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 8 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.
“All four clauses are united by a clear objective to rationalise tribunal access, enhance procedural safeguards and bring the Mental Health Act into alignment with modern standards of fairness and proportionality. However, I will close with a caveat: rights without resourcing are hollow. If we are to place greater demand on the tribunals service, and to rely on it as the guardian of liberty for thousands of individuals, it must be adequately funded, staffed and supported. Legal representation must be accessible. Tribunal members must be properly trained. Hospital managers must be equipped to meet their new responsibilities. With those reservations, I broadly welcome clauses 30 to 33 as a necessary recalibration of our mental health law.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Crucially, the clause also codifies the tribunal’s powers. It may now vary or impose conditions, including those that constitute a deprivation of liberty, provided that they are necessary to protect the public from serious harm and are no more restrictive than hospital detention. That clause introduces a principled, proportionate framework for balancing public protection with patient liberty, and avoids vague or discretionary use of such powers. Finally, clause 33 will apply the same principles to restricted patients not subject to deprivation of liberty orders. Such individuals, although under fewer constraints, are none the less subject to significant legal orders. The new requirement for a tribunal review at two years, and every four years thereafter, ensures that oversight is regular and non-discriminatory.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In a system in which patients may not always have the means or capacity to apply for a review themselves, it offers a critical safety net. Clause 31 will also repeal section 68A of the 1983 Act, which has become unwieldy and duplicative. By streamlining the referral process, the Bill enhances legal clarity and administrative efficiency, but I would caution that the increased complexity of the new timeframes may require significant training of those responsible for their implementation. Clause 32 will provide for restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. It goes further than clause 30 by imposing mandatory referral duties on the Secretary of State. Under the clause, a tribunal must be convened after 12 months, every two years thereafter, and at four years if no review has occurred.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 31 will recast the regime for automatic tribunal referrals, replacing the prior six-month structure with the concept of “a relevant period”. For detained patients, referrals will now occur at three months, then 12 months, and annually thereafter. For community patients, they will occur at six months, then 12 months, then annually. Most significantly, hospital managers will be under a new duty to refer a case when no review has occurred in 12 months, regardless of whether an application has been made. That is a sound reform. The clause will introduce coherence to a previously fragmented system, and establishes a minimum standard of legal oversight. The inclusion of a backstop provision—that no individual should go more than 12 months without review—is essential.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We all know, from our casework or personal experiences outside of this place, about the pressures on the Courts and Tribunals Service. Mental health tribunals are not exempt from that pressure. Changing the timeframe on which tribunals operate, and the frequency with which reviews take place, will inevitably increase the burden on the service. Therefore, although these changes are broadly welcome, it is important that we are cognisant of their impact on the resources that will be required, the number of judges and wing members that will be needed, and of course the hard standing of the court and tribunal infrastructure that will need to be made available. Other issues, such as those around the digitalisation of the service, will also need to be addressed.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The decision created uncertainty for clinicians, tribunals and, most crucially, risk-managed patients living in the community. It is therefore pleasing to see that clause 36 seeks to address that gap. The clause introduces new statutory powers for both the Secretary of State and the first-tier tribunal, in respect of imposing deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. It does so with some stringent safeguards.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak in support of clauses 36 to 40, which provide critical legal clarification and technical refinements to the 1993 Act. While differing in scope and impact, each of these provisions is underpinned by a clear shared commitment to enhance public protection, uphold patient rights, and ensure that the legal framework reflects both current clinical practice and developments in case law. Let me begin with clause 36, which addresses a long-standing lacuna in the legislative architecture governing conditionally discharged restricted patients. It follows the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Secretary of State of Justice v. MM, where it became clear that the existing Mental Health Act did not permit the imposition of conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty as part of conditional discharge.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be interested to hear the Minister’s approach to ameliorating that. Thirdly, there is a risk of inconsistency in delivery without clear national guidance and adequate oversight mechanisms, so I would be grateful if the Minister could address the mechanisms that are intended to be put in place. These are not insurmountable issues, but they highlight the importance of a carefully planned implementation strategy, supported by training, monitoring and adequate funding. Schedule 3 represents a targeted and proportionate set of amendments that support the underlying aims of the Bill to ensure that all individuals receiving mental health care, whether formally detained or not, are able to access independent support, understand their rights and participate more fully in decisions about their treatment. [Interruption.]”