Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst
MP for Solihull West and Shirley · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I am normally a temperate man, but this is a farcical situation. I have huge respect for the Leader of the House, but I suspect that he has come here with gritted teeth, because the reality is that our constituents want to hear from the new Prime Minister.”
“We have seen it in genomics and targeted therapies and we see it in the increasing recognition that treatment must be shaped by the biology of the disease and the needs of the patient. There is no reason that lobular breast cancer should be left behind in that progress. There has been movement—it is right to acknowledge that.”
“One duty of a good health system is to reduce the burden on the patient and prove that they are worth listening to. Susan Michaelis understood that deeply.”
“Compassion reminds us why we keep working. Responsibility requires us to bring those two factors together. The last Government invested in cancer research, including support for the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden biomedical research centre, along with wider work relevant to lobular breast cancer.”
“We have heard about how she challenged assumptions, gathered evidence and pursued truth in an area where the consequences mattered for passengers, crews and the wider public. In 2013, she received her devastating diagnosis of invasive lobular breast cancer.”
“We cannot dispute that that is a significant sum, but we have to look at it in the context of national health spending and what cancer costs: the cost to families and patients and the cost to the NHS when it is detected late or treated inadequately. We have to bear those factors in mind.”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“Many of my constituents will be watching these proceedings agog, because this is just another example of the chaotic approach to policymaking by this Government. Given the contentious nature of this issue, why did the Government not consult before announcing the proposals, and why did they not consult before then reversing on the policy in the next instance?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman share my deep disappointment and concern about the position that the Ministry of Justice finds itself in? The research and development phase for counter-drone activity has not been strengthened, and we have frequent episodes of drones bypassing prison security.”
“For the thousands of British national overseas people in my constituency, the prospect of the Chinese super-embassy is deeply worrying, and that worry is compounded by these unredacted plans. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether any Government Minister has called in the Chinese ambassador to discuss these issues, and if they have not, why not?”
“The hardest burden for any of us to carry is not that we tried and failed, but that a life was lost while we stood by, not through indifference, but through the absence of knowledge this House could have chosen to provide. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, John Cooper, Lincoln Jopp, Charlie Dewhirst, Blake Stephenson, Bradley Thomas and Jim Shannon present the Bill. Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May, and to be printed (Bill 362).”
“By equipping young people with these skills, we not only improve outcomes in emergencies, but foster responsibility, calm decision making and a willingness to act for others. This Bill is deliberately rooted in prevention rather than reaction, and in empowerment rather than fear. No legislation can prevent every tragedy, but we can ensure that when emergencies happen, as they inevitably will, the people closest are not left powerless. This Bill does not ask the House to make a dramatic leap in policy; it asks us to take a sensible, proportionate step to ensure that our education system reflects the realities of the world our young people will face.”
“Pupils trained in these skills will carry them into their homes, their workplaces and their communities, thereby having a multiplier effect. In doing so, schools will contribute directly to national resilience and public safety. This Bill proposes clarity and coherence: a national expectation that lifesaving knowledge is a fundamental part of the curriculum, as much as literacy or numeracy, when it comes to preparing young people for the real world. International experience reinforces that argument. Countries that embed emergency response training in schools see higher levels of bystander intervention, improved survival rates and greater public confidence. It also reflects a broader truth that resilience begins long before a crisis occurs and is built through education, confidence and preparation.”
“Here, we teach elements of first aid and health and safety in different ways, but we lack consistency and the assurance that every child will receive that education. Concerns about pressure on the school curriculum are understandable, but the Bill does not require wholesale reform, nor does it impose excessive burdens. Training can be delivered through a combination of classroom teaching, practical workshops and simulations, all supported by qualified instructors, the emergency services and voluntary organisations. The focus must be on gaining those essential, high-impact skills. The intent behind the Bill reflects a broader societal responsibility. It is not about ideology; it simply recognises that preserving life is a fundamental public good.”
“It is about ensuring that every young person leaves school equipped with a core set of practical, age-appropriate skills: how to recognise an emergency, how to respond safely, how to communicate clearly with emergency services and, critically, how to provide basic lifesaving assistance until help arrives. Preparedness is not a niche concern, but a matter of resilience. One day, any one of us may depend not on a professional, but on a passer-by. That passer-by may be a young person standing there, willing and wanting to help, but uncertain what to do in the circumstances. That uncertainty is not inevitable. Importantly, this Bill does not propose radical change. Many countries already include emergency response skills within their education systems.”
