case of child arrangement orders, it is my overwhelming view that the magistrates court should no longer play a role.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a child who feels different from their classmates because they are forced to go to school with their overnight bag; a child who constantly lives with the anxiety of turning up to school without their sports kit because it is at the other parent’s house; a child who feels nomadic, often confused and invariably distressed. The scale of the problem can be seen starkly in the figures from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. As of 31 August last year, there were 16,671 open private law children’s cases involving 25,670 children. In the first quarter of 2024, the average time for such cases to reach a final order was some 44 weeks. During that period, children are left with uncertainty.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is the story of a young child who, by virtue of their age, cannot fully articulate their wants or desires, whose loyalty is split in two, who does not want to be seen to betray either parent, who is already dealing with their world being turned upside down and whose future is decided in a sterile magistrates court, often as a mere timetabling exercise. That child now faces birthdays, Christmas and Easter all split in half, with weeks cut in two and weekends alternating between one household and another, leaving them with no sense of oikophilia—the love of home.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The reason is simple: the anchor point in all family law cases involving a child should always be that child’s best interests, and the creation of an outcome that supports and promotes the child’s safety and emotional and psychological wellbeing and protects his or her future prospects. It is almost inevitable that each and every Member of this House will have had experience of child arrangement orders in some way, shape or form, whether through constituency casework, personal experience or family and friends, because such cases are sadly far from rare. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tell the story of one such case, which I suspect will resonate with many up and down the country, because it is sadly an all-too-familiar experience.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While it may be the intention of the system to protect the privacy of individuals and families during these hearings, the reality is an increasingly inefficient and, at times, unresponsive system that fails to place the emotional and psychological needs of the parties at its centre. The flaws in the present system are regrettably clear for all to see, and in failing to address them, parties are left with a system that undermines the very values that it seeks to uphold—values such as fairness and natural justice, with the wellbeing of children at their core. This is such a vast topic that it would be inconceivable to address all the issues in the course of an Adjournment debate, and I will therefore focus on the constitution of those on the bench who hear child arrangement order cases.”
House of Commons13 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