Caroline Dinenage MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 16 Oct 2025 · Grassroots Sports Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this week, the Committee heard from Henry Hughes and Nathan Young, two brilliant swimmers who are travelling to Tokyo next month to represent Britain as part of the Deaflympics. The competition has been running for over 100 years—longer than the Paralympics, in fact—but deaf athletes are the only disabled elite sports group who have no access to either Government or UK Sport funding. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing all our deaf Olympians the very best of luck in Tokyo next month? Will she also agree to meet them on their return with UK Deaf Sport to discuss how this terrible situation can be improved and how they can be supported much better in the future?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Rowner were delighted to hear that they had been chosen for pride in place funding, but they are now a little bit worried, and I hope that the Minister can help us. My constituents fear that rather than the money being spent on projects that will change lives in Rowner in a meaningful way, our Liberal Democrat council will attempt to siphon some of it off to bankroll one of its vanity projects, namely the Criterion, a dilapidated former bingo hall. I am pleased that this funding comes with some flexibility, but what protections will the Minister introduce to prevent the money from being frittered away on white elephants by unscrupulous councils?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Social and Affordable Housing · Hansard source

  More

  There are over 560 families on Gosport borough council’s waiting list for social housing, yet despite taking power a few years ago, the Liberal Democrat council has not built a single extra council house. Meanwhile, the complaints I get in my mailbag about the substandard quality of council accommodation grow more and more every single week. What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage such inadequate councils to build a greater quantity and better quality of council accommodation?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Fort Blockhouse in Gosport was due to have been sold by 2024, but the deadline keeps moving. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation has not been at all proactive; this giant site sits empty, doing nothing for the MOD, taxpayers or the local economy. First Reform and then the Government have suggested that sites like Blockhouse will be used for asylum accommodation. Gosport deserves so much better. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss a much more innovative future for this important—

