Jake Richards MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for those introductory statements. I have a question for Mr Amin regarding the current operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and how the Court of Protection approaches that issue. The Bill as currently drafted essentially defers to the Act, and I wondered if you have any reservations about that, or any thoughts that you could offer the Committee? Yogi Amin: Reservations—no. In fact, I wholly recommend and support the idea as drafted to defer to the Mental Capacity Act for capacity assessments. I have been working in this area for over 20 years, before and after the Mental Capacity Act came in, and I have done cases all the way up to the Supreme Court, as well as day-to-day different cases around the country. It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained into the practice of practitioners generally and of legal practitioners in the courts. Certainly when I give training to advocates, doctors and so on, it is well understood how to apply the test. That could be adapted for this particular decision, which is done here. In the past couple of years, we had a decision in the Supreme Court which settled how to approach the question of capacity, and to disturb that would concern me.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Dr Green: Of course, we would regard much of clause 4(4) as normal care in any case.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You have touched on this, but perhaps we could have some further clarity. Certain amendments have been suggested that are essentially more prescriptive about what factors need to be taken into account and what steps clinicians would have to take when considering capacity in this context, as well as to inform consent and inform about the options available. Of course this is a matter for Parliament, but would you err on the side of trusting clinicians’ professional judgment within the legal framework, as it is—in terms of the Mental Capacity Act and the guidance on informed consent—or would you deem it suitable for further prescriptive steps to be put into primary legislation in this context? Professor Whitty: It is entirely a matter for Parliament, at one level, but I can give a view. It goes back to the point that Naz Shah and others made earlier: the situations that people find themselves in are extraordinarily different—culturally, where they are in their lives, where their families are and a whole variety of other issues. Only the clinicians dealing with that person will really know all the different factors at play. If there is a good therapeutic relationship, and you would certainly hope there was, they should understand a whole variety of things that are very difficult for people sitting around this table to predict, however wise you are—although I am sure you are extraordinarily wise, to be clear. That was not my point. My point is that this is very difficult and I could not, at this point, write down a law that would be helpful to someone dealing with a whole range of different scenarios in which they are going to have to have an end-of-life discussion. My own view, for what it is worth, is that I would do fewer things rather than more. That is partly because simplicity is the key to really good safeguards, in my experience. If the safeguards are really clear and simple, everybody understands them—if you ask six people, “What does this mean?”, those six will give you the same answer. The more complicated you make things, the more room there is for ambiguity and uncertainty—because different things are playing in—and the more difficult it is for the patient, their family and the medical and nursing professionals assisting them, to navigate the system. Without in any sense wishing to curtail what Parliament might wish to do, I would make a plea for simplicity wherever possible and for accepting the extraordinary variety of people’s lives, which may have unpredictable consequences in terms of the way the end of their lives plays out.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Dr Green, on subsections (4) and (5) of clause 4 and the information services, as opposed to the referral to a practitioner, I think your point has some weight. In terms of the rest of clause 4 as drafted, it has an opt-in, it gives wide discretion to practitioners and there is no obligation to raise it, so from my understanding of your written evidence, it ticks all the boxes. Is that fair? Dr Green: Yes, with the exception of the referral.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In terms of setting standards and ensuring universality of understanding those safeguards, is that better done, in your view, by training and guidance rather than primary legislation setting up factors? Professor Whitty: I would certainly recommend that this is done by guidance or in secondary legislation, which can be adjusted if it turns out that it is not having the desired effect. Two things can change: first, we can spot things we had not thought of in the first place, however far-sighted each of us is. The second is that medicine itself changes, the diseases people suffer from change and so on. An Act has to be durable and that is why I have my view about secondary legislation and guidance, which have the ability to adapt in a way that primary legislation cannot. The fundamentals obviously need to be in primary legislation, but these kinds of issues are often done better in secondary legislation.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q There are some amendments being tabled that would offer further clarification and include more things that have to be considered. I have a similar question to the one I asked the previous panel, when I think you were here in the Public Gallery. Would offering further guidance to your members be welcome, or would you again err on the side of trusting their professional discretion? Dr Green: As Dr Whitty said, I think simplicity is the key here.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Court of Appeal overturned a first-instance decision regarding the anonymity of a judge who presided over the tragic Sara Sharif case in the family courts. I do not expect the Minister to comment on individual cases, and it is certainly not about that individual judge, but will the Government use this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to open justice and press freedom?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Bill at the moment—and for good reason, potentially—potentially does not provide for family members receiving notice of this. Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Well, it does.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes—it’s just that otherwise I will be cut off. I was trying to get two questions in.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is an autonomous decision, so— Sir Nicholas Mostyn: No, but it says, procedurally, they can determine their own procedure.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Some of it has been answered, but on that point, I just wanted to explore the appeals point. If either side could appeal, as Alex suggested, who would be appealing against the decision to allow assisted dying? Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Relations who say, for example, “My father has been pressured by his new wife to do this”. If a father has given permission and the child has asked to intervene, there would be some process where the child would be allowed to become a party to the proceedings, because that will have to be specified in rules, and that person would then be the appellant.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you all for your written evidence. Sir Nicholas, in your helpful written evidence, you adopt Sir James Munby’s criticism of the current proposal for judicial oversight, and you instead recommend what you call a “Spanish-style specialist panel”. Could you set out for the Committee what you see as the benefit of that approach compared to what might be described as the stark judicial oversight of the High Court judge? Sir Nicholas Mostyn: One per cent would be 6,000 deaths a year. If each took two hours to process in the High Court—you have to read it and hear the evidence; one of them has to be oral and you have to write a judgment—that is 12,000 hours. Each High Court judge does 1,000 hours in court—outside court, they do lots—so you are talking about nearly three quarters of the entire family division doing nothing but this. It is impossible, in my opinion, for this to be done by the High Court. It should be done in the Spanish way by a panel that is set up. In Spain, the chairperson of the regulator sets up a panel for each case—a doctor and a lawyer. They have to agree and they check that everything has been done lawfully. They do not make any value judgment about whether it is in the person’s best interest. They check that it has all been lawfully. Interestingly, in 2023, 10% extra denials were done by the panel. I do not know whether that was because they were concerned about voluntariness or whether they were concerned about suffering—because the criterion is suffering there—but an extra 10% was done by the panel, so the panel was not just rubber-stamping. They denied an extra 10%. I believe that an ad hoc system like that, with a doctor and a lawyer doing a check, would be the best way of doing it. The High Court—trust me, I’ve just come from there—has not got the capacity to deal with 6,000 cases of this nature.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me, Mr Dowd. I meant that, in terms of the assisted dying process in the Bill, there is no automated mechanism for family members, or indeed any third parties, apart from the doctors, to have notice of this intention. Is there a concern, regarding this appeal point, that perhaps interested parties would not know? Sir Max Hill: I would suggest that the key to this is in clause 12(5), and that is why I have recommended just striking out the words “High Court” and putting in the word “panel”, and then reading the whole of clause 12 as amended, with those situations in which there are steps that “must” be taken—and there are many—and those in which there are steps that “may” be taken. In clause 12(5), following that logic, we would imagine that a panel, just as the High Court, “may hear from and question, in person, the person who made the application” but “must hear from…the coordinating doctor”. The appellate mechanism, which I agree there needs to be, will be looking sharply at the operation of that subsection. In other words, when the panel made its decision to refuse, on what basis did it make that decision and from whom had it heard? We can well imagine situations in which a co-ordinating doctor, having taken his or her own steps to ascertain the views of the nearest and dearest, would satisfy the panel as to what the views of the family are. The reverse of that is that there is no indication here that, having gone all the way through the panel, the family would have been made aware or considered at all. I think that that will be a rare scenario, but I am not a medical professional. I think you can cover that, perhaps with some changes here or there on what you impose on the panel as a mandatory duty and what you leave by way of discretion, subject to the rules of procedure that the panel would then adopt.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, sorry, I meant that, in terms of—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Apart from capacity, which I appreciate, are there any other problems that you see with clause 12 on judicial oversight? Apart from capacity, is there any benefit that you see from the Spanish model? Alex, you similarly criticised the current judicial provision. You say in your very helpful written evidence at paragraph 10 that perhaps we need to consider a multidisciplinary approach. Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Can I just answer before he does?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not speak for long. I merely echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said: this is not an arms race. It is not about who can get more experts with different views; it is about trying to get a wide-ranging and broad sense of different aspects of the Bill. The list that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has produced does that. I made suggestions that are not on it, by the way, but as the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley says, we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. I want to push back briefly on some things that have been said about the lawyers and legal experts. I do not accept what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire says about whether they are for or against, and I am not sure that his numbers tally with my reading of their views. That goes to the subjectivity of this issue. It is not black and white; lots of people have complex views on it. I am not sure whether amendment (g) was moved, but in any event the notion that issues such as ECHR compatibility cannot be handled by Lord Sumption, Lord Neuberger and Baroness Hale—three former Supreme Court judges and potentially the best legal minds of their generation—is frankly absurd. We all have roles and responsibilities, as members of this Committee and as Members of Parliament, to challenge their evidence and to push different cases. I have no doubt that we are all qualified and able enough to do so without hearing from a junior barrister and a junior lecturer. That is not in any way to belittle their expertise, because I have read endless commentary from both the suggested witnesses that is very valuable and could be put to the three former Supreme Court justices, who grappled with such cases time and again.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Well, we have had lots of lists, but Lord Sumption and Lord Neuberger are giving evidence, I believe; Lord Sumption is, anyway. These things can be tested and challenged, so the notion that we need to have others is slightly absurd. We have the law lecturer from Cambridge University as well.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Emily Damari · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps his Department is taking to help secure the release of Emily Damari.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Emily Damari · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his answer. Last month I had the privilege of meeting Mandy, Emily’s mother, to discuss her family’s plight and their campaign and efforts to secure Emily’s release. I know that the Foreign Secretary met Mandy yesterday in Israel; I spoke to her afterwards, and she was very grateful for that meeting. What steps are the Government taking to secure humanitarian access to the hostages before release, which Hamas are disgracefully avoiding, and what pressures are being put on Qatar and Egypt in that regard?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Drones: High-security Prisons · Hansard source

