Daniel Francis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In 2022, the previous Government cut a significant number of Southeastern services that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford rely on. My constituents continue to raise concerns that direct services from London Charing Cross to Barnehurst and Bexleyheath should be reinstated during the evenings and weekends. Could the Minister provide an update on progress to reinstate those services?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  As the parent of a child with cerebral palsy and complex disabilities, I know what it is like to be a carer—I am a carer every day and I will be a carer until my dying day. It is therefore incumbent on me to speak on behalf of carers in this debate. I am now privileged because of the income I earn, but I have been there: worrying every day about the struggle of caring and the cost of paying the bills and mortgage. I know how many of my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford are stuck in the bubble that you get yourself into—stuck on a mixture of carer’s allowance and PIP, often becoming disabled yourself because of the mental or physical cost of that care. According to analysis by the Carers Trust, 28% of carers are already living in poverty; it has particularly asked for a detailed impact assessment specifically on the carers community. Will the Minister comment on that when he sums up? I believe that this policy is driven by the DWP and Treasury alone. It is incumbent on us to ensure that other Government Departments—the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport—come up with proposals that also support the measures. I ask the Minister to comment on that because if we are truly to get disabled people to access work, and if we are truly to support carers, we need a strong cross-Government departmental strategy.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in this debate to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day. I am proud to serve as the Member of Parliament for Bexleyheath and Crayford and to represent a constituency that is home to around 2,000 veterans. My constituency is in proximity to the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich, in the south-east corner of London. Back in the day, the Royal Arsenal was home to one of the biggest munitions factories in the UK, with 32,000 employees producing guns, shells, cartridge cases and bombs, so my constituency became a prime target for Nazi bombing. While many of its residents were fighting overseas, my constituency was really playing its part to support the war effort. Crayford was home to the Vickers factory, which again produced machine guns, anti-aircraft predictors, naval gun-laying equipment, fuses and casings for Barnes Wallis’s bouncing bomb. The Slade Green heavy anti-aircraft battery was built in the late 1930s and was the most easterly anti-aircraft site built inside the London inner artillery zone. Today, the gun emplacements, fire command post, pillboxes and air raid shelter are still standing. After a successful local campaign in 2010, the site is now grade II listed. There are a number of war memorials across the constituency, including the garden of remembrance in Oaklands Road, Bexleyheath; St Augustine’s church in Slade Green; St Paul’s church in Northumberland Heath; and the Crayford war memorial garden. A window in St Paulinus church, Crayford, commemorates three members of the women’s voluntary services who died in a V1 explosion in July 1944. In total, 66 people were killed and 184 properties were destroyed, with 7,000 properties being damaged in the area around Crayford High Street. Hundreds more properties were destroyed across the constituency as a result of Nazi bombing. I pay tribute to the East Wickham & Welling War Memorial Trust for the work it does to commemorate the war effort and the brave soldiers from Bexleyheath and Crayford who served in the second world war. Its area of benefit covers parts of my constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). It has carried out extensive work to ensure that a memorial is in place for local people who gave their lives, and it holds an incredibly moving service every November to remember them. I also mention the hard work and dedication of the two Royal British Legion branches in my constituency—the Bexleyheath and Welling branch and the Crayford branch—and thank them for all the work that they do to recognise the important contributions to the war effort. I look forward to joining them in attending a number of events in my constituency on Thursday to commemorate VE Day and to be able to pay my respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Residential Estate Management Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing the debate. My constituents at Vickers Green in Crayford have experienced similar problems to other constituents. The Conservative council granted their Barratt Homes development, consisting of 247 homes, planning permission in 2009. The local planning committee’s report confirms that management of “the estate roads, the communal areas, the play facility, the ecological area, the open space area etc” will technically be the responsibility of the homeowners. It also confirms that the construction and maintenance of internal roads and parking areas, although not carried out by the council, will need to be carried out “to the Council’s satisfaction.” That has caused real problems for my constituents, who are paying their council tax but also having to pay charges for these things. More recently, my constituents found that FirstPort is their management agent. This year it informed them that there was a £44,000 overspend in 2022, which they are now expected to pick up, in 2025. One constituent was told they had to pay charges for the two months before they moved into their property. Many residents have also seen the £600 charge for picking up responsibility for the communal areas and roads more than double in recent years, and they feel there is a gross unfairness in that. I therefore welcome the Government’s planned changes. I would also welcome comments from my hon. Friend the Minister about what the Government propose to do to protect leaseholders from the kinds of abuse and poor service they have experienced, and about how some of these communal areas, which would traditionally be maintained by local authorities, might be returned to them, rather than being the responsibility of FirstPort, and therefore of homeowners themselves.