Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Tidball]

Q You have helpfully acknowledged the link that we need to make on coercion to strengthen this, but on the other two elements—dishonesty and pressure—is there anything else that we need to look to in order to make this more robust?

Sir Max Hill: “Dishonesty” is a term of art in common use, but it is also a term of statute. Anyone investigating or, still more, prosecuting would understand what dishonesty means. I accept that there is a wider point—not so much for interpretation but for understanding—that this Committee may want to consider, of how much of that existing definition needs to be imported into the Bill. As with mental capacity, I would suggest that, beyond perhaps the odd footnote, it is not necessary for you as a Committee to define again what dishonesty means, because we have it elsewhere.

Alex Ruck Keene: On pressure, I think the Committee would be really assisted by having a look at the learning of the High Court judges exercising their jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction in relation to people who are said to be vulnerable. They have developed an awful lot of tools, where they are trying to look at people in complicated situations—potentially, but not necessarily, with impairments—who are caught up in what one person brilliantly described as being caught in a spider’s web. Those are the sorts of sets of tools used when judges are trying to work out what is going on, and whether it is the side of the line we consider to be acceptable or the side of the line we consider unacceptable—because “pressure” is doing a lot of work there.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you all for your written evidence. Sir Nicholas, in your helpful written evidence, you adopt Sir James Munby’s criticism of the current proposal for judicial oversight, and you instead recommend what you call a “Spanish-style specialist panel”. Could you set out for the Committee what you see as the benefit of that approach compared to what might be described as the stark judicial oversight of the High Court judge?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: One per cent would be 6,000 deaths a year. If each took two hours to process in the High Court—you have to read it and hear the evidence; one of them has to be oral and you have to write a judgment—that is 12,000 hours. Each High Court judge does 1,000 hours in court—outside court, they do lots—so you are talking about nearly three quarters of the entire family division doing nothing but this. It is impossible, in my opinion, for this to be done by the High Court. It should be done in the Spanish way by a panel that is set up. In Spain, the chairperson of the regulator sets up a panel for each case—a doctor and a lawyer. They have to agree and they check that everything has been done lawfully. They do not make any value judgment about whether it is in the person’s best interest. They check that it has all been lawfully.

Interestingly, in 2023, 10% extra denials were done by the panel. I do not know whether that was because they were concerned about voluntariness or whether they were concerned about suffering—because the criterion is suffering there—but an extra 10% was done by the panel, so the panel was not just rubber-stamping. They denied an extra 10%. I believe that an ad hoc system like that, with a doctor and a lawyer doing a check, would be the best way of doing it. The High Court—trust me, I’ve just come from there—has not got the capacity to deal with 6,000 cases of this nature.

[Jake Richards]

Q Apart from capacity, which I appreciate, are there any other problems that you see with clause 12 on judicial oversight? Apart from capacity, is there any benefit that you see from the Spanish model? Alex, you similarly criticised the current judicial provision. You say in your very helpful written evidence at paragraph 10 that perhaps we need to consider a multidisciplinary approach.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Can I just answer before he does?

[Jake Richards]

Yes—it’s just that otherwise I will be cut off. I was trying to get two questions in.

[The Chair]

Order. I said earlier that this is not a dialogue. Address your comments to the Chair, and I will decide who speaks and when. I do not wish to be rude, but everybody’s got to have their fair share.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I do not know if you have seen Sir Stephen Sedley’s memo, which came today. He has suggested that the Official Solicitor should be the checker of these facts, which seems a sensible idea. The Official Solicitor would be able to recruit more staff to do this. It would not be nearly as expensive as High Court judges, and it would be an efficient way of dealing with the problem. The advantage of the Spanish system is that you have a qualified doctor as well as a lawyer doing the checking. Remember—a High Court judge is not going to be a qualified doctor. That is a significant advantage in my opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have some Members who want to ask more questions; we have about six minutes or so. Jake Richards, you did have a possible question earlier on.