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  If we are going to exchange numbers, does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that over 1,000 pubs and restaurants have closed since the autumn Budget, and that 84,000 hospitality workers have lost their jobs? That is one in every 25 since the autumn Budget alone—and that was when the autumn Budget was actually in the autumn. Does he agree that that is having an impact on our high streets and the very viability of our local town centres and that it needs to stop? The Government need to stop holding our hospitality sector responsible for everything that happens in the local economy.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Regulation) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of online providers of fertility and certain ancillary services by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and for connected purposes. Having a child is variously viewed as one of the most life-changing, exhausting, expensive, thankless, frustrating and ultimately magical and rewarding things we ever do in our lives. My two sons sometimes drive me round the bend, but I quite literally love them more than anything in the world. For many people, having a child requires a form of fertility treatment; in fact, one in six couples in Britain is affected by infertility problems. More than 52,000 people accessed fertility treatment in 2023—the most recent year for which statistics are available. For perspective, that is up from 6,000 in 1991. In the past 25 years, the proportion of children being born by in vitro fertilisation has doubled. The regulator for the fertility industry, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, reports that there are now enough children born by IVF for there to be one in every classroom around the UK. That is for a number of reasons. It is worth celebrating that since 1991 social attitudes towards women getting into and staying in work have progressed even further; there are now 10% more women in employment. Sometimes, however, building a successful career can make it harder to build a family. One in 10 fertility treatments are undertaken by single women, and the average age of those women is slightly older, at 36. Although the proportion of young adults in the UK who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual has doubled in the last five years, the Government amended the law that regulated fertility access to remove the barriers for female same-sex couples for the first and only time in 2008, and that is what we are here today to discuss: apart from that one change, regulation has remained static while industry, attitudes and lifestyles have raced ahead. The Human Fertility and Embryology Act 1990 regulates fertility clinics, and despite the fertility landscape constantly modernising and moving with the times, that piece of legislation has remained largely unchanged since it was passed 35 years ago. The failure of the regulatory regime to oversee adequately the uniquely high-stakes world of modern fertility treatment was thrown into sharp relief recently with the unexpected closure of Apricity Fertility. Acting as a hub that connected parents to the very complex web of fertility services, it was effectively a digital concierge service, linking women with partner clinics and offering advice and support, yet not providing any of the medical services itself. Just days before Christmas, on 20 December, Apricity Fertility notified customers that it would cease all operations from 1 January. While families across the country were opening their Christmas presents, hundreds of Apricity customers, including women who were just about to start their IVF injections, were opening emails that would ruin their Christmas and leave them in limbo at a very crucial point in their fertility treatment. Patients scrambled to seek confirmation from clinics that they could continue with their treatment, because as we know, even a month’s delay can massively affect the chance of a successful cycle. In many cases, having already spent every single penny that they had in the world in the pursuit of having a baby, some were told by their insurers that they would have to pay thousands more up front to continue their treatment. We know that IVF is a physically demanding and incredibly emotionally fraught process. IVF cycles are more likely to be unsuccessful than successful, but Apricity boasted an above-average success rate of 46%. As IVF.net stated, therefore, for hundreds of couples, Apricity’s closure was “more than a logistical hurdle—it is a devastating emotional blow.” Even worse, families who had signed up Apricity were not offered the peace of mind that a regulator provides, because it was not regulated; it was an unlicensed online clinic. That means that the health and advice on offer could have been complete rubbish and could have been backed by no expert knowledge at all—and such online services are expanding in scope and number. The HFEA has warned: “For some time a range of activities marketed as fertility treatments have taken place outside of HFEA licensed clinics in a variety of settings, including ‘wellness’ clinics. More recently, the fertility market has started to move online, in settings which are outside of the regulated scheme”. More people are accessing the fertility market and treatments than ever before, and particularly in that way. Though the HFEA cannot put an exact number on that, precisely because such services fall outside its regulatory scope, given that 73% of IVF cycles are funded privately, it is likely to be a very large proportion. In recognition of the changing landscape, and with patient trust and safety in mind, the HFEA recommended in 2023 that the 1990 HFE Act “should be revised to accommodate developments in the way fertility services are provided.” I know that Health Ministers have met the chair of the HFEA to discuss updating the regulatory regime around fertility treatment, but such change will require primary legislation. I have had no firm commitment that the Government are seeking a change in the law, but the case of Apricity has underscored the urgent need to safeguard patients’ rights to their data, their eggs and their sperm. This is a classic case of regulation just not keeping pace with modern life. It is criminal that organisations that are in the business of making dreams come true can just disappear, along with people’s money and their hopes of starting a family. The Chancellor has made it clear that she is no fan of regulators, but in the field of medical treatment and specifically the process of IVF, a strong regulatory regime is absolutely vital to ensuring confidence and security, so I urge Ministers and Members across the House to support my Bill, to bring in the recommendations of the HFEA and to support women and families at one of the most important stages of their lives. Question put and agreed to. Ordered , That Dame Caroline Dinenage, Katie Lam, Liz Jarvis, Aphra Brandreth, Sir Ashley Fox, Joe Robertson, Christine Jardine, Jim Shannon, Sarah Champion, Florence Eshalomi, Samantha Niblett and Wendy Morton present the Bill. Dame Caroline Dinenage accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 284 ). Business of the House (Today) Ordered, That, at today’s sitting, business in the name of the Leader of the Opposition shall be treated as being taken on an allotted day provided under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business); such business may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for up to six hours after the start of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. —( Lucy Powell .)

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about tough choices. Does she agree that families that are in work make tough choices every single day, about what they can afford and how they spend their money, and that those who receive benefits should really have to make the same tough choices?

• 3 Jul 2025 · British Film and High-end Television · Hansard source

  More

  One thing we were asking for was for streamers in particular to be feeding back on how much of their money they are spending on skills and the regional impact of the investment they are making. We know that it can make such a difference to a local area, as the hon. Gentleman says. When something is filmed in one of his towns or cities, it shines a fantastic light and puts that place in focus. It also tells stories that resonate completely with our residents and inspire an entire new generation to work on those stories but also to create them in future.

• 3 Jul 2025 · British Film and High-end Television · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend represents the New Forest, which, with its great beauty, is a remarkable setting for so many of our British film and TV shows. He is absolutely right that the BFI does a remarkable job. The Select Committee visited its archives to see the collection of British film and TV content going back decades, right from the advent of film production, and to see the remarkable skills it has in being able to bring some of that really old film content back into use. This is part of our heritage. We need to do everything we can to ensure we are protecting it and investing in it, and ensuring that people have the skills to look after our film history in future, so we were really disappointed with that particular aspect of the Government’s response to our recommendations.