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this important debate. Like all of us here today, I have been contacted by dozens of constituents who have been affected by problems with Thames Water’s service and, of course, the recent increase in their Thames Water bills. A family of four in my constituency have been in touch to say that their water bill alone has increased by almost £300 a year because of the recent increases. That increase for working families is unsustainable and causes more financial instability for families across my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford. Alongside that increase, as we have heard, the service that has been provided to constituents continues to not be good enough and is affecting residents on a daily basis. Years of under-investment, particularly in infrastructure, due to the previous Government’s weak regulations have created an unreliable system for which the public are now expected to foot the growing bill. It is not unusual for Crayford High Street, in the second main town centre in my constituency, to be closed for a month or two due to water leaks, as has happened on several occasions in recent years, diverting hundreds of residents who use that road for the school pick-up, commuting to work, visiting the shops in the town centre and getting on with their lives. Many constituents, while finding the closure of the road inconvenient, would support the occasional closure if it improved services—but the problems continue. In my 20 years as a local councillor until last year, I saw the situation get worse as that infrastructure got worse year on year. Leaks due to poorly maintained infrastructure are common across roads in each part of my constituency —in Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Crayford, Northumberland Heath and Slade Green. As a result, we see constant road closures and great inconvenience to residents across the constituency. I was pleased to support the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which became law earlier this year, and the announcement of an independent commissioner for the water sector and its regulation will be welcomed by many constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford. However, I look forward, after the stories we have heard, to hearing the Minister’s feedback on what further action can be taken to ensure that Thames Water delivers valuable upgrades to both its infrastructure and its work to stabilise prices, which continue to cause great concern for my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to my constituents Paula and Gillian, who have experienced the impact of pelvic mesh. I raised Paula’s experience in a debate on 5 December, but not much has changed for her. She is still living with the devastation that pelvic mesh has caused to her life and wellbeing. As we have heard, Paula and Gillian are not alone in their experience. According to the Patient Safety Commissioner, the lower-end estimate suggests that 10,000 women have been harmed. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned for many years on the issue of sodium valproate. My good friend Teresa Pearce, the former MP for Erith and Thamesmead, worked very closely with many of the families over many years. She knows that the issue is close to my heart. The Epilepsy Research Institute welcomed the Hughes report’s recognition of the vital role that research plays in understanding and mitigating the risks of anti-seizure medication. It continues to raise its key asks on how we can move forward with the report’s recommendations. The institute’s view is that Ministers need to provide a clear timeline for implementing the redress schemes and research funding that are recommended in the Hughes report. There is a need for dedicated, ringfenced funding for epilepsy research, particularly into the effects of anti-seizure medications taken during pregnancy. My wife and daughter are both on sodium valproate. I know that sodium valproate did not affect my daughter, even though she has cerebral palsy from a brain injury at birth. However, I saw what happened to my wife: being taken off sodium valproate turned her life upside down. She went from being 12 years seizure-free to having to surrender her driving licence and not being able to work for some periods. I saw what it does to women in that situation, even though she had the correct advice. She eventually had to return to sodium valproate because of the number of seizures she was having and the impact it had on her life. I cannot imagine for a moment what the families present have gone through, but I know the impact that sodium valproate can have on women’s lives. The Epilepsy Research Institute’s asks include: “Ensuring that regulatory bodies act swiftly on safety concerns and that pregnant women with epilepsy have access to the best possible information and care. Working alongside experts and patient groups to ensure policies reflect the needs of those affected.” I ask the Minister to address those recommendations. We need to consider the people impacted by mesh and sodium valproate, as well as the wider impact. Sodium valproate continues to be prescribed, and we need a continuing review of how that affects women through their lives.

