YouSaid · the spoken record
Naz Shah
We hold 73 passages that may be Naz Shah’s. We do not publish them until we can confirm who spoke. See the correction.
On the record 2015–2026
hansard · podcast
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“I thank you, Mr Dowd. My apologies. I have made a mistake, but I was referencing the comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd about the use of languages, which is the subject of one of the amendments; that is my understanding. But again, I am happy to be guided by you, Mr Dowd. To come back to the issue of training and domestic violence, in Committee, we heard evidence from Dr Jamilla Hussain about minoritised women. Again, from the data collection of ethnic minority groups, training is right at the top of the agenda, whether it be training of doctors or specialists. Language is important when it comes to training as well. When people are training or trained to look at coercive control and to spot that coercive control, there is often an interpreter between them and the victim who is being assessed.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us take the example of a patient in Bradford West who has had a diagnosis of terminal illness. They might well have a doctor or consultant who has been dealing with them for six months or even a year, to the point where they have reached the terminal stage. They might have a relationship with that doctor, who might have spoken their language and might be from a particular faith background but who does not want to engage in the assisted dying process. According to the Bill, that doctor would then have to refer that patient on to somebody who is prepared to have that conversation, but that person might not have that training or those language skills, and they might not—”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the patient is a disabled woman, it is whammy upon whammy and layers upon layers of intersectionality that the Bill does not address. That is why I want to see the Bill strengthened. I want to talk about the training that doctors get and the training in palliative care. We heard from Dr Jamilla Hussain, who was very clear about the fear among minoritised communities because of what happened during the covid pandemic, with “do not resuscitate” orders and their whole experience. Some people potentially died who could have been saved because they did not have the trust in NHS services to access them. In this instance, it is important that we have a first doctor. That first doctor might have no relationship with the patient because their regular doctor does not want to engage in the process.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The same analogy potentially applies to patients who are asking about going down the route of assisted dying, because it is helpful if somebody comes from the same cultural background. If a female victim of domestic violence or coercive control meets a specialist doctor who looks very similar to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—a white, middle-class male—and he does not have that cultural understanding, he will then rely upon training, and he will no doubt rely upon an interpreter to translate. That is the kind of thing I am trying to tease out, and these are the kinds of protections I want to see in the Bill. If we want a Rolls-Royce service, and if this is to be the best Bill in the world, it cannot ignore the most vulnerable in society.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member asks a very important question. When I am talking about reflective services for black and minority ethnic communities, which is something I have delivered training on and worked on in a previous role, I often use the example of my mother, who was a victim of domestic violence. Had she been arrested by a woman instead of a man, her experience might have been different. Had she had a solicitor who was a woman, not a man, her experience might have been different. Had she had judges who were women, not men, her experience might have been different. Let us now add another layer to that. Had the police officer been a woman from the background she was from, they might have understood it.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Mr Dowd. My understanding is that this all relates to amendment 20, and I am happy to clarify why. Ultimately, this is about the professional’s intervention with a patient, and the amendment is about training people adequately to assess coercive control and domestic violence. I am trying to demonstrate—I accept that I might not be doing it well enough—that there is a pathway and a catalogue of things that relate back to the person who is being assessed. I am trying to explain to the Committee in detail, because I feel very strongly about it, what that care pathway might look like for somebody, and why the amendment, although I welcome it, does not safeguard the most vulnerable in society. I am happy to be guided if that is not what I am doing, but that is certainly what I am attempting to do. May I carry on, Mr Dowd?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Mr Dowd. I come back to the issue of potential coercive control, which is what amendment 20 addresses. As I have outlined, there are patients who could be in that position. Given the examples that I have put before the Committee, I argue that the amendment, although it is brilliant in getting us to a better place than where we started out with the Bill—I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has indicated that she is happy to discuss strengthening the safeguards—does not go far enough, for the very reasons that I have outlined, and no doubt will outline further when speaking to other amendments.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, because I have mixed views on this. I would like to understand what would be appropriate. My concern is that there will be a difference, because doctors normally have these set-ups for treatment options but, in this instance, the service is not a treatment, so to speak. I genuinely want to understand: in his eyes, what would a good service that provided scrutiny and accountability look like?