[Jake Richards]

Q Some of it has been answered, but on that point, I just wanted to explore the appeals point. If either side could appeal, as Alex suggested, who would be appealing against the decision to allow assisted dying?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Relations who say, for example, “My father has been pressured by his new wife to do this”. If a father has given permission and the child has asked to intervene, there would be some process where the child would be allowed to become a party to the proceedings, because that will have to be specified in rules, and that person would then be the appellant.

[Jake Richards]

Q The Bill at the moment—and for good reason, potentially—potentially does not provide for family members receiving notice of this.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Well, it does.

[Jake Richards]

It is an autonomous decision, so—

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: No, but it says, procedurally, they can determine their own procedure.

[Jake Richards]

Yes, sorry, I meant that, in terms of—

[The Chair]

Order. I am giving you an opportunity to ask a question, so ask the question, we will get the answer back and then we can move on. I do not want this dialogue, I am afraid.

[Jake Richards]

Forgive me, Mr Dowd. I meant that, in terms of the assisted dying process in the Bill, there is no automated mechanism for family members, or indeed any third parties, apart from the doctors, to have notice of this intention. Is there a concern, regarding this appeal point, that perhaps interested parties would not know?

Sir Max Hill: I would suggest that the key to this is in clause 12(5), and that is why I have recommended just striking out the words “High Court” and putting in the word “panel”, and then reading the whole of clause 12 as amended, with those situations in which there are steps that “must” be taken—and there are many—and those in which there are steps that “may” be taken.

In clause 12(5), following that logic, we would imagine that a panel, just as the High Court,

“may hear from and question, in person, the person who made the application”

but

“must hear from…the coordinating doctor”.

The appellate mechanism, which I agree there needs to be, will be looking sharply at the operation of that subsection. In other words, when the panel made its decision to refuse, on what basis did it make that decision and from whom had it heard? We can well imagine situations in which a co-ordinating doctor, having taken his or her own steps to ascertain the views of the nearest and dearest, would satisfy the panel as to what the views of the family are. The reverse of that is that there is no indication here that, having gone all the way through the panel, the family would have been made aware or considered at all. I think that that will be a rare scenario, but I am not a medical professional. I think you can cover that, perhaps with some changes here or there on what you impose on the panel as a mandatory duty and what you leave by way of discretion, subject to the rules of procedure that the panel would then adopt.

[Dr Tidball]

Q I have a question for Sir Max Hill and Alex Ruck Keene. Your insight on clause 12 has been helpful. What procedures would you recommend be adopted for testing and, if need be, challenging the evidence as part of an evidentiary process linked to the panel that you set out?

Alex Ruck Keene: This is, for the moment, predicated on the fact that we are still in the High Court, as opposed to slightly making up policy on the fly about a panel. Assuming it is the High Court, it seems to me the Court has to be discharging a properly inquisitorial jurisdiction, which means it has to be armed with the tools to do that, which includes arming it with the tools to call for its own evidence. It also seems to me that the High Court would have to be armed with its own ability to not just receive evidence from one side and have someone testing it. That then brings you to the only player in town who could possibly do that, which would be the Official Solicitor as advocate to the Court.

I do not want to emphasise too much the question of resources, because if Parliament thinks this is sufficiently important, the resources will be voted through. But it is vitally important to note that the Official Solicitor is completely overloaded, and we would be asking the Official Solicitor to act as advocate to the Court in every single one of these cases. You could not have it be optional; you cannot say that it is some and not others. If it is going to be inquisitorial, the High Court has to have the ability to say, “This is one-sided; someone needs to tease it out,” so the Official Solicitor would have to be funded to be advocate to the Court and, if necessary, instruct lawyers in every single case.

