Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for his work in securing this important debate. It has been a real pleasure to hear from so many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues about their constituencies. That underlines the fact that Liberal Democrats represent all the best places in the UK, and that is why tourism and hospitality is a very important sector for us. I was lucky enough last summer to do a little tour through the constituencies of Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire; Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; and Orkney and Shetland, so I can very much confirm that all three constituencies have excellent hospitality businesses that are very welcoming to visitors. This Easter, I was lucky enough to spend a few days in West Dorset in the wonderful town of Lyme Regis, and I have spent many happy family holidays in Westmorland and Lonsdale. There are also many hospitality businesses in my constituency of Richmond Park. Just last Friday, I hosted a representative of VisitBritain, who came to see me because Kew Gardens in my constituency is second only to the Tower of London in this year’s list of the most-visited paid attractions in the UK. We had a long conversation about the issues affecting the tourism sector, and I was very interested to find that the Government have recently cut funding for efforts to promote domestic tourism. Those who are not as lucky as I am in having many colleagues who represent constituencies in such wonderful parts of the UK do not know enough about domestic tourism. I would like the Minister to comment on that. As my many wonderful colleagues have already alluded to, the current economic landscape is really challenging for many businesses and industries. Years of dire economic mismanagement by the last Conservative Government have led to businesses facing huge challenges, ranging from recruiting and retaining good staff to soaring energy costs and the increase of trading obstacles following their botched trade agreement with the EU. However, many of those challenges are now being compounded by decisions taken by this Government. Last autumn’s Budget hit the hospitality sector with an extra £3.4 billion of annual costs through the cumulative impact of changes to employer NICs, increases in the national living wage, and the near halving of business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. A recent survey conducted by UKHospitality of its members found that, since the autumn Budget, a third of hospitality businesses are now operating at a loss, with 75% having increased prices, two thirds reducing hours available to staff and six in 10 cutting jobs. Those cuts are a last-ditch attempt by many businesses to stay afloat, as they are crying out for support. The Liberal Democrats welcomed many aspects of last week’s industrial strategy, but very little in it will alleviate the heavy burdens imposed on the hospitality sector by Labour’s tax reforms. The Liberal Democrats have called for the hospitality industry to be exempt from the hikes in NICs announced in the Budget, as we recognise the difficult position that many business owners have been in since the pandemic. Small businesses are the beating heart of our economy and at the centre of our communities, and they create the jobs that we all rely on. We are glad that raising the employment allowance will shield the very smallest employers, but thousands of local businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, will still feel the damaging impact of many of the changes. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have voted against the changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures. More broadly, we will continue to call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the previous Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of the business rates system, but failed to deliver it. Meanwhile, the current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the system, but still no action has been taken. The Liberal Democrats have called for a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system, replacing it with a commercial landowner levy, which would shift the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners. The current system penalises manufacturers when they invest to become more productive and energy efficient. It leaves pubs and restaurants with disproportionately high tax bills and puts our high street businesses at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants. In too many places, pubs, restaurants and shops are being forced to close, taking with them jobs, opportunities and treasured community spaces. More broadly, this outdated system inhibits business investment, job creation and economic growth, holding back our national economy. It has existed for too long, and it is time that the Government took action. Our proposals for fair reform would cut tax bills, breathe new life into local economies and spur growth. Equally, they would provide long-term certainty for businesses, which is what the economy across the UK needs. With regard to long-term planning, I am glad that the Government introduced the industrial strategy last week. I welcome this commitment to stability, and I am pleased that it will allow businesses to look and plan for the future with more certainty. As the Government unveil their strategies to bring together skills development plans and a long-term industrial strategy to ease the pressures that so many employers face, we have reservations about the cohesion between these schemes. What steps are the Government taking to ensure effective collaboration and transparency across different strategies and public bodies? We welcome last week’s announcement in the industrial strategy that we will see a funding boost for skills and training. However, the announcement stops well short of the fundamental reform that we need to address the workforce shortages that many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need with the skills they need. A key cause of workforce shortages is ill health, and to tackle the problem, the Government must invest in our NHS and social care so that people can get the healthcare they need to rejoin the workforce more quickly. We have called on the Government to fix NHS backlogs, cut ambulance waiting times and raise the minimum wage for care workers by £2 an hour to boost our social care system and get people out of hospital quicker. Any business will tell us that the apprenticeship levy does not work. They cannot get the funding they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds go unspent. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy that will give businesses more flexibility over how they spend money to train their staff. Will the Minister accelerate the reform of apprenticeships and empower Skills England to act as a properly independent body, with employers at its heart? Finally, as we look more broadly at factors impacting workforce shortages, I once again urge the Government to act with much more urgency in introducing their youth mobility scheme. The changes to the immigration system implemented in April 2024, increasing the minimum salary threshold for skilled worker visas, shrank the talent pool from which hospitality businesses can recruit, contributing to greater staff shortages. Around three quarters of the hospitality workforce is filled by UK citizens, but international talent has always been attracted to work in the UK due to our pedigree for hospitality and developing careers. A 2024 survey of 1,650 employers from across a range of sectors, including hospitality, adult social care and manufacturing, found that 49% of employers with hard-to-fill vacancies said that a reduction in the availability of migrant workers was one of the main causes. At a time when recent Government decisions in the Budget have added to the overall tax burden on hospitality businesses, with many considering whether their business remains viable, we must provide the tools that hospitality needs to help businesses grow so that it can boost the wider economy, including ensuring access to global talent. I have heard from stakeholders in the hospitality sector, including business owners and supply chain managers, who have said that they would welcome proposals that would bring more stability to the sector, allowing them to make longer-term plans as part of a more predictable and robust regulatory framework. Again, will the Minister set out a timeline for the introduction of a youth mobility experience, which would be good for our economy, easing some of the burdens that the hospitality sector is facing?

