Marie Tidball MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In March 2020, when the Conservative Government looked like an outlier in appearing to pursue a strategy centring on herd immunity, I felt raw, hot fear. Thinking of my toddler and what might happen if I caught coronavirus meant that I sobbed deeply. After 10 years of austerity, I knew then that disabled people would pay an enormous price, and they did: almost 60% of covid-related deaths in that first wave were of disabled people. I vowed then that I would do all I could to create a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect. The social security system was broken by the Conservatives’ legacy of austerity and their monumental mishandling of the covid pandemic. I am now one of the only visibly physically disabled Members of Parliament. I am proud that our manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people, and the principle of working with disabled people to ensure that our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. My communities nurtured me growing up, and they taught me the values of fairness, equality and community. It is with a heavy, broken heart that I will be voting against this Bill today. As a matter of conscience, I need my constituents to know that I cannot support the proposed changes to PIP as drafted in the Bill. Since April, I have been engaging relentlessly with the Government at the very highest level to change their proposals, making clear that I could not support the proposals on PIP. PIP is an in-work benefit designed to ensure that disabled people can live independently. Low-level support such as PIP helps to build the bridge to the deinstitutionalisation of disabled people, keeping us out of the dark corners of hospitals, prisons and social care settings. The concessions that the Government have announced are significant, including that all recipients of PIP who receive it will continue to do so. While that will come as a relief to my 6,000 constituents who receive PIP, 4 million disabled people still live in poverty in the UK. The proposed changes to be made in Committee are still projected to put 150,000 people into poverty. I cannot accept that or a proposed points system under current descriptors, which would exclude from eligibility those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, I agree. As a disabled woman, I know the added burden of menstruation, incontinence and pregnancy on disabled women, as those things intersect with their disability. Research shows that supportive, incentive-based approaches far outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. To be able to vote for this Bill on Third Reading, I will be looking for further reassurances that the detail of the Bill will fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitments to disabled people. I need to see three things from the Government embedded in the amendments. First, the Timms review must not be performative. The Government must not make the same mistake twice, and co-production must be meaningful. The social model of disability must be central to that, removing barriers to our inclusion in society. Disabled people’s voices should be at the heart of decision making about our lives. The sequencing of the Timms review and decisions about future recipients need to change. Secondly, the Government must consult disabled people over the summer to understand the impact of the proposed changes from November 2026 on future claimants, to mitigate risks of discrimination and poverty for those with similar disabilities to current claimants. The Government must produce an impact assessment based on that. In fulfilling the outcomes of the consultation’s findings, they may need to reconsider the savings that result from this process. Thirdly, growth must mean inclusive growth. In implementing the £1 billion employment, health and skill support programme, there needs to be a clear target and a sector-by-sector strategy for closing the disability employment gap. That matters. The Conservatives left us with a pitiful 29% employment gap and a 17% pay gap for disabled people. As the Tories vote against this Bill today, I say loudly that that should not be read as a mark of solidarity for disabled people. Instead, they should be hanging their heads in shame, acknowledging their legacy of 14 years of failure for 16 million disabled people across our country. I am proud that our Labour Government have done much already to promote the rights of workers and opportunities for disabled people. This Labour Government now have an opportunity to build on the positive aspects of its “Pathways to Work” Green Paper to bring in a new era of policy making for disabled people that puts a laser focus on closing the employment gap. The disability sector believes that the employment gap can be reduced by 14%, generating £17.2 billion for the Exchequer. We must seize this moment to do things differently and move beyond the damaging rhetoric and disagreements of recent weeks. There is an alternative approach, in line with the Prime Minister’s statement that reform should be implemented with Labour values of fairness. A reset requires a shift in emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil our potential.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the words of the Secretary of State that recognise the need to enable disabled people to fulfil their potential. Since April, I have engaged with the Government, making it clear that I could not support the proposals on PIP. Our manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people and the principle of working with disabled people. Having no public consultation on these plans excludes the voices of disabled people. This is not just about process; this makes disabled people worse off. The principle of fairness means that disabled people had a legitimate expectation to be consulted, in order to fulfil the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Why did the Department for Work and Pensions choose not to consult with disabled people on the PIP proposals, and what work will it do to win back the trust of disabled people?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In the UK, 2.9 million disabled women are of reproductive age. Tragically, disabled women are 44% more likely to have a stillbirth. As a disabled mother myself, I was devastated by the barriers that I faced at every point during my pregnancy. It was a pleasure to host Paralympians, disabled women and experts by experience at a summit here in Parliament to discuss what good, inclusive maternity care looks like. Can the Leader of the House advise on further opportunities to embed safer maternity care for disabled women in the Government’s women’s health strategy as part of the 10-year plan?