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I also do not like the idea of doctors being identified in such a way, as they have with abortion clinics, but I am trying to understand how we will protect these services. If it is an NHS provision and specialty, with doctors in certain practices signing up to provide services for assisted dying and becoming either the primary or the secondary doctor, by definition those will be the practices to which people will refer. That will become common knowledge, just as it is for musculoskeletal or podiatry services, for example. In this instance, there would be an assisted death service, and there would clearly be practices that do not provide it. How would we then protect the doctors? How will the Government respond to all these concerns?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We should all approve this. Our responsibility for this legislation will not end when and if it becomes an Act of Parliament. These amendments speak to tighter safeguards and parliamentary scrutiny for all new regulations made by the Secretary of State in relation to identity and residence. All hon. Members should support them.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As Members will know, if a statutory instrument is made under the affirmative procedure, it must be approved by Parliament within a certain timeframe, which is usually 28 or 40 days. If that does not happen, the change to the law made by the statutory instrument will not take place. In the Bill as drafted, these regulations are covered by the negative procedure, which means that if and when the Secretary of State decides to change them, they could go through on the nod unless Members raised an objection. A statutory instrument laid through the negative procedure becomes law on the day the Minister signs it and automatically remains law unless a motion rejecting it is passed by either House within 40 sitting days. Placing all changes to regulations under the affirmative procedure would ensure that we have scrutiny by Parliament.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 292 would change clause 6(3), which currently reads, “The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).” The amendment would change that “may” to a “must”, as the former treats the identification process with reduced seriousness. If the word “may” stays in legislation, there is no obligation to have rigour in the identification process. As drafted, the Bill is more open for abuse. Amendment 293 seeks to place the regulations concerning identification under the affirmative procedure, which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire mentioned earlier. Assisted dying is so important that no regulations made under it should be drawn using the negative procedure.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That would be an extreme case, but we are talking about creating a wholly new power that would relate to life and death. We are talking about making assisted dying available to people who are, in many cases, extremely distressed. People in extreme circumstances will sometimes do extreme things. We should expect some extreme cases and seek to guard against them. Amendment 291 would provide such a safeguard. The Bill says that to qualify for assisted dying, applicants must have been resident in the UK for at least a year, but it does not ask them to provide any proof of that residence. In such a serious matter, we surely cannot simply accept someone’s word that they live in the UK. Making that a requirement without a test to establish it de-values the importance of the criteria for qualifying.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“None of those is as important as applying for an assisted death. I remind hon. Members that assisted death is a process that would end in a person being issued with and then taking a mixture of lethal drugs. In a hospital setting where drugs are dispensed, rigorous processes are undertaken to verify the patient. Drug errors are not uncommon. The previous Health and Social Care Committee’s report into pharmacy witnessed how clinical practice was being improved to reduce drug errors. Given that a lethal dose is dispensed as part of this process, the identification mechanisms are weak and should be addressed in this preliminary stage through the provisions set out in this amendment. It is possible that the wrong person could be prescribed the medication.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As currently written, clause 6(2) states: “The person must, at the same time as that declaration is made, provide two forms of proof of identity to the coordinating doctor and the witness mentioned in section 5(2)(c)(ii).” Subsection (3) states: “The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).” Surely that is not tight enough. In particular, the Bill as written does not specify that either form of proof of identity should be photo ID. That may be a major omission. For much less significant decisions, the law of England and Wales requires at least one form of photographic ID. For example, there is currently a requirement to have photo identity to work on the parliamentary estate, vote, or have a bus pass or railcard.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to amendments 291, 292 and 293, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I do not intend to press them to a vote; they are probing amendments. They all relate to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley about the identification required of applicants for assisted dying. They do not change those requirements; they take a more logical and businesslike approach to proving that those requirements are met. Amendment 291 would change the current requirements on identification and require applicants for assisted dying to produce a piece of photo ID and proof of residence in the UK for the previous year.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the hon. Member agree that perhaps the amendment is not just about the context in which it has been referred to so far, but about protecting doctors in future? When mistakes happen, people would have a means to protect themselves.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a safeguard that would actually strengthen this Bill, especially given the conversations we have had around repeated coercion?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. I do not question the capability of those doctors, but how does that square with the concerns of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that if a doctor has never met the person before, they cannot make an assessment on coercion? That might impact on capacity.