Rachel Hopkins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but we are short of time. The changes that have been made, including many proposed by Members who do not support a change in the law but which have been adopted by the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), as well as those proposed during the process she has led in response to evidence submitted during the scrutiny process have led to a better Bill. The Bill has greater safeguards for more vulnerable people, with mandatory training requirements, including in relation to coercion and capacity. The Bill ensures judicial oversight of decision making by a range of experts, including psychiatrists, social workers and senior legal professionals. The Bill will set out statutory protections for those workers who do not wish to take part in the assisted dying process on the basis of conscience, and quite right too. The Bill will provide for one of the tightest, safest assisted dying laws in the world. Importantly, the Bill has compassion at its core by affording dying people choice at the end of life. I thank every one of my constituents who shared their views with me, whether for or against a change in the law. I particularly thank all those who have disagreed with me, because good democracy and the right to disagree respectfully is hugely important; perhaps it is a debate for another time. I also thank all those who have shared their personal stories of loved ones’ deaths, some brutal, painful and traumatic—a stark reminder that the status quo is simply unacceptable. Others have shared experiences with loved ones who, in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, were able to have a peaceful death, surrounded by loved ones and at a time of their choosing. As I come to a close, although not everyone would want to choose an assisted death, I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to choose one if they so wish. It really is time that this House takes the important, compassionate and humane step towards making that a reality by voting for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry about your sore throat, Dame Siobhain; I hope it does not trouble you too much. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for securing the debate. I have put on the record previously that I am a humanist and a member of Humanists UK. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale for taking on the baton from me to become chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group. She will be a great champion for its work. Might I add that it is very nice to be surrounded by more “out” humanists? As a humanist, I believe that we have one life, and we shape that in the here and now. My values are based on reason, empathy and concern for other human beings. In line with that, I believe that everyone should have the right to live the life they choose. I believe that every person, whether religious or non-religious, has the right to get married in accordance with their own personal beliefs. A humanist wedding is a non-religious ceremony. It differs from a civil wedding in that it is reflective of the humanist beliefs and values of the couple, and conducted by a humanist celebrant. Unfortunately, in England and Wales a glaring inconsistency remains. The law, as it stands, means that couples who choose a humanist wedding ceremony must still have a separate civil ceremony to make their union legally binding. Humanist marriages are legally recognised elsewhere in the UK. Since 2005, they have been recognised in Scotland; indeed, we have heard that they now account for more weddings in Scotland than those conducted by any single religious denomination. Northern Ireland followed suit in 2018 after a landmark legal case and there was further legal recognition after that in Jersey in 2019 and in Guernsey in 2021. So, why is there not recognition in England and Wales? The current system effectively discriminates against non-religious people by denying them the legal recognition given to religious ceremonies. It is not merely a matter of paperwork; it is about equality. Legalising humanist marriages could be done with ease, as has been argued so well by many others. The Government could act on the High Court ruling of 2020, which said that the current law is discriminatory, and lay an order so that humanist couples and celebrants can have legal recognition of their ceremonies. That would also be a popular choice. A 2025 YouGov poll found that 70% of the public support the change. It is also supported by many of us, from all parties in the House, as well as by legal experts and human rights advocates. In fact, in this debate, in this Parliament, double if not triple the number of people support a change in the law than oppose it. The last time that I participated in a debate on humanist marriages in this place was in January 2022, at which time the Minister answering for the then Conservative Government stated: “The Government will carefully consider the Law Commission’s recommendations when the final report is published, and it is right for us to await the outcome of that.” —[ Official Report, 27 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 440WH.] As we have heard today, that review was subsequently published in July 2022 and recommended reform of marriage law to allow for more inclusive ceremonies. Almost three years later, it is very disappointing that we have still not seen that change come to fruition. The Minister has stated that “The Government will set out our position on weddings reform in due course.” —[ Official Report , 3 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 153.] For humanists in England and Wales, continued dither and delay is extremely frustrating; indeed, it is not just frustrating, but discriminatory. I hope that our Government will now act and not delay justice any longer. Let us stand up for equality and for freedom of belief in all its meaningful forms.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Employment: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  The multibillion-pound deal to secure a new Universal theme park in Bedfordshire is a major example of the Government backing our crucial culture sector, creating new jobs and boosting living standards for my constituents and the wider region. What are the UK and Welsh Labour Governments doing to support the culture sector and create new jobs in Wales?