• 3 Jul 2025 · British Film and High-end Television · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Northern Ireland film and TV sectors have been hugely successful, notably for “Game of Thrones” and I think that “Line of Duty” was shot there, too. It has had phenomenal success, again based on remarkable skills. I have not had the opportunity to speak to the Northern Ireland Government, but I really would like to because, as he says, there is plenty of work for everyone. We have British stories that are there to be told in every single corner of the British Isles. We need to make sure we are promoting our British film and TV industries, so we can keep telling those stories.

• 3 Jul 2025 · British Film and High-end Television · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement. In April, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I am very honoured to chair, published its report on British film and high-end television, and this sector is absolutely thriving. We have world-class facilities at Pinewood and Leavesden, where the inward investment means films that could be made anywhere are being made here in the UK. The development of Crown Works Studios in Sunderland ensures not just that film making is happening in London and the south-east, but that the money is spreading out to our regions, where we have enormous talents. On our screens, there are fantastic shows such as “Adolescence”, “Doctor Who” and “Rivals”—something for everybody—sharing British stories around the world. In cinemas, British talent and locations in movies such as “The Salt Path” and “The Ballad of Wallis Island”, which I am told is fantastic, are making such an impact. However, this is a fragile industry. It has done so much to rebound from the difficulties of the covid pandemic, but the US strikes in 2023 showed us just how reliant the UK industry is on inward investment and how vulnerable it is. We cannot take this success for granted. It was hard-earned and it must be protected. Our inquiry was launched in the summer of 2023. It came 20 years after the last major Committee inquiry report on the state of British film, which with the willingness of successive Governments and huge engagement from the sector, has shaped policies for the last two decades. However, it was in need of an update, so our Select Committee heard from film makers, cinemas, industry bodies and those working on skills in the sector. The previous Government acknowledged some of the issues we had begun to raise about low-budget British film and VFX—visual effects—tax credits, but last year’s general election left the inquiry on a cliffhanger, with many in the industry desperate for a sequel. We did not want to leave audiences disappointed, so with a new look Committee of excellent new members, we have brought back the inquiry on the crisis in British high-end TV, the benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence, and the work of the British Film Institute and the Government. Our report made 35 recommendations to the Government and the BFI. I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going through them all, but based on evidence from across the industry, we proposed a comprehensive plan to support inward investment, champion British content and independent film making, drive up skills, support people to stay in the sector, help our cinemas and protect our incredible screen heritage. Admittedly, some of these recommendations were really bold. We supported the calls of eminent creators such as the fantastic producer and director Peter Kosminsky for a levy on streamer subscriptions to help fund British content. Other recommendations were comparatively small but important, such as inviting the Government to review the effectiveness of their incentives for the sector, or working with the BFI for a screen heritage strategy. In the meantime, the Government have published their creative industries sector plan, which happily made film and TV a priority as one of their first frontier sectors. They have given a welcome uplift to the UK global screen fund, which our Committee recommended. They have also announced a new capital fund for the National Film and Television School, which will contribute some, if not all, of the skills we need. Madam Deputy Speaker, if like me you have been to the cinema recently, you will have seen the trailers for the summer blockbusters coming up, and been a bit frustrated that the best bits have all been shown in the trailers, and that is where we are with the Government response. The areas where the Government agreed with the Committee and have taken decisive action were the only new announcements in the sector plan. On everything else, the Creative Industries Minister, who cannot be here for this statement, is at risk of being the villain. He might be called the Government’s very own Dr No. In the time I have left, I will go through where we think the Government have got it wrong. They simply do not share our ambition for this sector, and have not acknowledged the real anxieties those in sector have expressed and the support they have asked for. The Government agree with our Committee that we must ensure the resilience of domestic production and protect our domestic workforce, but they do not seem to have the answers on how to do so. They have failed to recognise the value of research and development in the creative arts, and that it should be treated in the same way as R&D for science and technology. They have ignored the concerns raised by film makers about access to the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme. They have ignored our proposals for a print and advertising tax relief, which would drive investment in our cinemas and independent films. They have refused to require a regional breakdown of production spending, which would help the Government ensure that the benefits of these tax credits are shared right across the UK, and we have phenomenal skills and great stories to tell around the UK. The Government’s welcome extra funding for the UK global screen fund is tempered by a refusal to engage with industry calls to rejoin Creative Europe. On skills, they have ruled out statutory reporting on spending in the sector, despite the unwillingness of some big players in the industry to be open and transparent about what they are giving back. There is hope that the growth and skills levy will be more suitable for the creative industries—the apprenticeship levy currently is not working—but there is very little new information, and I know the sector is concerned that the Treasury may weaken the proposals for a levy that works for the sector. The Government’s proposal for a freelance champion is good as far as it goes, but it is very light on detail and a long way from the freelancers’ commissioner that we have repeatedly asked for. Although the debate on AI and copyright has moved on somewhat from our ping-pong on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government have rejected or ignored a raft of proposals that would have protected the intellectual property and the moral rights of our creative artists. I know Ministers care deeply about our creative industries, and the Government have made a commitment to them with the sector plan, but I am concerned that while they call British film and TV a frontier sector, so many of our recommendations, based on really clear and compelling evidence from the sector, have just been dismissed or ignored. There is a question whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport thinks our recommendations are wrong, or it just does not have the clout with the Treasury to make them happen. I know the Minister cannot be here, but I also know how he loves a cultural pun, so in the hope that he will be watching this back, it would be a shame not to take this opportunity to say that we had great expectations for the Government’s response but, rather than offering us the full monty, we were left brassed off. The Minister will be before our Committee next week for a brief encounter to discuss the creative industries sector plan. We are not rivals; we want to work with the Government in the line of duty to get the most for this sector. There is some time for them to add a little sense and sensibility, or perhaps some atonement. If so, rather than being wicked, the Minister could end up as British film’s local hero. I commend this statement to the House.

