Jake Richards MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2025 · Male Suicide in Rotherham · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member, who has a remarkable ability to bring that important issue into any debate or intervention he makes. He is the most vociferous campaigner on that cause. I support him in that, and I know the Minister will also be listening. I want to finish with the action I will take as the local MP. First, I pledge to continue to support the brilliant services we already have. I remember attending my first Andy’s Man Club in Maltby during the general election campaign. I must admit I was slightly cynical. I had seen the marketing, but questioned how effective or useful that informal meeting would be. I was blown away. Over the course of a few hours, a group of blokes spoke about their weeks, and their problems, over a cup of tea. Some of the chat was mundane: they were finding their work more boring, or they had had a good weekend with the family. Others were dealing with the most impossible trauma that put all else—in particular my election campaign—into stark perspective. Afterwards, everyone walked away ready to face the week, however big the challenges ahead. I have since met so many men who use that service. One of the first things I did once elected was to bring Andy’s Man Club to Parliament. I promise to continue to champion its work, and the work of many others. I also regularly meet local health practitioners in Rotherham to hear their strategies to bring down the rate of men ending their own lives locally. The work of Rotherham health and wellbeing board, and the South Yorkshire integrated care system is hugely commendable, not least the emphasis on improving data and evidence to ensure effective and timely interventions, and providing tailored, targeted support to priority groups and effective bereavement support to those affected by men taking their own lives. Those plans sit within strategies to tackle loneliness, health inequality and domestic abuse. I have committed to holding regular meetings with all GP practices in my constituency, and other support groups, to help tackle male suicide. We will hear from the Minister shortly about the Government’s national efforts, and from conversations with him I have no doubt that he grasps the severity of this crisis and the urgency with which this Government must confront it. Rest assured, I will be challenging the Government every step of the way to be ambitious in this agenda, and to ensure that policies will work for every town and village in Rotherham. Locally, I will be setting up my Rotherham taskforce to hold authorities to account, working with men and women who are on the front line confronting this issue. We will lead the ongoing awareness campaign and ensure that professionals, and local and national Government, treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about this important issue, and I hope that by doing so we begin more conversations across our borough. Together, we can bring about meaningful change, and save lives.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, although this is different from the healthcare services we currently have, we have a legal framework that deals with many of these conflicting issues as and when they arise in lots of different circumstances that are not completely adjacent to these?

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

  More

  My intervention is on something completely different. I have been reminded that in Australia, there is a specific clause that relates to the provision in this amendment almost word for word, so I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire may have been incorrect in his comments.

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

  More

  I welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. As I think she accepts, given that she tabled the amendments, there is an oddity with the Bill as drafted that has to be fixed, and I think the amendments would do that. I appreciate that there is some force to the argument of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says, but it seems to me that there is a balancing act between ensuring that medical practitioners and clinicians are working in an environment in which they do not constantly feel the heat of a lawyer’s breath on their neck, and ensuring protections. There is some force to the argument for removing the clause altogether, but on balance I see more force in the argument that we should have more clarity. I want to raise some more issues that need to be considered in the light of the provision for aspects of civil liability in this process. That is why last night I supported the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, which was not passed, relating to guidance for doctors in certain circumstances during this process. I raise those points about the standard of care and the duty that doctors and clinicians will be working to throughout the process for the record, and so that the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley can take them forward. I raise those questions not because they are unanswerable—I think they are answerable—but because we need to work out exactly what we are asking our doctors to work to, and what form that guidance comes in. Does it need to be legitimised by Parliament, or can it be undertaken by a Minister? I do not think I need to expand greatly on the point, but we can all imagine circumstances in which clinicians are compromised in their view of the duty of care that they have to the patient. When this process begins in this jurisdiction, it needs to be clear what that is.

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

  More

  You intimated, Mr Dowd, that we can speak for as long as we want, but I will not speak for long on this clause, partly because I fear that we are making a mountain out of a molehill. The clause creates new criminal offences; I am not a criminal lawyer, but that is my reading of the clause and the amendments tabled to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. There are an array of reasons why criminal offences are legislated for. One good reason is to provide deterrence against committing such an offence. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, we are entering new ground. We are developing a new process in our healthcare system that will affect how our society and culture works, and creating a new legal process, which we had lengthy discussions about when discussing the provisions that will replace clause 12, in the debate over the panel. In my mind, it is wholly appropriate to have an offence specifically in this very new area. I cannot see any weight to the argument that it undermines the law of homicide in our country and jurisdiction. Respectfully, I cannot see how Members who have been, understandably, worried about the Bill cannot see that this only strengthens it. I would gently say that the arguments that this somehow undermines the law of murder or homicide are slightly disingenuous. I had hoped that debate on this clause would be straightforward, with the Committee seeing that it clearly strengthens the safeguards around assisted dying.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the mineworkers’ pension scheme on the living standards of the recipients of that pension.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  At the last general election, I made a promise to ex-miners in my constituency that a Labour Government would deliver justice on the MPS investment reserve fund and return it to its members. I am delighted that at the end of last year, this Government delivered, providing a boost of more than 32% to their pensions. However, in my constituency there are more than 600 BCSSS members, who are still really concerned about this issue, so I would welcome the Minister’s answer on that. Can she reassure them and me that the trustees will continue to update the members of that scheme? At the moment, there is a degree of uncertainty on what progress can be made over the coming months.