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is the hon. Member aware that in nine of the 10 cases that went before the Court of Protection, the young ladies were deemed not to have capacity, but the judge still decided that it would not be in their best interests to feed them, and they were put on palliative care pathways?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Apologies, Mrs Harris: I was late returning to my seat earlier and missed the opening remarks from the hon. Member for Richmond Park on this amendment. I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that, as it is, if somebody has anorexia—we are not talking about capacity, which I referred to in the cases of the nine girls I spoke about—that is an accepted mental health condition and the amendment is trying to exclude those people from having an assisted death. In the nine cases I spoke of, the court found that those girls with anorexia had capacity and ruled that they had a terminal illness.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sorry—they did not have capacity, but the Court of Protection still ruled that they would be taken down the route of palliative care. This is not just a matter of capacity; in this instance, when we talk about mental health—before we even get to the capacity question—the issue is that anorexia is a recognised mental health condition. I beg to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central on whether we have enough provision. We keep coming back to this issue time and again.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For me, the crux of the issue is that if someone has a mental health condition that then, by definition, becomes a terminal illness—regardless of the capacity conversation—this amendment surely strengthens the safeguard for them. By and large, this involves women who experience anorexia so this conversation is very gendered. I am happy to be corrected. That is all I have to say on the matter.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. When I came to this place, somebody said to me, “There’s the letter of the law and there’s the essence of the law.” As lawmakers, we make indications, and so do judges. By not opposing something, does that mean that by default we are supporting it? That is the question here for me. In those cases, those judges accepted—as he says—that those girls would inevitably die. Although the judges did not state that they put the girls on a palliative care pathway, by default, in my understanding, that was a palliative care pathway because it was accepted that those young girls were going to die by not being fed. It is just a matter of semantics for me. I come back to the debate that we have just had.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to amendment 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, which is about the second, independent doctor. We debated amendment 20 earlier, and I am genuinely very pleased that the promoter of the Bill accepted that amendment. Some of what I would like to say now will be repetition, because it is a similar amendment, but I will try to keep my remarks contained and shorter. I am not sure whether the promoter of the Bill is planning to accept amendment 21 as well as amendment 20 —for both doctors. I will be happy to give way if she wants to clarify that now.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Only this afternoon, I came across some research from the Kent and Medway NHS trust. In addition to research from last year, it has been found that women will kill themselves when they experience domestic abuse. For the first time, the number of women killing themselves as a result of domestic abuse has overtaken the number of women who are killed from domestic violence in intimate partner relationships. Bear with me—I will return to the research from the Kent and Medway trust in a moment, because I cannot seem to locate the statistics I wanted to point out. Either way, I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to get this Bill right.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“From a safeguarding perspective, the Bill’s impact is very gendered. It is International Women’s Day this week, and this is a very heightened issue. We celebrate women in this place because we do not have equality for women in our systems, across the globe and in this country. From the research and evidence we have had, we know that this Bill would impact more upon women, so it is important that we extend the training. As I suggested earlier, I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to look at tabling another amendment and strengthening this safeguard, because I really want to get this one right. Although I talked about this earlier, there are some statistics on suicide that I did not mention, which is why I want this training.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Oh, perfect. I am really pleased that my hon. Friend will accept both amendments 20 and 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. Amendment 21 is about training. Although I welcome the amendments being accepted, my concern is that the amendment for training does not go far enough. We are talking about repeated coercion here, and my hon. Friend’s intention with the amendment was for people to be trained in picking up repeated coercive control. That is very different from domestic abuse, in terms of its manifestation and how it is picked up. From lots of evidence we have received, both written and oral, we know that coercive control is hard to detect. When it is repeated coercive control, it is even harder. I want the Bill to be strengthened, especially when it comes to minoritised communities and older people.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When it comes to women from ethnic minorities who have cultural differences, potentially including language barriers and different understandings of coercion, it is even harder to tease out their experience in any assessment from the first doctor or second doctor. I would therefore welcome any strengthening of the amendments.