Rachel Hopkins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Mar 2025 · Prosecution of Serious and Violent Crime: Luton South and South Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  Sadly, Bedfordshire police recorded some of the highest knife crime rates in England in the year ending March 2024. A robust and quick CPS response is key to delivering justice for victims and their families. How are the Government ensuring that we increase prosecution rates for those serious offences to keep dangerous offenders off our streets?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Prosecution of Serious and Violent Crime: Luton South and South Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps she is taking to help ensure the effective prosecution of serious and violent crime in Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency.

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that, given patient confidentiality, it is highly unlikely that other residents of a care home would even be aware?

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

  More

  The hon. Member is referring to the genuine occupational requirement, but I go back to my point: which protected characteristic is she talking about? Support for assisted dying is not a protected characteristic. I am intrigued to know how that would operate in practice.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am very sympathetic to the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley about people being able to conscientiously object in principle, but the way amendment 480 is written is difficult. For me, it is about the word “indirectly”. That could lead to even more ambiguity that would make it more tricky to facilitate the provision. For example, trying to list some activities but not all of them has potentially left some gaps. A gardener in a care home might be “indirectly” linked—will they be able to say that they are not going to mow the lawn? We will get ourselves in a difficult place, and I would welcome further work being done to recognise the point the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is trying to make, because of that ambiguity. Trying to establish a point of principle in new clause 22 could lead to some difficulties. It reads: “Any individual, business, organisation, or association who occupies or operates premises has the right to refuse to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises.” Perhaps it is about the interpretation of that and how we read it, but any individual who occupies a premises could refuse permission. Does that mean that a husband could deny a wife the opportunity to die at home when that is where she has been treated for a terminal illness, where all her help has been administered and where she would like to die? Again, it is about whether the drafting might have unintended consequences when we want to have compassion and choice for the individual at the heart of the Bill. Similarly, could an organisation or association with shared ownership of a property—a form of tenure that many people now have—object to this route for someone who is after all in their own home, as they own part of it? There are some difficulties in the new clause, and by trying to establish one principle, it is making things more difficult and open to challenge. We are trying to make law that is good, even if we do not agree with it.

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

  More

  I respect that. I have been very clear about my beliefs, but I know people who share my beliefs and do not support assisted dying, and vice versa; I have friends who are religious and do support assisted dying. Again, we cannot make assumptions about people’s protected characteristics.

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

  More

  Okay. I will carry on. Some of the amendments were tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, and I want to speak to amendment 481, which is of a similar ilk. There is no obligation on an employer to provide assistance, and we are all absolutely bought into that, so that is not a bad thing. Amendment 481 would avoid preventing “an employer who has chosen not to participate in the provision of assistance…from prohibiting their…employees from providing such assistance in the course of their employment with that employer”. I have some questions on that. People’s working lives are varied and often they may not have just one employer, so there is a slight ambiguity—I hope the Committee will bear with me—if employer A exercises a right to prohibit under the amendment, and someone works for employer A but also for employer B, which is okay with people participating in a legal act under this legislation. Let me provide a bit of clarity with the example of a locum doctor. If a doctor is employed by employer A, but also does some locum work for employer B, does that mean that employer A could say the doctor was not permitted to carry out legitimate employment for employer B?

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

  More

  I—

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her response, but I think it made my point: I interpreted it slightly differently from the way the hon. Lady intended. I would welcome some clarity on that from the Ministers and lawyers in the room. Similarly, I was interested in the point regarding the genuine “occupational requirements”, and how that is written and interpreted. There are reasons for “specifying occupational requirements in relation to the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Equality Act when hiring employees” but that occupational requirement means that an employer could discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic, if that requirement is essential for the job and “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. I am a little concerned as to the interpretation. In respect of which protected characteristic would they or would they not be recruiting? We need some legal input to clarify that, because we cannot make assumptions about people’s protected characteristics, particularly in recruitment.

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

  More

  rose —

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for her intervention. In the light of her comments, it seems the amendment may be trying to put on the face of the Bill some nuances that should be picked up through employment law. I understand the principle of what she is trying to achieve, but there are protections in those areas.

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

  More

  I appreciate the interventions, because we are trying to get the best clarity we can for dying people. Are we debating the other amendments in this group, Mr Dowd?