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, it enhances procedural fairness by ensuring that patients are supported in understanding their options, raising their concerns, or appealing decisions where necessary. Thirdly, it brings the statutory framework into closer alignment with human rights principles and best practice standards, particularly in terms of informed participation and supported decision making. There are, however, three specific practical challenges that I wish the Minister to acknowledge. First, these reforms will require sufficient resources for advocacy services, particularly as demand is likely to increase once eligibility is broadened. Secondly, effective implementation will depend upon robust co-ordination between hospital managers and external advocacy providers, which may vary in capacity and capability across regions.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In practice, it should help to reduce gaps where eligible patients might otherwise miss out on support due to ambiguity around who holds the responsibility for initiating contact. It is worth noting that these reforms complement the broader set of changes proposed in clauses 41 to 44, which collectively aim to strengthen patient rights, increase transparency in decision making and improve the overall quality of patient experience in mental health services. This approach has a number of potential benefits. First, it is likely to improve access to advocacy for groups who have historically been underserved. These include informal patients, individuals with communication difficulties and those less familiar with the mental health system.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This automatic referral mechanism removes the onus from patients themselves to initiate contact, many of whom may not be aware of their rights or may face barriers to asserting them. In turn, advocacy providers will have a duty to arrange an interview with each referred patient to establish whether they wish to use the service. This helps to close the loop between eligibility and engagement, and ensures that advocacy is offered in a timely and structured manner. Schedule 3 also sets out clearer responsibilities on both hospital managers and advocacy providers. Clearly, that will improve co-ordination and ensure the consistent application of the policy across different care settings and regions.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This responds directly to the recommendations made in both the independent review and the 2021 White Paper, which identified disparities in support available to different patient groups. Under these reforms, access to advocacy is no longer limited to those detained under the Act. Instead, all qualifying patients, including informal ones, will be eligible for IMHA support where appropriate. This change reflects the recognition that voluntary status does not necessarily equate to full understanding or confidence in navigating care decisions. To ensure that eligible individuals are aware of and able to use this support, hospital managers will now be required to notify advocacy services when a patient becomes eligible.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak briefly on schedule 3, which makes a number of important amendments to the 1983 Act concerning the role of independent mental health advocates. The schedule implements several practical reforms to provide consistent and accessible advocacy and support for individuals receiving mental health care. It builds upon existing statutory provisions by extending the right to advocacy beyond detained patients and setting out clearer expectations of how and when advocacy services should be made available. One of the most notable changes is the extension of IMHA eligibility to include informal patients—individuals receiving voluntary treatment rather than under compulsion.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“You will be delighted to know that I will be mercifully brief, Mrs Harris, because I am broadly supportive of all three clauses. Having worked as a doctor in clinical practice, and as a barrister, I am cognisant of the importance of transparency, patient autonomy and procedural fairness, in particular with vulnerable patients who are often seen in a mental health care setting. I welcome this trio of clauses, but I have some gentle challenges to put to the Minister for when he gets to his feet. First, how will data be captured on the information that is to be provided to patients and their families? What feedback mechanisms will be in place, not just for patients but for those who support them—their carers and families—and for clinicians, on the practicalities of how the system is working?”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury about regional variability, consistency across the board is important not only in the regions, but in the delivery methods and capacity that underpin this crucial service. Finally, on potential confusion and legal information being communicated in inaccessible ways, it is important that legalese does not get in the way of clarity for individuals who will have to navigate the information. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how we can ensure that the information is imparted in an accessible way for all those concerned—importantly, not just for patients and their families, but for clinicians who have to impart the information. They need to feel comfortable navigating their way around what can often be a complex set of regulations and legislation.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member makes a very valid point. There is that mechanism, but this is also about ensuring that the quality of the information that has been imparted—not just the process of it being done—is recorded. An audit process must ensure that the important conversations and information are imparted in a way that the patient and their family understand, in sufficient detail and as part of a process whereby, if there are concerns or doubts, they can be addressed in a ready manner. I take his point that there are metrics by which to measure things, but it is not just about capturing data; it is about capturing quality data in order to ensure that that is being fulfilled. To pick up on the point made by my hon.”