• 27 Mar 2025 · PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Like thousands of others, I carried out my caring responsibilities this morning before I came to this place. I have first-hand experience of worrying about paying the bills every month due to caring responsibilities—something I no longer have to worry about. Will the Minister consider whether we need a plan across Government Departments to identify the support available to ensure that carers can work, and that they and their loved ones do not fall into poverty as a result of the announcements made?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I need to say at the outset that my wife is employed as a SEND co-ordinator in the London borough of Bexley. I was a councillor in Bexley for 20 years, including 10 years under the last Labour Government. I hear what the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) says, but I assure him that we had a very different funding arrangement then—my local authority was not in the position it now is. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) is no longer in his place, but he was the deputy leader on the council and I the leader of the opposition when we faced our funding crisis back in 2021. That funding crisis continues to this day. In our council, reserves have been used to balance the budget for years. That includes the £5 million we needed to balance the budget in the 2018 council election year. Things became worse in 2021, when the council applied for its capitalisation order. It made 15% of staff redundant and had to sell a building for £9 million to fund the redundancy costs. In the period from 2010 to 2015, Bexley went from having the 10th most expensive council tax in London to the 8th most expensive. At my election speech last year, I pledged to work tirelessly with my Conservative-controlled local authority to deliver for local people and businesses, and I am here on their behalf to make some key pledges about the pressures they face and the pressures we have heard about today. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) said, we face the matter of the fair funding settlement. Demographic changes in outer London and inner London mean that the borough I was first elected to represent on the council 25 years ago is a very different borough today. Parts of my constituency, such as Slade Green and Northumberland Heath, are very different, demographically and in terms of poverty, from how they were then. My council’s position is that council tax should not be a primary driver of increased core spending power, and that we should simplify the assessments and reduce the number of relative needs formulae. Then there is the public health grant. I have sat there, through budget after budget, as either leader of the opposition or the opposition finance spokesperson, listening to the Conservative leader, Baroness O’Neill, saying that the public health grant for Bexley is the second lowest in London. I am pleased—in fact, I am proud—that, under a Labour Government, Bexley this year has had the sixth-highest public health increase of all the boroughs, but clearly that position remains, and our public health grant remains too low. As I have said, our finances remain in a very difficult position, with a £32 million budget gap next year, which needs to be addressed. Most worrying is our safety valve agreement. Our safety valve agreement was signed because of the significant overspends in special educational needs, but that will expire next year. We are not currently on course to achieve the requirements in the safety valve agreement and the statutory override. There is potentially £12.8 million at risk. As I have continually said to the Government, we clearly need to resolve that to protect some of our most vulnerable children in next year’s budget, but also residents and businesses across the London borough of Bexley.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I genuinely did not intend to speak today, but the debate, particularly the speech by the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, has brought me to my feet. It was 13 or 14 years ago that my wife and I embarked on the IVF road. It never worked—our children came naturally in the end—but I know the pain and despair of that process. Although I do not call into question the efficacy of any doctor, some companies, looking to their profit margins, will always prey on people. We have had discussions today about the regulations to be made under new clause 36, but we need some clarity on Report. I referred to the annual fertility show at the Kensington Olympia; I have checked, and it is still held. I visited it about 13 years ago. Frankly, it is complete marketisation. People who are already on their knees and really depressed are left feeling that companies are simply trying to make a profit out of them. People can already book their tickets for the event in May and navigate a path through it: there are expert-led seminars, real stories, whereby people connect with others who have been through the process, wellbeing workshops and more than 70 exhibitors. Of course, they are all paying a fee to be there, and they all aim to have made a profit by the end. Our first set of IVF treatment was free on the NHS. We paid £7,000 for our second, which was again through the NHS. We went through several visits to NHS and private providers to assess whether we were willing to pay a top-up for a slightly better service. I really did not intend to speak this morning, but I wonder whether, in the final part of the process that we are considering, there would be the sort of upsetting process that has taken root in the fertility industry in this country. We need more clarity on that by Report.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire referred to IVF. My wife and I have been through IVF, and what exists is exactly what the hon. Member for Richmond Park described. There is an annual show at Olympia where it has been commercialised and it is put to people, “Why not go down this route? Why not go down that route?” Does the hon. Member agree that that is really not a route we want to go down?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This has been a long process, and we are nearly at the end of it now. Members will recall that at the start of the process, I was very insistent that Mencap should give oral evidence. When it did so, Dan Scorer said: “Clause 35 is about the review of the Act. The lived experience of people is absolutely vital to that. The Bill says that it will be five years until we have that review. Our view is that that is far too long. If the Bill becomes law and if there are really serious issues and discrimination taking place against people, we will want to know that a lot earlier than in five years’ time, and we will want action to be taken. Our suggestion is that review should be earlier. We would want to see strong representation from patient groups across that, as well as from people who have been involved in the process, such as family members, advocates and clinicians to make sure that if serious issues are being raised, they can be picked up early and addressed.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 280, Q367.]