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

  More

  I am sorry, but I will make progress. We would all have been better served by asking a team of experts to evaluate the evidence, draw on their professional experience and come to a settled consensus among themselves on this point about mental capacity and, likewise, the questions we had about how best to approach anorexia within the context of assisted dying and whether the Bill provides a suitable framework for the provision and control of drugs designed for the ending of a life. These are not political decisions. They have, however, been decided by politicians, and we have approached them in our usual adversarial way, where the right answer is not the one arrived at after careful thought, consideration and consultation, but the one that can muster the most votes. We have therefore reached a most unsatisfactory conclusion. This legislation imposes duties and responsibilities on professionals who do not think them compatible with their expert practice. It was amended in Committee to require that a panel approve an application for assisted dying, and that the panel include a psychiatrist. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated that it opposes this legislation.

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

  More

  I am not giving way. By contrast, many decisions are expressly reserved for politicians. Should the limited resources of the NHS be used to deliver an assisted dying service, or should it be possible to offer the service as a profit-making enterprise? What information should be collected and reported about assisted dying? Who should oversee and regulate its practitioners? Members of Parliament are to have no say over any of those matters at all. Those are all powers to be reserved to the Secretary of State, to be decided behind closed doors. Once again, this legislation grants these responsibilities to people who do not want them. Neither the current Health Secretary nor the current Justice Secretary are supporters of this Bill. After today, the House of Commons will be shut out of further decision making on this Bill, even though many of the decisions still to be made are rightfully ours to make. The lack of professional consensus or acceptance of the requirements of this legislation, coupled with a lack of political scrutiny of many of its more important provisions, creates an unstable foundation upon which to build an assisted dying service. For such a service to succeed, it needs professionals willing to deliver it, who can have confidence that they are acting within the law and will be supported by their professional peers and by society at large. I do not see how this legislation can deliver that. It is instructive to compare this piece of legislation with the Abortion Act 1967. That, too, was a private Member’s Bill, brought to this House by the Liberal MP David Steel, but it was preceded by a medical advisory committee chaired by the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which approved the Bill. The professionals who would be needed to enact the legislation had indicated their support for the Bill before it reached the Commons. The Bill only delegated one power to the Secretary of State. The legislation was hotly debated then as now, but once it was passed, it came into force within six months. Remarkably, with the exception of amendments required to bring it into line with successive Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts and to extend its provisions to Northern Ireland, the provisions that the Abortion Act brought into law have remained almost entirely unchanged in 58 years—until just this week, in fact. The careful consideration of the issues that took place before the legislation came to the Commons, combined with the fact that all its provisions were included within the primary legislation to be debated and voted on in one go, has enabled a settled consensus to develop around abortion provision in this country, in contrast to other jurisdictions. It has enabled vulnerable women to seek the help they need and given healthcare workers the confidence and support they require to meet those needs. That is what we need, if we want to deliver a successful assisted dying service, and this legislation cannot deliver that. If Members want assisted dying, vote against this Bill and make the most of the moment to press for a better approach that can deliver a sustainable framework, accepted and supported by the medical profession, and in which the public can have confidence. If people’s lives are going to be ended prematurely as a result of this legislation that we pass, we cannot take risks. We cannot afford to pass this Bill.