House of Commons17 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The sexual exploitation of vulnerable children in this country is a stain upon our society, and the victims want not just the truth out but transparency. With that in mind, will the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government asked Baroness Casey to change any elements of her report—yes or no?”
House of Commons16 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about some of the challenges around the interpretation of the Bill. Does he agree that there needs to be a clear plan for the training of professionals so that there is consistency across the board?”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What has been determined regarding the capacity of the resources of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—in terms of not only physical hard standing, but the vital role that clerks and tribunal staff play in ensuring that hearings are done in a timely manner and the paperwork is completed consistently? Thirdly, what is the expectation of the sustainability of that workload as the Bill comes into fruition? I pick up on that in particular, because, given the transition arrangements that appear to be within the legislation, this will be a retrospective as well as a prospective change. I would be grateful if the Minister in summing up could address those issues.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are obvious reasons behind that, such as to ensure greater consistency in tribunal decision making and strong safeguards to ensure that patients are only detained or kept under community treatment orders when absolutely necessary. I want to pick up some of the arguments my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth was developing around the demands on the tribunal service. The Minister will be well aware of the challenges facing the court and tribunal system in this country. If, as anticipated, this will lead to an increase in the number of hearings—both in first instance and potentially in appeal—what assessment has been made as to the number of not only judges, but wing members that will be required to facilitate this process?”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak briefly to clause 7, which in many ways is a tidying up of the other changes in the Bill to ensure alignment. In that sense, it is a necessary part of this legislation. For too long, mental health tribunals, which have an important function, have been operating under criteria that are too broad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth pointed out, that can lead to inconsistencies with modern clinical practice. It is therefore right that we move to clearer, more risk-based criteria to ensure that detention is maintained only where absolutely necessary.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must ensure that those individuals are not forced down a route of having a virtual appointment or assessment, when that would not allow them the satisfaction of the consultation they sought. It is important that patients are put at the front and centre, and that any change to the assessment process is made with them in mind.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My second concern is about the consistency in clinical judgment of when to use these virtual assessments. I suspect we all have experience through constituency or personal work of general practitioners who, since the covid-19 pandemic, have moved to more online and virtual assessments. Some patients enjoy that and like the flexibility; others would rather see a clinician face to face, but are not always offered that option. We must ensure a consistent approach to these assessments across the country. My third concern is about digital exclusion. The assumption is that individuals will be able to access this readily and be comfortable with the technology. Many will be able to, but a significant number will struggle with it.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to address three broad points on clause 19. I entirely understand where this is coming from—it is to improve accessibility, efficiency and flexibility in delivering assessments. It reflects the broader observations from the independent review and aligns with the NHS digital transformation goals. However, I have three specific concerns. My first concern is about the risks around the assessment quality. I suspect we have all experienced virtual meetings or consultations with clinicians. Subtle cues can often be missed in a virtual hearing, particularly when it is on the sensitive issues we are dealing with in the Bill. I am concerned that we will miss those subtle signs that doctors would pick up on in a face-to-face assessment; they can easily be lost through the medium of a virtual assessment.”
