Simon Opher MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I realise that my hon. Friend’s new clause 1 comes from a good place, but can she not see that it is inconsistent with our ethical obligations as doctors? That is why the British Medical Association has suggested that although there should be no duty to raise the issue, neither should there be a ban on doing so. I ask her to consider that the Australian state of Victoria initially had such a measure—a so-called gagging clause—as part of its Bill, but it was removed because it caused confusion and was detrimental to patient care. Should we not learn from that?

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

  More

  I will be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am aware of the need to fit in as many people as possible. I will address a few issues on the assessment of capacity under new clause 9. One key point about assessing capacity as a doctor is that in most cases it is very clear cut: someone either has capacity or they do not. That is quite easy and quick to establish. With a very small number of patients, it is more difficult. By amendment to the Bill made in Committee, we must now refer such a person to a consultant psychiatrist for an assessment by a specialist. They are then in the best position to assess those very difficult points of capacity. That very much strengthens the Bill. I will speak very briefly to new clause 1. As doctors, we must, under our ethical obligations, give options to patients. If we are absolutely forbidden to do that—new clause 1 would make it a crime, so we could be convicted for doing so—that totally wrecks the doctor-patient relationship. It is unprecedented and unworkable.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in the community involvement aspect. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Mental health among men particularly is at a crisis point; in fact, suicide is a leading cause of death under 50. Will the hon. Member commend my club, Forest Green Rovers, which is trying to re-enter the English Football League, for developing a scheme of “football on prescription”, which refers men to football so that they can feel better and more socially included?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  In Stroud, Severn Trent has invested £25 million to stop overflow of sewage into the River Frome. Together with natural flood management from our district council, we have made rivers cleaner, and as a keen swimmer I am grateful for that. Would the hon. Member acknowledge that some water companies have been investing heavily?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  Of course it is essential that we maintain hospitals so that they are safe to treat patients in, so I agree with my hon. Friend about spending the money. In fact, the backlog bill for repairs in the NHS runs to £13.8 billion. I work as a GP in a GP practice, and I note that Lord Darzi estimates that £37 billion more should have been spent on the NHS since 2010, but was not. For those of us working in the NHS, it does feel like that. There is a massive building project ahead of us. I point out that the previous Labour Government built 100 new hospitals. One was the Vale hospital in Dursley, which we started in 2008, and which I had a hand in. As hon. Members have said, community hospitals such as Vale hospital are crucial to how the NHS works. We must invest in our community hospitals and use them properly. The Vale hospital provides excellent minor injuries unit services, a specialist stroke service and in-patient beds for the community. We must invest in our community hospitals going forward. As we have heard, there were meant to be 40 new hospitals in the last few years, but none of them got built, and it turned out that they were not even funded. We need to get care out of hospitals and back into the community. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) talked about GP premises; 20% of GP premises were built before the inception of the NHS, and I inherited one of those premises in Dursley. Twenty years ago, we opened a purpose-built surgery at May Lane, and we are still enjoying the benefits; it provides patients with excellent services. We must therefore invest. I was glad to see the Government investing £100 million in GP surgeries. I was pleased to see £80 million put into GP advice and guidance; that will allow consultants to give GPs advice, so that they can care for patients in the community. I am also really delighted with the push for neighbourhood health centres; that must be the way. We must bring back the family doctor, as that continuity of care is what really makes patients better. That is so important. We must also integrate health and social care in the community, so that we can pull patients out of hospital. That also applies to emergency care, as far too many people are having to go to overwhelmed A&Es at big district general hospitals. At the moment, only 20% of acute admissions go through GPs, who are the best people to ensure that we avoid admissions. We have to change all of this. Our NHS staff and patients deserve better; they deserve facilities that reflect the excellence of the care provided within them. The Labour Government are committed to rebuilding not just our hospitals, but trust, and the integrity of our public services.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I must confess that I am slightly surprised that the Lib Dems have brought forward an Opposition day debate about hospitals and are stating their case in such a way, because the last thing we need in this country is a load of promises we cannot keep. I am proud that we Government Members have provided sustainable and affordable plans for the new hospital programme. I have been on the doorstep the last few weeks in the run-up to the county council elections, and the No. 1 priority that comes up is GP access. We have provided 1,500 new GP posts in this country, and waiting lists have been going down for the last five months. Emergency dentistry is also very commonly brought up on the doorstep, and we have provided 700,000 new dentist appointments. There are many other parts of the NHS that are crumbling. I see the crumbling of the hospital buildings as a metaphor for what has happened to the NHS over the last 14 years.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for opening this debate, and Mr Stone, who started the petition. May I also say to the parliamentarians present that the speeches today have been excellent? I have really enjoyed listening and I thank hon. Members for that. I also thank the 235 people in Stroud who signed the petition and the many more who have emailed me about their worries regarding political donations. I have spent a lot of the last two years knocking on doors and the most common theme has been, “You’re all the same—you’re all corrupt.” The lack of trust in politics was very alarming, and it is something that parliamentarians of all parties need to be aware of. I would like to talk briefly about two issues: the financing of political parties and lobbying. In Stroud, we were supplied with a contract by a Tory councillor for personal protective equipment that was 85% faulty. People on the frontline were left with faulty equipment. We all wonder, but do not know, why that contract was issued. Something like £93 million has been donated to political parties, and two thirds of that was donated by 19 individuals in this country. Is it fair, in a democracy, that there is so much power in the hands of so few people? That is something of which we need to be aware. As many hon. Members have said, the external foreign donations are what brought this debate to a head, because we are all extremely alarmed by stories of hundreds of millions of pounds going to certain political parties. I will not talk for very long because we have heard so many excellent speeches, but I would first ask if we should question whether the donations system is a good one on which to run our politics in the first place. Secondly, “know your donor” checks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned, are incredibly important. We must vet donors and make sure that the money is coming from a fair place. We need to look at all overseas donors. In fact, I would say that we need to ban any overseas donors to our political parties. I also believe in a cap on any political donations, if we are going to have political donations in the first place; £100,000 seems rather generous to me—we should bring that down. Briefly, I want to talk about the influence of lobbying. This came as a slight shock to me. I became a politician having been a medic all my life. If we ever had any influence from the pharmaceutical companies, we totally ignored that evidence, yet as politicians we allow lobbyists to come and talk to us. I was on a platform talking about obesity, and there was even someone from Sainsbury’s supermarket on the platform. Is it right that we allow people to influence our policy in that way?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. The lack of transparency is a key issue. In 2023, oil and gas lobbyists spoke to Tory MPs on average 1.4 times per day, so is it really any wonder that they are now stepping back from their commitment to net zero? We must stop that sort of influence in Parliament. We must take the evidence and respond in the right way. We must restore trust in politics and reform how donations are made. We should look at the whole system of party funding and restore faith in politics.

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

  More

  I really want to point out that there is no incentive to agree to assisted dying, only to assess for it. There is no reason for people to be corrupted into agreeing, because it would not mean they would get any more money.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a reasoned speech. The thing is that the way the NHS is delivered is already very complex: for example, GPs are private providers who are on a contract with the NHS. Amending the Bill to completely ban private providers will not in any way enhance it; it will create a situation in which almost no doctors can get involved. We need to keep the private aspect simply so that the NHS can control what is going on, albeit the providers can be from independent organisations.

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

  More

  Briefly, the hon. Lady says that only 30% of palliative care is funded by the NHS, but that is quite spurious, because everyone who gives palliative care—all doctor time, palliative care consultants, palliative care departments, all GP services, all district nurses—gives it under the NHS. What she must be talking about is social care, which is obviously very different from medical NHS care.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that end-of-life care is also part of the NHS? That has always been part of the NHS, and it is not promoting health but enabling a good death.

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

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her impassioned speech, but we are rather getting off the point. The division between private and NHS provision is spurious in a process that will be delivered by doctors who are working under a code of practice. They will be rewarded in their pay which, as we have said, will be stipulated by the BMA in contracted arrangements with the Government and will be proportionate. The doctors will do the work and get the money for that. That is no different from IVF or anything else. If we accept that the NHS will be the commissioning body and will ensure standards in that way—sorry, I am going on a bit, Ms McVey; I shall now finish—the division between an NHS provider and a private one is spurious.