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

  More

  I am not giving way. Will there be sufficient psychiatrists prepared to implement the provisions of this legislation, against the advice of their professional body, to ensure that enough panels can be convened for the purpose of facilitating assisted dying? It is hard to see how there could be.

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

  More

  Many Members present will look forward to the day when it is possible for people in this country to die in peace, with dignity and at a time of their choosing. The opportunity to bring that about is closer than ever before, but it can happen only if Members vote against the Bill today. The express will of the House, as reflected in the Second Reading vote; the momentum generated by the Bill; and the support of the Prime Minister, as we understand it, to change the law have created a moment when it is possible to grasp the chance to bring in assisted dying legislation, but I warn Members that if this Bill passes, the case for assisted dying will be fatally undermined, and it will put back their cause for a generation. I have sat through Committee and Report, listened to the oral evidence and participated in the debates. This Bill, if it passes, will be challenged in the courts. It will be subject to endless attempts to amend it in Parliament. It will be difficult to implement effectively, and ultimately it will lose the confidence of the public. It was immensely challenging to properly debate the Bill in Committee, because we frequently found ourselves needing an understanding of medical practice or points of law that MPs are not typically expert in. We spent many hours, for example, debating whether or not the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were sufficient for someone who was making the decision to die. Of course, we consulted experts, and some said the provisions were sufficient, some said they were not. I do not believe that this particular decision is one that politicians are best placed to make.

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

  More

  I will not give way, sorry. Assisted dying under this legislation cannot be implemented without psychiatrists, but they would be acting outside the advice and guidance of their professional body.

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

  More

  I will not, if that is okay. We were told that it was not practical to produce such an assessment until after Committee stage, as it would be necessary to assess the impact of amendments made in Committee. The equality impact assessment was finally published five weeks ago. I have to say that I was pretty astounded. It does not recognise that certain groups in this country may have their lives prematurely shortened as a result of this legislation; instead, it concerns itself with the barriers that vulnerable people may face when trying to access assisted dying. I find that astonishing. Did the people who drafted the assessment not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on Second Reading? She spoke with passion about how the underlying inequalities in access to healthcare experienced by those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds would be exacerbated if the Bill passed unamended. Did they not listen to the oral evidence that Dr Jamilla Hussain gave to the Bill Committee? She talked about her experience of working with racialised communities in Bradford and their fears of being pushed disproportionately towards an assisted dying pathway. Did they not listen to the testimony of Dr Miro Griffiths on the experience and concerns of disabled people—testimony that has been echoed by Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson and the actress Liz Carr? I find it inexplicable that the framing of the impact on vulnerable people should be the removal of barriers to accessing assisted dying and not, as it should be, the increased risk to their health and wellbeing that the Bill presents. I am concerned that we are thinking about the impact on vulnerable people solely with reference to those who are suffering a terminal illness with less than six months to live. We are not thinking about the impact on wider society of introducing a concept of lives not being worth living and how that might disproportionately affect our more vulnerable communities. My new clause 19 and consequential new schedule 2 and amendment 88 seek to ensure that a comprehensive range of statistics are collected about those who seek and receive an assisted death, so that proper and complete monitoring of requests can be carried out. It is imperative that we get the most detailed possible picture of who is requesting an assisted death so that any patterns of disproportionality can be properly detected and addressed.