“The Bill’s objectives are reinforced by the work of such organisations as citizenAID, which has led the way in educating young people on safe responses to major incidents. CitizenAID was founded by two of my former bosses: Professor Sir Keith Porter and Major General Tim Hodgetts. I had the pleasure of hosting them for a drop-in event in Parliament last year. Its programmes demonstrate that pupils can learn to recognise threats, manage catastrophic bleeding, communicate effectively and act without panic. Its work shows that structured training builds competence and confidence, particularly in high-stress scenarios. This Bill is not about turning children into paramedics; it is not about overloading the curriculum; and it is not about replacing professional emergency services.”
“What is equally important is that pupils should be trained to assess risk to themselves, to avoid secondary harm and to act only when it is safe to do so. It is not about encouraging recklessness, but fostering informed, disciplined action. The importance of that cannot be overstated. In emergencies, well-intentioned but untrained bystanders can inadvertently worsen outcomes or place themselves in danger. The training envisaged under this Bill should instil practical resilience: knowing when to act, how to act and when not to act. Evidence shows that repeated practice and realistic simulations significantly improve retention and the likelihood of effective intervention under pressure.”
“Thirdly, the Bill seeks to ensure pupils receive practical, hands-on instruction in the most critical lifesaving interventions, with particular emphasis on the management of catastrophic bleeding. Uncontrolled haemorrhage is one of the leading causes of preventable death in trauma. Pupils should learn how to identify severe bleeding, apply direct pressure, use tourniquets where appropriate, and act decisively to stabilise a casualty while prioritising their own safety. This should include formal “stop the bleed” training. These lifesaving skills are not, of course, confined to domestic accidents. In mass-casualty scenarios, such as terrorist-style attacks, the rapid recognition of danger, safe decision making and early bleeding control can save multiple lives before the emergency services arrive.”
“The Bill is built around three core aims. The first is to ensure that pupils can recognise emergency situations quickly and accurately. The difference between an accident and an emergency is not always obvious, particularly under pressure, so training pupils to assess severity, identify immediate danger and understand when urgent action is required is foundational. Secondly, the Bill seeks to prioritise effective summoning of emergency assistance. Knowing how to contact the emergency services, what information to provide, how to remain calm, and how to follow instructions given by call handlers is not always instinctive; it must be taught. Clear communication saves time, and time saves lives.”
“Evidence consistently shows that early recognition and rapid intervention save lives. Delay, confusion or failure to communicate accurately with the emergency services can be fatal, but despite this, our education system still leaves too much to chance. At present, whether a young person is taught how to recognise an emergency, to remain calm under pressure, to summon help accurately, or to apply basic lifesaving interventions depends largely on postcode, school discretion or family circumstance. Some pupils receive that knowledge, but many do not—there is simply no guarantee. That is not a criticism of our schools or our teachers, who already shoulder enormous responsibility; it is simply a recognition that we have not set a clear, national expectation that these skills matter. This Bill seeks to close that gap.”
“Every year, thousands of people in England find themselves at the centre of sudden, chaotic emergencies, such as a child at the roadside following a road traffic collision, a victim of knife crime bleeding out, or a medical emergency unfolding while onlookers wait for an ambulance, watching as precious minutes slip away. All they want to do is help, but too many do not know how. Not infrequently, the question asked afterwards is not what went wrong, but why no one present knew what to do. Most emergencies do not happen in hospitals; they happen in our homes, on our streets and on our roadsides. It is in those first critical moments, before professional help arrives, that outcomes are often determined—not by advanced medicine, but by whether those present can recognise what is happening, act decisively, and summon help effectively.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the teaching in schools of skills relating to emergency situations, including life-saving skills; and for connected purposes. This Bill seeks to ensure that every child leaving school possesses the knowledge and skills to respond effectively in emergencies, including life-threatening situations. It is about equipping young people with capabilities that matter beyond the classroom—skills that can preserve life and, in certain circumstances, protect communities.”
“The right to trial by jury is not some procedural convenience capable of being abridged when the administrative weather turns foul; it is one of the great constitutional expressions of liberty under the law. It is overwhelmingly legitimate, because it places the citizen, and not the state, at the heart of criminal judgment. When the state proposes to narrow the circumstances in which it must persuade 12 of a defendant’s peers, it is not merely managing a backlog; it is fundamentally recalibrating the balance between the individual and the Crown. There is no doubt that the criminal justice system is under acute strain. Victims and defendants wait too long. Justice is stretched thin. However, the issue before us is not whether reform is necessary, but whether this reform is justified, proportionate and supported by evidence.”
