Gibraltar

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

My thoughts, and I am sure those of the entire House, are with those who have been affected by the tragic plane crash in India this morning. We know that British nationals were on board. I can confirm, Mr Speaker, that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working urgently with local authorities to support British nationals and their families, and has stood up a crisis team in both Delhi and London.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on Gibraltar. Yesterday, the United Kingdom reached a political agreement with the European Union on the last major unresolved issue from our decision to leave the EU, providing much-needed certainty for people and businesses in Gibraltar. The deal removes another obstacle to closer ties with our EU friends and, crucially, protects British sovereignty over the Rock.

The need for this deal is well understood. As Members across the House have often highlighted, the current situation is not sustainable. Every single day, approximately 15,000 people—half of Gibraltar’s workforce—cross the land border with Spain to do their jobs, and to buy goods and services. Without a solution, the EU’s incoming system of entry and exit controls would have introduced a hard border, at which every individual’s passport would be checked, and all British goods heading for Gibraltar’s supermarket shelves would be subject to time-consuming customs checks. That would cause chaos and backlogs, endanger the livelihoods of British citizens in Gibraltar, wreck the territory’s economy and possibly cost it hundreds of millions of pounds a year, and place pressure, ultimately, on the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill.

All my predecessors since the referendum have had to wrestle with the looming threat to Gibraltar’s economy and way of life. These issues were, regrettably, left out of the EU exit negotiations. The previous Government began further talks to address them in 2021, when the former right hon. Member for Esher and Walton was Foreign Secretary. The issues were taken forward by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton came close to reaching an agreement. I pay tribute to their efforts, and to them for briefing me on Privy Council terms when I was in opposition.

It fell to this Government, when we came into office last year, to get a deal over the line, and it was imperative that we did. Gibraltar is part of the British family. Its people are British citizens. Its military facilities are of the utmost importance to Britain’s security, protecting important global trade routes in volatile geopolitical times. Britain is safer thanks to the work of our armed forces on the Rock. Since coming into office, therefore, we have made it a priority to negotiate a lasting solution with the European Commission and Spain.

I acknowledge the role of the Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories, who, in opposition and government, has been a relentless advocate for the people of Gibraltar, and has been integral to finding a mutually beneficial way forward. I also thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, as well as the dedicated team of Foreign Office diplomats for all their efforts, led by Lindsay Appleby in Brussels and Robbie Bulloch in London; their negotiating skill and deft diplomacy have been in the finest tradition of our diplomatic service.

British Ministers and officials have worked hand in glove with the Government of Gibraltar to conclude these tricky negotiations. Chief Minister Fabian Picardo has been at the table at every single stage of the process. Yesterday, he welcomed me to Gibraltar before we travelled together to Brussels to conclude the talks—as he said, as “a united British family”.

This Government would never agree to any solution that did not have the full support of the Government of Gibraltar—nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. The Chief Minister has said that what we have agreed is

“something remarkable…Something bold. Something forward-looking and hopeful.”

I pay tribute to all those whose tireless efforts have helped to get us here. We have protected Gibraltar’s sovereignty, economy and way of life for the long term. Since 2021, this and previous Governments have been involved in 19 formal rounds of talks and countless technical discussions, sherpa meetings and ministerial calls—it was a massive collective effort—to ensure that Gibraltar could continue to prosper.

We have agreed a unique and practical solution to the problem facing Gibraltar, the only British overseas territory that shares a border with the EU’s visa-free Schengen area. Its people’s livelihoods depend on a fluid border. Our solution will deliver jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar, but for the entire region. British sovereignty over the whole of Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar territorial waters, remains sacrosanct and iron-clad. On starting talks, I immediately secured an agreement to add a clause explicitly protecting our sovereignty, and the same goes for British Forces Gibraltar, which will continue to operate without interference or interruption, exactly as it does today.

Traffic at the border between Gibraltar and Spain will be able to flow, without checks on the people crossing. Residents of Gibraltar and of nearby Spanish communities will be able to go about their daily life, as they have done. For those arriving by air at Gibraltar’s airport, there will be dual border control checks—a model similar to the one whereby French police operate in London’s St Pancras station. Ignore the fake news: Gibraltar will not be joining Schengen. That was never on the table. Immigration, policing and justice in Gibraltar will remain the responsibility of Gibraltar’s authorities.

As for products entering Gibraltar across its land border, there will be a unique goods and customs model, avoiding the need for onerous checks at the border. With this pragmatic solution, flights will be able to operate from Gibraltar airport across Europe, driving growth and jobs for the people of Gibraltar.

This Government are showing that a pragmatic, positive relationship with the European Union pays off for the British public. Just as at the UK-EU summit last month, we are solving the problems left by the previous Government and their thin Brexit deal, and are making working people across the British family safer and better off. We can now also strengthen our co-operation with Spain, our NATO ally, a place that British people know so well.

I am grateful to my counterparts in Spain and the EU for completing these negotiations in good faith, in the spirit of win-win solutions for all parties involved. This agreement paves the way for finalisation of the UK-EU treaty text on Gibraltar. All parties have committed to completing this as quickly as possible. I can reassure hon. Members that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it in the usual way. I hope that Members from all parts of the House take this matter with the seriousness that it deserves and back the solution that Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and I have come to, guaranteeing Gibraltar’s sovereignty, economy and way of life.

This is what competent government looks like: fixing problems, not creating them; standing up for our overseas territories, not leaving them exposed; and protecting Britain’s interests abroad, to ensure security and growth at home. With this agreement, Gibraltar will have easier access to the European economy. Its businesses can plan for the long-term once again, and its citizens can feel reassured about their future. Britain’s commitment to Gibraltar remains as solid as the Rock itself. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The two-state solution is in peril. There is catastrophic conflict in Gaza and a shocking deterioration in the west bank. This is an affront to the rights of Palestinians, but it is also against the interests of Israelis; against their long-term security and their democracy. Today I will update the House on new actions we are taking to uphold human rights and defend the vision and viability of two states living side by side in peace.

In 2024 we saw the worst settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank in the last two decades, and 2025 is on track to be just as violent. Between 1996 and 2023, an average of seven illegal settler outposts were established annually. In 2024, settlers erected 59. These outposts are illegal under both Israeli and international law. Two weeks ago, the Israeli Government themselves announced 22 new settlements in the west bank. Every outpost and every building the settlers erect is a flagrant breach of international law and disregards the views of Israel’s international partners. There are now in excess of 500,000 settlers living in the west bank and over 100,000 in East Jerusalem, the territory that must form the heart of a sovereign, viable and free Palestine.

The sharp growth in settlements alone is dangerous enough, but it has been accompanied by a steep rise in settler violence and extremist rhetoric. Itamar Ben-Gvir has led seven provocative intrusions into Haram al-Sharif since 2022. In 2023, settlers rampaged through the village of Huwara, in what Israel’s own west bank military commander described as a “pogrom done by outlaws”. Last month, the villagers of Mughayyir al-Deir fled their homes in fear after the construction of an illegal outpost 100 metres away. This month, settlers attacked the town of Deir Dibwan. They set fire to houses and injured residents. This violence and rhetoric are deeply concerning. They are an assault not just on Palestinian communities but on the very fundamentals of a two-state solution. This is an attempt to entrench a one-state reality where there are no equal rights.

The two-state solution remains the only viable framework for a just and lasting peace—and I know that it is supported on every side of this House—with Israelis living in secure borders, recognised and at peace with their neighbours, and free from the threat of terrorism; and with Palestinians living in their own state, with dignity and security, free of occupation.

We are steadfastly committed to defending that vision, not just with words but with action. That is why we have pledged £101 million in additional support to the Palestinian people this year, and why we are working to strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority. It is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary signed a landmark agreement with Prime Minister Mustafa, and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed him to Downing Street. It is why we are clear that Hamas must release the hostages immediately and unconditionally, and that Hamas can have no role in Palestinian governance. It is also why we are committed to working with civil society, Israeli and Palestinian, to support those who believe in peace and coexistence. However, the gravity of the situation demands further action.

The reality is that these human rights abuses, the incitement to violence and the extremist rhetoric come not just from an uncontrolled fringe but from individuals who are Ministers in this Israeli Government. We must hold them to account and protect the viability of the two-state solution. So today we are sanctioning Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. We are acting alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, which have also announced their own measures today.

These two men are responsible for inciting settler violence against Palestinian communities in the west bank—violence that has led to the death of Palestinian civilians and the displacement of whole towns and villages. That violence constitutes an abuse of Palestinians’ human rights. It is cruel, it is degrading, and it is completely unacceptable. We have told the Israeli Government repeatedly that we would take tougher action if this did not stop. It still did not stop: the appalling rhetoric has continued unchecked; and violent perpetrators continue to act with impunity and encouragement.

Let me tell the House that when we say something, we mean it. Today we and our partners have shown extremists that we will not sit by while they wreck the prospects of future peace.

Our actions today do not diminish our support for the security of Israel and the Israeli people. The agendas of those two men are not even supported by the majority of Israelis, who recognise that those individuals are not working in their interest. As the Foreign Secretary said to this House last month, we want a strong friendship with Israel based on shared values and our many close ties. Our condemnation of Hamas—a proscribed organisation —and of the appalling attacks of 7 October is unequivocal. Our commitment to the security of Israelis and the future of Israel is unwavering. We will continue to press for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, for the release of the hostages still held so cruelly by Hamas, and for a ramping up of aid to those Gazans in desperate need. The repeated threats by Hamas to the lives of the hostages are grotesque and prolong the agony of their families and loved ones. Hamas should release all the hostages immediately and unconditionally.

The situation in the west bank cannot be seen in isolation from events in Gaza. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians, the denial of essential aid, and the creation of new Israeli settlements in the strip, is equally appalling and dangerous. This Government will never accept the unlawful transfer of Gazans from or within Gaza, or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. As Israel’s ground and air operations expand, Gazans have now been pushed into less than 20% of the territory. Hospitals have been damaged and destroyed. The entire population of Gaza is now at risk of famine.

Meanwhile, Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid endanger civilians and foster desperation. They are inhumane. The Red Cross field hospital in Rafah reported last week that it has responded to an unprecedented five mass-casualty incidents in the two weeks prior. In each case, Palestinians have been killed or injured trying to access aid in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury simply to feed themselves and their families.

We need further action from the Israeli Government now to lift all restrictions on aid, to enable the UN and aid partners to do their work, and to ensure that food and other critical supplies can reach people safely wherever they are. We will continue to support the UN and other trusted non-governmental organisations as the most effective and principled partners for aid delivery. Our support has meant that over 465,000 people have received essential healthcare, 640,000 have received food, and 275,000 have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services.

We of course support the efforts led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. We welcome the initiative of France and Saudi Arabia to chair an international conference next week to advance a two-state solution. A two-state solution is the only way to bring the long-lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve, but it cannot remain an empty slogan repeated by generations of diplomats and politicians while increasingly divorced from the reality on the ground. Mr Smotrich has said there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation. Mr Ben-Gvir has spoken of his rights in the west bank—a territory that his Government are occupying—as being more important than the rights of millions of Palestinians. Their own words condemn them.

To defend those Palestinians’ rights, to protect the two-state solution and to see Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in safety and security, this Government are taking action. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I want to be really clear that the two men against whom we have announced sanctions today do not represent the majority of Israelis. There are so many connections between the UK and Israel, and we hear about the extent to which the decisions, rhetoric and language of those two Ministers cause concern in Israel as well. We are taking action on extremist rhetoric and extremist actions that threaten the human rights of Palestinians, and that continues to be the threshold for these sanctions, which we will keep under review.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I also thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the step taken by the Government to sanction the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. It is only right that they face consequences for their relentless calls for the forced dispossession of Palestinians, which have so egregiously undermined prospects for securing a just and sustainable peace in the region. My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was the first to call for these sanctions last February, when the Ministers’ extremist views were already clear. My only disappointment is that the Conservatives refused to act when they had the chance to do so, and that it has taken this Government nearly a year to take this important step.

It is essential that the Government keep taking steps towards a just resolution of the conflict. That must include getting aid in, getting the hostages out, and agreeing an enduring ceasefire. In the last week, we have seen the product of the extremism advanced by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich: the death of more Palestinians, who were queueing in desperation for food from the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Calls for Palestinian displacement can no longer be tolerated, so will the Government build on today’s progress by urgently considering sanctions on other extremist Ministers who continue to call for the blockade of Gaza and for expanded military action in the strip, starting with Israel Katz?

The time has come to listen to Members in all parts of this House and officially recognise the independent state of Palestine. Will the Government commit to taking that vital step at next week’s summit in New York? Recognition will demonstrate the UK’s commitment to self-determination, and will make it clear that, building on today’s announcement, the UK will do all it can to wrest control away from the extremes and give both Israelis and Palestinians hope of a lasting peace.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we begin, I would like to say a few words about today’s proceedings. New clauses and amendments are grouped in two groups for debate to enable two clear and coherent debates on aspects of the Bill. I will shortly call the Member in charge to move her new clause 10. Debate on the first group will take place on the question that new clause 10 be read a Second time. If that question is agreed to, I am minded to select amendment (a) to new clause 10 in the name of Rebecca Paul for separate decision.

We have more than 90 Members who have indicated that they wish to speak in the first debate, but not all hon. Members will be called. It is not customary to impose a speech time limit on a private Member’s Bill, but I hope that Members in charge of the Bill, and the speakers after them, will restrict themselves in the early part of the debate to no more than 15 minutes in the first instance, including taking interventions. The time limit will have to drop accordingly thereafter, and the Chair will review that guidance as the debate progresses. We need to ask for shorter speeches to enable more Members to contribute. I should make it clear that the Chair retains the right to impose a formal speech time limit, but I would rather colleagues help each other. This is a very important debate that divides in different ways. Today is an opportunity primarily for Back Benchers. I do not expect to call Front Benchers to speak until at least 1.30 pm.

New Clause 10

No obligation to provide assistance etc

“(1) No person is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act.

(2) No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to become—

(a) the coordinating doctor in relation to any person, or

(b) the independent doctor in relation to any person.

(3) No registered medical practitioner, other than the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor, is under any duty to perform any function under or in connection with this Act other than—

(a) a function relating to the giving of notifications, or

(b) a function relating to the recording of matters in a person’s medical records.

(4) No health professional or social care professional is under any duty to respond when consulted under section 11(3)(b) (requirement for assessing doctor to consult professional with relevant qualifications or experience).

(5) No registered pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician is under any duty to participate in the supply of an approved substance to a registered medical practitioner for use in accordance with section 23.

(6) No person is under any duty to—

(a) act as a witness under this Act, or

(b) act as a proxy under this Act.

(7) Nothing in this section affects—

(a) any duty relating to the giving of notifications under this Act or the recording of matters in a person’s medical records,

(b) any duty relating to a requirement to keep records or to provide information, or

(c) any duty of a professional to respond to enquiries made under section 11(2)(b) (enquiries by assessing doctor) relating to health or social care the professional is providing, or has recently provided, to a person seeking assistance under this Act.

(8) Schedule (Protection from detriment) amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 to make provision to protect employees and other workers from being subjected to any detriment for—

(a) exercising (or proposing to exercise) a right under this section not to participate in an activity or perform a function, or

(b) participating in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act or performing any other function under this Act.

(9) In this section—

(a) a reference to a duty includes any duty, whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise;

(b) “registered pharmacist” and “registered pharmacy technician” have the same meaning as in the Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231) (see article 3 of that Order).”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This new clause, intended to replace clause 28, expands the protection currently provided by that clause by broadening the persons to whom it applies and the functions to which it relates; and it introduces NS1 which makes provision for enforcement of the right not be subject to detriment in connection with the Bill

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to new clause 10, after subsection 8(b), insert—

“(8A) Nothing in Schedule (Protection from Detriment) prevents an employer who has chosen not to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act from prohibiting their employees or workers from providing such assistance in the course of their employment or work with that employer.”

This amendment ensures that employees who work for an employer who had chosen not to provide assisted dying cannot do so whilst working for that employer.

New clause 11—Replacing the coordinating or independent doctor where unable or unwilling to continue to act—

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) after a first declaration has been witnessed by the coordinating doctor, that doctor is unable or unwilling to continue to carry out the functions of the coordinating doctor, or

(b) after a referral is made under section 9(3)(c) (including a referral to which section 12(4) applies), but before a report under section 10 has been made by virtue of that referral, the independent doctor is unable or unwilling to continue to carry out the functions of the independent doctor,

and in this section such a coordinating or independent doctor is referred to as “the outgoing doctor”.

(2) The outgoing doctor must as soon as practicable give written notice of their inability or unwillingness to continue to carry out their functions under this Act to—

(a) the person seeking assistance,

(b) the Commissioner, and

(c) if the outgoing doctor is the independent doctor, the coordinating doctor.

(3) Any duty or power of the outgoing doctor under this Act that arose in consequence of the declaration or referral mentioned in subsection (1) ceases to have effect from the time the outgoing doctor complies with subsection (2); but this does not apply to any duty under subsection (8) or (9).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision relating to the appointment, with the agreement of the person seeking assistance, of a replacement coordinating doctor who meets the requirements of section 7(5) and who is able and willing to carry out the functions of the coordinating doctor.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, make provision to ensure continuity of care for the person seeking assistance despite the change in the coordinating doctor.

(6) Where the independent doctor gives a notice under subsection (2)—

(a) a further referral may be made—

(i) under section 9(3)(c) (if section 12 does not apply), or

(ii) where section 12 applies, under subsection (2) of that section, and

(b) the registered medical practitioner to whom that referral is made becomes the independent doctor (replacing the outgoing doctor) and sections 10 to 12 (and this section) apply accordingly.

(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply where the coordinating doctor—

(a) gives a notice under subsection (2) to the person seeking assistance, or

(b) receives a notice under that subsection given by the independent doctor in relation to the person seeking assistance.

(8) Where the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, the coordinating doctor must, as soon as practicable, record the giving of the notice in the person’s medical records.

(9) In any other case—

(a) the coordinating doctor must, as soon as practicable, notify a registered medical practitioner with that practice of the giving of the notice, and

(b) the practitioner notified under paragraph (a) must, as soon as practicable, record the giving of the notice in the person’s medical records.”

This new clause makes provision about the replacement of the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor where the doctor is unable or unwilling to continue to carry out their functions under the Bill.

New clause 12—Report where assistance not provided because coordinating doctor not satisfied of all relevant matters—

“(1) This section applies where a person is not provided with assistance under section 23 because the coordinating doctor is not satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 23(5).

(2) The coordinating doctor must make a report which—

(a) sets out the matters as to which they are not satisfied, and

(b) contains an explanation of why they are not satisfied of those matters.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the content or form of the report.

(4) The coordinating doctor must give a copy of the report to—

(a) the person,

(b) if the coordinating doctor is not a practitioner with the person’s GP’s practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and

(c) the Commissioner.”

This new clause (intended to be inserted after Clause 27) requires the coordinating doctor to produce a report where assistance is not provided because they are not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in Clause 23(5).

New clause 1—No health professional shall raise assisted dying first—

“No registered medical practitioner or other health professional shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person unless that person has first raised it.”

New clause 2—No health professional shall raise assisted dying with a person under 18—

No registered medical practitioner or other health professional shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person under the age of 18.”

New clause 7—Doctor independence—

“(1) Any same two registered medical practitioners may not be involved in the assessment of any one person (whether as co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor) more than three times in any 12-month period.

(2) Where section 13 applies the Commissioner may authorise one additional instance in any relevant 12-month period.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, modify the time periods specified in subsections (1) and (2) if, in the reasonable opinion of the Secretary of State, such modification is—

(a) necessary to ensure the availability of assisted dying, and

(b) does not compromise the independence of the two assessments.”

This new clause limits the number of times two doctors can both act in the assessment of any one person to three times a year. It allows for the Commissioner to increase that limit in the case of death or incapacity of a doctor. Finally, the Secretary of State is given the power to modify that limit. Amendment 50 is consequential to this and ensures such regulations are made using the affirmative procedure.

New clause 9—Standard of proof—

“(1) Where a registered medical practitioner is required to be satisfied of a matter (other than under section 23(5)), the applicable standard of proof is a balance of probabilities but if they are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt they must indicate in their report or statement that they are not so satisfied.

(2) Where an Assisted Dying Review Panel is required to be satisfied of a matter, the applicable standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.

(3) Where a registered medical practitioner is required to be satisfied of matters arising under section 23(5), the applicable standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.”

This new clause would require the co-ordinating and independent doctor to flag if they are unsure whether one of the eligibility requirements is met or not. It also requires that a panel has to be sure that all the eligibility requirements are met. Finally, it requires the doctor administering the lethal substance to be sure that the person has capacity, a clear settled and informed wish to end their life, and is acting voluntarily without coercion and pressure.

New clause 16—Wish to end one’s own life—

“(1) A person does not have a wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act under section 5(5) if they are substantially motivated by—

(a) not wanting to be a burden on others or on public services,

(b) a mental disorder (including depression),

(c) a disability (other than the terminal illness),

(d) financial considerations, including lack of adequate housing,

(e) lack of access, or delayed access, to treatment or other service which a public authority is required (or can reasonably be expected to) provide, or

(f) suicidal ideation.”

This new clause ensures that a wish to end one’s own life that is substantially motivated by the factors listed in the amendment does not qualify for the provision of assistance under this Act.

New clause 17—No detriment for care home or hospice not providing assistance—

“(1) No regulated care home or hospice shall be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not—

(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or

(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.

(2) No funding given by a public authority to a regulated care home or hospice can be conditional on that care home or hospice—

(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or

(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.”

This new clause would mean that regulated care homes and hospices cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with this Act, and that their funding cannot be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance.

New clause 18—Care Homes and Hospices to decide their own involvement—

“(1) Nothing in this Act prevents any regulated care home or hospice from deciding whether (and if so to what extent) it wishes to provide assistance under this Act or to allow it on its premises.”

This new clause ensures that care homes and hospices are free to decide whether and to what extent they wish to provide assistance under this Act or allow it on their premises.

Amendment 80 to clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out “and” and insert—

“(aa) As a result of that illness or disease the person is experiencing (or will likely experience) severe pain and discomfort that cannot be reasonably relieved to the person’s satisfaction through palliative care, and”.

This amendment requires that, in order to qualify, the terminal illness causes (or is likely to cause) severe pain and discomfort that cannot reasonably be relieved through palliative care.

Amendment 18, page 2, line 6, leave out from “expected” to end.

This amendment would remove the six-month time limit for a person to be eligible for an assisted death.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 6, leave out “within 6 months” and insert—

“(i) in the case of a neurodegenerative illness or disease, within 12 months; or

(ii) in the case of any other illness or disease, within 6 months.”

Amendment 14, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1) shall not be considered to meet those requirements solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking.”

This amendment means that someone who is not terminally ill within the meaning of subsection (1) cannot bring themselves within that definition by voluntarily stopping eating or drinking or both.

Amendment 38, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1) shall not be considered to meet those requirements solely as a result of refusing standard medical treatment or taking any action intended to bring about a state of terminal illness.”

This amendment clarifies that an individual who is not already terminally ill under the definition in subsection (1) cannot qualify by refusing standard treatment or taking steps to induce a terminal condition.

Amendment 55, page 2, line 8, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”.

This amendment aligns the wording of subsection (2) with the wording used in subsection (1) (which defines what it means to be “terminally ill” for the purposes of the Bill).

Amendment 81, page 2, line 16, leave out clause 3.

Amendment 24 to clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert

“except that section 1(2) of that Act shall not apply”.

This amendment would disapply the presumption that a person has capacity unless the opposite is established.

Amendment 17, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(2) For the purposes of the assessment of a person’s capacity under this Act the information relevant to the decision as specified under section 3(1)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 must include, but is not limited to—

(a) the options for care and treatment of the terminal illness, including—

(i) the extent of prognostic certainty of their illness or condition, and

(ii) the likely effects on day-to-day functioning, symptom management, and pathway to and experience of death of—

(A) relevant and available care and treatment including palliative care, hospice or other care,

(B) withdrawal or absence of care and treatment,

(b) the likely pathway to and experience of death, including relevant risks of complications, following proceeding to self-administer a substance to end their own life under the provisions of this Act,

(c) a decision to proceed under this Act does not prevent or make unavailable any care and treatment provision that would normally be provided,

(d) the person’s decision to proceed under this Act must be theirs alone and not bound or directed by the views or decisions of others,

(e) the person is able to change their mind at any stage of the process for requesting assistance to end their own life under the provisions of this Act, regardless of previous decisions,

(f) a decision to proceed under this Act is a decision to self-administer a substance to end their own life,

(g) the self-administration of such a substance is not a medical treatment for their terminal illness but a personal choice concerning life and death, and

(h) relevant legal consequences from proceeding with a request for assistance to end their own life, including life insurance and categorisation of death certification.”

Amendment 2 to clause 5, page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment is consequential to NC1.

Amendment 101, page 3, line 7, after “person” insert—

“, unless the person has Down syndrome or a learning disability, in which case a registered medical practitioner must not initiate, suggest, or raise the matter of assisted dying with that person”.

This amendment would disallow medical practitioners from initiating a conversation about assisted dying with a person who has Down Syndrome or a learning disability.

Amendment 102, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) Before conducting a preliminary discussion under subsection (2) the registered medical practitioner must ensure that the person has no remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life.”

This amendment would mean that a preliminary discussion could not be held with someone who has remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life.

Amendment 26, page 3, line 20, leave out “, hospice”.

This amendment leaves out reference to a hospice, since this is a setting for the provision of palliative care.

Amendment 56 to clause 7, page 4, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) The coordinating doctor must give a copy of the first declaration to the Commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been made.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to give a copy of the first declaration to the Commissioner.

Amendment 57, page 5, line 14, leave out “include training about” and insert “provide that the practitioner must have had training about the following”.

This clarifies that the obligation under subsection (7) is to specify training about certain matters.

Amendment 58, page 5, line 18, leave out—

“specific and up-to-date training on”.

This clarifies that the training is to be about adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and person with a learning disability (rather than training about training about such matters).

Amendment 59, page 5, line 19, at end insert—

“(d) domestic abuse.”

This is a drafting change (moving the duty for the regulations to require the coordinating doctor to have received training on domestic abuse so that it is located with other similar duties). See also amendment 74, which defines “domestic abuse” for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 87 to clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(1A) The coordinating doctor must take all reasonable steps, including by asking the person, the Commissioner, and the relevant Chief Medical Officer, to find out whether that person has previously made a first declaration.

(1B) If it appears that the person has previously made a first declaration, the coordinating doctor must obtain all relevant reports relating to that first declaration and, if no reports are available, must speak to the doctor who witnessed it unless that is not reasonably possible.”

Amendment 45, page 6, line 3, leave out from “person” to end of line 16 and insert—

“(1) On completion of the first declaration, the coordinating doctor must convene a clinical panel to carry out the first assessment.

(1A) the “first assessment” is an assessment to determine a person’s eligibility for assistance under this Act.

(1B) The clinical panel must consist of—

(a) a registered social worker,

(b) a registered psychiatrist,

(c) a palliative care consultant, registered on the GMC Specialist Register,

(d) a doctor who is—

(i) a consultant in a specialty of the patient’s diagnosis, if the coordinating doctor is a GP, or

(ii) a GP, if the co-ordinating doctor is a consultant, and

(e) the coordinating doctor.

(1C) All registered health and social worker professionals on the clinical panel must have—

(a) received relevant training as determined by the Secretary of State, and

(b) opted in to determine that they are eligible to be on that panel.

(1D) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a system for registered health and social worker professionals to opt in under subsection (1B).

(1E) For the first assessment, the clinical panel must establish—

(a) why the person wants to end their life through an assisted death and the alternatives they have considered,

(b) the person’s understanding of their disease or illness and how this can be palliated,

(c) whether there have been any intrinsic or extrinsic coercion which has led to the person seeking an assisted death,

(d) what support is available to the person and their carers for the duration of the person’s life,

(e) that the person—

(i) is terminally ill,

(ii) has capacity to make the decision to end their own life,

(iii) was aged 18 or above at the time the first declaration was made,

(iv) is in England and Wales,

(v) is an ordinary resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months ending with the date of the first declaration,

(vi) is registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England or Wales,

(vii) has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life,

(viii) made the first declaration voluntarily and has not been subject to coercion or pressured by any other person into making it,

(ix) is secure in their decision, and

(x) is not having their decision making impacted by their mental health.

(1F) The clinical panel must provide the person with information on the support available for the duration of their life, including future care planning.

(1G) The members of the clinical panel must meet with the patient.

(1H) For the purposes of subsection (1G), the person may meet the clinical panel members separately or as a group, depending on the person’s wishes.

(1I) When all assessments are complete all the members of the clinical panel must meet to discuss the patient’s safety, eligibility and care plan, including referral to specialist services.

(1J) Should the panel come to the view that the criteria set out in subsection (1E)(e) are not met, they must prepare a written statement and a member of the panel must meet the patient to discuss their findings.

(1K) When presenting the report under subsection (1J), the member of the panel must discuss with the person—

(a) the options available to the person, which can include the provision of more information, and

(b) access to the clinical or other support they require.”

Amendment 30, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

“(ca) has relevant and available palliative care options,”.

This amendment would mean that someone is only eligible for assistance in ending their own life under this Act if they have relevant and available palliative care options.

Amendment 46, page 6, line 27, leave out from “if” to “refer” in line 28 and insert—0 “the clinical panel is satisfied of all the matters listed in subsection (1E)(e),”.

Amendment 60, page 7, line 1, at end insert—

“(6) Where—

(a) a referral is made under subsection (3)(c),

(b) the independent doctor dies or through illness is unable or unwilling to act as the independent doctor, and

(c) no report under section 10 has been made by virtue of the referral,

a further referral may be made under subsection (3)(c).

(7) Where a referral is made to a registered medical practitioner by virtue of subsection (6), that practitioner becomes the independent doctor (replacing the registered medical practitioner to whom a referral was originally made) and sections 10 to 12 and (Replacing the coordinating or independent doctor where unable or unwilling to continue to act) apply accordingly.”

This amendment makes provision, corresponding to the provision in clause 12 about the death or illness of a doctor from whom a second opinion is sought, for a further referral to be made where, before reporting, the independent doctor dies or through illness is unable or unwilling to act.

Amendment 32 to clause 10, page 8, line 6, at end insert—

“(aa) is a practitioner approved as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder for the purposes of subsection (2) of Section 12 (General provisions as to medical recommendations) of the Mental Health Act 1983,”

This amendment would require the independent doctor to have special experience in the diagnosis of mental disorder.

Amendment 61, page 8, line 22, leave out “include training about” and insert “provide that the practitioner must have had training about the following”.

This clarifies that the obligation under subsection (10) is to specify training about certain matters.

Amendment 62, page 8, line 25, at end insert “(c) domestic abuse.”

This is a drafting change.

Amendment 51 to clause 11, page 9, line 10, at end insert—

“(v) whether, according to any reasonable body of medical or scientific opinion, there are risks of complications (including pain), and what those complications are, from the substance to be ingested;”

This amendment requires doctors to inform persons seeking assisted dying of any reasonable medical and scientific opinion according to which the lethal drugs have a risk of complication and what those complications are.

Amendment 33, page 9, line 24, at end insert—

“(fa) ask the person whether they have discussed the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to and, where they have not done so, discuss their reasons for not doing so.”

This amendment would require the assessing doctors to ask the person whether they have discussed their request for an assisted death with family and friends, and to discuss their reasons if not, in order to decide whether to advise that they should do so under subsection (g).

Amendment 22, page 9, line 28, leave out from “must” to end of line 33 and insert— “consult such other health and social care professionals with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed, including but not limited to clinical, psychological and social matters.”

This amendment would require the assessing doctor to consult other health professions and other persons as the assessing doctor sees fit on clinical, psychological and social matters relevant to the person.

Amendment 63, page 9, line 44, leave out “, disease or condition” and insert “or disease”.

This amendment aligns the wording used here with the wording used in Clause 2(1) (which defines what it means to be “terminally ill” for the purposes of the Bill).

Amendment 64 to clause 12, page 10, line 40, leave out “section 10 and 11” and insert—

“sections 10, 11 and (Replacing the coordinating or independent doctor where unable or unwilling to continue to act)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC11.

Amendment 65, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

“and section (Replacing the coordinating or independent doctor where unable or unwilling to continue to act)(6)(a)(ii)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC11.

Amendment 47 to clause 14, page 11, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) The Commissioner must give notice of the referral to any persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified by virtue of being persons properly interested in the welfare of the person to whom the referral relates, and other persons they are close to.

(2B) Those persons may either become parties to the proceedings before the panel or may give evidence to the panel without becoming parties, at the Panel’s discretion.

(2C) The Commissioner must issue a practice direction relating to the matters in subsection (2A) and (2B).”

Amendment 48, page 11, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) The Commissioner must give notice of the referral to the designated authority and make them a party to the proceedings.

(2B) The designated authority must send a representative or advocate to the panel who will be tasked to make all reasonable arguments to the panel for why a certificate of eligibility should not be granted.

(2C) The designated authority shall be one of the following as chosen by the Secretary of State in regulations—

(a) the Official Solicitor,

(b) the King’s Proctor,

(c) the Attorney General, or

(d) any other body so designated by the Secretary of State.”

Amendment 31 to clause 15, page 12, line 17, at end insert—

“(da) that the person has relevant and available palliative care options,”.

This amendment, which is linked to Amendment 30 would mean that someone is only eligible for assistance in ending their own life under this Act if they have relevant and available palliative care options.

Amendment 5, page 12, line 29, at end insert—

“(j) that there are no psychological, social or environmental factors influencing the person to make the decision.”

This amendment ensures that the panel must be satisfied that no psychological, social or environmental factors are influencing the decision of a person to seek assisted dying.

Amendment 6, page 12, line 33, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the panel to question the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor.

Amendment 7, page 12, line 35, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the panel to question the person seeking an assisted death.

Amendment 10, page 12, line 36, at end insert—

“(ba) must ask the person whether they have discussed the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to and, where they have not done so, discuss their reasons for not doing so;”

This amendment would require the Voluntary Assisted Dying Panel to ask the person whether they have discussed their request for an assisted death with family and friends, and to discuss their reasons if not, in order to determine whether to grant a certificate of eligibility.

Amendment 8, page 12, line 38, at end insert—

“(ca) must consider hearing from and questioning—

(i) persons properly interested in the welfare of the person to whom the referral relates, and other persons they are close to; and

(ii) any other person who has provided treatment or care for the person to whom the referral relates in relation to that person’s terminal illness;”.

This amendment would require the panel to consider hearing from those with an interest in the welfare of the person and those who have provided treatment to them.

Amendment 11, page 13, line 4, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) If the panel is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify not hearing from the person, then the duties under subsections (4)(b) and (4)(ba) do not apply.”

This amendment is connected to Amendment 10.

Amendment 23, page 13, line 14, at end insert—

“(ca) where the person to whom the referral relates is under the age of 25, their next of kin;”.

Amendment 49 to clause 16, page 13, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert—

“(1) The person applying for assisted dying, any parties to the proceedings, or the registered medical practitioners who are treating them may apply to the Commissioner for the Panel’s decision to be reconsidered.

(2) Anyone with evidence, which was not before the Panel, showing that a certificate of eligibility should not have been issued may apply to the Commissioner for the Panel’s decision to be reconsidered.

(3) The Commission must consider, without a hearing, whether an application under subsection (1) or subsection (2) raises an arguable case that the Panel’s decision was—

(a) wrong, or

(b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings.

(4) Upon receiving an application under subsection (2) the Commissioner must—

(a) if satisfied that there is an arguable case that either of the criteria in subsection (3) are met, refer as soon as reasonably practicable the person’s case to a different Assisted Dying Review Panel for a determination of whether either of the criteria in subsection (3) are met,

(b) in any other case, dismiss the application.

(5) If the new Assisted Dying Review Panel concludes that the either criterion under subsection (3) is met, they must consider the person’s eligibility for a certificate of eligibility application afresh.

(6) The new Assisted Dying Review panel may consider whether either of the subsection (3) criteria are met and the fresh application under subsection (5) together.

(7) An assisted death must not take place for a person whose application for assisted dying is subject to the process under subsections (1) to (6) until the conclusion of that process.”

Amendment 66, to clause 23, page 19, line 21, leave out “subsection (3)” and insert “subsection (2)”.

This is a drafting change.

Amendment 67, page 19, line 32, at end insert—

“(6A) An approved substance may be provided to a person under subsection (2) by—

(a) preparing a device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and

(b) providing that person with the device.

In the case of an approved substance so provided, the reference in subsection (3) to the approved substance is to be read as a reference to the device.”

This amendment clarifies how the clause works in cases where an approved substance is provided by preparing a device and providing a person with the device.

Amendment 68, page 19, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment is consequential on amendment 67.

Amendment 91 to clause 26, page 21, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) the person’s full name, date of birth, sex, ethnicity, and last permanent address;

(aa) whether, immediately before death, the person had a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (other than a disability consisting of the illness or disease which caused the person to be terminally ill within the meaning of this Act);”

This amendment expands the duty as regards regulations about final statements so as to provide that certain additional information is included in final statements.

Amendment 52, page 22, line 28, leave out clause 28.

This amendment is consequential on NC10.

Amendment 16 to clause 28, page 22, line 35, insert—

“(3) There is no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.”

This amendment prevents there being any obligation on a care home or hospice which is regulated in England or Wales to permit the provision of assistance under the Act on their premises.

Amendment 74 to clause 52, page 35, line 20, at end insert—

““domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (and accordingly includes behaviour that is controlling or coercive or that constitutes economic abuse);”

This amendment defines “domestic abuse” for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 75, page 35, line 31, at end insert—

““learning disability” has the meaning given by section 1(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983;”.