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend. I agree with his previous point, as well as the point made by the promoter of the Bill that the training that will be provided under this Bill should welcome that conversation with women, especially those who are victims of domestic abuse. I have now found the research I wanted to share. Tim Woodhouse is a suicide prevention expert from Kent and Medway council, and he carried out research over five years until 2024. He estimated that about 30% of all suicides in that sample of people, largely women, experienced domestic abuse. Woodhouse estimates, in the UK as a whole, that “over 1,800 lives are being lost in domestic abuse related suicides every year.” He described that as “a scandal, and national tragedy,” and I completely agree with Tim’s assertion.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 301, in clause 8, page 4, line 39, leave out “7” and insert “14”. This amendment would increase the period of reflection to 14 days.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is such a monumental decision, so that a patient has to be assured that they are making the right decision and have had time to really reflect on it and contemplate all other options available to them. The process appears to be very rushed, and a patient could be caught up in the moment of getting through the stages. It will be intense. There will be lots of information. There may be new things for the patient to consider. Having a proper break clause would enable a patient proper time to reflect and consider in detail everything that has happened in the process to date, and then to contemplate their further options. We know that patients often need to hear information several times before they fully absorb what is being said and what is happening.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In line with good practice, extending the reflection period is important. I spoke about that at length when we debated my amendment 277. It is important for the patient to be able to fully explore their options and seek wider counsel before determining to take the route of assisted death. This part of the process is perhaps the most important. The period after a patient has completed their assessment and received court approval or that of the commission and panel—should the Committee choose to change this—will be the main period where they determine whether they want to go through with ending their life. It is right to ensure that the legislation provides time.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Therefore, extending the period to two weeks—although that is arguably still too short a timescale—would be good practice. It would be in the interest of the person and of the carers, as we know from other jurisdictions that family often say that the process was too quick for them to be able to absorb. It could also enable a patient to make alternative choices. In medicine, practitioners want patients to make informed decisions and to have time to assure themselves of the choices they make. In the light of the Committee’s vote to block the amendment that would have ensured that a palliative care specialist was involved in the counsel to support someone with decision making as they are dying, it is right that more time is given for patients’ considerations. Amendment 317 would provide 28 days, not 14, for second period of reflection.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Issues of intensity, such as someone planning to take their own life, should not be rushed. We know from all the work that has been undertaken on suicide that other interventions, conversations and reflections can help with reflection and reconsideration. It is important that people are given that opportunity. The first time a patient raises the matter with their doctor, the doctor would have provided them with lot of alternative information—for instance, on what treatment options are available. They might also have had a palliative medicine consultation to review their options. There needs to be time for the patient to really reflect on all that new information. We know that when people are presented with information, it takes time for them to absorb and analyse it.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Government are trying to protect the NHS, and the best way of achieving that is to ensure that medical interventions are sought and provided at the earliest opportunity before a patient deteriorates. Giving someone who is dying within the terms of this legislation longer to reflect—just a further week—removes such pressure from GPs or consultants and enables them to properly prioritise their patients. It does not build a false expectation in patients that they have a right to rapidly have a consultation. Likewise, we know that it can currently take weeks, if not months or over a year, for patients to see another consultant, but the clause does not suggest that. It would therefore be helpful and better for the patient to have a more realistic period before moving to the next stage of their assessment.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Amendment 301 seeks to provide a time of reflection of 14 days, not seven. As somebody pointed out, the industry standard for returning something bought in a shop far exceeds the cool-off period set out in the Bill. The reality is that the NHS is under such duress, with patients waiting weeks to see their GP for anything other than urgent treatment, that being able to get an appointment with a GP in seven days is something that we are unlikely to see. It is right that doctors are able to triage their patients to ensure that those who require medical interventions to keep them well, prevent hospital admissions, or stop them deteriorating or even dying, are seen as a priority.”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He referred to the same thing twice, yesterday and today, and I just want to clarify it. He said that most people are ill for a while. I have a genuine question. I do not have the research, but my understanding, as a member of the public and a Member of Parliament, is that for many people who get a terminal diagnosis of six months, it will have been very sudden. Does he have any research to suggest that most of these patients will have been on the kind of trajectory he describes?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to explore that point a bit further. When I talk about a period of reflection, I am referring to the evidence that we have had from psychiatrists, who said that people’s abilities would be impacted in this situation. That is where the amendments are coming from. To come back to the previous point, is there any research or evidence that would back up the claim that many cases are longer-term illnesses, rather than people who have just got the diagnosis?”