“For too long, we have rationed judicial time as though it were a luxury, rather than the lifeblood of the system. Courtrooms stand idle not because juries cannot be summoned, but because there are no judges available to sit. The second issue is the court estate. In too many parts of the country, criminal courts are dilapidated, unreliable and, frankly, unfit for purpose. Trials are delayed because of leaking roofs, broken technology and inadequate facilities.”
“My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will touch on some of those points in a moment. There has quite rightly been much reliance on Sir Brian Leveson’s report; he is a jurist of great distinction, and his work deserves careful reading, rather than convenient citation. Notwithstanding his analysis, this is a fundamental change to our legal system, and what is conspicuously absent from the Government’s argument is compelling evidence that jury trials are the principal driver of delay. If we are serious about confronting the backlog, we must look unflinchingly at the real causes: the prosaic but decisive failures of capacity, of which the jury trial is merely the most visible casualty. The first issue is judicial sitting days. Courts cannot hear cases without judges.”
“The jury trial is one of the great counterweights to that tendency, ensuring that the coercive power of criminal law is exercised only with the consent of the community. Juries do much more than merely find facts; they embody public confidence, guard against institutional complacency and remind us that justice is not something merely administered to the people, but done with them. If the Government believe that it is right to curtail that right, they must show clear evidence that jury trials cause the delay, that alternative modes of trial would be demonstrably faster, and that fairness, legitimacy and public confidence would not be diminished.”
“The next point I wish to make, and possibly the most grave, is about the erosion of the criminal Bar. We face a serious shortage of suitably qualified advocates both to prosecute and to defend. Cases are delayed because no one of appropriate experience is available or willing to take them on. That is not inefficiency, but attrition. Curtailing jury trial risks mistaking the symptom for the disease. Worse, it risks creating a system that is perhaps faster, but thinner, and ostensibly more efficient, but unquestionably less legitimate. I think of the words of Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor and one of the greatest legal minds of the previous century, who warned this very House of the dangers of an “elective dictatorship”, and the slow accretion of power to the state at the expense of the citizen.”
“The hon. Lady is right to a degree: there has been failure by successive Governments to invest in the criminal justice system. If we were serious about this issue in this place, we would look at cutting welfare, which spends the entirety of the Ministry of Justice’s annual budget in just two weeks. We need to prioritise spending, and the criminal justice system has been left high and dry for far too long by Governments of all colours. It is now routine for trials to be adjourned because defendants either arrive late or do not arrive at all, with juries discharged, witnesses turned away and days of court time lost as a consequence. These delays have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of a jury, and everything to do with operational failure in the system.”
“The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: there is no mandate for this decision. It represents such a significant constitutional change to our legal system, and it is being made without reference to the will of the people. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but justice expedited at the cost of constitutional principle may prove a far greater denial still.”
“Since October of last year, five people have absconded from Leyhill, which suggests that there are systemic issues around both security and licensing arrangements. I suspect that those are not bespoke to Leyhill, but are used across the wider open prison estate. With that in mind, what has the Minister’s Department done to tighten those arrangements to ensure that this does not happen again, not just at Leyhill, but at any other open prison?”
“The Minister has more experience than most with the global threats facing this country. In those circumstances, we need to be recruiting the brightest and best to our armed forces and retaining them. He has set out current retention levels with certain detail, but that is before the Bill passes through Parliament and, as the Government hope, becomes enacted as law. Does he not recognise that the inequality of arms under the legal system for our veterans is likely to have a significant impact upon retention?”
“There is a moral component to this, because women will be disproportionately affected. Many women, on returning from maternity leave, increase their contributions to cover for that career break. The proposals as drafted will result in those who plan responsibly being encumbered with higher additional national insurance charges.”
“One in five people—approximately 20%—rely on salary sacrifice. Those are people who are doing the right thing; they are choosing long-term security over short-term consumption. Yet under the Bill, to save means to pay more. That is not positive pension reform; it is a stealth national insurance rise, dressed up in the cloak of technicality. At a time when businesses are struggling under huge wage bills, regulatory uncertainty and sluggish growth, the Bill quietly imposes on them yet another burden. I remind Government Members that fairness cuts both ways. It is not fair to tell people to save for their future and then tax them more for doing so, it is not fair to talk of fiscal responsibility when penalising prudence, and it is not fair to build long-term public finances on short-term revenue grabs.”