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to speak to my new clause 28, which was suggested by Marie Curie, the UK’s leading end-of-life charity. The new clause is more substantive than my two amendments in the previous group. It would require an additional assessment within 12 months of the Bill being passed, with the Secretary of State required to undertake an assessment of “the extent to which the Act is on course to meet its aim of allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own lives”. Crucially, the assessment would incorporate an assessment of the current state of health and care services to persons with palliative and end-of-life care needs, and the implications of the Act for those services, including for the quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care services. The new clause seeks to mirror the requirement in clause 35 for an assessment after five years of the Bill passing, only within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, in order to provide a benchmark against which the later assessment can be measured. There has been much discussion about the relationship between the Bill and palliative and end-of-life care services. Above all, the intention behind this new clause is to ensure that, outside the proceedings of the Committee and the progress of the Bill, that relationship is properly and thoughtfully considered by Government. We have heard a range of expert evidence throughout the Committee that, despite the very high quality of palliative and end-of-life care in this country and the phenomenal efforts of the clinicians and organisations delivering it, access to that vital care is all too often inequitable and subject to a postcode lottery. As Marie Curie stated in its written evidence, if the fundamental aim of the Bill is to offer terminally ill people choice at the end of life, “genuine choice…cannot exist unless dying people are able to choose to receive high quality palliative and end of life care”. The sad reality is that in too many cases today people are not able to make that choice. There will most likely be consensus among us that action is needed to fix end-of-life care to ensure that all dying people can have choice and dignity, even if we disagree on whether that is most appropriately achieved on the face of the Bill or through other mechanisms. There has also been a great deal of debate and discussion about what the impact of introducing assisted dying might be on palliative care services and reference to what might have happened in other jurisdictions. We should not leave this to chance and fool ourselves that improved access to palliative and end-of-life care would be an inevitability as a result of the debate or level of public interest in the Bill. By requiring an immediate assessment of the state of health and care services available to persons with palliative and end-of-life care needs through new clause 28, we can create a framework for accountability within this legislation and a firmer basis on which future policy and spending decisions on palliative care can be made. It may be useful to recall that we have not had a national strategy for palliative and end-of-life care since 2008. While I appreciate that there are major policy milestones approaching, such as the 10-year health plan, that could help to address that gap, my hope is that an assessment of the quality and availability of palliative and end-of-life care services undertaken as part of the Bill can sit helpfully alongside other plans and strategies. When introducing the Bill on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley chose to highlight that she had “included in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care.” —[ Official Report , 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1013.] At this point, the Bill requires such an assessment only after five years. I hope that she and other hon. Members will agree that it would be beneficial to support this new clause so that such an assessment may be undertaken within 12 months, in support of the ambition of seeing improvements in palliative and end-of-life care.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. Amendments 491, 492 and new clause 28, which will be discussed when we come to the next group, have all been suggested by Marie Curie, the UK’s leading end-of-life charity. Amendments 491 and 492 are minor amendments that would broaden the scope of the required assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care services to be undertaken as part of the five-year review of the Act, by referring to “health and care services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs”. That provides a more holistic consideration of end-of-life care than the current drafting of “health services to persons with palliative care needs” and would reflect the current clinical best practice of palliative care multidisciplinary teams, incorporating both health and social care professionals. It is in line with current clinical best practice and with the written evidence that Marie Curie has supplied to us. In addition, amendment 397 is in line with many other amendments I have tabled during this process and seeks “an assessment of the impact of this Act on persons with learning disabilities, including any concerns about the operation of this Act in relation to such persons”.