Kim Leadbeater MP: speeches

538 published records · newest first.

Speeches

11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
That is not quite accurate. I think we did have other witnesses who absolutely said that they had confidence in the Mental Capacity Act, and I will speak about them in this debate.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I do acknowledge that point—absolutely, as I have acknowledged, the role of a High Court judge is really important in this process. That role will remain with the amendment I have tabled. It will also take account of the very clear evidence we received during the oral evidence sessions from psychiatrists, social workers and other professionals who feel that they have an important role to play in this process. Indeed, I heard the hon. Gentleman say he agreed with that on the radio this morning. It is very important that we hear from those experts. There is no point in having witnesses if we do not listen to what they have to say.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Thank you, Ms McVey. I hope and believe that the Committee will take the same considered, respectful approach that we have taken previously. We have been asked by the House to look at where the Bill can be improved and to amend it, so that Parliament can be presented with a piece of legislation that is robust and workable in order to meet the objectives it is designed to achieve. Most—if not all—the amendments tabled in my name, have been drafted with the help of parliamentary counsel and officials in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice. The Government are committed to making the Bill workable and operable, while maintaining a position of neutrality. I am grateful for the tremendous hard work that has gone into this to make a well-drafted Bill even better. I know the Ministers on the Committee, although remaining neutral, will be here to explain, where necessary, why some drafting amendments were needed to meet their duty to the statute book. There is an old adage that says too many cooks spoil the broth. That may not exactly be parliamentary language, but we will have to bear it in mind as we go along. Over 300 amendments have been tabled—most of them with the intention of improving and strengthening the Bill. I thank all MPs, whether members of the Committee or not, for the time and effort they have put in. We have a responsibility to maintain the integrity and coherence of the Bill as a whole, so it is evident that we will not be able to accept all amendments. Indeed, we may find ourselves rejecting amendments that sound entirely reasonable in themselves and that undoubtedly come from a good place, but that are perhaps better addressed elsewhere in the drafting. Others might have unintended consequences or create a degree of ambiguity or uncertainty that could undermine the legal authority of the legislation. That might be very good for the pockets of lawyers, but it does not make for good law.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “person” insert “in England or Wales”. This amendment provides that only persons in England or Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Bill.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Absolutely, Ms McVey—thank you for allowing me to make some introductory comments. Amendments 178 to 180, 182 and 193 simply clarify that only persons in England and Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Act, and only medical practitioners in England and Wales can carry out the required roles at each stage of the process. Hopefully, this is a nice straightforward one to get us started.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I do struggle with that terminology. This is not assisted suicide by the state. The state is not involved. It is the person making an autonomous decision based on their choice at the end of life. I will say on the record that the term “suicide” is not accurate for the cases we are talking about. The people we are dealing with are not suicidal. They very much want to live; they do not want to die, but they are dying. It is important that we have that on the record.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, in this very important stage in the consideration and detailed scrutiny of the Bill. We are discussing assisted dying for terminally ill adults who have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and who have not been subjected to coercion or pressure from anybody else to do so. These are very serious matters and deserve serious consideration, which is why I was determined that this Bill should have an unprecedented level of scrutiny. We have heard from a range of over 50 witnesses with differing views on the Bill and have received written evidence from many, many more. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed in such a thoughtful and constructive way. It has been widely remarked—and I wholeheartedly agree—that the Second Reading debate on 29 November last year, when the House approved the principle of the Bill by a majority of 55, showed Parliament at its best. I hope and believe that this Committee, as it goes through the Bill line by line, will do so in the same considered, respectful and measured manner.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
rose —
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Did the polling ask people’s view on whether terminally ill homeless people should have access to assisted dying, or on whether it should be offered to homeless people just for being homeless? That would seem very strange.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
At the moment, we are addressing the fitness for purpose of the Mental Capacity Act, but there are other amendments that will take on board some of my hon. Friend’s points, particularly about people with learning disabilities. I am very happy to look at that. I am working to table an amendment before the recess, to give the Committee an opportunity to look at it in great detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West is right that that would provide another opportunity for assessment of capacity with the involvement of psychiatrists and social workers, who have said that that is their expertise and what they excel in, and who feel that they have a valuable role to play in the process.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
To build on the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, this is the heart of the issue. You are right that they are slightly different things.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
That is a point worth making, and something we will look at through the amendments that my hon. Friend has proposed. I am very happy to look at those, as I have already said, but the idea of creating a whole new concept of ability seems wholly unnecessary in the context of a piece of legislation that has stood the test of time for over 20 years. I come back to training. Although the full details of the training programme that would accompany the Bill cannot be put on the face of the Bill, I have discussed the issue at length with officials in the Department of Health and I have included amendments to that effect. Amendments 186 and 198 specifically state that training must include assessing capacity and assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person. Further comprehensive training will be included in regulations set out by the Secretary of State, and the chief medical officer is confident that that is the correct way to proceed. Furthermore, as has been referred to, there are multiple opportunities within the process to assess capacity by a range of professionals. I have also tabled new clause 8, which would create a duty for the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations relating to training. Within that, there would be a duty to consult not only the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is important, but persons with expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity and whether persons have been coerced.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am not sure that we have voted on amendment 202.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Further to the comment from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, all of that will obviously be recorded on the patient’s medical records as well. The idea that it is not being recorded is just not correct.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