Sir Max Hill: The model that I was espousing would not necessarily involve the Official Solicitor at all. It would make no draw on the administration of the Court or any officer of the Court, still less full-time judges. It would allow the appointment of recently retired judges, as we have in a number of scenarios—surveillance commissioners, for example—and a fresh administration. With that, as with the High Court model at the moment, there is the primary set of provisions, which Parliament must impose, and it is important that that is sufficient for what Alex called an inquisitorial function. Those are in part mandatory—those things that the panel must be satisfied about, which are set out in clause 12(3). Then there are those that are discretionary, which are set out in clause 12(5).

What sits between the two is very important. That is currently expressed as “Rules of Court”, but it would be the rules of the panel, or the commission that appoints the panels. In a court scenario, we are all familiar with criminal procedure rules and civil procedure rules; that is the secondary stage that is reached once the primary legislation has been fixed. That, too, would apply to the commission or panel process, but I do not necessarily think that it would involve using existing, paid judicial resources at all.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting)

Jake Richards Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph]

Q My next question is for Duncan. Nurses who work in stressful environments, such as people working in mental health wards, are expected to get clinical supervision. Do you think that the nurses who are going to work in these areas—if this Bill passes—would require that specialist clinical supervision? And do you think the NHS will have the capacity to provide clinical supervision for the nurses working in those areas?

Duncan Burton: I think you are absolutely right—anybody working in stressful environments. If the Bill is passed, we will need to make sure that we have sufficient psychological support for nurses and doctors working in these services, as we do now for many of our nurses and other professionals working in these kinds of situations. People working in end of life, or cancer nurses, for example, often have psychological support to help them deal with some very difficult conversations with patients.

We would need to look at that and make sure that sufficient support was in place for anybody working in these situations. We would also need to be mindful about the wider workforce, given the issues from such a debate as this and how the decisions to signpost people on to services might create—for some people—moral injury. We do need to think about the support in place for those people.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Q You have touched on this, but perhaps we could have some further clarity. Certain amendments have been suggested that are essentially more prescriptive about what factors need to be taken into account and what steps clinicians would have to take when considering capacity in this context, as well as to inform consent and inform about the options available. Of course this is a matter for Parliament, but would you err on the side of trusting clinicians’ professional judgment within the legal framework, as it is—in terms of the Mental Capacity Act and the guidance on informed consent—or would you deem it suitable for further prescriptive steps to be put into primary legislation in this context?

Professor Whitty: It is entirely a matter for Parliament, at one level, but I can give a view. It goes back to the point that Naz Shah and others made earlier: the situations that people find themselves in are extraordinarily different—culturally, where they are in their lives, where their families are and a whole variety of other issues. Only the clinicians dealing with that person will really know all the different factors at play. If there is a good therapeutic relationship, and you would certainly hope there was, they should understand a whole variety of things that are very difficult for people sitting around this table to predict, however wise you are—although I am sure you are extraordinarily wise, to be clear. That was not my point. My point is that this is very difficult and I could not, at this point, write down a law that would be helpful to someone dealing with a whole range of different scenarios in which they are going to have to have an end-of-life discussion.

My own view, for what it is worth, is that I would do fewer things rather than more. That is partly because simplicity is the key to really good safeguards, in my experience. If the safeguards are really clear and simple, everybody understands them—if you ask six people, “What does this mean?”, those six will give you the same answer. The more complicated you make things, the more room there is for ambiguity and uncertainty—because different things are playing in—and the more difficult it is for the patient, their family and the medical and nursing professionals assisting them, to navigate the system.

Without in any sense wishing to curtail what Parliament might wish to do, I would make a plea for simplicity wherever possible and for accepting the extraordinary variety of people’s lives, which may have unpredictable consequences in terms of the way the end of their lives plays out.

[Jake Richards]

Q In terms of setting standards and ensuring universality of understanding those safeguards, is that better done, in your view, by training and guidance rather than primary legislation setting up factors?

Professor Whitty: I would certainly recommend that this is done by guidance or in secondary legislation, which can be adjusted if it turns out that it is not having the desired effect. Two things can change: first, we can spot things we had not thought of in the first place, however far-sighted each of us is. The second is that medicine itself changes, the diseases people suffer from change and so on.