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That new clause was tabled within the last week. Has my hon. Friend sought advice from the Clerks? The only way that we could amend this now is through a manuscript amendment, and I presume that now, at the eleventh hour, that would not be allowable. I just want to clarify the position.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The annual reporting does give us some reassurance, but when we accepted some of Mencap’s recommendations last week, I said that I would welcome it if the entirety of its recommendations were accepted—and it wanted an overall review at an early stage in the process. Amendment 493 to 495, in my name, address those concerns. A consistent concern of mine is how we address issues that come to light from specific communities, particularly those with learning difficulties, and amend the legislation at a reasonable stage in the process.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 454, in clause 36, page 22, line 26, at end insert— “(e) any person who would not have capacity to request assistance to end their own life under this Act.”

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 491, in clause 35, page 22, line 2, after “health” insert “and care”. This amendment, together with Amendment 492, would broaden the scope of the assessment criteria for the Review of this Act, by referring to “health and care services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs” to provide a more holistic consideration of palliative and end of life care needs, reflecting current clinical best practice.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 454 stands in my name, in relation to the clause on disqualification from being witness or proxy. Clause 36(2) outlines the reasons why an individual cannot be a witness or proxy: if they are a relative of the person; if it is believed they are a beneficiary of the will; if they may otherwise benefit financially; if they are a health professional who has provided treatment or care for the person; or if they have not yet attained the age of 18. Clearly—particularly on clause 3—we have had long debates about mental capacity, and it does not state in clause 36 as is currently stands that the person who is over 18 has to have mental capacity. Therefore, as the Bill stands, someone could bring their grandmother with Alzheimer’s or dementia along and get her to sign their paperwork. My amendment simply seeks to ensure that the person who is the proxy has mental capacity. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  As the parent of a wheelchair user with a severe sight impairment, I see many of the issues the report highlights on a daily basis. The report highlights the issues with aviation and the difficulties the Civil Aviation Authority has faced in enforcing regulations on behalf of wheelchair users and people with a severe sight impairment. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government to fully consider the recommendations of the aviation accessibility task and finish group when it reports in the summer, along with the principles of my Aviation (Accessibility) Bill, to finally make changes for disabled people on airlines?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend knows my concerns but she knows that I will be supporting the amendment this evening. Advocates must have an understanding of the available end-of-life options and be able to communicate clearly and explain to patients the medical treatments available: palliative care, social care and assisted death. That is quite complex. As I have said previously, my own experience of mental capacity relates to my daughter: she would never have the capacity to be able to make such a decision. But on a daily basis, including this morning, I have to explain a two or three-point decision-making process. It is vital that advocates are there and that they have the training. For many people such as my daughter, who is almost blind as well as being learning disabled, there are additional communication skills given that they have those extra sensory difficulties. It is vital for people such as Mrs Cook’s daughter, who might be vulnerable to influence, that the advocate must be able to explain all the options clearly without pressurising the person down one route. I believe the amendment will provide important support to those with less capacity or difficulty in understanding all the options in front of them. As I have said, the two things that I have banged on about consistently in this process have been about learning disability and mental capacity. There has been a conflict for me, even with this amendment, but I am confident that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge comes from a very good place. We will come to this next week but, like my hon. Friend, I have consistently listened to Mencap’s evidence, which also talked about reviewing the Bill at an earlier stage than is currently envisaged. That is why I have tabled amendments 493, 494 and 495 for next week. My view is that if the Bill becomes law, the system will work well if the regulations are implemented correctly. I will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge; I thank her for bringing it forward. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has listened hard, and I am grateful. I think there will be a degree of unanimity this evening.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These amendments refer to the oral evidence we received from Mencap. They would add provisions to ensure those consulted in the preparation of the chief medical officer’s guidance include persons with learning disabilities. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I was also not intending to speak, but I think there are two slightly different issues here. Prior to Second Reading, the Equality and Human Rights Commission produced a briefing paper on some of the issues that have been covered in amendment 500. It also gave oral evidence where it was not happy about some aspects of the Bill and about not having the equality impact assessment. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central says, but the briefing that the EHRC produced—although I appreciate what the Equality Act says—did not talk about sexuality, for instance, but it did talk about many of the aspects that are in the amendment of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. In the oral evidence, Dan Scorer from Mencap particularly talked about the experience in covid—for example, someone was five times more likely to have a do not resuscitate order placed on them if they have a learning disability. There is wide evidence of that, as Members, and me in particular, were well aware before we heard that oral evidence. As a councillor, I remember the experience of ethnic minority communities during that period. I used to represent a council ward with a high west African population. There were clear cultural issues around people’s experiences with the health service during that period, and whether they wanted to take up the vaccine. As the then leader of the opposition on my council, I had regular meetings about the different levels of uptake of health services among different communities. Beyond new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, which would require the Secretary of State to engage with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, there is a valuable reason for seeking to have that data and for ensuring that the assisted dying commissioner has that data. As I will talk about in debates on subsequent groupings, Dan Scorer from Mencap clearly asked about what happens if things go wrong for people with certain protected characteristics, and at what stage we will review that. Some of us have legitimate concerns about the characteristics in the amendment tabled by hon. Member for Richmond Park, and about coercion, particularly of women. People have listened long and hard about where I am coming from on this issue, and unlike some other Committee members, I am not opposed to assisted dying per se. I have come to the position, however, that it is vital to try to capture the data on people with learning disabilities or for whom there is a judgment about their level of mental capacity, and that should be in the Bill. I therefore support the amendment.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are in danger of having much consensus this evening. As hon. Members know, this issue is very close to my heart, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge knows more than anybody that inequality for disabled people in this country remains ingrained. As the parent of someone with a very complex set of disabilities, including a learning disability, I have seen that at first hand. I welcome new clause 25 and amendment 517, in the name of my hon. Friend. My concern with the Bill is that we must protect vulnerable people, particularly those with learning disabilities, and the amendment and new clause would address some of my concerns by providing an independent advocate, as Mencap asked for, in circumstances that the Secretary of State would specify. I welcome the fact that, as my hon. Friend said, the amendment and new clause join my amendment 394 in making that happen. The proposal includes people who have substantial difficulty in understanding the process or the information involved, or in communicating. I note that the specified conditions could include a wide range of people, and I thank my hon. Friend for including them. In due course, we will see what circumstances are dealt with in regulation. There are two issues that I have raised throughout this debate, and they remain a tension. One is that we must support people with learning disabilities and the other is capacity. We need to be very clear about that in the training, and I trust that that will be dealt with in due course. Advocates must not be seen as leading people into decision making, as they could be under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which gives them that scope. We need to be clear in the training that they have to assist the person in making their decision. I will be supporting these proposals, because I am confident that we can overcome that in the training. In her written evidence, Patricia Cook talked about decision making for her daughter who has Down’s syndrome. She wrote: “My daughter has the mental capacity to make decisions about her daily routine, social, educational, and family matters, but she lacks the capacity to manage other aspects of her life such as her financial affairs and healthcare.” She went on: “My daughter is much more likely to defer to a clinician’s proposal as she might think that she ought to agree.” We heard that important point again in oral evidence. I would hope that the advocate would be in a position to provide support and advocacy to a person having to make that decision.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 395, in clause 31, page 19, line 8, at end insert— “(2A) The persons consulted under subsection (2) must include persons with learning disabilities.”.