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

  More

  I am conscious of the Chair’s comments, so I am going to proceed, because I want to make a final point about new clause 23. I am sympathetic to its principles, as I recognise that some institutions may not want to provide assistance. This new clause, however, relates solely to no detriment for care homes or hospices for not providing assistance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central pointed out, there are a variety of settings, such as sheltered accommodation, warden-controlled accommodation, hospitals or other regulated premises, to which this would apply. We might therefore, in this new clause, be putting some institutions on the face of the Bill but leaving a whole bunch of others to fall through the gaps. So again, there are difficulties with the new clause, even though there is an element of it to which we might want to be responsive.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This Sunday marks Disabled Access Day and the importance of accessibility and inclusiveness for all. Sadly, disabled people in Luton South and South Bedfordshire cannot access Luton station because of the delays and failures of Network Rail in progressing the Access for All programme and installing lifts at Luton station. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on how our plan for Great British Railways will improve infrastructure and ensure reliable, affordable and, importantly, accessible train services for everybody?

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

  More

  Oh no—that’s yours!

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

  More

  The Bill already sets out a number of things that a doctor has to assure themselves of, with regard to coercion and capacity. They would do that having had a significant amount of training to establish, in the round, after consulting others, that one way or another the legal requirements have been met. The “Why?” question appears to me to bring in a judgmental element—

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

  More

  I want to check that my hon. Friend was not implying that I had not thought deeply—for more than a minute–in the course of making my comments earlier.

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

  More

  Indeed: subjective, as the right hon. Gentleman said. That is the point that I am trying to get at. There is an objective assessment, which is wholly appropriate, but a subjective assessment would lead down a different route and muddy the objective assessment.

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

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

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

  More

  I will continue, if I may. I turn to amendments 422 and 423. The importance of a rounded, holistic assessment and discussion with the patient has been pointed out in many of our discussions, as has the importance of the multidisciplinary team and the other health and care professionals who support the patient with health and social care. That would all have to be recorded—the conversations that have been had, and why the assessing doctors and other health and social care professionals were involved. In oral evidence, many doctors in other jurisdictions said that they worked in multidisciplinary teams. The amendment would firm that up. It is about being clearer, because the clarity that the amendments provide would make for a stronger process. On amendment 468, the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out that it asks a very simple question. However, I return to the point about the professionalism of the doctors involved in the process, who will be working within the legal requirement under the Bill that the individual have a clear, settled and informed wish. The doctors will have to check individuals’ eligibility under the requirements, for example that they are over 18 and have a terminal illness with a six-month prognosis. The doctors will use their expertise and professionalism, and that of the multidisciplinary team, to make assessments about coercion. They have strong rules about assessing for capacity. The requirement to ask why someone wants an assisted death is a requirement to police the conversation that the doctor has with their patient. Setting it out in primary legislation would lead to a tick-box exercise, with doctors saying, “You’ve told me a number of times already in our conversation that I’ve been having with you, but I’m sorry: I have to officially ask this question and tick the box.” That could lead to an insensitive conversation and relationship between the relevant people in the process. To a certain degree, the patient may think, “So what? Do I have to tell you why? It is none of your business why I want to pursue this legal course of action down the line.” I appreciate where the hon. Member for Reigate is coming from, but with the best of intentions, her amendment would actually lessen the individual’s autonomy and their right to choose what if the Bill passes will be a legal course of action. I am content that the stringent training that will be required for any of the assessing healthcare professionals will enable a good holistic conversation so that good judgments can be made. Adding this extra sentence would detract from that, so I cannot support the amendment.

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

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating those points. Does she accept that it is a patient’s right to say, “It’s none of your business” in the course of the conversation?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak in support of amendments 201, 422 and 423, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and against amendment 468. On amendment 201, a point was made earlier about the relevance of records. It was mentioned that it might well not be relevant to look at a childhood tonsillectomy. However, I wish to speak in slightly more specific terms, in support of women and their reproductive rights, and to highlight the risk of unconscious bias if all records are to be looked at. If a woman had a termination in her teenage years, that will be highly irrelevant to her decision, many decades later, whether to choose an assisted death. Relevance is very important, because there will be a high level of record keeping in the process. It is not only the doctors working with the patient on the assessment who will read the records and reports; ultimately, it will also be the panel. I make the point again that so many parts of a patient’s medical records are highly irrelevant to the diagnosis and prognosis of a terminal illness, and to the six months under the eligibility criteria. Indeed, there is a risk of unconscious bias in the judgment. It is about the professionalism of the doctor in respect of understanding the records that are relevant for the process.

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

  More

  rose—

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for discussing her view of the approach of the proposed panel members. Does she recognise that all three of those professions have professional requirements to act with integrity and in accordance with the law? It is highly unlikely that they will push forward, as she seems to suggest, and risk their professional accreditation.

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

  More

  The point I was making was that no professional would want to risk their professional accreditation and career by allowing a complete bias to take over any decision making. In fact, I would suggest that some may want to prove their integrity by being involved in these decisions and making them in line with their professional practice.