An Act has to be durable and that is why I have my view about secondary legislation and guidance, which have the ability to adapt in a way that primary legislation cannot. The fundamentals obviously need to be in primary legislation, but these kinds of issues are often done better in secondary legislation.

[The Chair]

I am very mindful of the time, as it is now three minutes past 10. This will be the last question of the session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q On the point about reporting, where patients take that right to refuse treatment, capacity must be assessed at that point if a patient has said, “Look, I don’t want any more treatment.” That is quite an important point to assess capacity. Are those cases logged and recorded?

Mark Swindells: Yes. It would be important for the patient’s records to cover the points of consent and that the doctor has recorded that they have interacted with the patient that way. I do not believe it is centrally held or collated in any sense like that, but I may be wrong.

[Jake Richards]

Q Dr Green, on subsections (4) and (5) of clause 4 and the information services, as opposed to the referral to a practitioner, I think your point has some weight. In terms of the rest of clause 4 as drafted, it has an opt-in, it gives wide discretion to practitioners and there is no obligation to raise it, so from my understanding of your written evidence, it ticks all the boxes. Is that fair?

Dr Green: Yes, with the exception of the referral.

[Jake Richards]

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.

Dr Green: Of course, we would regard much of clause 4(4) as normal care in any case.

[Jake Richards]

Q There are some amendments being tabled that would offer further clarification and include more things that have to be considered. I have a similar question to the one I asked the previous panel, when I think you were here in the Public Gallery. Would offering further guidance to your members be welcome, or would you again err on the side of trusting their professional discretion?

Dr Green: As Dr Whitty said, I think simplicity is the key here.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Dr Green, you mentioned the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies. What issues have your members raised in relation to this legislation?

Dr Green: In terms of the cross-border issues?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

May I express how sorry I am to hear of the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent? I am happy to write to him—he asks quite a specific question—but it is important that we provide support to all sorts of victims. That is why we have the victims code, which strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that specific matter.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Last week, the Court of Appeal overturned a first-instance decision regarding the anonymity of a judge who presided over the tragic Sara Sharif case in the family courts. I do not expect the Minister to comment on individual cases, and it is certainly not about that individual judge, but will the Government use this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to open justice and press freedom?

[Sarah Sackman]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, I cannot comment on that specific case, but we adhere to the principle of open justice and transparency in our legal system. That is why we have the publication of sentencing remarks and transcripts, and the broadcasting of many of our hearings, so that the public can see exactly how justice in this country is administered.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting)

Jake Richards Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I, too, commend the hon. Member for Spen Valley for her efforts in pulling together this list; it is an unenviable task, given the number of contributions that were made.

It is important that we do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. There is a wide range of individuals and organisations that we would all benefit from hearing from, but given the time available to the Committee—which is much more extensive than most private Members’ Bills have, by some margin—we are not in a position to hear oral evidence from all of them. But there is an open invitation for everyone to contribute written evidence and for us, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire noted, to speak to engaged parties outside the Committee to feed into our thought processes and deliberations.

On the amendments tabled, I understand the reasons for amendment (b) on the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but I have to say that I disagree. The hon. Member for Bradford West said it was about coercion. I could understand if she were making an argument that we need to hear from the Royal College of Surgeons about the issue of capacity, so I do not think that this is universally confined to psychiatrists; it is something, as a surgeon, I dealt with every day when I was getting consent for operations. We have to think about how we get a wide range of opinions on the subject: we have the Chief Medical Officer, who can comment on such issues from a policy perspective; we have the BMA, which I am sure will send representatives who will be most able to deal with the questions that are to be asked; and, of course, we have the General Medical Council, which is the ultimate regulator and arbitrator of this issue.