“It strikes me that it should not be particularly controversial that a Government should be encouraging people to save for their retirement, to take responsibility for their future and to feel secure in later life. Therefore, although we are dealing with a short Bill that appears to be purely procedural in nature, its practical consequences are profound, because it takes us in precisely the wrong direction. Beneath the layer of technical language lies a troubling choice. It is a choice to tax aspiration, penalise prudence and chip away at the very habits that ensure financial security in our later years. The Government have sought to assure us that this only affects high earners and that most will not be affected, but that is not how it will feel to the majority of people in the real world.”
“If we want a country that values responsibility and rewards work, and in which people make long-term plans for their economic security, I am afraid that the Bill takes us in entirely the wrong direction.”
“The Minister is right that people should be putting into their pensions and we should encourage them to do so, but we should not put forward legislation that disincentivises that. In respect of women, it is a fact that they are more likely to take career breaks and, by virtue of that, they may want to make up their contributions. This legislation will disadvantage those individuals. The salary sacrifice scheme has become the bedrock of the modern pension system in the workplace. By decreasing gross pay, it decreases employer national insurance contributions and allows firms to invest more in their people. That is a positive step. My fear is that, as a consequence of this piece of legislation, many employers may scale back those contributions, cut other benefits associated with work or even discontinue schemes entirely.”
“One of the contributing factors to the court backlog is the state of disrepair of our court infrastructure. Will the Minister set out how many of the more than 500 Crown court rooms are currently unusable because of their state of disrepair?”
“Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and Lucas’s poem really resonates with that. In my constituency, we have Evac+Chair, which creates evacuation chairs like the ones we have in Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current legislation, the stay-put policy from an outdated era—1962—does not recognise that the technology has moved on?”
“The British public are, by nature, a forgiving people. However, does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not recognise that obfuscation of the kind we have seen over the weekend deeply damages public confidence?”
“The crisis in our criminal justice system is not caused by jury trials but by inefficiencies in the system and a lack of advocates able to prosecute and defend trials, according to the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. When will the Government engage with them, rather than relying solely on Sir Brian’s report, in order to maintain the cornerstone of our justice system—the jury trial—while improving inefficiencies in the criminal justice system?”
“Well, is there any greater responsibility than to families, who budget carefully; to citizens, who trust the Government to keep their word; and to the public, who expect manifesto promises to be kept? People live within their means.”
“History teaches us that unchecked spending commitments undermine growth, reduce confidence and erode the state’s ability to serve those who are most vulnerable. By contrast, having control over public expenditure is not an ideology or something to be feared; it is simply common sense. It is about cutting waste, and it is about making hard choices today so that future generations are not saddled with crushing debt. That is responsible government. It was Churchill who said that “the price of greatness is responsibility”. When the Government came into power with great fanfare, there was a sense that they wanted to be a great reforming Government.”
“That was a pledge to every family, every community and every business in this country, yet we are now on the precipice of the Government breaking their promise. To do so would irreversibly damage the public’s confidence in the Government’s ability to manage our economy. Simply put, every tax rise hits families, pensioners and small businesses. There is a simple maxim: borrowing today is merely debt for tomorrow. Every pound borrowed has to be repaid, and it has to be repaid with interest. I know that those on the Government Benches do not necessarily regularly take the words of Margaret Thatcher to heart, but she said: “Pennies don’t fall from heaven. They have to be earned”. That is what people up and down this country are doing every day: they are grafting to provide for their families and their future. She was absolutely right.”
“This debate is much broader than mere numbers on a spreadsheet buried in the Treasury; it is about trust, stewardship and the future of our country. That matters because, at the last general election, the now Government and all those elected on their manifesto said they would not raise taxes on “working people”, yet at last year’s Budget, they did precisely that. They introduced £40 billion-worth of tax rises—under the guise of national insurance in the majority of cases—which have a trickle-down effect on working people up and down the country. To compound matters, on 25 November last year the Chancellor addressed the Confederation of British Industry and made a cast-iron promise: no more borrowing, and no more taxes.”
“The hon. Member may have forgotten the covid pandemic that swept this country, which of course turned the tables, and difficult decisions had to be made.”