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

  More

  I have been rightly and fairly challenged in the hon. Member’s speech, but the difference is that if a family member has a right to appeal in the internal process, that family member would have to be a party in the original hearing. The whole point of the panel is that a person comes to it with their application. The family have the right to put information before the panel, but they do not have the right to make their case to the panel, because their views on the application are not relevant. Information that they might have is relevant, but their views are not. That is why there is a disparity between the person’s ability to appeal internally against a refusal of their application, and third parties having to take other routes. I hope that that offers some clarity as to why I am comfortable with the difference between the two. I reassure the hon. Member that I have thought about it long and hard as well.

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

  More

  I know that the hon. Lady has been on her feet for some time, but I just want to explore the difference between what a jury is doing and what this panel is doing. Let us, for example, consider the issue of coercion and a case where there is no evidence that the person is being coerced in any way, but of course the panel has not asked everyone in that person’s life. It has not heard evidence from everyone. There is no factual matrix determining what has happened or what has not happened. Can the panel sit there and say, “We are sure,” or do you think it would have to investigate all the circumstances of that person’s life and interview everyone that is in and around their social circle to be sure that they have not been coerced? Can you see why, as I set out in my speech, the “beyond reasonable doubt” burden is not appropriate for the task of this panel?

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

  More

  I have a genuine question: is the hon. Lady of the view that families’ views about whether the decision is right for the individual should be considered by the panel, tribunal or judge, or is it just their views about eligibility under clause 1?