• 3 Jul 2025 · British Film and High-end Television · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. This is one of the big questions underlining our whole inquiry. The cost of making content has risen so much, it is pricing so many of our British PSBs out of the market. We heard from Peter Kosminsky, the director of “Wolf Hall”, that it simply could not be made today and that “The Mirror and the Light” was only made because some of the key people on it worked for free. We cannot carry on like that. We need our British stories to be heard around the world. We have seen some fantastic streamers making great content, such as “Black Doves” and “One Day” which do tell British stories, but our PSBs do them better than ever and we need to ensure they are getting the right funding. We have made some quite radical recommendations, such as expanding access to tax credits and a levy on streamers, which was particularly contentious. We will continue to push for some of those recommendations. The Minister is appearing in front of us next week and we will keep asking him these questions, because we need to protect our PSBs and ensure they are telling our great British stories for years to come.

• 3 Jul 2025 · British Film and High-end Television · Hansard source

  More

  That is a really important question. The Committee made a recommendation based on the conversation we had, supported by the Film Distributors’ Association, for a tax relief for print and advertising of films. The Government have not responded to that, but it is really important. If we are to support British films to be made, and the Government have brought forward tax credits for independent British films with a lower budget, we still need audiences to know that they are out there for them to be supported to get into our local cinemas. Local cinemas have suffered as well, particularly during the pandemic. We need them to be able to stay open. They are vital parts of our local community. This whole ecosystem depends on having cinemas that are flourishing and functioning, and British stories being told in our cinemas. Helping the print and advertising aspect of that story really is very important. We were very disappointed that the Government did not accept that recommendation.

• 3 Jul 2025 · British Film and High-end Television · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes such an important point. We have remarkable skills around the UK, but when we go into sixth forms in any of our constituencies and speak to the young people there, we find few who are considering a career in film and TV. Yet if we look at the things they are studying, we see that the film and TV industry has a demand for all of them. Carpenters, hairdressers, accountants, technicians, engineers and computer designers would all have a place —a job—in the industry, yet the young people may not think of it. We need to ensure that the opportunities for British film and high-end TV are understood and nurtured in every corner of our country, because we have the ideas, the skills and the phenomenal track record, and the Government must do everything they can to harness those and make sure we are benefiting from them.