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

  More

  It is a privilege to be called at this stage in the debate. My principal reason for voting against the Bill on Second Reading was my concern that vulnerable people would be put at risk. I agreed to serve on the Bill Committee to do what I could to allay my concerns about that issue and address some of the issues raised by others. I do not think that the revised version of the Bill properly or completely reflects the concerns expressed on a multitude of different occasions. Consequently, it does not fully mitigate the risks to vulnerable groups. We all recognise that decision making of any kind does not take place in a vacuum and that, in all parts of life, we live in a particular context. The Equality Act 2010 recognises that many people face discrimination or unfair treatment as a result of particular characteristics and that reasonable steps should be taken to eliminate that. It was very clear from the oral evidence sessions that particular care has to be taken to assess the context within which people are making the decision to seek an assisted death: if they suffer from a mental illness or eating disorder, if they are from a low-income or ethnic minority background, if they suffer from a disability or if they are in an abusive relationship. Those factors are likely to lead to an increased risk that someone will seek an assisted death that they would not have sought if those factors were not present. In Committee, I and others made the point that it would have been desirable to have received an equality impact assessment before the detailed work of Committee scrutiny had begun, so that Committee members had a sense of how the proposed legislation would impact groups that we know can suffer disproportionate levels of disadvantage.

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

  More

  The hon. Member calls me to speak. If we do not know, it is probably because those other nations are not collecting the data. My position is that we should be collecting the data, which is why hon. Members should vote for my new clause 19.

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

  More

  I am sorry, but I will make some progress. In a similar vein, I plan to support the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), which seek to remove all Henry VIII powers from the Bill and from the amendments introduced by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I will support the right hon. Member’s amendments if they are selected for a vote, as I do not believe that the use of Henry VIII powers is appropriate or necessary. I want to speak against amendment 94 in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. It appears to be innocuous, but in reality it would reverse the effect of an amendment that I had accepted in Committee. The Bill as originally drafted would create an enormous constitutional minefield. It seeks to amend the criminal law of England and Wales, which is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament, and simultaneously to make provision for healthcare, which is a matter devolved to the Senedd in Wales. The Senedd debated a motion calling on the Welsh Government to support the principles of assisted dying, but it was defeated by 19 votes to 26. The motion was non-binding, but the Bill gives the UK Parliament the power to impose on the Senedd in Wales a measure that it has expressly said it does not want. The Bill as amended in Committee would give the Senedd the power to decide for itself when it is ready to bring the Bill into force. Amendment 94 would reverse that provision and deprive the Senedd of the right to exercise its legitimate powers. It is not just that the amendment would restore the constitutional loophole that the Committee had closed; it threatens to create real problems and risks for Welsh citizens if the Senedd is forced to implement the Bill before its devolved healthcare system is ready. I urge fellow Members to have regard to the Committee’s decision and vote against amendment 94.