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support new clause 122, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). In 2007, Fiona Pilkington drove herself and her 18-year-old daughter, Francecca Hardwick, to a lay-by near her home. She also took the family’s pet rabbit to soothe her daughter, who had severe learning disabilities. She then set the car on fire, killing them both. An inquest two years later heard how the family had been kept virtual prisoners in their home by youths who threw stones, flour and other objects and kept up a relentless stream of abuse. At the time, the Independent Police Complaints Commission concluded that one of the police’s main failings was in not identifying the abuse as hate crime. The case prompted wider concern that many police forces were failing to properly identify hate crimes motivated by disability, and thus treating them as low-priority antisocial behaviour—something disability campaigners say too often remains the case. I am proud that last year our Labour manifesto “committed to championing the rights of disabled people and to the principle of working with them, so that their views and voices will be at the heart of all we do.” I support my hon. Friend’s new clause 122, which would implement our manifesto commitment to protect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. The new clause would finally place the Law Commission’s recommendations on a statutory footing. As the commission has said: “It is undesirable for the current law to give the impression of a ‘hierarchy’ of victims.” The Bill will be powerful in delivering the Government’s safer streets mission and plan for change. It will help to tackle the crimes that matter most to communities but that have been ignored for too long, after 14 years of the Tory dereliction of duty on law and order.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new banking hub in Penistone, which I visited this week. However, other parts of my constituency remain a banking desert. The Stocksbridge and Deepcar Townswomen’s Guild raised the urgent need for a hub in Stocksbridge and we desperately need one in Chapeltown too. Otherwise, my constituents have to trek all the way to the centre of Sheffield to have cash access and to receive in-person advice from their bank. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can secure those essential grassroots financial services for those areas in my constituency?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It was fantastic to hear the Government’s commitment yesterday to making the UK a defence industrial superpower. At its peak, Stocksbridge Speciality Steels, in my constituency, produced 15% of global defence and aerospace steel, which is essential to our national security. What work is the Secretary of State doing to secure Stocksbridge Speciality Steels so that this valuable steel asset can be used to maintain our national security?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Building better buses is in my blood. Growing up, my dad was chair of Barnsley passenger transport; South Yorkshire had a world-class bus service, thanks to our Labour county council. Labour knew then, as we know now, that buses are for the people. The Conservatives and Reform just don’t get it, as is demonstrated right now by those empty Opposition Benches. When they were in government, the Conservatives promised South Yorkshire a London-style transport system. Instead, after 14 years of their neglect, our constituency has lost 53% of its bus services, including the vital SL1 Supertram service link connecting Stocksbridge and Oughtibridge to Sheffield. The crucial number 57 and 57A was left frequently running late, or failed to turn up at all, and the cuts to the number 43 and 44 buses seriously affected my Dodworth constituents. The reality for our rural neighbourhoods is even more stark, as constituents at my community event on transport told me—villages such as Bolsterstone are entirely cut off, Ingbirchworth loses bus connectivity after certain hours of the day, and the number 21 from Penistone to Barnsley is a route crying out for urgent improvements. Our Labour Government know that buses are a lifeline that connects our families and communities across Penistone and Stocksbridge. That is why I am proud that through our better buses Bill, we are empowering communities by ensuring that buses serve local people rather than distant corporate interests. The Bill will remove barriers to public control and franchising, placing decisions over bus routes, times and fares back into the hands of communities. Our Labour South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, has been driving change locally. His franchising consultation involved nearly 8,000 people, with 75% strongly supporting it. The plans allow profits to be reinvested directly into better, more reliable services. That is why I am proud that our Transport Secretary has announced a landmark £1 billion fund to transform England’s bus services, including £17 million specifically for South Yorkshire. This issue matters deeply to local people in my constituency. Older and disabled constituents often tell me that they are left stranded, enduring painfully long waiting times due to unreliable services, and facing distressing situations including toileting issues and missed NHS appointments because buses simply fail to appear. That is unacceptable. That is why it is right that the Bill will deliver a more accessible and inclusive bus network, as well as introducing a £3 maximum cap on bus fares until 2026, to encourage more people to use public transport. After years of broken promises, our Labour Government are taking urgent action to rebuild Britain’s bus services, ending the postcode lottery and delivering a public transport system that is affordable, accessible and dependable, enabling South Yorkshire to bring back lost bus routes. I am committed to working with our Labour mayor and the leader of Sheffield city council to secure the return of the quick, reliable SL1 supertram link and our local hopper bus. We need bold bus solutions now, while we await the long-term infrastructure improvements I am advocating for, like the tram-train extension to Stocksbridge via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar. Every single one of us has the right to use buses to travel to work and to see our families and friends. Public transport is fundamental to achieving social justice, so that young and old, in our rural areas—our towns and villages from Gilroyd to Grenoside, High Green to Hoylandswaine and Chapeltown to Ecclesfield—can depend on public transport for work, education and access to healthcare. I commend the Bill to the House.