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

  More

  There may be an incentive to review a patient for assisted dying, but there is absolutely no incentive in the Bill to approve assisted dying. The idea that doctors would approve assisted dying for financial reasons is completely spurious.

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

  More

  Although I see the hon. Gentleman’s ideas and points, what will be paid for here is the assessment. I know no medical process where the outcome is paid for, rather than the assessment. Although I can see that his concerns are real, I do not believe—

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

  More

  I find the delay of four years that new clause 40 would introduce excessive in terms of the time taken and needed to deliver the requirements to implement the Bill in legal terms. I urge the Committee to reduce that at least to three years. That would mean four six-month checks, rather than six. The reason is that we have created a thorough Bill that is ready to implement. I understand that there are some pressures on the Department of Health and Social Care, so I accept a year’s delay. My worry is that a four-year delay might well take us past the next election and that the Bill will become an issue in the election.

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

  More

  I will be very brief. This is the most difficult speech I have had to make in the Committee. I think all of us who support the Bill are disappointed; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is incredibly disappointed. I believe that the Bill is deliverable within two years, but I have wanted this legislation for about 25 years, and my main aim is that the Bill passes. I understand, from certain dialogues I have had, that that is more likely if we accept amendment 548. In short, therefore, I will support the amendment. I will do so reluctantly, but it has my full support and I will vote for it.

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

  More

  I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but that is just not the way that medicine works. The doctor is under a code of practice, so if he is seen to lie about assessment of capacity or coercion, for example, to enable him to approve the decision and then go on to assist the dying, he would be well outside that code. He would be referred to the General Medical Council and, in such a case, struck off the medical register. I understand the reason for the amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not feel that it is necessary in this part of the primary legislation.

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

  More

  I am afraid I do not understand how we could change this. I just wanted to put on record that I feel that a four-year delay is excessive. I have nothing further to add to that, but I would be interested in the legal opinion on whether we can change it.

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

  More

  I am in two minds about the doctor being present until the patient dies. In the circumstances, we need to encourage this to happen at home predominantly, because I think that is where most people would prefer to do this action. We perhaps need to look further at whether the doctor needs to stay, in the rare situation where the patient goes on. Let me conclude by saying that I know that the amendments all come from a good place, and that this is an anxious time, but terminal care is an anxious time for doctors, for patients, for everyone, because we do not know exactly what is going to happen. The Bill allows someone a way of dying, when they have a terminal illness, that has a bit more exactitude than normal practice.

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

  More

  I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s points. In terms of assistance, what we are talking about, potentially, if the technology arrives at that, is that the doctor may be able to put a Venflon into the patient’s vein, but they would not put the drug through the Venflon into the vein. That would enable the patient to have control. That is the type of assistance that could be quite useful in this scenario, but it would not involve the doctor actually delivering the drug.

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

  More

  Actually, if we did an autopsy on any person who has died, pulmonary oedema would almost certainly be found because that is what happens in death—the heart stops and the lungs fill with fluid. I would also like to correct the idea that there is neuromuscular paralysis with pentobarbital. There is no way that barbiturates act in that way. All they do is sedate and put the person to sleep, and death comes afterwards.

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

  More

  I almost agreed with the hon. Gentleman earlier, when he asked at one point, should we not just leave this to doctors? One of the key things the hon. Gentleman said is that the doctor administers the drug. This is self-administered, first of all, so that is a very clear line. However, also, in a case of terminal care—this is what I am trying to get across to the Committee—we know the patient is dying, and therefore if they are becoming worse we simply do things to make them comfortable, and we do not try to revive them, because they are dying. It is important that we realise that this is a very different medical situation from normal care, and that it actually needs very different skills as a doctor. Here, a doctor is not trying to prolong life, but trying to make a death as comfortable as possible. That is why I support the Bill—because I think it will enhance a comfortable death. I wanted to make it clear that that is normal practice now in terminal care: we do not revive a patient with a terminal diagnosis who is in terminal care, but we make them comfortable.