House of Commons12 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the intention behind the amendment may be worthy, there is a lack of clarity in the drafting? In particular, it is unclear what “seek to ensure” means and how that would be legally defined.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That can obviously be deeply harmful, particularly to those with conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder or other learning difficulties.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendments 20, 10, 22, 24 and 21, and set out why, although I think they are honourable in their intent, I am unable to support them today. I will start with amendment 20. The purpose of the amendment is to require ICBs to ensure the availability of specialist crisis accommodation for people with autism and learning disabilities. The aim is to provide a safe and therapeutic alternative to detention, which I think we would all agree is a sensible course of action. Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows police to remove an individual who is experiencing a mental health crisis from a public place to a place of safety. That can, on unfortunate occasions, lead to detention in inappropriate settings, which may include police cells.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 5, page 11, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert— “(b) in the case of a patient who lacks capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment), serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person, or in the case of a patient who does not lack capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment) serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person; and””
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These amendments achieve something critical: they preserve the protective duty of the state, particularly to those who cannot protect themselves, but they do so without blurring the line between necessary intervention and justified intrusion. They are grounded in legal precedent, echoing the principles found in common law, the Mental Capacity Act and article 5 of the European convention on human rights. They introduce clarity where ambiguity once stood, and they ensure that the Bill reflects both compassion and constitutional restraint . [Interruption.]”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the first case, where a patient cannot consent because they are unable to understand or weigh up the relevant information, then serious harm either to the patient or to others may justify detention or compulsory treatment. However, in the second case, where capacity is intact, the threshold for overriding a person’s autonomy is rightly higher. In such circumstances, the justification for intervention must rest solely on the risk of serious harm to other people. This is more than legal tidiness; it is a matter of fundamental rights. The law should not permit the detention or forced treatment of a capacitated individual on the basis of a paternalistic judgment about their own safety—that is not a liberal mental health framework, but an arbitrary power.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All the amendments in this group have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). Amendments 52 and 53 deal with grounds for detention and treatment—specifically, with how those grounds differ depending on whether a patient has the capacity or competence to consent. At the heart of both amendments is the simple but vital proposition that capacity matters, not only ethically, but legally. The ability of an individual to make decisions about their own care must shape the basis on which the state may act against their will. The revised wording introduces an important distinction between the two scenarios, where a patient lacks capacity and where they retain it.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would provide firm legal clarity; remove any ambiguity about when detention procedures can begin; allow timely intervention, enabling quicker responses for an individual in crisis who is already at hospital but has not been admitted; reduce the risk of harm by allowing earlier application of safeguards; and align the legal framework with the reality of hospital procedures. The distinction between those who are in attendance at a hospital and those who have been admitted in a state of crisis is a false one.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While the Act currently allows for the detention of an individual who is already an in-patient, there is ambiguity about whether that applies to individuals who are on hospital grounds—who have attended A&E, for example—but have not yet been formally admitted as a patient. In those cases, the Act fails to capture people who arrive voluntarily or are brought to such an institution during a crisis. New clause 24 seeks to close that gap by explicitly allowing an application for detention to be made in such circumstances, ensuring that a timely intervention can occur when necessary for safety or treatment. A number of significant benefits would arise from the new clause.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It seems a lifetime ago since I was last on my feet. I am sure the Minister was waiting in anticipation for the crescendo of my speech. He heard my observations on amendments 52 and 53, and I know he will be mindful of ensuring that the balance between intervention and detention is held in equilibrium. I would be grateful if he addressed the points I raised before the interlude in his response. New clause 24 would amend section 5(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to clarify that a formal application for detention can be made not only for a patient already admitted to hospital, but for individuals who have attended or been brought to a hospital seeking help or admission. It would therefore expand the legal basis for initiating detention procedures under the Act. The new clause makes an important distinction.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is right. An individual can attend an emergency department to be assessed and be seen by a doctor before a decision is made on whether that patient should be admitted to that hospital, transferred to a tertiary centre or discharged back into the community. New clause 24 seeks to provide clarity and certainty for practitioners on that grey area and, crucially, it seeks to provide a safeguard for patients who have yet to be formally admitted to an institution—a hospital, community placement or wherever—but need a crucial intervention.