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

  More

  Q Can I ask you, Mr Amin, about your views on coercion, particularly in the light of clause 2 in reference to the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act, and any thoughts you have about that in relation to the groups you represent? Yogi Amin: As I said, I have worked in this area for over 20 years. I represent individuals week to week in this area and safeguarding is all across what is needed for these individuals. The professionals who are involved in their lives are regulated. We are talking about doctors who are meeting individuals, and they understand what it means to identify safeguarding triggers and where referrals are required. That makes it quite strong in this particular Bill. I am comfortable with the wording as you have it in the Bill, and I say that as someone who has worked in the area for many years. Lawyers will go to court and pick over words, but the way it is drafted, it is understood that there is voluntariness, as described in the Bill, and coercion. I do not think that additional words are necessary to describe what is required here—it is a voluntary, free-will decision, and coercion is defined. When we are talking about a doctor trying to understand that and a court then interpreting it, I think it is pretty clear what that is, so I am comfortable with the way it is drafted. Generally, from a safeguarding perspective, there are, as Tom said, a number of points at which professionals ask individuals for a decision on this over a number of weeks, and it goes into months. There is quite a robust process. I point also to footnote 3 for paragraph 4 of my written evidence, where I have referred to the current existing law outside the Court of Protection, where it might be thought that the person has capacity but there are concerns about coercion and so on. There is, under section 42 of the Care Act 2014, the provision for safeguarding referrals. There is, under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, provision for a local authority where referrals are made to bring the matter before the court under the inherent jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction does not go away; it is here and available where there are concerns over the safeguarding of an individual to allow them to make their own individual, free-will decision. It is not there to do anything other than protect that individual and have a safety net around them to ensure they can make individual, autonomous decisions. Nothing needs to be tinkered with in the current Bill, because that is there—Parliament has already provided for that. Have I answered your question?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend knows that on occasion, this House can come to agreement about key pieces of legislation. In the last Parliament, one such piece of legislation was the Football Governance Bill. Will she give an update on its progress in this Parliament and consider granting time for a debate on the sustainability of football?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Today is World Mental Health Day, so I pay tribute to staff and volunteers at charities such as Mind BLMK and Samaritans, among many others, who do brilliant work to support people in Luton South and South Bedfordshire. This year’s theme is mental health in the workplace, so I was delighted to see Labour’s Employment Rights Bill formally laid in Parliament today, and even more pleased to hear the Leader of the House announce that its Second Reading will be on 21 October, even though that pre-empted my question. I will simply ask: does she agree that Labour’s Bill will make a huge difference to people’s mental wellbeing in the workplace and that the whole House should support it on that basis alone?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and express my full support for the Bill. I welcome the swift action of the ministerial team in bringing forward this vital legislation, which is the most significant package of reforms to the private rented sector in over 40 years. As the Member of Parliament for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, I am most frequently contacted about the issue of housing. Given that just under 35% of homes in my constituency are privately rented, the issues that tenants are facing in this sector are very familiar to me. Everyone deserves the dignity of a safe, secure and affordable home, but a lack of regulation and protections for tenants in the private rented sector means that this is currently not the reality for many. Rental discrimination against tenants who are in receipt of benefits or have children is common practice, so I am pleased that this Bill will make it illegal for landlords and letting agents to discriminate on that basis, and give local councils strong enforcement powers to tackle this unlawful practice. Mortgage lenders and insurers will also no longer be able to impose restrictive, discriminatory terms. A significant rise in section 21 no-fault eviction notices over the past year has further highlighted the precarious situation in which many renters find themselves. Data from the Ministry of Justice indicates that as of June this year there had been 176 repossessions in Luton due to section 21 notices, compared with 112 in 2023. Across the country we see a similar pattern unfolding, with over 32,000 no-fault eviction claims submitted to courts in 2023-24—the highest figure since 2015-16. Those figures highlight just how stark the situation is, so I am pleased that Labour is committed to abolishing section 21 notices once and for all. This legislation will also empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, preventing unscrupulous landlords from using rent increases as a back-door means of eviction. I am pleased to see many of the other measures set out in the Bill, including ensuring that there is a legal standard for property conditions. As it currently stands, 45% of private renters in England are experiencing damp, mould or excessive cold in their homes. This is completely unacceptable, and I am glad that the extension of Awaab’s law will set clear legal expectations about the timeframes within which landlords in the private rented sector must take action to make homes safe where they contain serious hazards. That goes hand in hand with the creation of a new private rented sector database that private landlords will be required to join, giving tenants, landlords and local authorities access to key information, and giving councils the power to target enforcement where it is most needed. I know that many councils across the country have faced significant budget cuts, with my own council in Luton having £170 million of funding stripped since 2010. That can constrain its ability to check properties proactively for non-compliance, and places greater reliance on tenants being aware of their rights and reporting problems. Although I am pleased to see plans to tackle these issues, I would encourage Ministers to work in collaboration with local government to ensure that the necessary resources are available for councils to carry out this enforcement and to effectively protect tenants.