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

  More

  I welcome that intervention. I spoke extensively about the Bill’s impact on anorexic people, and I am not satisfied that those concerns have been addressed. I am pleased to support amendment 21 tabled by my good friend, colleague and constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), which has attracted support from across the House. It would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact that the Act has had on the healthcare available to those with palliative and end-of-life care needs. I am really pleased that the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has agreed to accept the amendment. I am also pleased to support amendments 103 and 104 in the name of my other constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). They seek to make all statutory instruments made under the Act subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. As it stands, the Act will come into force in four years’ time with no further scrutiny by MPs, yet a whole host of issues that have been delegated to the Secretary of State or have not even been considered will need to be legislated for after Royal Assent. As the Bill stands, the only way for Parliament to scrutinise those powers will be to call for a 90-minute debate on a motion that cannot be amended and will be voted on only if the Leader of the Opposition calls for a vote. Making statutory instruments subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure would mean that the Secretary of State, whoever that is, can exercise the powers delegated to them only with the approval of Parliament. For an issue as sensitive and profound as assisted dying, I believe that to be an appropriate level of scrutiny.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I am so sorry to hear about the resentment that the hon. Gentleman feels at the deal that his Government negotiated. However, he must accept that that is the basis on which the new deal has been struck. That was the starting point for the negotiation. I am sorry to hear it was so terrible, but that was the starting point. The betrayal by those who advocated for the opportunities of Brexit did not end there. Of course, it was not just the Conservatives, but the leader of the Reform party. The public were promised that immigration would fall. Instead, it has risen to record levels. Far from the economic liberation that the Brexiteers pledged leaving the EU would bring, the OBR has estimated that barriers to trade with Europe will reduce the output of our economy by 4% over 15 years. More than that, we know how much public opinion has shifted on this issue, as many have come to realise that the promises of the leave campaign were so detached from reality. The leave campaign promised £350 million a week to the NHS, but the truth has become painfully clear. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) gave the game away in an interview in December. Speaking about America, he said that “it’s got cheap energy, because it ‘drill baby drills’, they’ve got lower regulations and they’ve got lower taxes.” That is the real Brexit agenda: environmental vandalism, stripping away regulations that keep us safe and cutting taxes for the rich. I hope Members will acknowledge the extent to which that campaign misled the public.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have engaged the Minister directly on this point and shown him examples of how the cuts have directly impacted on pensioners in my constituency very harshly. The Liberal Democrats voted against the removal of the winter fuel payment to prevent millions of the most vulnerable in our society from losing out on vital support. Following the Prime Minister’s comments earlier today, we continue to call on the Government to reverse the cut in full, to guarantee that it will not be in place by next winter and to ensure that all pensioners who need support will receive it. I ask the Minister for full details of the proposed changes as soon as he is able to give them. It is not just in their cuts that we hope to see a change of direction from the Government. After the last Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has made things even harder for businesses and their workers. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the autumn Budget are an unfair jobs tax that will hit small businesses, social care providers and GPs. SMEs are the beating heart of our economy. They are at the centre of our local communities and create the jobs that we all rely on. Raising the employment allowance will shield only the very smallest employers, while thousands of local businesses will still feel the damaging impact of the changes. The Liberal Democrats voted against the changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures. Even more damaging for our small businesses is our broken trading relationship with Europe. The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The dismal picture of the financial impact of their terrible Brexit trade deal is becoming increasingly clear. While the Conservative party’s motion notes that “over 200,000 businesses have closed since Labour took office”, it was under its Administration, in the years 2020 to 2024, that the rate of small business closures in this country started to outpace the rate of new businesses starting up. Since 2019, there has been an average business closure rate of over 12%, outstripping the rate of businesses opening. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced “extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period”. Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. Another recent study found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021. I welcome the actions taken by the Government at Monday’s UK-EU summit—particularly the impact they will have on our seed potato trade—but I urge the Government to recognise that the deal should only be a first step toward negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, which would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole. More broadly, we continue to call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. Business rates are harmful for the economy because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment rather than profits or the fixed stock of land. Liberal Democrats would abolish the broken business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy. We believe that we need to see a fundamental overhaul—not just tinkering around the edges or sticking-plaster solutions. We are disappointed that, yet again, serious reform of the system has been kicked down the road. We need fundamental reform of business rates if we wish to boost small businesses and high streets and to stop penalising productive investment. The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the Government inherited a dire economic landscape, compounded by the challenges posed by an aggressive Russia and an unreliable US Administration, but that cannot be an excuse for the mistakes they are making. People are still struggling with the cost of living crisis, just as small businesses are struggling with the cost of doing business, as energy prices soar, food costs keep going up and mortgage bills remain sky high. The Government must take bold action to boost our economy. We urge Ministers to U-turn on the winter fuel payment cut, scrap the national insurance jobs tax and row back on removing support for disabled people, many of whom need that support to stay in work.

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

  More

  I will not; I am sorry. The amendment would help to inform the clinical judgment that will need to be made in each individual case and discourage patients from applying to multiple doctors for an assessment. I am proud to support amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), which would disapply the presumption in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that a person has capacity unless the opposite is established. There was a great deal of debate in Committee about the efficacy of the Mental Capacity Act and whether its provisions were sufficient to establish an individual’s capacity to make an informed decision about whether to seek an assisted death. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford spoke compellingly in Committee about his experiences of how the Act is not always applied effectively. I am glad that the whole House has had an opportunity to hear him today. The Royal College of Psychiatrists cited the insufficiency of the Mental Capacity Act as one of its nine reasons for opposing the Bill earlier in the week. It said: “The Mental Capacity Act was created to safeguard and support people who do not have the capacity to make decisions about their care or treatment or matters like finances. Should the Bill become law in England and Wales, implications for both the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act need to be considered.” I also support new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), which would prohibit health professionals from raising the subject of assisted dying with a patient. It is my personal belief that people’s rights to pain relief and palliative care towards a natural end should be prioritised above an assisted dying pathway, and that that should be made available only as the result of a specific request. It is particularly important that young people under the age of 18 should not be thinking about assisted dying as an alternative to continued treatment or palliative care. I was disappointed that during Committee my proposed amendments to safeguard people suffering from eating disorders were rejected. Eating disorders are primarily a mental health condition but have an obvious physical impact, and there is a severe risk that the physical impact of an eating disorder can be diagnosed as a terminal illness, when in fact eating disorders are always treatable. We cannot allow vulnerable sufferers from eating disorders to elect for an assisted death when there remains the possibility of a full recovery and the chance of a happy and fulfilling future. That is why I support amendment 14, in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who was such an articulate member of the Bill Committee. I was glad to hear that the lead Member, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, will adopt that amendment; I look forward to seeing the further drafting. I also support amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). I welcome the lead Member’s new clause 10, which extends the right to refuse to participate in assisted dying to any person, but it is important also to extend that right to organisations such as hospices and care homes. Assisted dying undermines those institutions’ mission and purpose, and they should have the right to refuse to provide it on their premises if they do not wish to participate in it. Finally, I will speak in favour of amendment 22, tabled by the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). There is insufficient provision in the legislation to identify and seek to ameliorate mental health conditions or other factors that may lead people to seek a premature end to their life, which they would not seek if those factors were addressed. Every time a person seeks to end their life prematurely is deeply regrettable, and we have a duty to explore whether preventable factors could be addressed before a request for assisted dying is granted.

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

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 87, which stands in my name, and in support of various amendments tabled by other Members and also signed by me. Prior to this legislation being laid before the House, I had not held strong feelings about the issue of assisted dying. I listened carefully to the arguments on both sides, including those of the many constituents who wrote to me on the issue, before deciding to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. I made my mind up very late in the day. I continue to be appreciative and respectful of the reasons why people are in favour, but, for me, the fundamental question was whether we were putting vulnerable people at risk by passing this legislation. I resolved that, on balance, we were. The lead Member, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), was keen to reflect the balance of opinion across the House, as well as within parties, in the make-up of the Bill Committee, and I was happy to volunteer as the sole Liberal Democrat “no” voter, as a service to my party and to the House. It was a privilege to serve on the Committee, and I wish to put on the record my admiration and respect to all Members, Ministers, Chairs and House staff who served alongside me, and my thanks to the many witnesses who gave oral and written evidence on which we came to rely. I regret to say, however, that my experience in Committee has only hardened my opposition to the Bill. My opposition is not rooted in a fundamental objection to the principle of assisted dying, but in the approach taken to framing the legislation. Amendment 87 seeks to tighten up the arrangement around the first declaration, to rule out the possibility of “doctor shopping”. In oral evidence we heard from the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, that a diagnosis of terminal illness and a prognosis of life expectancy cannot always be made with a high degree of accuracy and that a degree of professional judgment is required on behalf of the co-ordinating doctor, which can result in differences of diagnosis and prognosis. That was backed up by the Royal College of Physicians this week, whose spokesperson was quoted in The Times saying that it is “extremely hard to tell” if somebody has only six months left to live. My amendment seeks to establish whether the patient has already sought and been refused permission to seek an assisted death so that the co-ordinating doctor can consider the reasons for the first refusal and whether the patient’s circumstances have materially changed since that time.