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have listened carefully to the Minister, who has addressed the issue with his usual thoughtfulness. I ask that he looks into sharing that data, particularly around new clause 24, but on the basis of the reassurances that he has provided, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Crucially, it is subject to the full rigour of parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. It is not a case of Executive overreach; it is a recognition that the pace of medical and neuroscientific research is such that legislation risks obsolescence unless we allow for responsible adaptation. One need only look at the evolution of our understanding of conditions such as autism spectrum disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder to appreciate how quickly definitions can move on. Clearly, any change must reflect best practice and take place under broad consultation. However, I argue that we are not opening the back door to arbitrary change; we are safeguarding the front door against stagnation. For that reason, I support the amendment.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendment provides for a narrowly drawn but important power, namely, to update, via regulations and subject to affirmative procedure, the statutory definitions in clause 3, in response to developments in scientific and clinical understanding. I recognise that any clause that confers powers on the Executive to amend the statutory definitions must be treated with due caution. There could be concerns that changes could be made without broad clinical consensus. However, on this occasion, I believe that my hon. Friend, who brings to the debate the weight of his clinical expertise, has struck the right balance. The proposed power is tightly scoped. It is triggered only by new scientific knowledge. It cannot be exercised on ministerial whim.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, at end insert— “(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations update the definitions in subsection (2) in response to scientific advancements. (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This amendment would allow the definitions for mental disorder, autism, learning disability and psychiatric disorder to be updated by secondary legislation as science evolves. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to amendment 56, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who has extensive clinical experience.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Building on the Minister’s last point, can he reassure the Committee that any consultation will have a strong focus on ensuring that practitioners have the training and, most importantly, the resources that they need to achieve a seamless transition from one set of regulations to another?”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have a certain degree of sympathy for the amendments, but I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise that patients and their families often find the review process overwhelming in and of itself. Bringing it forward to six months, when such reviews would often not be required, can cause a huge amount of stress and place pressure on those family units and patients. Of course, reviews can be brought forward when clinical need requires it. To stipulate that within the legislation puts an enormous burden upon those families and, most importantly, the patients.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that not resolving housing and accommodation at the point of discharge could lead to a delay in transition? Patients would remain in hospital for longer than might be beneficial to them.”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a risk that the amendment would not only increase the workload of practitioners, but divert attention from patient care?”
House of Commons10 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There appears to be universal support for this damascene conversion by the Government. Last year, they told pensioners that the right course of action was to scrap the winter fuel payment for millions, but they are now telling them that a means-tested system is right, so how can pensioners possibly believe anything that the Government say?”
House of Commons9 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Public confidence in the criminal justice system—and, importantly, the confidence of victims—is paramount. Since 2010, the use of community-based orders has decreased by 61%. That is in no small part because of concerns about offender engagement in the process. If the Government are going to pursue this route, what steps has the Lord Chancellor taken to model how many will reoffend and, more importantly, that they will be rigorously reinforced?”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution has, in a matter of days, amassed over 98,500 signatures. Will the Leader of the House commit that the petition, once it reaches the 100,000-signature threshold, will be granted debating time at the earliest opportunity?”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s position appears to be predicated on a hypothetical judgment to a hypothetical claim. In this hypothetical scenario, why would the Government not simply appeal?”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While that may be appealing superficially as a safeguard, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctor-patient relationship. We trust our clinicians every day to raise subjects of great complexity and moral weight.”
House of Commons16 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This House is now faced with a responsibility as profound as it is complex: to ensure that this Bill remains clear in its purpose, cautious in its application and compassionate in its impact. That purpose is simple, yet solemn: to grant adults of sound mind with a terminal diagnosis the legal right to seek assistance to end their lives in carefully regulated circumstances through a legal framework in which compassion and control co-exist. With that in mind, I rise to speak against new clauses 1, 2 and 9, which, while no doubt well intentioned, threaten to confuse, dilute or duplicate what is already a well-constructed piece of legislation. I begin with new clauses 1 and 2. New clause 1 would prohibit healthcare professionals from raising the topic of assisted dying unless it is first broached by the patient.”
House of Commons16 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I fear there is some rhetoric that engenders a fear around the medical profession, which is misplaced.”
House of Commons16 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