Juliet Campbell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. The recent E5 meeting marked a significant step towards greater strategic autonomy in Europe, with the security of Ukraine being central to that. Does the Minister agree that, given the changing nature of the threats we face, working ever more closely with our NATO allies is crucial to keeping the UK secure and safe abroad?

• 15 May 2025 · Driving Test Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps she is taking to reduce the backlog for driving tests.

• 15 May 2025 · Driving Test Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her efforts towards improving access to driving tests. However, in my constituency of Broxtowe, I continually get emails saying that people are struggling to book tests due to a shortage of examiners. Will she provide us with an update following the instruction made last year to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to double the number of examiners being trained?

• 7 May 2025 · Government Mission on Opportunity: Equality · Hansard source

  More

  Under the previous Government, there was an increase in inequality and in the attainment gap, and lower performance in core subjects such as maths and science. Dyslexic students and students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in my constituency of Broxtowe have been further disadvantaged by delays and misdiagnosis. What steps is the Minister taking to support young people with dyslexia and ADHD to ensure that they succeed?

• 7 May 2025 · Government Mission on Opportunity: Equality · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to promote equality as part of the Government mission entitled “break down barriers to opportunity.”

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for bringing this issue to the House. I appreciate her advocacy for those who are going through persecution because of their Christian belief. Nobody deserves to be persecuted because of their faith. The freedom to practise religion, to experience communion with family and friends and to worship without fear of violence is fundamental to human rights conventions. Christians around the world are being denied those protections and are experiencing unimaginable heartache and suffering. It is estimated that 380 million Christians around the world are subjected to high levels of persecution and discrimination. The data is clear and is incredibly troubling. There has been a rise in violence towards Christians across the globe over many, many years. Persecution often involves a broad scope of behaviour. It is usually the bloody and violent extremes that get media attention, which is often short-lived, but disinformation, marginalisation and intimidation come under the informal definition of persecution and they deserve our attention. We have an obligation to talk about the issue and speak up for those who are suffering and those who endure torture and killings. The numbers are rising. I am keen to understand the steps that are being taken to better support persecuted Christians across the world and promote religious freedom and belief. Are there plans to implement the calls to action from organisations such as Open Doors? I congratulate my hon. Friend again on bringing this very important issue to the House.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Eco Church Awards · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. On a recent visit to St Michael and All Angels church in Bramcote in my constituency, they were proud to show me the plaque they had received for meeting the silver standard for eco churches. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating St Michael and All Angels, and Christ Church, Chilwell, on achieving the silver eco church award, and on their hard work and commitment to environmental sustainability?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Eco Church Awards · Hansard source

  More

  10. Whether she is taking steps to help support churches in Broxtowe to meet the criteria for a gold Eco Church award.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. Many of my constituents have shared with me their experiences of rare cancer, and the experiences of their families and friends. Rare cancers make up almost half of cancer diagnoses, so the Bill is very much welcome. A constituent wrote to me recently about their seven-year-old son, who was diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a rare form of brain cancer. Sadly, their son did not survive, despite that cancer having a 75% survival rate. Medulloblastoma is on a spectrum of high to low risk, which further complicates ability to predict the outcome of treatment. I am here to represent that child, their family and other families affected by rare cancers. I welcome the increase in research, funding and support for early detection and diagnosis. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and wholeheartedly support it.