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

  More

  Forgive me, Chair.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that she is making a powerful case against amendment 468? A multitude of conversations and different circumstances will need to be taken into account; it is wholly inappropriate to have a mandated question in primary legislation. We should go back to clause 1, which I think the Bill is actually about. It states that the person must have “a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is at the heart of the Bill, rather than decisions about what is in the person’s best interests?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It came up in the debates last week that we heard some evidence from medical practitioners on how decisions and assessments were better made when done collaboratively. That means that we need to keep them independent but that, where possible, doctors should be working together in this process. Does my hon. Friend agree that amendment 459, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, may assist in that?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has made many of the points that I planned to, so I will be brief. The primacy of patient autonomy when it comes to familial relationships is a principle that should not be interfered with in the medical sphere, which this is—we can call it treatment or something else, but it is undoubtedly a relationship between a doctor and a person. I agree with my hon. Friend on the term “good faith”. I do not doubt the motives, but it put forwards the proposition that a doctor would act in bad faith and not tell a family member. It is a rather bizarre drafting, and wholly unhelpful for the intent for which it was put forward. The most alarming is the second part and the issue of “best interests”. I will not labour the point that my hon. Friend has made, but what is a doctor to do? A doctor is not a social worker. A doctor is not a family support worker. What questions are they to ask? If someone says, “Oh, I don’t really want to tell my next of kin, who is my sister. We fell out last year because of tit for tat,” is the doctor going to make a value judgment as to whether that argument is profound enough to stop the notification?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. The other side of the coin is that we must ensure that the process is workable. In Spain, 20% of people die before the panel hears their case. We must be very careful not to create something that is so burdensome as to be completely pointless. I believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley aim successfully between ensuring flexibility and rigour. Each case will be different—more so than in any other set of proceedings that I can imagine, and I have thought hard. There will no doubt be some that are incredibly complex, in which the panel may require further assessments and hear from relevant experts, but there will be far more that are solemn and serious but straightforward, and that is correct. Other amendments, such as amendment (d) to new clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, seek to mandate certain procedural steps. While I have great respect for her as a former colleague, I fundamentally disagree with her amendment, which would require that the panel “must consider” hearing from persons who may be “interested in the welfare of the person”. I repeat that this is not a welfare decision. The panel, just like the High Court judge, is not saying, “What do I think is in the best interests of this person?” It is ensuring that the person has made the decision per clause 1, where we started: “settled”, “informed” and “voluntary”. We enter new ground with this law change, and that is why it is a new process, but to my mind it is safer and workable. Colleagues can be reassured, and I urge people to support the change.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. She said that High Court judges make mistakes, which is undoubtedly true. She also said that the panel may be guilty of unconscious bias. Is there any layer of scrutiny that would satisfy her? What does she think about jury trials?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clauses 14, 15, 17 and 21 and the accompanying amendments. I hope also to deal with some amendments tabled to new clause 21. On Second Reading, I and many other hon. Members said that the Bill was the strongest and safest assisted dying law in the world. I want to be clear that I stand by every word of that, but this change will make the Bill far stronger and far more resilient to questions of capacity and coercion and therefore far safer. It will ensure a further independent layer of assurance: a panel of experts chaired by a senior lawyer to hold the process to account, to ensure that every avenue of inquiry has been explored and to hold professionals in our healthcare system to account when it is appropriate to do so. The change will replace a single High Court judge, a person with no particular expertise in the issues at hand, with a panel that will adopt a more holistic approach. The social worker will delve a little deeper into the personal circumstances of each individual. The psychiatrist will ask any necessary questions about capacity. They will serve alongside a senior lawyer to ensure that the process is necessarily formal and strict. They will have the powers to make further inquiries if they so wish. On and after Second Reading, there were legitimate questions about the High Court function—what exactly were we asking the judge to do? I maintain that a High Court judge could have overseen the process, but it is far better and more pertinent to the issues at hand to have a multidisciplinary process involving a social worker and a psychiatrist. This is our lawmaking process working efficiently: debate has pushed my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to think again. Working with the Government —whose role continues to be to ensure that the Bill will be workable if it is to gain Royal Assent, while remaining neutral on the principle—she has been creative in tailoring a process to the matters at hand. That must be welcomed. This is new law. The change that the Bill would enact is profound and therefore requires a very new safeguarding process. This is the key point. The panel would not be there to adjudicate on a dispute, undertake a trial or undertake an inquiry; it would be there to ensure that the process is safe. A person would come to the panel seeking assistance to which they are entitled under the law, and the panel would ensure that the process through which their eligibility has been decided has been rigorous and safe. It is also important to note that the panel would simply regulate and scrutinise an ongoing doctor-patient relationship. Even after a certificate of eligibility has been received, there is a period for reflection and continued assessment. That is crucial, because it means that normal rules of appeal are not appropriate—I will come back to some of the amendments in that regard. Even once the panel’s work is done, the co-ordinating doctor and the commissioner will remain available for reconsideration and oversight. I want to deal with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the change set out in the amendments tabled to new clause 21 and others. To my mind, the process should not be adversarial, because it is inherently inquisitorial. What is the dispute that is being decided? The person is deemed to have capacity by two doctors, and perhaps a psychiatrist, to make a decision, and is seeking an eligibility certificate. The starting point must surely be that the person should be allowed to do so. To set up some bizarre dispute where none exists would be counterproductive and unsettling to the person at the centre of the process. It would be a waste of public funds, but more importantly it would be a waste of time—time, in the context of a person who is dying. The process is not analogous to the Court of Protection, where there are disputes as to capacity, best interests and welfare. It is not analogous to a court approval hearing, where there may be legal arguments as to the appropriate nature of an award or the arrangements for it. It is not analogous to a deprivation of liberty order, where in all likelihood a person would seek not to be deprived of their liberty. It is not analogous to private children’s proceedings, where the child’s welfare is paramount. This is a person seeking help for themselves. The principle of choice and autonomy at the end of life means that that process must be patient-centred and begin from an appreciation of those principles.