This amendment defines “learning disability” for the purposes of the Bill.

New schedule 1—Protection from detriment—

“Schedule

1 The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

2 After section 43M insert—

“43N Provision of assistance under Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025

(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer done on the ground that the worker has—

(a) exercised (or proposed to exercise) a right conferred on the worker under section (No obligation to provide assistance etc) of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025 (no obligation to provide assistance etc), or

(b) participated in the provision of assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with that Act, or performed any other function under that Act, in accordance with that Act.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where—

(a) the worker is an employee, and

(b) the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of Part 10.

(3) For the purposes of this section, and of sections 48 and 49 so far as relating to this section, “worker” and “employer” have the extended meaning given by section 43K.”

3 (1) Section 48 (complaints to employment tribunals) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1WA) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 43N(1).”

(3) In subsection (2), after “(1)” insert “, (1WA)”.

4 (1) Section 49 (remedies) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after “section 48(1)” insert “, (1WA)”.

(3) In subsection (2), after “subsections” insert “(5YA),”.

(4) After subsection (5) insert—

“(5YA) Where—

(a) the complaint is made under section 48(1WA),

(b) the detriment to which the worker is subjected is the termination of the worker’s contract, and

(c) that contract is not a contract of employment,

any compensation must not exceed the compensation that would be payable under Chapter 2 of Part 10 if the worker had been an employee and had been dismissed for a reason specified in section 98C.”

5 After section 98B insert—

“98C Provision of assistance under Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025

An employee who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee—

(a) exercised (or proposed to exercise) a right conferred on the employee under section (No obligation to provide assistance etc) of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025 (no obligation to provide assistance etc), or

(b) participated in the provision of assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with that Act, or performed any other function under that Act, in accordance with that Act.”

6 In section 105 (redundancy), after subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was one of those specified in section 98C.”

7 In section 108 (qualifying period of employment), in subsection (3), after paragraph (aa) insert—

“(ab) section 98C applies,”.

8 In section 205 (remedy for infringement of certain rights), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1XA) In relation to the right conferred by section 43N(1), the reference in subsection (1) to an employee has effect as a reference to a worker.”

9 In section 230 (definitions of employees, workers etc) in subsection (6)—

(a) after “43K” insert “, 43N(3)”;

(b) after “Part IVA” insert “, section 43N”.”

This new Schedule amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 so as to provide remedies for persons subjected to detriment for exercising or proposing a right conferred by NC10 or for participating in the provision of assistance in accordance with, or performing any other function under, the Bill.

Amendment 78 to schedule 2, page 42, line 26, at end insert—

“, or

(b) abstains from voting on such a decision.”

This amendment ensures that a panel must not grant certificate of eligibility unless all members consider that such a certificate should be granted.

Amendment 79, page 43, line 7, at end insert—

“(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after making a decision, a panel must give the following a document containing its reasons for the decision—

(a) the person to whom the referral in question relates;

(b) the coordinating doctor in relation to the person;

(c) the Commissioner.”

This amendment requires a panel to give the persons mentioned a document containing its reasons for any decision made by the panel.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a privilege to open the debate on this next important stage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It seems a long time ago that we held the Second Reading debate in November on what many of us felt was a very proud day for Parliament, when we saw an emotional and passionate but largely respectful debate on a hugely important subject that means so much to so many people.

I know that there are a range of views on the subject of choice at the end of life, and today is not about revisiting the fundamental principle of assisted dying. Before I address the amendments in my name, as the sponsor of the Bill, I will make some brief introductory comments on why we are here. Put simply, if we do not vote to change the law, we are essentially saying that the status quo is acceptable. Over recent months, I have heard hundreds of stories from people who have lost loved ones in deeply difficult and traumatic circumstances that show that that is clearly not the case. Too many have seen their terminally-ill loved ones take their own lives out of desperation or make the traumatic, lonely and costly trip to Switzerland, and then face a police investigation while dealing with their grief and loss.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned many real stories influencing this debate. I will mention one more: my constituent Mick Murray, who is in the Public Gallery today. Mick helped two close friends, Bob and Ann, to make the painful journey to Dignitas. Both simply wanted to die at home with dignity and surrounded by loved ones; instead, they had to make that journey overseas at great cost and legal jeopardy. Mick said:

“I helped them out of compassion — and I think that is what’s missing from our current law.”

Does my hon. Friend agree—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will set the example by following the rules of the House. We will have short interventions, not speeches. There are a load of other Members.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That was a very powerful point, if slightly long. There are people who face these really traumatic and difficult decisions every day, including Louise Shackleton, who I believe is also with us today.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought this was a debate to discuss amendments, not a general debate.

[Mr Speaker]

It is, but I think this is the opening lead-in to the amendments. I will make that judgment call.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I may just finish that point—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say to people that if we are going to have continuous interventions, and if they continue to make the same intervention, they should not be shocked if they end up at the bottom of the list? I want to help people, because all this does is soak up time. Jim Shannon will be a good example.

[Jim Shannon]

Mr Speaker, I will always be at the end of the list, so it is important for me to make an intervention. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) set the scene very well on Second Reading, but since then things have changed. For instance, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has voiced strong concerns in opposition to the Bill about judicial oversight, robust protections against coercion and so on, as well as the effect it will have on vulnerable groups such as those with dementia, Down syndrome or mental illnesses. Does the hon. Lady not respect the viewpoints of my constituents who tell me that they are opposed to the Bill in principle and all the things that are coming forward? The new clause does not address the issues that the hon. Lady is referring to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have not seen those comments, but it is absolutely right that whatever our views are on this issue, we must remain respectful.

I also want to thank colleagues here in Parliament—MPs and indeed staff—who have shared their personal stories of loss with me over recent months. This is a really important point: these are real people with real stories, and they must always be at the heart of the debate.

Public support for assisted dying in this country has been consistently high for a long time now, and we have seen movement in jurisdictions around the world, including just this week in Scotland. I congratulate colleagues in Holyrood, particularly Liam McArthur MSP, for holding such a compassionate and respectful debate, which I hope we can emulate today.

It is right that we consider this change with great care, as we are doing today. But we should also remember, as with other big social changes such as giving women bodily autonomy on their reproductive rights or allowing gay—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We did say, when we had the conversation, that there should just be an introduction to the debate very early on. I think this is why Members are beginning to get frustrated; we should now be speaking to the amendments.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will move on to the amendments. If I may, I want to acknowledge the work of the Bill Committee in relation to the amendments, because a huge amount of work was done by Members from all parties, with a range of views—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am really bothered, because today is a day for amendments, and we really need to understand the views they cover. As the Member in charge of the Bill, you will, I am sure, really want to get into the depth of the amendments and not continue in that way.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do indeed, Mr Speaker; you are absolutely right. The amendments that we are discussing today build on some of the work of the Committee, and I think that is important. We took a lot of steps to strengthen the Bill in Committee, and I was pleased to work collaboratively with colleagues in that way.

As I come on to the amendments, which have been tabled in my name, let me say that the Government are, of course, neutral on the issue of assisted dying, but have always been clear that workability is essential if the Bill is to pass. I have worked closely with an outstanding team of civil servants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, and it is with their technical advice on making the Bill workable and giving coherence to the statute book that I propose these amendments today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I would love to give way, but—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady has said that she is not going to give way. We are aiming for 15 minutes for each speech, but it is going to be 20 minutes if we do not pick up the pace.

[Rebecca Paul]

I apologise, but I do want to get through my speech.

It is important to make the point that someone suffering with anorexia, or indeed any mental condition, is not intended to be eligible for an assisted death. However, in the case of anorexia there are physical manifestations of the illness, such as malnutrition and diabetes, that might mean the patient meets the definition of being terminally ill, and that is the nub of the problem: the Bill does not adequately rule out physical manifestations caused by mental illness. That is why amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), is so important, because it would ensure that anyone who voluntarily stops eating or drinking is ineligible for assisted dying. I support the amendment strongly as it addresses a big risk.

Lastly, on eligibility specifically, I want to talk about capacity. There are such problems with the current approach to determining capacity that I barely know where to start. When it comes to ending one’s own life, a higher standard should be applied. The current definition of capacity was not created with such a monumental decision in mind, and if it were being drafted from scratch today, it would look very different. That is one of the reasons why the Royal College of Psychiatrists does not support the Bill.

Under the Bill, a person is assumed to have capacity in the first instance. A clinician only needs to be over 50% sure that a person has capacity. If the person is making unwise decisions, that is not taken into account, and a person can be “helped” to make a decision—for example, when a patient has learning disabilities. I ask all Members today whether they are happy with that. Does that sound like a robust approach to assessing whether someone has capacity to make the decision to end their own life?

Let us begin with the starting presumption of capacity. That, too, lacks the standard for assisted death decisions. I therefore support amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), which would disapply section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for the purposes of assisted dying. One of the biggest issues for me is the fact that the current approach requires an impairment or disturbance of the brain in order for someone to be considered not to have capacity, irrespective of whether they can make a decision. In the real world, that would mean a doctor could assess a patient who gives the impression of being confused, illogical, erratic, inconsistent—everything about them could scream that they are not in a good place to make this decision at that point in time—but they would still be considered to have capacity if there is no identifiable impairment or disturbance of their mind or brain. That could potentially put those with depression, anxiety, learning disabilities or eating disorders, or even those just experiencing physical pain that is driving them to distraction, in danger of being considered to have capacity when they do not.

So far I have focused on eligibility. I will now talk about hospices.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, I really want to get as many people in as possible. If you can come to a conclusion, that would be helpful.