“No, I want to make this point. The difference is that the Chancellor told the media last year that the buck stops with her. She has to own these decisions. As I say, people in this country are asked to live within their means, and they make sacrifices and plan for contingencies. They expect the Government to do the same, so when the Chancellor promises not to borrow more and not to tax more, the country should be able to take her at her word. Such promises are bonds of trust between the Government and the people. I have a certain degree of sympathy for Labour Members, who have been put in an invidious position. They have been asked to break a promise that they made to their constituents and their country. I ask them to look into their hearts, and to think about whether this is really what they want to be remembered for.”
“Mistaken releases of prisoners do not just undermine public trust and confidence in the system; they cost money, because the police have to go and find them and return them to prison. Can the Secretary of State set out how much it has cost the police to return prisoners to prison since this Government came to power?”
“Sadly, this is not an isolated case; regrettably, it is a pattern of decline that we are seeing under this Government. Can the Minister tell us how many companies must go under before the Government realise that Great Britain cannot build a resilient and secure energy system by shutting down the energy industry?”
“I have spoken to many anxious parents whose children have not been in receipt of an EHCP or local authority funding but would historically have benefited from independent education provision because of their SEND needs. One of their concerns is that such provision can no longer be afforded because of the imposition of 20% VAT on those schools. On behalf of those parents, I implore the Government to look at that again and do a U-turn.”
“The Minister has repeatedly said that he is extremely disappointed that this case did not proceed to trial. That is thin gruel if all the steps necessary to ensure that it got to trial were not taken. With that in mind, can he set out whether the report in The Sunday Times over the weekend that the Prime Minister and other Ministers were aware of the imminent collapse on 12 September is correct? If that is correct, can he set out what steps the Home Secretary took to ensure that the CPS had the evidence it needed?”
“In July this year, alongside a cross-party group of parliamentarians and others, I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking a meeting regarding improving gatekeeping and alternative dispute resolution in family court matters. I have not received a response. Can the Lord Chancellor give me the reassurance that such a meeting will take place?”
“Both these amendments remind us that democracy depends upon consent, transparency and legitimacy. Those values have been the bedrock of Britain for generations. It would be a poor bargain indeed if they were set aside to placate the financial and political interests of a narrow few.”
“As a former doctor who, I should point out, did not go on strike in years gone by, I have seen at first hand the consequences of medics taking industrial action: operations cancelled; out-patient appointments postponed; and the provision of healthcare delayed. When the livelihoods and wellbeing of citizens up and down this country are so significantly impacted, it is neither unreasonable nor undesirable that such action rests upon a clear majority. The 50% threshold is precisely that safeguard. It serves as a clear assurance that industrial action has broad legitimacy and is not just the preserve of a militant minority. Yet this Government seek to sweep away that protection by voting down this very sensible and considered improvement to the legislation.”
“In every walk of life—whether a subscription service, an insurance policy, or a mobile phone contract—the public quite properly expect clarity in respect of the terms they are committing to. Why should those standards of fairness be cast aside when it comes to political funds of unions closely bound to the governing party? Lords amendment 62 deals with the threshold for industrial action. Strikes have consequences. We have seen that only in the last week, with transport links across London brought to a standstill, commutes drastically prolonged, and the consequential significant disruption to people’s day-to-day lives.”
“In contrast, existing members were left untouched and, importantly, unions were required to remind all members annually of their right to change their decision. This is both a fair and a balanced settlement. It is not a carve-up; it is a genuine compromise. It respected both the collective strength of unions and the personal liberty of individuals. Yet what do we see now? We see a Government seeking to dismantle that settlement, and the result is a return to an era where consent was assumed and where individuals found themselves supporting causes they did not share simply because the rules made it cumbersome to say otherwise. That is not a positive reform; it is regression.”
“I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to two specific Lords amendments proposed in turn by Lord Burns and Lord Sharpe in the other place. While addressing different clauses, both amendments essentially come down to the same principle: defending fairness, transparency and democratic legitimacy against narrow sectional interests. On Lords amendment 61, in 2016, after long and at times fraught debate, Parliament reached a carefully constructed settlement on the question of trade union political funds. That settlement was not only fair and balanced but, crucially, was broadly accepted by all sides. The compromise was a simple one: it resulted in new members contributing to a union’s political fund only if that member gave their active, informed consent.”