The Committee is also about ensuring that this legislation is as fit and as robust as possible when it goes back to the House for consideration. That is where I think that having a legislator from a jurisdiction in which this has been implemented is crucial. Not having the member for Sydney in the New South Wales Parliament—where they have implemented this, and have dealt with some of the thorny issues that the Committee and subsequently the House will have to deal with—would be a mistake. Likewise, having more geriatricians and palliative care physicians is a better balance than having those with some other expertise—well-meaning as they may be, they are not necessarily dealing with this at the coalface. I do not support the amendments for those reasons.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I will not speak for long. I merely echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said: this is not an arms race. It is not about who can get more experts with different views; it is about trying to get a wide-ranging and broad sense of different aspects of the Bill. The list that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has produced does that. I made suggestions that are not on it, by the way, but as the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley says, we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good.

I want to push back briefly on some things that have been said about the lawyers and legal experts. I do not accept what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire says about whether they are for or against, and I am not sure that his numbers tally with my reading of their views. That goes to the subjectivity of this issue. It is not black and white; lots of people have complex views on it.

I am not sure whether amendment (g) was moved, but in any event the notion that issues such as ECHR compatibility cannot be handled by Lord Sumption, Lord Neuberger and Baroness Hale—three former Supreme Court judges and potentially the best legal minds of their generation—is frankly absurd. We all have roles and responsibilities, as members of this Committee and as Members of Parliament, to challenge their evidence and to push different cases. I have no doubt that we are all qualified and able enough to do so without hearing from a junior barrister and a junior lecturer. That is not in any way to belittle their expertise, because I have read endless commentary from both the suggested witnesses that is very valuable and could be put to the three former Supreme Court justices, who grappled with such cases time and again.

[Danny Kruger]

I think Baroness Hale has been knocked off the list. Am I right? I do not think we are going to have the huge pleasure of hearing from Baroness Hale.

[Jake Richards]

Well, we have had lots of lists, but Lord Sumption and Lord Neuberger are giving evidence, I believe; Lord Sumption is, anyway. These things can be tested and challenged, so the notion that we need to have others is slightly absurd. We have the law lecturer from Cambridge University as well.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I put it on record that I am very grateful that we will be able to find time for a legal adviser. It will not be a representative of the Senedd, because it has become apparent that the Senedd itself will not provide a Clerk to advise us. That seems to be a weak point in the process of making legislation: I think that as legislators we should be able to receive advice on the issue that is non-political and is perceived as non-political, so we probably need to address that in future. It will not be a representative of the Senedd, but I will seek within the time to get a legal advisor who is recognised as an expert in this field.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The residents of Broxbourne will be well aware that for 14 years, the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported failed to tackle this problem. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and getting on with it.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

This is a long-standing problem, and the previous Government did not do anywhere near enough to deal with it. What they did do, when former Prime Minister Liz Truss was Lord Chancellor, was arrange for more dogs to bark at drones around prisons, which they assured us would work. Has the Ministry of Justice done an assessment on how effective that policy was?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I think everybody agrees that that policy was barking.

Children of Prisoners

Jake Richards Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He touches on the important point behind a lot of this. When parents are imprisoned, caring responsibilities are often the last thing that the state or anybody else thinks about. We are at the crux of what I am trying to get to today.

I would like to thank Sarah Burrows and everyone at Children Heard and Seen, including my friend Ed, who drew me towards the research in this area. I thank them for what they have raised, because this is all about ensuring a child-focused approach. Too often, the children of prisoners are mentioned only in the context of maintaining relationships with the person imprisoned and ensuring that the person imprisoned has a good opportunity—this is a worthwhile thing to do—to reduce their reoffending and recidivism. One thing that has been lost to some degree in this debate is the support required for those children and young people. As the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, in some cases vulnerable adult children might also need support. That is what I am trying to highlight in this debate today: it is the children affected who are at the centre of this.