• 14 May 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement. The infected blood scandal is a harrowing story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them, but by the NHS, which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented such horror from ever taking place. As the Minister knows, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. The Government were right to introduce the scheme at the start of the Parliament, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is scaling up its operation. However, we are alarmed that the roll-out of the scheme has been far too slow, leaving victims without the justice that they deserve. Victims and their families have been waiting for decades for answers and recognition of the suffering they endured. So far, only 106 people have received payments from IBCA, and 54 others have received offers. Compensation payouts are not due to conclude until 2029, and that date would rely on a rapid increase in the rate of payments. We are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims are receiving their long-overdue compensation, and I am glad that last week’s hearings looked into the adequacy and timeliness of the Government’s response. To echo the words of Sir Brian Langstaff, “People infected and affected do not have time on their side.” To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, can the Paymaster General clarify what deadline he has for the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations? Moreover, what further steps is he taking to increase the speed at which payments are being made, and can he confirm when all victims can expect to have received their long-overdue compensation? What more can be done to help those who need to provide proof of infection but whose medical records have been destroyed? It is crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of charities, organisations and the affected individuals are heard. Supporting the work of those vital organisations and engaging with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected is crucial. The Liberal Democrats are backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials. As such, I am glad to hear the sentiment behind the Government’s response to recommendation 5, but when will the Government bring forward proposals to that effect so that such a scandal is never repeated? Can the Paymaster General clarify why there has been a delay, given that relevant legislation was originally meant to be published in April?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I was glad to add my name to new clauses 1 to 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I speak to new clause 1 on the age of data consent. Currently in the UK, the minimum age of digital consent—the age at which children can consent to having their data processed—is 13. The new clause would raise the minimum age for social media data processing to 16, meaning social media companies would not be able to process the data of children for their algorithms. I hope that that would allow children to enjoy many of the educational benefits and relevant services that social media can offer, as well as continuing to enjoy the freedoms of engaging with friends but without the risks of addictive algorithmic content. The mental health issues associated with social media use in young people, particularly children, should be treated as a public health crisis. The Government are missing a vital opportunity with this legislation to reform how social media is used by not including provisions around children’s online safety. The Bill offers an important opportunity to start the process of removing harmful social media mechanisms and, as such, I urge the Minister to support the new clause. New clauses 2 to 6 would ensure transparency in how AI systems are trained and give rights holders more control over the use of their works. Concerns about the impact of AI on the creative industries have been raised hundreds of times by my constituents and I have been raising those concerns in Parliament for years. In my Westminster Hall debate back in February 2023 on artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights, I raised my concerns about the bypassing of copyright laws in relation to AI and intellectual property with the former Conservative Government. However, the former Minister blamed the lack of the former Government’s action to introduce regulation for creatives, associated with the rise of AI, on the political turmoil in the Tory leadership at that time, and their neglectful attitude towards leadership was mirrored in their attitude towards introducing protection for creatives in this space. Their conclusion from my Westminster Hall debate was “not to legislate in periods of political turmoil” —[ Official Report, 1 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 163WH.] and the need for “more deep consultation”, which did not materialise. I think we can all be glad that the chaos of that Government is in the past. However, we are yet to see the introduction of thorough and robust copyright laws relating to artificial intelligence, which is fundamental to the success of the UK’s world-leading creative industries. I hope this Government will act upon that today by accepting the new clauses. I wish to reiterate the importance of these new clauses in ensuring that AI models are bound by existing copyright law, increasing data and identity transparency for crawlers and models, and empowering creators to take legal action against developers who fail to comply. The creative industry, like all sectors, will have to adapt to accommodate AI, but the industry is capable of and already making progress with that. Creatives have largely accepted that AI-generated content will have its place in the market, and they are already using AI to enhance their work by driving efficiencies and extending their reach to new markets. However, a solid regulatory framework, which could be created with the addition of these amendments, is essential to protect their rights and ensure that they can take part in value creation and retain control over their work. My colleagues and I believe that existing copyright law should be enforced to protect the UK’s creative industries, which are a world-leading British export.