  More

  This is a long-standing problem, and the previous Government did not do anywhere near enough to deal with it. What they did do, when former Prime Minister Liz Truss was Lord Chancellor, was arrange for more dogs to bark at drones around prisons, which they assured us would work. Has the Ministry of Justice done an assessment on how effective that policy was?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would be very grateful.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Bill provides us with an important moment. For many decades, children’s social care has been overlooked—an afterthought for Government. Over the past 30 years, politicians of all colours have too often failed the most vulnerable children in this country—the children who are unable to be looked after by their own family. I am delighted that this Education Secretary and her team have put those children at the heart of this legislation. It is testament to her personal commitment to social justice and fairness. The statistics on outcomes for children in care and the risks of exploitation are well known. They represent 1% of the child population, but 37% of those in youth justice. Just 15% of those looked-after children receive GCSEs from C to A*, compared with the national average of 55%. However, I wish to focus on the child placement estate. It is a drier topic, but if we do not provide sufficient and safe accommodation for these children, then the rest is broadly redundant. I have personal experience of this area. Before being elected as an MP, I was a barrister often working in child protection law. Many Friday afternoons would be spent in court, seeking orders on an urgent basis for removal of children from their primary carer before the weekend. My work would be done once judgment had been given and I had drafted the order, but for my social work team, their work had only just begun. They would have to collect the children, often relying on the police to assist, and then, often late in the evening, the arduous task of attempting to find suitable accommodation for these children would begin. They would make calls late into the night, pleading with reluctant foster carers, or residential units, to take in these young people, who would often sit obediently at the local authority offices waiting for their fate to be decided. I have known of times when children slept on the floors of such offices while searches were being undertaken. The lack of sufficient accommodation in this country is a complete disgrace. The previous Government cannot say that they were not warned about this. In 2020, the High Court took the unusual step of sending a judgment to the relevant Ministers, raising the issue of the lack of appropriate accommodation for such children—I am just trying to find the right place in my speech.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s review, which he drew up before being elected to this place, contained some of the provisions that are now in this legislation, so he should be praised for that work. As I was saying, the High Court raised this issue in 2020. It took the unusual step of sending a judgment to the relevant Minister setting out the “nationwide problem” of demand outstripping supply in accommodation for children in care. The facts of that case show the human cost of a lack of investment and strategy. A 15-year-old girl, from a family unable to care for her, had had 14 different placements in 12 months. None was suitable. She had repeatedly fled unregulated accommodation units and was deemed to be at serious risk of self-harm and sexual exploitation. Those who have raised the important issue of child sexual exploitation but have shown no interest in children’s care services should hang their head in shame for trying to make political capital out of this very, very important issue. This Bill takes important steps in this regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) has already raised the important matter of regional co-operation, which will certainly add capacity. As has been mentioned, there is also the financial backdrop. I have no doubt that Ministers will be making representations to the Chancellor about the estimated £6.2 billion funding gap for local authorities in social care, but this is not just about money. Although capacity is undoubtedly required, the system also needs national and local leadership, and a national and local strategy. There remains, despite this very welcome Bill, a lack of a comprehensive and national plan for care placements. There is a lack of an overarching assessment of how this market will fulfil the functions necessary in the years and decades ahead. Bluntly, we will still not know what is needed and where across the nation. And we know from experience that the market will not do it for us; we have learned that lesson already. We must have an accurate assessment of the need in the sector—the types of placement, and the number and location of care settings across the country. There also needs to be a funding strategy. My private Member’s Bill, the Looked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill, provides for a modest change in this area, simply requiring all local authorities to think ahead, to have a plan for the types of placement that they are able to offer, and a strategy for where they will need based on an assessment of the demand. Although there is a requirement in the guidance, there now needs to be a statutory responsibility for local authorities to think ahead in this area. At the moment, the issue is about not merely capacity, but where the accommodation is. More than a fifth of children in care live more than 20 miles from their home. There is one account of a child being placed over 500 miles from her community. These are young lives being separated from their community, their brothers, sisters, friends and teachers, with all the associated damage to their relationships and education. And this problem has increased by over 50% since 2019. I hope the Government will properly consider the modest suggestion that local authorities should simply have a sufficiency plan for where to place these children. I will briefly touch on one final aspect, which is the identifier of children. This is a useful and important step to safeguard children. I hope Ministers will have discussions on a cross-departmental basis with the Home Office as well as the Department of Health and Social Care about the development of digital identification and patient passports in those areas as well.