Sixty seven per cent of children do not visit a parent in prison, while 37% go further and have no contact with their parent at all. We need to focus on what is best for the child, taking into account the often incredibly difficult family relationships and the issues caused by crimes such as domestic violence—which the Minister is working on at the moment—sexual abuse, in some tragic cases, and parental homicide.

The current system is leaving some children living on their own—I will move on to some case studies in a moment, but that is one of the things that has really hit me about this issue. Children Heard and Seen has heard of multiple cases where a child has been discovered living on their own, and not in just one part of the country. If I may turn to the steps we are pressing the Government to take, that is one of the reasons it is so important that those children are individually identified, to ensure that support is there. If we do not have a national register or a system to ensure that the data is fed in, we will not understand the depth of the issues involved.

I want to pick up on a couple of case studies brought forward by Children Heard and Seen. In one case, a man went to prison for sexual offences, and it was only after the house was targeted by vigilantes that a victim support caseworker found his 15-year-old daughter living there on her own. In another case, a criminologist conducting research in a women’s prison was told by a prisoner that her two daughters were living on their own without any money for food. In another, a 16-year-old boy arrested at the same time as his parents was released shortly afterwards and became the sole carer of his eight-year-old brother. In another, an employer requested a welfare check after a woman had not shown up to work for some time. The employer reached out even though they may well have thought that she had decided to no longer be in employment. When the police went to her address, they found a 15-year-old boy living in his own with no gas or electricity. He had been getting up and going to school every day without anyone knowing that his mum was in prison.

Those are just a few of the cases that have been brought forward. They are particularly important because often in these families the children themselves will have had a difficult relationship with the state over many years. Sometimes, especially if those children are into their teenage years, they may feel able to in some way look after themselves. They could have been in and out of state care or support in some ways over many years, and might not have positive relationships—they might not have positive relationships with wider family, either. That is one reason it is so important that we get this right.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I praise the right hon. Gentleman for securing this Westminster Hall debate and raising this issue so powerfully. He is right about the focus on young people, which has to be part of the commitment, but this is also about the whole family and making sure that contact between parents, children, the wider family and prisons works for the children as well. Does he agree that that will help everyone and also help to tackle reoffending?

[Mr Holden]

I cannot agree more with the hon. Member. He raises an important point—yes, in many circumstances, help for families and children of prisoners can help the prisoners—but he is also right to say that that would be a side benefit. As a country, we should be concentrating on helping the children of prisoners wherever possible—we also want wider family support and networks to be involved where possible. As in the case studies I have spoken about, there may be situations, particularly if people are somewhat estranged, where the extended family do not know that their child has gone to prison and that their grandchild is therefore trying to care for themselves at home. Some of those family relationships may have broken down. That is another area where the hon. Member makes an important point about what more we can do.

The Government recently brought forward the first published estimate of the number of children of prisoners, which is definitely a welcome step. However, what we really need is a system to identify the children involved, not just an estimate of how many there are. An estimate is useful for helping to determine some of the broader policy changes that may be required, and possibly to help the Government to calculate some of the costs involved and where measures need to be targeted. But what we are interested in—on both sides of the House, I think—is identifying the individuals who need support and ensuring that support is provided, because an estimate does not do anything to identify those most in need.

As I have said, a commitment to identify and support children with a parent in prison was included in Labour’s manifesto, and Lord Timpson has stated that it is one of his top priorities as the Minister with responsibility for prisons.

The Ministry of Justice was recently asked what steps it is taking

“to ensure that the children of those imprisoned are (a) identified and (b) offered support”.

The response was that it is

“working closely with the Department for Education to determine how to effectively identify these children and provide support”.

I really hope that, as the MOJ does that, there is no need for a lengthy consultation, because there are children out there today who need such support. It has been suggested that half of prisoners have children under the age of 18. If that is correct, we are talking about tens of thousands of young people, of whom perhaps hundreds or even thousands might not be receiving any proper support.