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Imagine a school night with a child being repeatedly asked by his father if he had completed his homework. The child replied, in an exasperated tone, “Yes”. His dad came towards him with his fist, ready to punch him, but the boy’s mum stepped into the space in front of that fist and pushed her son out of its way. The full force of that fist hit her so hard that she was spun around and fell down the stairs, bruising her arms, legs and back. From the top of the stairs, the child’s father shouted to his son, “Look what you made me do.” The boy’s mother left her husband, taking the children with her. Social services were aware that the same father made statements that he was capable of killing. Then imagine a situation where, despite knowing all of that, a family court permitted that father of those two boys five hours of unsupervised contact per week. My constituent Claire Throssell does not need to imagine this nightmare: she and her two sons, Jack and Paul Sykes, lived it. On a two-hour contact visit, permitted by that court and allowed to go ahead by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Jack and Paul Sykes were locked in the attic by their father. Using gasoline, their dad set multiple fires alight across their home. Paul, aged nine, died at the scene after his older brother tried to save him, and then Jack, aged just 12, died later in hospital. The father also killed himself in the blaze. Jack and Paul’s voices were not heard by social services, by CAFCASS or by the family court. The only time Jack’s voice was heard was when, as he was held in the fireman’s arms, he used the last of his strength to say, “My dad did this and he did it on purpose.” There must be urgent reform of the presumption of contact in law, on the basis of evidence, principle and to ensure children’s voices are put at the heart of our family courts system. Legal principle means that parents should always be given contact with their children, even in circumstances where there is a known domestic abuser. The harm report, published in 2020 by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm, was clear that the presumption should not remain in its present form. The Bill before us today presents the ideal opportunity to make changes to the family courts and to deliver for the victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. It already ensures that the justice system serves victims, rather than subjecting them to further trauma on top of what they have already suffered. Labour’s important mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade will require a national effort and the use of every single tool available to target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence. Now we need to do what the previous Conservative Government failed to do and hold family courts to the same standard by taking a child-centred approach and repealing the presumption of contact where a parent is a known domestic abuser. The Government must act now to save the lives of children for generations to come by ending contact at any cost. Let us not just imagine a world in which the voices of children are put at the heart of our family court system, where children such as Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored, and no more towns such as mine are left to grieve—

• 20 May 2025 · Economic Growth: South Yorkshire and Derby · Hansard source

  More

  16. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help increase economic growth in South Yorkshire.

• 20 May 2025 · Economic Growth: South Yorkshire and Derby · Hansard source

  More

  The speciality steel site at Stocksbridge in my constituency has a strategically significant, highly specialist capability to produce world-leading steel that is crucial to our national defence, aerospace and energy industries. The site employs 650 people and has an excellent skills training centre. I welcome the Government’s £2.5 billion commitment to our UK steel industry. What discussions has the Chancellor had with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that the Government do everything they can to secure the British steel industry by using our domestic steel assets productively, and in particular the Stocksbridge speciality steel site?

• 19 May 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  One of the reasons I stood for Parliament was to work hard to create a society that values disabled people, that treats us with dignity and respect, and that ensures there is nothing about us without us. It is right that this Government will fix the broken system to ensure that we give mental health the same attention as physical health. I am pleased to see the four key principles from the independent review of the Mental Health Act at the heart of the Bill: choice and autonomy, least restriction, the principle of therapeutic benefit and, most importantly, treating people as individuals. After 14 years of a Conservative Government, over 2,000 autistic people and people with a learning disability are in mental health hospitals in England. Some 92% of those people are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and the average length of stay for in-patients is almost five years. This is a human rights scandal, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded in 2019. The current situation is simply wrong. Autism and learning disabilities are not mental health conditions, and yet under the current Mental Health Act, autistic people and people with a learning disability can be detained in mental health hospitals indefinitely. In my 15-year career working with autistic people and those with learning disabilities, along with autism organisations up and down the country, including the National Autistic Society and the Autism Alliance, I have seen the tragedy of autistic people cycling through the mental health system because of those measures and the failure of public services to provide adequate social care on discharge from hospital orders. As an MP, I know from my constituency that too many people are still being detained who could be supported to live well in our communities by organisations such as Greave House Farm Trust and Action for Autism Barnsley which are on my doorstep. The most significant change in the Bill is the removal of autism and learning disability from the definition of mental disorder under section 3 of the existing Act. This vital change means that autistic people and people with a learning disability cannot be detained for treatment unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition that requires in-patient mental health care. The Government have said that “the proposed changes to the detention criteria for people with a learning disability and autistic people will only be switched on when systems are able to demonstrate a sufficient level of community support”. It is crucial for that to happen quickly, through the Government working closely with autistic people and those with a learning disability, as well with as advocacy groups, to publish a plan to build sufficient support in our communities up and down the country. My book on the treatment of autistic people in the criminal justice system demonstrated that ensuring that there is an appropriate level of services in the community is essential in preventing the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability from becoming too complex, leading to admission to mental health hospitals. It also demonstrated the need to support safe discharge out of hospital. Critical to reducing the numbers of those currently detained in hospital under the current law are care, education and treatment reviews for adults and children who are autistic or have a learning disability, which will help speed up discharges, prevent admission and ensure that the person is being given appropriate care. I am delighted that the Bill will make those reviews statutory in in-patient settings. The responsible commissioner, clinician, integrated care board and local authority must have regard to the recommendations arising from them. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, I am aware that recommendations are often not followed in an expeditious manner. Therefore, there is an opportunity to strengthen the duty on responsible parties to follow recommendations from those reviews. The Health Secretary has been moving mountains to work on our 10-year plan. I therefore hope that the Bill’s 10-year implementation period for the changes to detention criteria will align with his important work. He is also doing an incredible job to move to a prevention-led health system, and that provides an opportunity for an integrated approach to community support, including working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure there is adequate housing in every integrated care system. The exclusion and marginalisation of autistic people and those with learning disabilities through their institutionalisation in hospital perpetuates their exclusion from our society. I am proud that our Government are tackling these issues so early on in this Parliament, alongside their commitment to the mental health investment standard, the recruitment of 8,500 mental health workers, and work to deliver a long-term plan for the reform of adult social care. Society is an order of equality and non-discrimination. It is all the richer where autistic people and people with learning disabilities are included within it to fulfil their potential. I commend this Bill to the House.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that clause 2(3) makes it very clear that no one can qualify for assistance under the Bill by reason only of either disability or mental disorder unless they also have six months’ terminality and capacity?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress, out of respect for all those on both sides of the House who wish to make a speech. The clause flowed directly from evidence that we heard from oral witnesses, including leading disability scholars and disability policy experts. In conjunction with amendment 75, which is before us today, those with autism, along with a learning disability or a mental disorder as defined under the Mental Health Act 1983, would all qualify for the services of an independent advocate. Amendment 75, which defines a learning disability, would also apply to clause 7, which provides for specific, up-to-date training for registered practitioners on reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with a learning disability. In Committee, I was grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and, to my delight, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for these independent advocates, and for the Committee’s unanimous support for clause 44, which would set up the disability advisory board. That advisory board entrenches the voices of disabled people in the Bill, embedding a long-term and iterative structure for it to report on the Bill’s implementation and its impact on disabled people to the Secretary of State. Crucially, the board must consist of disabled people and representatives of disabled people’s organisations. To build on those clauses, amendment 91 expands the duty to collect additional information about whether, immediately before death, the person seeking assistance had a disability as defined in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, other than the disability amounting to terminal illness as defined in the Bill. So often, control is taken away from disabled people in all sorts of circumstances. I passionately believe in inclusive healthcare for disabled people. Together, all those measures will create a solid foundation to enable disabled people to have a strong voice when advocating for themselves about their choices on end-of-life care and, importantly, a seat at the table in shaping the monitoring of the Bill and providing continued scrutiny and accountability. To conclude, there were many moments in Committee when I reflected on how I would want to live a good death, but the most poignant was when Julie Thienpont described the death of her terminally ill husband, Guy, who sought an assisted death in Spain: “Guy had always been a bit of an old cowboy, and he always said that he wanted to die with his boots on. I am proud to say that that is what he did. At the end, we were holding hands, and I said to him, ‘Don’t be afraid.’ He said, ‘I’m not afraid,’ and he winked at me just before he closed his eyes.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 258, Q334.] May we all have the opportunity to choose a good death, wearing our cowboy boots with the love of our life by our side.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My decision to support the Bill on Second Reading was one of the hardest I have ever had to make. It required me to go into the very depths of myself and draw on my experience as a child in excruciating pain, as well as the extensive poignant experiences shared with me by my constituents. As I said then, my support was conditional on specific changes being made to the Bill in Committee. I am pleased to say that all those changes have been made. As a member of the Committee, I can tell the House that it was the most extraordinary cross-party deliberative process I have ever witnessed in my 20 years of analysing legislation as an academic and policy researcher working in disability law and policy. In Committee, I worked to strengthen the voices of disabled people, and their protection under the Bill. I moved motions to introduce clause 20 on independent advocates and clause 44, which would create a disability advisory board. These provisions are augmented today by amendments 75 and 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Clause 20 would establish the role of independent advocate. They would advocate for qualifying persons who engage with the Bill, so that those persons can effectively understand their options around end of life care. This would empower disabled people to be treated with the dignity and respect that we deserve. These independent advocates would be required to undertake specialist training, and would be available regardless of whether the individual is ultimately found to be eligible to request an assisted death.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 6 May 2025 · Hospital Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the work that he and his team have done to reduce NHS waiting times month on month for the last six months. However, the backlog that grew under the last Conservative Government is still impacting on my constituents. I have listened to countless constituents who have told me about the upsetting impact of long waiting times for an ADHD diagnosis for children. That is having a detrimental knock-on impact on access to support, including child and adolescent mental health services and shared care agreements, and there is a lack of support for adopted children. I welcome the news that waiting lists have gone down, but will the Secretary of State set out how his work will be targeted at bringing down waiting lists for ADHD diagnoses in my constituency, to ensure consistency in diagnosis rates across trusts?

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her remarkable speech, remembering those who contributed to our war effort. Will she join me in remembering all those who fought and fell in world war two from across my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency, in particular those who worked at Samuel Fox’s steelworks in Stocksbridge to make munitions and equipment to enable a successful outcome to the war?

• 8 Apr 2025 · National Wealth Fund: Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  There is currently no tram network from central Sheffield to Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side, Deepcar or Stocksbridge, and no operational train service to those areas. My constituents want the Sheffield tram network to be extended to Stocksbridge and to connect those rural communities with jobs, education and hospitals, as well as supporting the advanced manufacturing district and the steel plant in Stocksbridge. Will the Minister meet me and the Mayor of South Yorkshire before the spending review to discuss the next steps to establish the Stocksbridge extension to the Sheffield tram-train service?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A retired postmistress in my constituency served our communities at the post office in Parson Cross from 1994 to 2002 and was affected by the Horizon scandal, leaving her mentally and physically unwell. She has not been paid the compensation she is owed from the fixed sum payment scheme. Please will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can help my constituent and her husband Michael to expedite access to their compensation payment?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s commitment to steel. Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency is a strategically significant site with world-class, unique capability for creating specialist parts that will be essential in increasing our defence capacity and net zero infrastructure. Last week, I held a community listening event on the Government’s excellent steel strategy. The message was clear: let us ensure that British-made steel is best. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s news further demonstrates why it is so important that this Government are committed to a £2.5 billion plan for steel?

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 518, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert— “‘coercion’ means behaviour of a controlling or threatening character, including but not limited to emotional or financial control, or improper interference with another person’s decision-making autonomy, which is exerted by a person or organisation, with the intention of inducing that other person to make the relevant declarations or to self-administer an approved substance under this Act against that other person’s will (and ‘coerced’ is to be read accordingly);”. This amendment provides a definition of coercion for the purposes of the Act. The terminology of “person” and “another person” reflects that used in clause 26.

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

  More

  Alex Ruck Keene’s sage words to me were that the problem with putting in more words is that it creates an opportunity for lawyers to find loopholes. In the example that the hon. Lady has just given, when we are talking about family relationships, I think we would all agree that, having thoroughly considered the evidence in this Committee, we do not want any interpretation of the offences set out in section 26 to exclude, for example, carer relationships. That is not a family member, but a carer might give close personal care to someone with a terminal illness. We do not want the courts to think that it was the parliamentary intention of the Committee to delimit it to only intimate or family relationships. There is a risk that the more we narrow it by example, rather than leaving the term broad, as it is currently—“person”—we risk delimiting it too far. We do not want to exclude a situation involving an offence that we hope would be brought before the courts for prosecution.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to amendments 518 to 520, which respectively provide definitions of coercion, dishonesty and pressure for the purposes of the Bill. In my speech on Second Reading, I said I would want to ensure that the final stages of the Bill define dishonesty, coercion and pressure. I have sketched out the definitions based on oral evidence given to the Committee, and am grateful for the extremely helpful input from Laura Hoyano and Max Hill, after the witness sessions, in establishing the content and parameters of the definitions. We have spent a considerable amount of time in Committee discussing the safeguards against coercion, for example, but I felt we had not spent much time discussing the content and parameters of the concepts. Although I will not be press the amendments to a vote, for reasons I will outline, it is important to ensure that our discussions of the concepts are on the public record. I will not press the amendments to a vote as I am convinced, after discussions with legal colleagues and having considered the issues very carefully, that the risks of setting the parameters on the face of the Bill are too great. It would risk ossifying the courts rather than ensuring that they use the full parameters of the concepts to encompass scenarios for the offences under clause 26 in circumstances that the Committee may not currently conceive of. In other words, I am convinced that to limit the definitions of the concepts in statute would create the risk of excluding criminal behaviour where the threshold of the offence would otherwise be met under common law. I believe that instead, mirroring the approach to coercion taken in the Serious Crime Act 2015—a point I will return to—the Ministry of Justice must draw up details of the concepts and examples of their application in the context of the offences set out in clause 26. Doing so will be helpful for the medical practitioners, along with other professionals, who use the Bill if it becomes law, and in the training to be provided for them under the Bill to enable medical practitioners to evaluate whether each patient has been subjected to coercion, pressure or dishonesty by another person in applying for assisted dying. In criminal law, definitions of coercion, dishonesty and pressure are not placed on a statutory footing. First, on dishonesty, Ivey v. Genting Casinos is the lead case because there is no statutory definition of dishonesty. The case provides not a definition but a two-stage test. The courts are familiar with the legal elements of dishonesty from case law: for a long time the part-subjective and part-objective Ghosh test was applied. That was amended in 2020 by the Supreme Court in the Ivey case, which disapproved the former test but retained the question: “Was his or her conduct dishonest by the standards of an ordinary decent person?” Similarly, “pressure” does not have a statutory definition in criminal law, but essentially means forcing someone to do something against their will. Having looked at this issue carefully, I am satisfied that the wording in clause 26 is enough to signal to anyone involved in a relevant application to bring a criminal prosecution what they should look for in terms of acts and intent. The common law is thus well placed to further develop the concepts in the context of the offences set out in clause 26.