• 3 Jul 2025 · Major Sporting Events · Hansard source

  More

  I 100% back the words of the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and send all our best wishes to the Lionesses as they start their competition shortly. The Secretary of State will know that Royal Ascot last week attracted a viewing population of tens of millions, and “Glorious Goodwood” is about to do the same. Horseracing supports about 85,000 jobs across the UK and generates about £4 billion a year for the UK economy, but the Secretary of State will know that it faces a looming and imminent crisis. When will the Government really start to back British horseracing?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. What she says reflects some of the conversations I have had with WASPI women in my constituency about not only the distress this has caused them, but how so many of them simply did not receive the correspondence that they have been told they did receive over the years about the financial situation that was coming down the track. The hon. Lady pointed out that the PHSO report found maladministration, and that despite promising to address it in all their communications before the general election, the Government said that it was too burdensome to compensate on a flat scale. When that announcement was made, I asked the Secretary of State what else could be done to support these women, many of whom have really struggled as a result of this decision. I did not receive a particularly forthcoming response, so I wonder whether the hon. Lady has had any more joy in finding out what the Government are going to do to support these women if they cannot bring forward the financial support on which so many of them have missed out.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Procurement: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Our UK defence industry can have few better ambassadors around the world than our Red Arrows. As the Hawk aircraft comes to an end, will the Minister look closely at the British-designed modular aircraft being developed by Aeralis, because it would support SMEs right across our country, including by bringing around 600 jobs to StandardAero in Gosport and about 1,000 to the south Hampshire area? Surely that would be a much better way to support our national SMEs than opting for the Italian-Russian Yak-130 aircraft, which the MOD is rumoured to prefer.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Secretary of State for that strong and welcome statement. The BBC editorial guidelines on livestreaming are actually quite clear. They say, “The level of monitoring should be appropriate for the likely content. A producer should normally be in a position to cut the feed from a live stream if it becomes necessary.” What explanation has the BBC given for why the livestream was not cut? It cannot be for lack of staff on the ground; the BBC took a reported 400 people to Glastonbury at the weekend—what were they all doing? For such a vast operation with multi simultaneous live shows going out across various different parts of the site, has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to ask the BBC who has the final say on which bands are deemed suitable for live broadcast and why on earth it chose this one, and who makes the final decision when it becomes necessary to cut a livestream?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  I also welcome this announcement, but can we talk about money? We already know that 20% of our defence budget is spent on the nuclear deterrent. It is disproportionately expensive. If we are now extending the nuclear capability with these airdrop weapons, what impact will that have on the budget for the rest of our conventional armed forces?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister says, the Online Safety Act has passed into law and is being implemented, but parents in my Gosport constituency are still desperately worried about the scale of the inappropriate content that very young children can stumble across in the online world. Can she reassure us? When will they begin to practically see the changes that the Online Safety Act promised, and when will the big online providers really start having to do what they say they are doing to keep our children safe online?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have a similar concern about mobility scooters. Obviously, they are a fabulous tool, enabling so many in our constituencies to get out and about, but the number of serious injuries caused by mobility scooters has gone up by nearly 60% in the last 10 years, and the number of fatalities has doubled. These heavy class 3 mobility scooters, which can go up to 8 mph and travel on the roads, are not subject to insurance rules and cannot be penalised under dangerous driving regulations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is something the Government also need to consider very carefully? I would really love the Minister to look at whether there is any legislation that would be implementable in cases such as these.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 121, which is tabled in my name and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and, I am very pleased to say, by Members from both sides of this Chamber. It would extend the definition of extreme pornography to include depictions of non-fatal strangulation, known as NFS. NFS was made a criminal offence in 2021 under the last Government, not because we think the Government should necessarily stick their nose into what people want to get up to in the bedroom, but because abusers use non-fatal strangulation without consent, as it leaves little visible injury and makes it hard to prosecute under domestic abuse cases. When a woman dies from strangulation, it is becoming increasingly common to use the defence that it was a sex game gone wrong. Non-fatal strangulation has a life out there in the world of online porn. As we know, the UK is a large porn consumer. In any given month, more than 10 million adults in