I say to the Government that there does not need to be a lengthy consultation. Children Heard and Seen has a readymade solution. In collaboration with Thames Valley police, it has created, in Operation Paramount, the first mechanism ever to identify and support children with a parent in prison. Operation Paramount cross-references data from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service with existing police data to identify children who have been left behind, right from the point that an individual enters the prison system. Data that previously had been used only to track a prisoner’s movements through prison to their eventual release can now be used to identify vulnerable family members who were left behind when an individual was imprisoned.

If this system was rolled out nationally and schools were involved, it could essentially act as the national identification system that I hope hon. Members from across the House want to see. There would be two parts. The system would be used first of all to identify these children and young people, and secondly to provide support for them.

When an adult is sentenced or remanded in custody, a combination of the existing data from the Prison Service, the police and the relevant local authority should be used to identify the home address of a child linked to that offender. I do not think that is too much to ask for, because all that data already exists.

Secondly, a designated safeguarding lead at the child’s school should be notified before the start of the next working day. Registered nurseries, pre-school settings and childminders could also be informed. I am also particularly interested in the point that the hon. Member for Strangford made about considering other cases, too, perhaps where there is a special need. Within the education setting, the DSL should then be able to liaise with other members of staff and external agencies, if necessary, to deliver the appropriate support for the child in question.

Thirdly, I would ask the Government to consider whether children with a parent in prison should be made eligible for pupil premium funding, as we do in other circumstances. That might be worth considering given reoffending rates, because if we can get some of them down, that would be a very good long-term investment. Although I am obviously speaking as a Back Bencher today, this is something that might receive cross-party support in the future.

Fourthly, we need to ensure that children with a parent in prison are not left to live on their own. If we could identify them and provide the necessary support at the earliest stage, we could help to mitigate some of the impacts I talked about in my opening remarks—children living in absolute poverty, going on to become offenders themselves or being left vulnerable to crime in their homes and communities. We could ensure that, at the earliest possible stage, they are supported to mitigate the impact of their parents’ imprisonment and wrongdoing. In this day and age, we should not punish children for the crimes of their fathers or mothers.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jake Richards Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Robust safeguards for the sick and dying are vital to protect them from predatory relatives, to protect them from the state and, above all, to protect them from themselves. There will be those who say to themselves that they do not want to be a burden; I can imagine myself saying that in particular circumstances. Others will worry about assets they had hoped to leave for their grandchildren being eroded by the cost of care. There will even be a handful who will think they should not be taking up a hospital bed.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend makes her case powerfully. Can I ask her to comment on the current situation whereby people ask themselves the question she just asked today? What safeguards are there for those people? What inquiry is made before those people pass away, often having taken the most drastic and horrific action to do so?

[Ms Abbott]

But if the House passes this legislation, the issue that I have raised will become foremost in people’s minds even more so.

We are told that there is no evidence of coercion in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is possible, but people do not generally write letters to sick relatives urging them to consider assisted suicide and then put those letters on file. Coercion in the family context can be about not what you say but what you do not say—the long, meaningful pause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome the contributions to this debate from all sides of the House. This is Parliament at its best. I support the Bill and am proud to co-sponsor it. We have all received emails from constituents with harrowing stories of the agonising final days and weeks suffered by loved ones. I have no doubt that those stories will weigh heavily on each of us, however we vote today.

Fundamentally, I believe that if we are able to safely offer peace and empowerment to those at the end of their life, then we have a moral imperative to do so. We are lawmakers, and I also fundamentally support this change because our current legal framework is simply not fit for purpose. Our criminal law is a mess. Four former Directors of Public Prosecutions have told us that change is needed. It is pretty unprecedented for four former Directors of Public Prosecutions, the sole people who make decisions about prosecutions in such cases, to urge Parliament to take action.