[Rebecca Paul]

I will therefore speak to my new clauses 17 and 18, which would provide important protections for hospices, which are currently lacking in the Bill. New clause 18 makes it crystal clear that any regulated care home or hospice can decide whether to provide assisted dying on its premises, and new clause 17 makes it clear that they cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assisted deaths, and that their public funding cannot be conditional on their providing this service. Whether one is in favour of assisted dying or not, we must preserve the rights of organisations, companies and charities to choose whether to offer it. They must never be forced into it by public funding being conditional on the provision of assisted dying.

I note that new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), would expand the protection for individuals not to participate in the assisted dying process if they so wish. It seeks to protect employees from being subjected to any detriment for participating or not participating in the provision of assisted dying. This sensible protection would ensure that if an NHS hospital provides an assisted death service, any member of staff who does not want to participate would not have to do so and would suffer no detriment as a result. However, there needs to be a sensible mechanism balancing that against the employer’s right to set their own policy on assisted dying, and that is what my amendment (a) to new clause 10 seeks to do—we have already talked about that, so I will not go over it again.

I did want to talk about process and family, but it looks like I will not have time to do that. I will end there. I thank you for your patience and generosity, Mr Speaker. I am grateful that I have had the chance to speak in support of the amendments, and I look forward to hearing from other Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you and the team have had a very difficult day, but as someone who tabled an amendment but has not had the opportunity to speak to it, I would like clarification that if a closure motion is moved, my amendment, as well as those tabled by other Members who have been unable to speak to them, will not receive further debate.

[Mr Speaker]

To be quite honest with you, the amendments that we have discussed are the ones that we have got through. On the amount of time allocated, in fairness, we are presuming what will come next. I am going to call the Minister; if a closure motion is moved, I will decide at that moment whether to accept it. The fact that many amendments may not have been spoken to is not unusual, which is why consideration will not last for one day, as per the normal procedure; it will continue over further days, on which further amendments will be discussed, and of course there will be Third Reading at a later date. I call the Minister.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Members across the House for their excellent contributions to the debate. As Members will know, the Government remain neutral on the passage of the Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and on the principle of assisted dying, which we have always been clear is a decision for Parliament. I therefore begin by clarifying that I am speaking in today’s debate as the Minister responsible, jointly with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), for ensuring that the Bill, if passed, is effective, legally robust and workable. She and I were pleased to be members of the Bill Committee, again to provide advice on the workability and technical effectiveness of the Bill as it went through detailed line-by-line scrutiny.

I will not, therefore, give a Government view on the merits of any individual amendments in terms of their policy intent, as defined by the Member who tabled them, as that is rightly a matter for the House to decide. I will instead focus my remarks on amendments that the Government deem to give rise to significant workability concerns, and those amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley with technical drafting support from the Government, which have been developed to ensure that the Bill is technically and legally workable.

While I will not give an assessment of all the amendments tabled by other Members, I ask the House to note that they have not been drafted on the basis of advice or with technical drafting support from officials. Therefore, the Government are unable to confirm that those amendments are fully workable, effective or enforceable, though I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).

I will begin with obligations, duties and protections for medical practitioners. New clause 10 and amendment 52, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, replace clause 28 and expand the safeguards to ensure that no person is under any duty to participate. The new clause also clarifies several functions where certain professions or persons are under no duty to participate, including social care workers, pharmacists or persons acting as a proxy or witness. Finally, it provides that certain functions cannot be opted out of—for example, the recording of matters in a personal medical record.

New clause 11 and consequential amendments 64 and 65, also tabled by my hon. Friend, provide for the replacement of the co-ordinating or independent doctor where that doctor is unable or unwilling to continue to carry out their functions under the Bill, other than through illness or death. A number of amendments have been tabled in this area by other Members, and I shall briefly set out the Government’s analysis of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

There is a delay in the No Lobby. Will the Serjeant at Arms please go and inspect?

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

Will the Serjeant at Arms inspect the Aye Lobby, as there appears to be a hold-up?

Gaza: UK Assessment

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking those important questions. The testimony of the emergency relief co-ordinator, the very most senior official in the world’s entire humanitarian system, given last night at the UN Security Council meeting that we called with our allies, is clearly incredibly important. I can confirm to the hon. Member that we do abide by our international law obligations, including to the genocide convention, and we consider in all of our IHL assessments, which are ongoing, all the relevant tests—and we will continue to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asks important questions, which have echoed in this Chamber yesterday and throughout this long and painful conflict. This Government have taken steps, whether restoring funding, suspending arms exports or working with our partners in the UN and elsewhere. But clearly we are in a situation today that nobody in this House would wish to be in—nobody on the Government Benches and, I am sure, nobody on the Opposition Benches either.

We will need to take more and more action until we see the change that we need, but the central question, as I have told this House repeatedly, is that aid is not being allowed into Gaza. While it is not allowed into Gaza, there is nothing that can be done to get the aid at the scale and in the manner necessary to save Palestinian life. It is on that point that we called the Security Council and on that point that we will continue to act.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members not to use the word “you”, because I am not responsible for some of those statements?

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

The Minister has repeatedly said that we do everything to observe international law. Will he please accept that there is a growing body of opinion that says that the UK is not doing that, and that we are not complying with our obligations if we continue to supply parts for the F-35 programme, because these are dropping weapons on children in Gaza? We cannot say that we are observing the Geneva conventions, the genocide convention and Rome statute if we continue to supply those goods. He talks about doing all that we can. If that is the case, why on earth are we not making it abundantly clear to Israel that trading with it is not an option while this continues? So in answer to the question “Is he doing all he can?”, there are many people in this place and beyond who think that we are not.

[Mr Falconer]

I know my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues over a long period of time. I do not accept the premise of his question. Whether or not we abide by our legal obligations is a question that will be determined by the courts. It is being determined by the courts this week, so I will leave it to the courts to make judgments on our obligations. We are taking all the steps that we can to bring this conflict to a close. He mentions the vital question of the F-35 programme. I know this House understands the significance of that programme, not just in Europe but across the world. The carve-out that we have put in place has been done on the basis of robust legal advice, which is being tested in the courts this week. We must abide by our obligations to our allies. We are not selling F-35s directly to the Israeli authorities. We continue to supply a global spares pool. That is necessary for the continued function of the F-35 programme, which has critical importance to European security. We make these judgments calmly and soberly, and we will continue to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The situation in the middle east continues to cause concern. That is why we on this side of the House have been clear on the need to see the return of the hostages and a lasting ceasefire. Although we welcome the release of Edan Alexander, there are still 58 hostages held in Gaza by the Iranian-backed terrorists. Those who are still alive are being held in the most dreadful and appalling conditions, without access to aid and medicines. What they and their families have been going through for approaching 600 days is unimaginable. They must be released as a matter of urgency, so can the Minister give an update on the diplomatic steps being taken by the Government to secure the release of the remaining hostages, and what is Britain contributing to those efforts?

This conflict would have been over long ago, had Hamas released the hostages, and the House should not be in any doubt that Hamas and their Iranian sponsors are committed to wiping out the state of Israel. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken, with international partners, to deal with the threat to peace, security and stability posed by Iran? We have constantly asked for a strategy to tackle Iran, so when will this come forward? The Government have shared our view that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza, so can we have an update on the practical steps the Government are taking to secure this outcome and end the misery that Hamas are inflicting on Gaza and the threat they pose to Israel?

We have debated aid access to Gaza on several occasions, including in recent days, so can the Minister tell us exactly how much UK-funded aid, both directly and indirectly through multilateral organisations, is waiting to enter Gaza and give us a breakdown of what that aid is? The Government have known for a number of months about the concerns Israel has about the delivery of aid to Gaza and aid diversion, so can the Minister today explain what discussions have taken place with Israel, and what practical solutions Ministers have offered to support the delivery of aid that addresses its concerns? Has the Minister been directly engaged in the discussions that have taken place with Israel and the US over alternative ways to get aid into Gaza? Does he have a view on this and will the UK be participating?

We have also been clear that while we continue to press for humanitarian aid and accountability, we do not consider the actions in Gaza to constitute genocide. The case brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice is not helping—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can we please stick to the time? The right hon. Lady is almost a minute over. We have to work within the timescales, and Members need to time speeches. Lots of Members need to get in, and we have to support each other. I think the Minister has enough to go on.

[Mr Falconer]

I of course welcome, as the Foreign Secretary did yesterday, the release of Edan Alexander. I know the whole House thinks of those hostages who remain in Hamas captivity. I have been in direct contact with the American officials involved in that release, and it is a very welcome development. We are focused on ensuring that there is no role for Hamas in a future for Gaza. We are working as part of the Arab reconstruction plan to try to achieve that.

The right hon. Lady asks an important question about the proportion of British aid unable to get into Gaza at the moment. For almost two months, the horrendous answer is 100%. Even before then, there were significant restrictions on the aid that we wish to get into Gaza. I saw for myself the items that were unable to cross from al-Arish into Rafah. The proportions will be very high, but I will see with my officials whether I can break it down in greater detail for her.