On that point, it is not an either/or. It is not just about passing legislation that improves choice and gives autonomy and dignity to dying people, and indeed fixes the current failings of the law as it stands, as we have discussed in great detail. It is about providing safeguards that make sure that is done safely, securely and robustly, and that address the issues and concerns we are discussing. It is not an either/or and it is important to make that distinction.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Sorry, Sir Roger. The hon. Member is correct. It gets to the heart of whether we think this is the right thing to do. The Bill Committee’s job is to put that decision back to the House. It is not for us to decide today; it is for us to have the discussion about how we can improve the Bill and send it back to the House. The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that it gets to the heart of the issue. I think dying people should be given that choice. In the same way that they are given the choice to have treatment withdrawn or the machine turned off, they should be given the choice to take control and to have the autonomy and dignity that assisted death will provide.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I do not think that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is saying that this is about people with eating disorders or anorexia; he is asking about people who are terminally ill who stop eating and drinking. They do that as a course of action to essentially end their own lives. It does happen on a fairly regular basis. We have had testimonies from families who have watched loved ones essentially starve themselves to death. It is different from having an eating disorder or being anorexic.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I will. Let me read from the Bill. The definition of “terminal illness” under the Bill is that “the person has an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”. The conditions that my hon. Friend is describing can be reversed by treatment and are not inevitably progressive. We will come to that debate in due course, but that definition is crucial.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I will try to keep my comments brief. It is excellent that we have had such a thorough debate on this particular issue, but I am also very conscious of time. I will do the quick and easy bit first. As the Minister has just said, amendment 202 is to correct a typographical error in the initial drafting of the Bill—despite the high level of expertise involved in the initial drafting of the Bill, that one managed to sneak through. The amendment would simply change the word “capability” to “capacity”, to be consistent with the rest of the Bill. I now come to amendments 34 to 47 and new clause 1. As we have discussed, those would replace the concept of “capacity”, which is based on the Mental Capacity Act, with a new concept of “ability”. I think that suggestion is coming from a good place and is made with good intention by the hon. Member for Richmond Park; I thank her for her positive engagement with the Bill. However, based on the oral evidence that we received, particularly from the chief medical officer and many other experts, the suggestion would seem unnecessary given that we already have—as has been discussed at length this afternoon—a very well established piece of legislation that is effective in this regard. The primary purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is to promote and safeguard decision making within a legal framework. As the CMO and other colleagues have said, issues around mental capacity “are dealt with every day, in every hospital up and down the country; every doctor and nurse above a certain level of seniority should be able to do that normally.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30, Q3.] That view was supported by Yogi Amin, an expert in Court of Protection work, human rights and civil liberties, who told us during the oral evidence sessions: “It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 140, Q176.]
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I do. I take my hon. Friend’s comments on board and I will come to address them. As other colleagues have established, it would seem nonsensical to try to introduce a brand new legislative framework rather than use an existing piece of legislation that has stood the test of time. Indeed, Professor Laura Hoyano, emeritus professor of law at the University of Oxford, who has worked in civil liberties, human rights and domestic abuse, said: “It is interesting that a number of Members of Parliament who are practising physicians pointed out in the debate that they have to evaluate freedom of decision making and absence of coercion in many different medical contexts.” She talked about the withdrawal of medical treatment, as others have this afternoon, and went on: “It is considered to be a fundamental human right that lies at the heart of medical law that a patient has personal autonomy to decide what to do with their body and whether or not to accept medical treatment, provided that they have the capacity to do so...Doctors have to make those assessments all the time.” ––[ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee , 30 January 2025; c. 227, Q289.] In the light of that evidence, it would seem unnecessary to create a whole new legal framework around the new concept of ability. However, although I think the Mental Capacity Act is the correct legal framework to use, I strongly agree with palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke when it comes to additional training on assessing capacity for the purposes of this Bill, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. She strongly encouraged us to give serious consideration to this matter, saying: “If there is one thing that I would say to the Committee regarding making the Bill as robust, strong and safe as possible, it is: please consider seriously the matter of education and training from day one of medical school onwards.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.] The CMO also suggested that training on capacity, as has been discussed, may require some slight adjustment. He said: “There is an absolute expectation within the Act, for example, that the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have...That training should be generic, but may need some adaption.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30-31, Q3.] I agree. As I have said, I think one of the best things about the Bill is the opportunity it gives us to develop gold-standard training around end-of-life care, end-of-life conversations and choice for terminally ill people. That should include training in assessing capacity specifically for the purposes of the Bill, for a decision that is clearly of such a high level of consequence and seriousness.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend would not meet the criteria. She might be describing a condition that cannot be reversed, but it is the “inevitably progressive” part that we are talking about. Because it can be treated, it is not an “inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition”.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend has listed certain categories of people, and we will come on to the definition of terminal illness. I am confident that, given the definition of terminal illness in the Bill, some of the groups of people she has talked about will not be included in its scope.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Clause 1 is very specifically about the Mental Capacity Act, on which we should get a chance to vote this afternoon. Other amendments can be tabled ahead of Report, but the fitness for purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is a concept on which we will get a chance to vote this afternoon. Other things can be added to the Bill that would enhance other aspects, but the point that we have discussed this afternoon is about the fitness for purpose of the Act. There are different views on the Committee, which is understandable. I believe that using the well-established legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act, introducing gold-standard training and consulting experts in assessing capacity will mean that there is no need to develop a whole new framework around the concept of ability, particularly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. I therefore do not support the amendments.
11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source
More
In respect of those numbers, it is important to be really clear that the vast majority of those circumstances were in the Netherlands and in other jurisdictions that have a much broader set of eligibility criteria than the Bill. We are talking about a very small number of cases in jurisdictions with a similar set of criteria to ours. It is important to make that point.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →