Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  Q I have a question for Dr Clarke and Dr Cox about the registration of deaths, which is dealt with in clause 29. Do you feel that the provisions set out in the clause are sufficient? If not, what further bolstering would provide the oversight needed to ensure that the processes and procedures are followed correctly? Dr Cox: My understanding of the plan is that in the Bill—forgive me, but I am sketchy on this—the aim is for the registration to be as a natural death. It would not be referred to the coroner, and “assisted dying” would appear on the death certificate. I am also a medical examiner. My concern is that, as a medical examiner, I am obliged by law to scrutinise all deaths to ensure that a referral to the coroner is not required and to identify any learnings. What concerns me in that role is whether enough recording is happening around decision making and the process to do my job properly. With my medical examiner hat on, do I know what happened? I do not see anything written down in the Bill about the records that are to be kept. What happened when the patient took the substance? What happened afterwards? Were any actions taken in the meantime? That is not so much something I have thought about a lot with my palliative care consultant hat on, but as a medical examiner it concerns me. Dr Clarke: For the sake of time, I do not have anything to add. I completely agree with that.

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

  More

  Q Sir Nicholas, can I bring you in on that? You referred to it directly in your proposed amendment. Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I did. What particular aspect do you want me to address? The range is quite wide. In relation to the administration of the substance, it is interesting that in Spain, which is now in its second full year of doing this, take-up has been extremely low. There have been only 700 requests, with a quarter denied, and a quarter of the people died prematurely. Three hundred were granted, but of those 300, in 95% of cases the substance was administered by the doctor and auto-administered in only 5%. I am trying to work out why that is, culturally, in Spain. Maybe people go when they are extremely infirm, and that is the reason for it. I am not able to see the moral distinction between having the substance administered and auto-administration. On your question, there are devices that enable somebody who is locked in to end their lives by a blink of the eyelash, aren’t there? Sir Max Hill: Yes.

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

  More

  Q I want to stick with clause 18, because as it stands there can be some assistance by the clinician but there cannot be total delivery or administration by the clinician. You could end up with a scenario where, for instance, you have somebody who is tetraplegic and then gets a terminal diagnosis, has capacity to make the decision and wants to end their life, but they do not have the physical means of doing so. Do you think that is open for challenge on grounds of discrimination? Sir Max Hill: I would not look at it on grounds of discrimination. What I would do is put that clause alongside what are generally referred to as the slippery slope arguments in other jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions—Canada might be one and some of the US states might be another—the provision of life-ending medication is expressed in a form of treatment by a doctor. This is not that. We are clear when reading clause 18 that it is not a permission to administer; in fact, it is a prohibition on administration. It is making available in certain tightly defined circumstances and then standing by—not necessarily in the same room, as stated in subsection (10)—while the self-administered medication takes effect. Having said that, I am absolutely clear that there is only so far a Bill or Act of Parliament can go as primary legislation. There is then further distance that must be covered by the provision of practical and professional rules, under the auspices of the national health service here, to indicate precisely the circumstances in which this will physically happen. I do not see that as discriminatory; we are dealing with a tight category of defined individuals to whom this applies and it does not apply to anybody outside that, as we have just discussed. But it is not prone to the slippery slope arguments of something that is generally to be made available in the course of treatment. In fact, the Bill has been couched in a very different way.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this debate to the Chamber. Being neighbouring MPs, he and I have worked very closely on this issue. He notes the size of Solihull borough; of course, with the Government’s housing plans, that is likely to increase significantly, almost touching a quarter of a million. Does he agree that in those circumstances, it is absolutely critical that we have an A&E provision within the borough to serve the community?

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

  More

  I, too, commend the hon. Member for Spen Valley for her efforts in pulling together this list; it is an unenviable task, given the number of contributions that were made. It is important that we do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. There is a wide range of individuals and organisations that we would all benefit from hearing from, but given the time available to the Committee—which is much more extensive than most private Members’ Bills have, by some margin—we are not in a position to hear oral evidence from all of them. But there is an open invitation for everyone to contribute written evidence and for us, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire noted, to speak to engaged parties outside the Committee to feed into our thought processes and deliberations. On the amendments tabled, I understand the reasons for amendment (b) on the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but I have to say that I disagree. The hon. Member for Bradford West said it was about coercion. I could understand if she were making an argument that we need to hear from the Royal College of Surgeons about the issue of capacity, so I do not think that this is universally confined to psychiatrists; it is something, as a surgeon, I dealt with every day when I was getting consent for operations. We have to think about how we get a wide range of opinions on the subject: we have the Chief Medical Officer, who can comment on such issues from a policy perspective; we have the BMA, which I am sure will send representatives who will be most able to deal with the questions that are to be asked; and, of course, we have the General Medical Council, which is the ultimate regulator and arbitrator of this issue. The Committee is also about ensuring that this legislation is as fit and as robust as possible when it goes back to the House for consideration. That is where I think that having a legislator from a jurisdiction in which this has been implemented is crucial. Not having the member for Sydney in the New South Wales Parliament—where they have implemented this, and have dealt with some of the thorny issues that the Committee and subsequently the House will have to deal with—would be a mistake. Likewise, having more geriatricians and palliative care physicians is a better balance than having those with some other expertise—well-meaning as they may be, they are not necessarily dealing with this at the coalface. I do not support the amendments for those reasons.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Covid-19 Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  Having served on the frontline during covid, I am acutely aware of the sacrifices made by clinicians, patients and staff. However, when it comes to preparing for any future pandemics, part of the solution is ensuring that we have robust epidemiological research. Could the Minister tell us, in rather more granular detail, what assessment he has made of the current projects commissioned by the Government?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to see that you are proudly wearing the newly formed Royal Army Medical Service tie, Mr Speaker. In Solihull West and Shirley, the new year has been welcomed by increases in bus fares and reductions in services. In places such as Cheswick Green, people are faced with choosing between either more expensive and difficult journeys or not being able to get to work, the shops or college. Given the Government’s stated ambitions, what assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of the policy?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  At the back end of last year, borrowing figures were the second highest monthly figures on record. That was in no small part driven by the Chancellor’s decision to give inflation-busting pay rises to unions. Given that we have more union pay negotiations this year, should my constituents be braced for the Government giving into those union demands, at risk to taxpayers?