House of Commons5 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am trying to understand. My hon. Friend is saying that the oncologist is a specialist, but that they might not be the first doctor to have the first discussion; he said that they might not want to be a part of this process. I would like to understand that a bit more.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“From what I hear, my hon. Friend is supportive of the amendment. Does he agree that it just sets out what he says is best practice? I am trying to understand the objection to setting out good practice on the face of the Bill.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 4(4) would require a generalist to work alongside a specialist to secure the understanding of a patient’s diagnosis and prognosis. Once again, I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud suggested that that already happens and does not need to be tied up in law. However, I feel the amendment gives us more protections if we are to make the Bill safe. It would then enable specialist clinical advice to be provided in the conversation about treatment options.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to amendments 285 and 286, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. On amendment 285, we have to understand that, in medicine, clinicians only retain the areas of expertise in which they have clear confidence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who made very powerful points that, if anything, actually support this amendment. This is why we have developed a health system with so many specialities. Although generalists have incredible knowledge, they cannot confess to the depth of understanding that someone who dedicates their career to a speciality has. Therefore, the amendment seeks to draw on such knowledge rather than assume that a GP, for example, specialises in all fields of medicine.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This measure would therefore be in line with normal medical practice. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 286 would set out the requirements for the co-ordinating doctor and ensure that the standards are upheld throughout the process of assessment, so that the patient and clinician have the highest levels of advice available. Even though the co-ordinating doctor might already have sought the advice of specialists as part of their assessment, the purpose of having an independent doctor is to assess the patient without preconceptions influenced by the co-ordinating doctor’s decision-making process. It is therefore important for the clinician to have access to the same level of advice to inform their clinical decision making. In medical practice, should a second opinion be sought, the person providing that second opinion might consult a range of sources to establish an opinion.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member makes a valid point. That brings us to a very important question: do we wait for something to have happened? In this instance, people will have died. If we were considering kidneys, for example, and the issue of consent, it would require somebody independent. It needs a specialist. We come back to the point about specialisms: whether they relate to diagnosis, coercion, the care pathway, palliative care or the drugs that bring a person’s life to an end, which we will discuss later, these are specialisms. I know that later my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will speak to her amendment about the panel, which is intended to require expertise. That is what amendment 285 speaks to, and I hope hon. Members will support it.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister’s point speaks to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and I have spoken about in relation to the amendment, so I wonder which bit he supports. The Minister says that there will be extra time, but my hon. Friend pointed out that doctors do this routinely, so the objection is only that it will be on the face of the Bill. I just want to understand the Minister’s position on that.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have mentioned this point a few times and have raised it with the Minister, and I appreciate that the Minister has responded, but this is where my frustration—for want of a better word—comes from about not having an impact assessment in the first place. If we had had an impact assessment, the Government would have looked at these things. Even with small Bills, we go out to consultation for weeks and weeks. With this Bill, we have not spoken to anybody during Committee stage about the nuances of the provisions on languages and what they will mean for patients. Although I support the essence of what the amendments are attempting to achieve, they fall short of providing the necessary protections. I do not know how the Government will address that.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would really value a response from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to these questions about the nuances of having such a difficult conversation. These are really brave conversations, both on the doctor’s side and on the patient’s. Take a woman from an ethnic minority background whose first language is not English and whose doctor is unable to translate their conversation with her. Would that conversation be disempowering? Would it be empowering? Would we be doing a disservice to that person, with the best will in the world from the doctor? I really would like to understand what consideration is being given to making this accessible, if it is to be a service and a piece of legislation that is open equally to all.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In a previous life I chaired the largest mental health charity outside London for ethnic minority communities, and I am a former NHS commissioner, so when we talk about health inequalities and patient intervention, I understand acutely the nuances involved in translating from one language to another. In the first instance, there is a language that someone does not understand. In the second instance, particularly for minority communities who speak languages from the south Asian subcontinent such as Punjabi, Urdu or Hindi, the words do not exist to translate the Bill literally or to talk about assisted death. That speaks to the point that the hon. Member for Reigate made about understanding what it means. I have the same stats that she cited, which show that people do not understand what assisted death is.”
House of Commons4 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