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

  More

  It clearly remains to be seen, but that may be an outcome as we do not yet know what model we are proposing for the delivery of assisted dying. Perhaps doctors will feel pressured to deliver an outcome because that is how the model has been set up. If we have a model that incentivises profits, particularly if we do not have a similar service within the NHS itself, it is quite possible that that will happen. It will not necessarily affect the care that doctors give to patients at the end of life, but the point is that we do not know. We cannot fully explore that matter in Committee, because we do not have the full clarity of exactly how the process will be delivered, so we cannot examine the proposed model and identify its potential risks and pitfalls. That continues to be a real concern. Perhaps doctors will feel that pressure; perhaps the service will be precisely designed to encourage them to, for example, diagnose someone with having fewer than six months to live even when it is a slightly more subjective judgment and a different doctor operating in a different system may come to a different view.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but those incentives are not about creating profits that make money for individuals. They are about directing the way that resources are allocated to ensure that a broader range of health outcomes are achieved. When I talk about a profit incentive, it is an entirely different kind of incentive from the one he has just raised.

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

  More

  I think I said very clearly to the hon. Member for Stroud that it is not about the doctors. It is about the people who are commissioning them. I absolutely do not believe that about doctors operating in the private sector, who in my experience are often the same doctors as the ones in the NHS. It is about who is commissioning them and who is asking them to carry out this work, and whether those commissioners are motivated by a profit incentive as opposed to the incentive in the NHS to provide the best possible care.

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

  More

  The issue is who is commissioning the service. The issue is not the doctors or how they are recompensed for the work that they do, but who is doing the recompensing and what their incentives are. If the process is part of an NHS-provided service where it is agreed that it is a compassionate end of life choice, and where it is properly regulated within the wider NHS service and connects with other NHS services, that is one thing. If the person commissioning that doctor has any kind of incentive around making a profit—and any profit-making organisation will be incentivised to increase the amount of profits that it makes—then, however carefully regulated, there will be subtle influence, pressure, coercion or persuasion that assisted dying is an option that patients should choose, or possibly not-so-subtle influence, to take the example from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Under other circumstances, in an NHS model, that may not have been a solution they would have been persuaded to choose. It is that issue of persuasion and of incentives that really troubles me.

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

  More

  Again, I am talking about the companies that are running the service. I am not questioning the ethics of the doctors involved. I am merely suggesting that the people who are commissioning the doctors to carry out the service will have their own priorities that are not directly related to the safety or welfare of patients.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not associate myself with his use of the word “corrupt”; I am absolutely not implying that in any way, and I want to be very clear about that. However, there is a grave risk—even for the most ethical person, if they are offered money to carry out an action that they are inclined to carry out anyway as part of their professional practice—that those incentives drive behaviour that leads to worse outcomes for patients, specifically in relation to assisted dying.

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

  More

  I am reflecting on the earlier intervention on me by the hon. Member for Stroud about how the only payment under assisted dying would be made at the very end, so therefore there would no possibility of a doctor making an assessment at an earlier stage in the process being influenced. Now the hon. Member for Sunderland Central is saying—this is obviously implied by the drafting—that the different bits of the approval process would need to be delivered separately. Whether that involved a payment from the NHS or a private provider, the doctor making those assessments will clearly be paid at different stages in the process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this points to the fundamental problem we have in this Committee, which is that we do not have a proposed model that we can properly scrutinise? All of us are just talking about potential suppositions about how things might work. We are effectively talking about a range of straw men.

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

  More

  I will conclude my remarks by observing that the only reason that we are looking at contracting out assisted dying services to a private provider is that the country is simply not ready for assisted dying. We know how overstretched and under-resourced our NHS is, and we are looking at cutting corners in the Bill, in our policymaking, in our scrutiny of this legislation, and in how this legislation and the service is delivered.