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, and I hope to deal with some of the points that my hon. Friend made in her important speech. To mandate that a barrister instructed by the Official Solicitor, or indeed the panel, has to put questions to a person who may have only a few weeks left to live is not only highly inappropriate, but unworkable. What instructions is this barrister working from? Do they have to suppose that somebody who clearly has capacity does not? If not, do they ask questions about the circumstances of the person that would be asked by the panel in any event? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West suggested that the Official Solicitor would be working for the person. Well, the person is coming to this panel seeking assistance, so what on earth is the Official Solicitor or their legal representative going to ask of the person they are taking instructions from? To what extent would they be allowed to go on a fishing expedition, delving deep into a person’s relationships to assess any evidence of coercion? That goes back to my original point: what are their instructions? Who is asking them to do what? I see the force in the amendments from my hon. Friend as to burden of proof, but I deem them inappropriate. The criminal standard does not fit neatly with the more complex issues at play, such as capacity. The Mental Capacity Act states that where there is a doubt about a person’s capacity, the burden of proof is on the person seeking to establish a lack of capacity, on the balance of probabilities. That is the correct approach. In any event, if the panel has any doubts as to capacity, surely it will be obliged—as is set out in amendment 6 to clause 9, which the Committee has just accepted—to seek further psychiatric assessment. It is important to note that the panel will have powers to instruct further expert assessment and reports. If we implement the criminal standard, the doctors who are part of the process— not only the co-ordinating doctor and the individual doctor, but treating doctors, because we should always remember that someone who is terminally ill will almost certainly be receiving treatment in the NHS—will be working to a completely different burden of proof from the panel’s. The criminal standard does not fit neatly with the innately inquisitorial nature of the panel’s role. That is important. It is very easy to look at the definition of the balance of probabilities and find weaknesses in it, but when we consider what actually happens in practice, I submit that those weaknesses are not often there. The panel will have a conversation with the professionals and with the person and will consider the response. If doubts creep in, it will not just stop and make a decision on the balance of probabilities; it will continue to search. The more serious the doubts it encounters, the more evidence it will need for those doubts to be overcome. That is how the law has developed on the balance of probabilities in all other areas, and no doubt it will be the same in this area. Importantly, unlike with many other tribunals or courts, the decision must be unanimous, so if the social worker spots something that the psychiatrist or lawyer does not, the case will go no further. What about the role of third parties? As I have set out before, this is a personal decision, but I also accept that no man is an island—a phrase often used by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. The process has to strike a real balancing act: allowing third-party information to be considered, but in a proportionate manner that respects individual autonomy. To my mind, the views of third parties are not relevant. Their views on whether the person is making the best decision for themselves are not relevant. This is not a welfare decision. Equally, it must be right that third parties—family members and others—can ensure that the panel has sight of the relevant information. Even after a certificate of eligibility has been given, the co-ordinating doctor will continue to be responsible for assessing new information, and their duties will continue until the final moments, as the Bill sets out.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress, because I am not sure that point is crucial to the debate about this amendment; I am sure my hon. Friend will grab me afterwards. I did not mean to mischaracterise the evidence on that point. I accept that there is a tension here. No man is an island, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire notes, and of course this process may cause upset to others. Equally, the input of third parties to the assessment of all the issues of eligibility is worth while, but it has to be dealt with in a proportionate way. When we debate clause 12—hopefully shortly—perhaps we can discuss that, and I hope to speak to that point. However, this amendment is trying to crack that delicate nut with a huge hammer. It fundamentally changes the relationship between doctor and patient, and puts the doctor in a position where they do not have the skills or expertise to make that best interest decision. The amendment therefore fails, and that is why I will vote against it.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak briefly, because many of these issues and themes will be debated in clause stand part and amendments 371 and the others from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Amendment 267 was not moved, but I would have opposed it in any event, on the basis that the discretion given there was way too wide and I did not understand the basis of the amendment in any way. Amendments 105 to 107, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), attempt to add an adversarial element to proceedings. Again, I will not comment too much because that issue comes back in the fourth grouping under this clause. I turn briefly to amendment 410, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe just spoke. My understanding is that, although this relates to the High Court—which may be deemed redundant as we move on through this clause—the amendment aims to limit the people that the judge or panel can hear from. In my view that would be wrong and dangerous. The purpose of a judge or a panel is to explore the circumstances in this matter. That must mean that they have discretion to hear from others as well. In my view, this amendment, if passed, would significantly limit the safeguards and be quite dangerous. As my hon. Friend has already said, amendment 407 has been superseded, and I think we all agree on that.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As we heard in evidence from the chief medical officer, doctors deal with capacity issues on a day-to-day basis; I am not sure they necessarily need assistance from family members in that regard. However, I appreciate the point—I was going to come to that—

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In my mind, any decision to give a certificate of eligibility could be subject to judicial review. Third parties can put evidence before the panel to be considered, but it is not right that third parties might challenge the application. As I have set out before, this is not a dispute but a rigorous safeguarding process. If they have information about the person’s capacity, their diagnosis or any other relevant factors, they can and must ensure that the panel—if not the doctors or indeed the police—be seized of the information. Third parties can appeal the decision by way of judicial review. That would provide for a decision that was “wrong, or…unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings”, per amendment (a) to new clause 17. An injunction would be applied and the matter would have to be dealt with expeditiously. It is worth saying that all the evidence suggests that that would happen incredibly rarely. In Spain—

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will double check whether this is right, but the explanatory statement suggests that that is not the case. It says: “This amendment would require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin that the person wishes to seek assistance to end their own life unless it is not in the person’s best interests.”