the UK will access online porn, and the vast majority of them will be chaps. That is up to them—we do not judge—but we know from research that online porn is so widespread that one in 10 children have seen it by the age of nine. Unfortunately, it is the guide that many young people use to learn about sex. That is why I am extremely worried that non-fatal strangulation has been found to be rife on porn sites. Evidence has shown that it is directly influencing the sexual behaviour of young men, who are non-consensually strangling young women during consensual sex. Recent polling has suggested that 17% of 16 to 34-year-olds have been strangled without giving consent during consensual sex. We are not being prudes in calling for this misogynistic act to be banned in online porn. Health experts warn that there is no way to strangle someone without risk, given that blood and airflow may both be restricted. A person can become unconscious within 10 seconds of being choked, and within 17 seconds they can have a seizure due to lack of oxygen. Death can occur within 150 seconds of being rendered unconscious. Almost 20% of the women killed in the UK since 2014 were strangled by an intimate partner. Perpetrators who choke their partners are seven times more likely to kill them. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is alarming to hear reports of young men and boys seeking advice on how they can safely strangle their partner in bed and that girls are expected to accept that kind of behaviour. There was even a report last year, which the Minister may have heard about, of draft personal, social, health and economic education guidance from a Welsh local authority including safe choking during sex for a child sex education class. We need to send a signal that strangling your partner in bed is not safe—it can be a precursor to coercive, abusive behaviour. I know that the Government also want to send that signal, because in February they said, in their response to an independent review commissioned by the previous Government: “The government will take urgent action to ensure pornography platforms, law enforcement and prosecutors are taking all necessary steps to tackle this increasingly prevalent harm.” I therefore urge the Minister to support my new clause 121, which sets out one of the necessary steps referred to in the Government’s response. We need to back this amendment, ban this harmful practice, and send out a very strong message that depictions of non-fatal strangulation in porn normalise something that is not normal and is not safe.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to speak only briefly. We have to be really honest about where we are, and the current situation under the legal status quo is not working. It is failing terminally ill people who want choice, compassion and control at the end of their lives. Right now, those with the means are travelling abroad to die, often alone, away from their loved ones, without medical support, and when they can physically make it rather than at a time of their choosing. Those without the means face suffering they do not want, or try to take matters into their own hands here in the UK unsafely and illegally. It is not humane, it is not fair and it is not sustainable. I spent two years as a Minister in the Department of Health, with palliative care and end-of-life care as part of my portfolio, so this matter came across my desk on a regular basis. I have had a lot of time to think about it. It is not easy to find an answer and a solution, but we owe it to people to try to do that. That is why I support the Bill: it brings the issue out of the shadows and into a framework of regulation with safety and dignity.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly will read that report. The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Palliative care is really important and needs to be improved. In many cases it makes such a difference, but it is not the solution for everybody. There are the most heartbreaking cases—I have met people in these situations in my constituency—where that form of palliative care would not have made the difference. That is why I support the Bill, and that begins with new clause 13.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am addressing new clause 13, which provides the strict regulation of life-ending substances and self-administering devices. That means there will be transparency about what substances are used and how they are stored, prescribed and delivered. We owe it to patients, clinicians and the public to ensure that every part of the process is governed by clinical standards and ethical safeguards. For those physically unable to swallow or self-ingest, the new clause ensures that devices to support self-administration can be safely used. Without that, we risk creating a system that excludes some of the very people it is meant to support. While we must regulate the system properly, we must also reject amendments that would undermine or stall the Bill’s delivery. Amendment 19 proposes adding suicide prevention, the Mental Health Act and deprivation of liberty safeguards to the code of practice. As the Minister who put much of that legislation through, those are really important topics for me, but this is not the legislation to address them. Let us keep the code focused on the Bill’s core function of ensuring a safe, consistent and compassionate assisted dying process. Amendment 20 would allow non-adherence to the code to be used in civil or criminal proceedings. That is not appropriate. Guidance is meant to help professionals navigate difficult decisions, not become a legal trap. If clinicians act negligently, existing law already applies. We should not be creating new liabilities for those acting in good faith in very difficult conditions. I also oppose amendments 97 and 27, which would require the MHRA to license drugs specifically for assisted dying and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to recommend them. That would make the Bill unworkable.