In the 2014 Nicklinson judgment, the Supreme Court urged Parliament to take action because the law was not working in this area. The law is chaotic, particularly in how it relates to the argument around coercion. If we vote against this legislation today and it falls, do not think that vulnerable people at the end of their lives will not be subject to coercion this weekend and over the coming weeks. The police will investigate, a coroner will undertake an inquest into the circumstances of any suicide and a prosecution may begin, but all these processes will occur after the individual has died. This Bill would shift the emphasis of such inquiries to before the event, which is more logical, more rational and more humane.

Let me quickly deal with the procedural argument. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) mentioned, private Members’ Bills were sufficient to reform our abortion laws, abolish the death penalty and change our divorce regime, and a private Member’s Bill was good enough when the issue was last before the House in 2015. I have read every single word of that debate, and there was not a single word of opposition to a private Member’s Bill being the mechanism for such change. Since 2015, there have been Select Committee reports and more evidence from around the world, as other jurisdictions move in the direction of assisted dying. One begins to wonder whether opponents to change are grasping at procedural straws, rather than taking on the principle, as we should at Second Reading.

I appreciate that the decision is difficult for colleagues and I respect views on all sides of the debate, but these moments do not come around often. I urge colleagues to seize the moment, shape the world around us and provide for compassion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

It sounds like an interesting approach. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me so that I can look into it and write back to him. It is certainly the sort of thing we need to be looking at.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I join the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) in calling for the Government to consider the children of prisoners. I met the children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), just last week, and I know it is very much on her radar. However, this is an urgent issue. This week, I have been told about a child who had been living alone for months because the authorities simply did not know that their parent was in prison—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not relevant to the question. Minister, would you like to respond? No. In which case, we will leave it there.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman makes good point. The Texan model is of interest because it sought to incentivise the positive behaviour that reduces reoffending and ultimately cuts crime, and Texas saw some pretty spectacular results. There is no exact read-across from that model to our system, and it will be for the review to consider that model and others around the world to see what approaches might work here. It is imperative that any measures we take retain the confidence of victims and the wider public. Any punishment that takes place outside a prison needs to still look and feel like proper punishment to every community in our country. That is non-negotiable. Public confidence must be maintained, and that speaks to the hon. Gentleman’s second point. Evidence is important, and in my experience, when victims are engaged in the process, they appreciate the need to reduce reoffending, because they do not want other people to be victims. Their voice will be heard in the review; I hope that reassures him.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

In June 2019, David Gauke made a speech as Lord Chancellor on smarter sentencing. It was a helpful, coherent, cogent, evidence-based speech about sentencing reform. Four Conservative Prime Ministers later, no progress has been made, so I am pleased that the Labour Government will grasp the nettle. We were just discussing the Texan example of problem solving and sentencing, but can the Lord Chancellor reassure me that the review will also consider family, drug and alcohol courts, and the progress and positive results that we have seen in the family courts?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes the case well for why David Gauke is the right person to lead this review. As I said, he brings deep expertise to this debate. I am sure that the sentencing review panel will be interested, as many are, in some of the pilots that are being run on problem-solving courts, and also in the family courts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Richards Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The work that Hourglass and many others do is outstanding, and I place on record my thanks to it for championing the rights of older victims across the piece. The Ministry of Justice provides police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. I am hearing loud and clear the calls from the sector, but it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the announcement of funding after March 2025. We cannot agree that before the spending review, but the Ministry of Justice has allocated £1.2 million of funding over two years to support the training and infrastructure of ISVAs and IDVAs and to support fantastic organisations such as Hourglass that do such brilliant work.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Another forum in which domestic violence is litigated is private children’s cases in our family courts. The Secretary of State and Ministers will no doubt be aware of the huge delays that families are suffering in having their cases heard and then those cases being decided. At the heart of that are children waiting for a conclusion. What steps are the Government taking to try to expedite those cases, in particular working with other agencies across government including the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and local authorities?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Government recognise the importance of supporting separating families and, where appropriate, helping them to resolve their issues quickly and without the need to come to court. This is a complex area. My officials and I are working closely on it, and I would be happy to update my hon. Friend with a more thorough review soon.