[Mr Falconer]

I know the strength of feeling behind my hon. Friend’s words. I am sure she is aware of the findings of the IPC report on Monday, which delineates in great detail the precise suffering being felt because of a lack of food and nutrition. We are horrified by those findings. The need for action could not be more urgent.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza, now exceeding 70 days, is utterly unacceptable. Will the Government now recognise that the blockade constitutes a clear violation of international law? The Government must respect whatever determination the ICJ reaches regarding genocide. There are already clear obligations on the Government to prevent genocide in Gaza arising from the ICJ’s January 2024 order. Have the Government taken any steps to meet those obligations? Will they commit today to banning the export of all UK arms to Israel? Will they reconsider sanctions on extremist Israeli Ministers like Bezalel Smotrich, who called for Gaza to be destroyed? Will the Government commit to the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state? As the UN’s British relief chief told the Security Council yesterday, if we have not done all we could to end the violence in Gaza, we should fear the judgment of future generations. Does the Minister agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

The question of recognition of a Palestinian state is obviously one of vital importance. We want to do so as a contribution to a more stable region. We can see the serious and immediate threats to the viability of Palestinian life, and that is what we are focused on in these most urgent of days.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have been a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel for over 40 years, longer than anybody here. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organisation that hides its own fighters under hospitals, but it is frankly unacceptable to recklessly bomb a hospital. It is unacceptable to starve a whole people. Is the Minister aware that many Friends of Israel worldwide, notwithstanding narrow legal definitions, are asking this moral question: when is genocide not genocide?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I think I was clear about the Government’s expectations in my previous answer. Those expectations are grounded in Israel’s international legal obligations. Ultimately, this is a week of diplomacy: the President of the United States will be in the region, and we will raise these issues in the Security Council. I hope that diplomacy will be able to make progress towards a ceasefire and the restoration of aid.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Gaza has been starved of humanitarian aid for over 70 days now. Ministers have repeatedly expressed their disappointment, but there is no evidence that the Israeli Government are listening or have any intention of reopening the supply routes. In March, the Foreign Secretary withdrew his assessment that the blockade is a breach of international law. Will the Minister state how many days the blockade must continue before the Government recognise it as a breach of international law? To make clear the UK’s support for Palestine’s right to self-determination and opposition to the extremist policy of annexation by force, will the Government commit to working with France towards the joint recognition of the state of Palestine at the conference next month?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, it is absolutely for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, and of course it must in the end take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. But all of us have a responsibility to condemn terrorism wherever it occurs: 26 innocent people being stripped and shot is intolerable and of course we condemn it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

We all welcome the easing of tensions between India and Pakistan over the weekend, and our thoughts continue to be with those affected by this shocking terrorist atrocity. The House will be aware of the ongoing presence of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, and that should be a concern for all of us. Last week at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), commented that he had held discussions with his Pakistani counterpart on this very issue. What further discussions have taken place to secure commitments from the Pakistani Government that they will dismantle terrorist infrastructure, and what role will Britain play in supporting the removal of terrorist threats within Pakistan, because that is what will improve stability and security in the region?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

Iran is now producing roughly one significant quantity of highly enriched uranium every six weeks. That is 40 times above the limit in the joint comprehensive plan of action—the deal that we struck with Iran, which I have in front of me. I am really crystal clear about this. Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon; it must reverse its escalations—we have seen that in its enrichment programme; it must not carry out any critical weaponisation work; and these terms have to be fully verifiable. Unless we get that, we will see a snapback of the sanctions regime that we struck with it 10 years ago.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The regime in Tehran is responsible for so much of the appalling bloodshed and conflict in the middle east. It poses a direct threat to Britain and on British soil, as we have seen from the recent arrests of Iranian nationals in counter-terrorism operations. Has the Foreign Secretary summoned the Iranian ambassador to express concerns and to explain what has been going on on British soil? What discussions have taken place with our allies in addition to the nuclear talks that he has just referred to? What is the position of our partners in the region on the very specific threats that Iran is posing and demonstrating with its dissidents on UK soil? When will the Government come forward with a comprehensive and clear strategy on dealing with Iran?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

We have an excellent programme called Education Cannot Wait, which in 2024 provided £12 million in first emergency response grants covering not just the educational needs but the psychosocial needs of those affected by conflict and trauma.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

We know that education can make a real difference to a girl’s life chances, which is why the last Conservative Government committed to ensuring that every girl has access to quality education. However, we will now be spending less on development, so can the Minister give clarity on the commitments that the Government are making to support women and girls over the next few years? Which programmes will be kept and which will be cut, and how much will be invested in those programmes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I was very pleased to be with other European Foreign Ministers in Lviv to support the special tribunal and be crystal clear that those who have prosecuted this war must attest and be accountable for their actions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Ukrainians continue bravely to resist Russia’s war machine, yet President Trump continues to indulge in the fantasy that Putin is serious about peace. The UK needs to maintain clear leadership in the face of Trump’s unreliability. In the Foreign Secretary’s response to me in March, he said that the UK wanted to pursue the seizure of frozen Russian assets, but that Belgium and Germany were blockers. I listened carefully to the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne), and he spoke about multilateralism. What conversations on this issue has he had with his counterparts in Belgium and Germany since March, and when will the point come when the UK shows leadership, calls time and leads from the front by seizing Russian assets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is quite right to push the Government on this issue, and the FCDO will redouble our efforts in this place to make sure that we do the necessary work to conclude the legal process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The UK is a world leader in protecting marine environments, particularly around the British Overseas Territories, but tragically that reputation will be trashed when Labour surrenders to Mauritius one of the most important marine protected areas around the British Indian Ocean Territory. While Mauritian fisheries Ministers have been pledging to issue fishing and trawler licences for those waters, Labour Ministers have given no assurances about future protections, and have just made vague comments on working with Mauritius on a new MPA. Can the Minister state if the proposed treaty will have any guaranteed protections in place? Will she confirm what was said in a legal letter to British Chagossians—that their right of return is not guaranteed? Surely that would be a total betrayal.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

My hon. Friend has long been an advocate on these issues. We emphasise the necessity of demonstrating commitment to the protection of human rights in all our engagements with the Syrian Government. Our public statements have also made it clear that civilians must be protected from violence, and those responsible held to account. The protection of all civilians and their full inclusion in the transition process is vital for peace in Syria.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Can the Foreign Secretary explain specifically what the UK is getting in return from China, having been China’s biggest cheerleader in Europe? Has China committed to stop threatening people on British soil? Has he received any new commitments from China on its adherence to the Sino-British declaration to uphold freedoms in Hong Kong, particularly with all the pernicious and malicious Chinese activities in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

T5. I welcome that the UK Government are to convene an urgent session of the UN Security Council this afternoon to discuss the food situation in Gaza. Will Ministers ensure that Dame Barbara Woodward takes a message from my constituents, including Mairi MacKinnon, Ian Stephen, Louise Scullion and Malcolm MacLean, who expressed their disgust and condemnation of the Israeli Government using food as a weapon of war? There are 71,000 children in Gaza. Will he ensure that that message is heard in New York?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Come on—there are other people here. Please help them.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for transmitting his constituents’ concerns, which I know are felt widely across this House. I can confirm that our permanent representative in New York will be expressing the full force of our views, as we heard earlier in this session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

As I said last week, we are opposed to an expansion of Israel’s military operation. I was also asked about the Israeli Finance Minister’s comments about the destruction of Gaza—comments that I had not seen at the time. I have since seen them and I condemn them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Alistair Carmichael.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T9. I apologise, Mr Speaker; I had not realised that my name was on the Order Paper.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Matthew Patrick.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

On Sunday, I had the honour of meeting Emily Damari. She told me about her good friends, Ziv and Gali Berman, who remain in captivity. It is so clear to me that no hostage will be free until all hostages are free. Hamas footage at the weekend serves only to deliver more torment to the families. Will the Minister set out, before the 600 day-anniversary later this month of the 7 October attacks, the steps he will be taking to ensure humanitarian access for those hostages?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

In many ways, that question is better put to President Trump and I do not want to speak for him. None the less, I am pleased that the United Kingdom was the first country to strike a trade agreement with the United States. Many international partners are now ringing us up to ask us how we did it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I know that a lot is going on, but the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty is important. It is about our blue planet and our oceans, in which we used to have a leadership position. When we were leading it, 115 countries signed that treaty, but it needs to be ratified as well, and very few countries are ratifying it, including Britain. When we asked the Government about it, they said that it was because they did not have enough time. Have they dropped the ball, is there a Bill, will we ratify it, and will we ratify it before the UN Oceans Conference?

India-Pakistan: Escalation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on India and Pakistan. The whole House will have been closely following developments in recent weeks following the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam on 22 April, which left 26 tourists dead. Last night, soon after 21.00 British summer time, Indian forces launched missile strikes against nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. The Government of India have described their actions as

“measured, non-escalatory, proportionate and responsible”,

and deliberately targeted at terrorist infrastructure. Following India’s actions last night, a military spokesperson for Pakistan stated that 26 Pakistanis have died and 46 were injured, including civilians and children. The Pakistani Government, at a meeting of their national security council earlier today, stated that they reserve the right to respond in a manner of their choosing.

This is an incredibly delicate moment in an evolving and fast-moving situation. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister noted just now, rising tensions between India and Pakistan are a serious concern. The Government have been monitoring the situation closely and staying in close contact with all the key partners. Since the developments overnight, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with both the Indian External Affairs Minister Jaishankar, and the Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Dar. Our high commissioners in Delhi and Islamabad have also been in close contact with their hosts. This morning, I met the Pakistani Finance Minister Aurangzeb. The Foreign Secretary has also been co-ordinating closely with other partners, notably the United States and the Gulf.

Our consistent message to both India and Pakistan has been to show restraint. They need to engage in dialogue to find a swift, diplomatic path forward. The UK has a close and unique relationship with both countries. It is heartbreaking to see civilian lives being lost. If this escalates further, nobody wins. We clearly condemned the horrific terrorist attack last month, which was the worst such attack in Indian-administered Kashmir for many years. Now, we need all sides to focus urgently on the steps needed to restore regional stability and ensure the protection of civilians. The UK will continue to work closely with our international partners in pursuit of short-term de-escalation and longer-term stability. The Foreign Secretary will have a chance to discuss the situation with EU Foreign Ministers in Warsaw today. He and the whole Government will stay in close touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan, as well as with those with influence in the region.