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

  More

  Amendment 143 has been withdrawn.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that explanation. I move on to amendment 410, which would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application or the declaration for an assisted death and the assessing doctors. I have strong reservations about using a proxy or giving another person the right to speak on behalf of an individual who wishes to have an assisted death, and I question the scope of those people who could be the proxy to speak on behalf of a person requesting an assisted death. Who exactly would those people be? One of the arguments we have consistently debated in this Committee is around coercion and patient autonomy. When multiple third parties such as family members or caregivers are allowed to testify, there is an increased risk that an individual might influence the court’s decision in a way that is not aligned to the true wishes of the applicant. In some cases we have talked about pressure from family members or loved ones, for whatever reason—whether their vested interest is financial or something else—to have the applicant hasten their death or have an assisted death. I would not want that kind of pressure to be put on the person and I do not believe any third party should be allowed to speak on their behalf or to be a proxy. By limiting the scope of the testimony to the applicant and assessing doctors only, the amendment helps to safeguard against such manipulative tactics and ensures that the court focuses solely on the applicant’s own will and the medical assessment of their eligibility, removing the potential for family dynamics or any other outside influence to interfere with the judicial review. It offers a necessary refinement to the Bill for assisted deaths, a request that is both efficient and respectful of the autonomy of all people involved. By limiting the court testimony to the applicant and assessing doctor, the amendment addresses several of the concerns I have spoken about.

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

  More

  I rise to speak to amendments 407 and 410. Amendment 407 would leave out the word “may” and insert the word “must”, and would require the High Court to hear from and question all persons who made the application for a declaration. It is a probing amendment, which aims to question the guidelines for the judge to question and hear from some people and not all people. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I seek clarity on what the criteria would be for the judge to question some people and not others.

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

  More

  I will speak to amendment 142, which would insert “and how it will be administered” into the Bill. It would require the assessing doctor to explain and discuss with the person how the substance that might be provided to assist them to end their life will be administered. The amendment would be a key step towards giving peace of mind to a terminally ill individual who is seeking an assisted death. It would also preserve their autonomy right up to the final stage. Ensuring that the method of administration is thoroughly explained would provide the doctors and the individual seeking an assisted death with the opportunity to consider the options—if there are options available to them—and decide which method would best preserve the autonomy of that individual. Assisted dying presents many opportunities for individuals to be coerced, especially at the final stage—death itself. Therefore, the method of administration is key information for the individual to know, and it is not sufficient for it to be withheld from them. We must make it a prerequisite of the Bill that it is supplied. Making an informed choice about the assisted death pathway involves careful consideration, and knowing and understanding every step of the process. It is appropriate for the person to maintain their agency. Minimising the role played by the doctor at the administration stage is also key to ensure that the final act belongs to that individual. We must acknowledge that many individuals seeking assisted death may experience significant mobility and physical limitations, particularly because of their terminal illness. Those limitations can affect their ability to engage with the process in ways other people may take for granted. For example, a patient suffering from severe weakness, paralysis or chronic pain might have difficulty physically positioning themselves or administering some types of substance, depending on the options available. A person may have difficulty swallowing and would not be able to ingest a substance in the form of a pill, but they may be able to autonomously operate a system that would allow them intravenous administration. In these cases, the method of administration must be carefully considered and explained in a way that accommodates the patient’s unique physical needs. By discussing the challenges openly at this stage, doctors can help to ensure that the patient understands the options open to them, while making the process as comfortable and accessible as possible. Addressing their mobility and physical limitations in this context is not only a matter of practicality, but a reflection of our compassion and respect for that individual’s circumstances. By limiting the doctor’s physical role, we also ensure that the patient retains control over the process. Making the act of self-administration as independent as possible ensures that the final part of the process gives the patient agency in choosing how and when to end their life. The individual must maintain a primary role in their death, but the actual administration is the final assurance and assertion of the individual’s choice to end their life. The amendment emphasises the importance of ensuring that, within the Bill, the doctor’s involvement is limited to preparation and support. That is key to making sure that the patient’s final moments are self-directed and as free from any unnecessary external interventions as possible. Subsection 6 of clause 18, on the provision of assistance, discusses the role of the doctor in administration. It says that a doctor might “assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.” By ensuring that the method of administration of the substance aligns with the physical capabilities that a person has to self-ingest, which may be limited, we limit the role played by the doctor at this crucial stage, and limit the chance of the coercion of the individual or of the individual having a death that lacks real autonomy. In conclusion, amendment 142 plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and autonomy of a terminally ill individual seeking an assisted death. By ensuring that the method of administration is clearly explained, we empower patients to make an informed, autonomous decision about the way in which they wish to end their life.

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

  More

  The probe that I have on that point is that the individual who is seeking the assisted death, and the doctors who have been working with that person, really have all the information. I am trying to ascertain, if we are not going to agree on this amendment, who else they would be seeking information from. Is there a risk if they are getting evidence from family members or other people, or having them give evidence or speak on behalf of that declaration?

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

  More

  I will speak to amendment 127, which is a probing amendment. I will not press it to a vote, but the reason I tabled it is that I felt that the phrase “as soon as reasonably practicable” was a little vague. I was taking into consideration the fact that we often talk about people who have six months to live, who are eligible for the assisted death, but sometimes people learn later on and do not have six months. If people are thinking about having an assisted death, there might be some pace at which the doctors need to work together—the co-ordinating doctor and whoever else they speak to. I put 10 days, because I needed to put something down, and that is why I am saying amendment 127 is probing, but I do think that we need to be a little tighter with the timeframe in which we enable doctors to speak to each other, so that the patient is aware of what is happening. Also, if the patient wants to change their mind and is speaking to another doctor, they would know what timeframe they have got. The amendment is probing, and I will not press it to a vote.

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

  More

  rose—

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

  More

  I will speak to amendments 125 and 126, which are linked to new clause 7. Given the discussion we have just had, and given that amendment 341 has been made, I will not push amendment 125 to a vote. Amendment 126, however, provides that any medical practitioner who wishes to provide assistance under the Bill must have opted in to a register or a service for practitioners who are comfortable with providing care related to assisted dying. In other conversations, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that the opt-in model is provided within the Bill. The challenge is that it is not explicit in the Bill, and I would like to see it so. The BMA wrote in its evidence to the Committee: “The Bill should be based on an ‘opt-in’ model, so that only those doctors who positively choose to participate are able to do so. Doctors who opt in to provide the service should also be able to choose which parts of the service they are willing to provide (e.g. assessing eligibility and/or prescribing for eligible patients)…An opt-in model is not explicit in the Bill…We urge the Committee to make it explicit in the Bill that this is an opt-in arrangement for doctors.” The BMA says that it wants it explicit in the Bill, and at the moment it is not. The Royal College of General Practitioners aligned with this viewpoint, stating that an explicit opt-in system is completely necessary in the Bill. It is my hope that members of the Committee will support amendment 126, which I intend to push to a vote.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 288, in clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end insert— “(6) All efforts to dissuade the person from ending their own life must be recorded in the clinical records and subsequently made available to the medical examiner.”— (Sean Woodcock.) This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to record efforts to dissuade the person from taking their own life and subsequently make this available to the medical examiner . Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  Throughout the debate, we have spoken consistently about things that happen normally within medical practice, but the amendment we are discussing would move us away from ordinary practice. Could the Minister explain why we would do that?

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

  More

  Based on the fact that we agreed on amendment 341, I am prepared not to press amendment 125 to a vote. It is amendment 126 that I am proposing.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out from start of line to end of line 36 and insert “who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.” This amendment provides that only a medical practitioner who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners as provided for in NC7 would have a person referred to them.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Women’s Health · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. Menopause is a biological process that marks the end of a woman’s menstrual cycle and fertility, and it typically occurs between the ages of 45 and 55. It is a universal experience for women around the world. The journey to that point is known as perimenopause, which can last for several years, and that is what I will focus on today. The perimenopausal stage in a woman’s health remains in the shadows, under-prioritised and under-resourced by policymakers, employers and healthcare providers alike. Perimenopause is overlooked despite its relevance to health, education, employment and demography. During the transition into the menopause, a woman’s body undergoes various changes as it prepares to end its reproductive years. Typically, the transition begins in the mid-40s, but it can start as early as the mid-30s and last as long as into the mid-50s. It usually lasts for about four years, but it can extend to up to eight years. During the perimenopausal stage, oestrogen levels fluctuate, leading to irregular menstrual cycles, and as the ovaries gradually produce less oestrogen, it can cause various other symptoms. Perimenopause is diagnosed based on symptoms and menstrual history, and the treatment focuses on managing the symptoms, including through lifestyle changes, hormone therapy—although less so—and other medications. The symptoms of perimenopause can affect daily activities. They affect work and relationships. Women in my Broxtowe constituency have told me that they have needed to take time off work due to the symptoms, which they did not understand and neither did their healthcare professionals. We know that absences from work have a significant impact on our economy. As has been said, it can cost billions of pounds per year. Some women need to reduce their working hours, to take extended leave, or to leave the workforce entirely. This can affect their career progression, depending on how young they are. At a time when the Government are focusing on growing our economy, we cannot ignore the economic costs of not helping and supporting women in their perimenopause. Few women seek help or attention, and due to a lack of understanding they receive very little support if they do. Their symptoms might be subtle and they will come on gradually. They might not even know that they are connected to the hormone fluctuations of the menopause transition. Many women do not even understand the signs and symptoms of the perimenopausal stage, as the menstrual cycle continues. This lack of awareness and education about the perimenopause, among both women and healthcare providers, leads to underdiagnosis and undertreatment. I raise this issue because I would like to go back to my constituency and assure people that perimenopause will be included in any future Government policy.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  A very quick question: does the hon. Member agree that the weight of a doctor’s words weighs heavily on patients?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 124 would prevent a registered medical practitioner from discussing the provision of assistance under the Bill unless it is first raised by the person themselves. This is very similar to another discussion we have had. The reason for my amendment is that the doctor will be suggesting, offering or endorsing assisted dying as a treatment pathway—and that would be new—and the patient may take that as a recommendation or endorsement, which could impede their freedom to autonomously choose assisted death. Another reason I tabled the amendment is that the Bill risks exacerbating the existing pervasive health inequalities. I am very concerned that biases, both conscious and unconscious, have the potential to significantly impact the treatment pathways offered to people, particularly those who fall under the nine protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. Medical practitioners have the potential to influence the treatment pathways offered to people, particularly those from those backgrounds, and I therefore see no reason why assisted dying would be offered as a treatment pathway. I was thinking of the following example. Under maternity services, we also have abortion services. If someone presented themselves to a doctor and said that they were in the early stages of pregnancy, they would not be offered abortion as an option; they would be asked, “Do you want to have your baby at home or at a hospital? Would you like shared care between your GP and the hospital?” They would not be asked, “Would you like an abortion?” because that is not part of the pathway. For that to happen, the person would go to the doctor and say, “I am pregnant and I would not like to have this baby.” It is therefore important that the individual first approaches the doctor or clinician and says, “I am interested in an assisted death” or “I would like an assisted death.” Assisted dying should not be a treatment option, even if it is part of end-of-life care. The doctor’s position is one of knowledge and expertise that far exceeds that of their patient, and that places them in a position of power and influence over their patient. Given that power imbalance, the doctor’s suggestion seems like a recommendation. If an individual chooses assisted death because it feels like a recommendation, that decision is no longer autonomous. I will quote a GP, Dr Hannah Denno, who put in some written evidence. She cited her role as a GP as being one that needs her patients to take her words as guidance: “I believe that in my role as a GP, to make such a suggestion”— choosing assisted death, for example— “would put pressure on some patients to accept it. At a time of vulnerability many patients are very sensitive to any suggestions raised by a health care professional.”

• 25 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to go back to the point about making the Bill more complicated by putting layer upon layer on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West spoke about health inequalities and how not everyone is given the same advice to the same level. If we were to introduce a palliative care specialist we would guarantee that everybody was given the same advice and information. We could therefore help reduce the health inequalities and inequalities of access to information that we know exist in our healthcare system.