De-escalation is of the utmost importance, not least given the large number of British nationals in the region. The safety of British nationals will always be our priority. Overnight, we issued factual updates to our travel advice for both India and Pakistan, updating British nationals on military activity and potential disruption to flights in the region. British nationals in both India and Pakistan should stay up to date with our travel advice and follow the advice of the local authorities.

I am acutely aware that for many communities across the UK, and indeed Members across the House, this is a personal and sensitive situation. The British-Pakistani and British-Indian communities make a huge contribution to this country. We recognise that this will be a difficult time for many. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread the message that now is a time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences. We now need to see calm heads. Britain will continue to play its full part for de-escalation and diplomacy. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

Kashmir: Increasing Tension

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

The horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April was devastating. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must sit down, because the Minister is on his feet replying.

[Mr Falconer]

Our thoughts are with those affected, their loved ones and, of course, the people of India. This attack left 26 people dead, most of whom, we understand, were tourists travelling to the region. Following the attack, India has announced a number of diplomatic measures against Pakistan, and Pakistan has reciprocated. The official UK travel advice for Indian-administered Kashmir continues to advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir, except for travel by air to the city of Jammu, travel within the city, and travel within the union territory of Ladakh.

This is a very sensitive situation, with real risks to regional and wider stability. Understandably, there has been huge interest within UK communities. Kashmir has been a flashpoint for conflict between India and Pakistan many times over previous decades. The Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Modi on 25 April to express his condolences on behalf of the British people. The UK condemns all forms of terrorism and the extremism that sustains it, wherever it occurs. The Foreign Secretary spoke to India’s External Affairs Minister Jaishankar on 27 April to pass on the UK’s condolences and to express the UK Government’s support to the Indian people at this difficult time. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken over the weekend to Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar.

Heightened tensions between India and Pakistan inevitably raise concerns about escalation. Effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region are essential. The UK supported the UN Security Council press statement on 25 April, which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution. We will continue to monitor the situation closely through our high commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on these questions. I am sure that the whole House shares his horror at the details of this incident—the targeting of the victims and the way in which it was carried out.

First, I will address the scenes on UK streets. We are aware of reports of the video that my hon. Friend refers to; the Metropolitan police are investigating, so I will not provide any further commentary on that particular incident, but it is obviously concerning. We take seriously our responsibility for the security of all embassies and high commissions under the Vienna convention, so both the Pakistani and Indian high commissions will receive all the support of the UK state to ensure that they stay safe. As my hon. Friend has said, and as I know many in this House feel, these issues have long been discussed with passion on British streets. We call on all sides, all community leaders and all involved to call for calm at a time of tension in the region.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) for securing the question and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who also requested a question on this topic today, for the support he has given to India.

My condolences, thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the murderous violent terrorism that has taken place in Pahalgam. I recognise that for India and the diaspora communities—those in the UK in particular—this has been a really difficult week. This was an act of terrorism, and we should call it out for exactly what it is. It is part of a long-standing pattern of attacks on civilians, visitors to the region and minority communities, and the UK must always stand with our friends during times of this nature.

We have a series of long-standing security and counter-terrorism partnerships with India, going back to the New Delhi declaration in 2002 and including the India-UK strategic partnership in 2016, the comprehensive strategic partnership announced in 2022, and the UK-India 2030 road map agreed under the last Government. Under those partnerships, security issues have been absolutely watertight, which is why we must always be in lockstep with our friends in India.

Can the Minister tell us what information the UK Government have on those responsible for carrying out these terrorist attacks? Do the Government believe that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group proscribed in the UK, bear responsibility? Are the Government aware of any cross-border links to Pakistan among the perpetrators of this terrorist act? Given that attacks seem to take place at the same time as high-profile US politicians visit India—this is not the first time—do the Government have a view on whether this is a coincidence, or whether it demonstrates a pattern of targeted and deliberately timed attacks?

We know that the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week, but has the UK provided any specific support in response to this terror attack or taken any practical steps to assist our friends in India? Have the Government undertaken an assessment of the security implications of this attack for the UK? If Lashkar-e-Taiba or a front linked to them are responsible, it should be noted that disturbing reports are emerging that this terrorist group may have had engagement with Hamas. Have the Government made an assessment of the relationship between groups causing terror and destabilisation in Kashmir and those pursuing violence and terrorism that threaten our interests and global peace and security?

Finally, can the Minister give an update on the actions being taken to prevent tensions from escalating among communities in the UK—including protections for the high commissions, which have already been mentioned—and will the UK leverage its influence to ease tensions between India and Pakistan?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

This escalation is unsettling for communities within the UK. British Pakistanis and British Indians are valued parts of our community, but we look to all community and faith leaders to spread the message that now is the time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences, not to play out the tensions between two states on the streets of the UK, and we will continue to send that message.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I associate myself with the comments that have already made, reflecting on the grief of the communities torn apart last week. Tuesday’s horrific murders were utterly devastating, and those responsible must face the full weight of the law. The escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan is alarming, as are reports of incidents of fire being exchanged by soldiers at the border, and it threatens to destabilise the entire region. It is vital that leaders in both countries commit to an open dialogue and wider efforts to de-escalate. We hope that that includes India committing to reinstate the Indus waters treaty, the suspension of which threatens water access for Pakistanis, and Pakistan reopening its airspace to Indian-owned airlines.

The UK must engage with both Governments and encourage a return to dialogue and a retreat from retaliatory action to ensure that decisions taken in the wake of Tuesday’s horrific attack do not endanger more lives. Can the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with officials in New Delhi on reinstating the Indus waters treaty and with officials in Islamabad on reopening its airspace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, I asked the Minister to tell Members of the House who were playing the politics of communalism to stop playing with fire. He not only failed to do so, but attacked me for observing the undoubted tensions and sometimes even violence that take place here as foreign conflicts are played out in this country. Can you advise me on whether the Minister can withdraw this attack? If he simply misheard my question, can he be allowed to answer it now? This is a very serious issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, would you like to respond?

[Mr Falconer]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As I understood the question, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that there had been too much immigration from, presumably, both India and Pakistan over the last period, and that that was leading to communalism within constituencies across the country. This Government —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is not going to carry on speaking from a sedentary position.

[Mr Falconer]

I have been absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box that I do not want to see any communal tensions in the UK. I have repeatedly called for calm. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he believes that too much immigration has led to these—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Obviously, we are not going to get anywhere like this. Sit down, Minister. I am not responsible for the answers that the Minister makes. I am sure that this matter will not rest there, but it will have to rest for now because we are moving on to the next urgent question.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I utterly condemn the sanctioning of Members of this House, including my hon. Friend. I am on that list too, as are many other Members, and it is completely unacceptable; we are clear on that. My hon. Friend rightly points out examples of Russia’s actions in recent days—the horrific attacks, the deaths, the killing, the continued aggression—and of course Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Overnight, Russia launched 11 ballistic missiles and nearly 200 cruise missiles and drones at civilian targets in Kyiv. Yesterday’s talks in London should have been an opportunity to strengthen the western coalition’s support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s barbarism. Instead, they were derailed by President Trump, who, in a petulant response to President Zelensky’s refusal to countenance the recognition of Crimea as Russian, withdrew his Secretary of State and special adviser from the meeting. President Trump demonstrated that he is not interested in securing a just peace that can deter future Russian aggression and protect Ukraine’s right to self-determination. Instead, he is intent on securing a carve-up of Ukraine with Putin, as long as it is agreed before the 100th day of his presidency. Will the Minister make clear to his US counterpart that the apparent ultimatum shared with President Zelensky last week, which would deliver to Putin most of the goals of his illegal invasion, is utterly wrong and would only embolden future Russian aggression? I too yesterday found myself on a list of MPs from across the House who are being sanctioned by the Kremlin. Will the Government outline how they plan to support Members who are being targeted for speaking out?

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Lady asked a series of important questions. As I have said to the House on a number of occasions, determinations of breaches of international law are for competent courts and we support those courts in their work.

On weapons, I want to be clear that we continue to stand by the assessments that we made soberly in September and the suspension of licenses that that involved. The hon. Lady asked about the UK’s view on a permanent presence in Gaza. I am happy to restate our policy now. We welcome the proposal by Arab nations, called the Arab initiative, which would allow for a reconstruction of Gaza, the safe return of Palestinians who have been displaced, and for those remaining in Gaza to rebuild their lives without forced displacement, which we oppose.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

We have had several urgent questions and statements on Gaza over the last few months. Each time, I have come to the Chamber and asked the Government: what is plan B? What is plan B when Israel ends the ceasefire, which is what has happened? What is plan B when Israel’s far-right Government choose their survival over the lives of the remaining hostages, which is what seems to have happened? What is plan B when annexation of either the west bank or Gaza is not just threatened but actually happens, which is what is happening now? My question is this: what are the Government doing to turn our allies’ heads from American trade wars and towards the tragedy unfolding in the middle east, to do whatever they can to restore a ceasefire and the road to peace?

[Mr Falconer]

My right hon. Friend, who has been pressing on these issues for some time, is right to raise those questions. She asks whether there is a plan B. In all of my experience, there can be no plan B in Israel-Palestine; there is only one route, which is widely understood by our allies in the region and beyond, and it must be a two-state solution. The route to a two-state solution must involve compliance with international humanitarian law.

It is clear even from the short exchange that we have already had in the Chamber that the British Government’s policy and the Israeli Government’s policy differ. They will continue to differ until we return to a pathway to a two-state solution. There is no plan B. Our plan A is for a two-state solution, and we will work with our allies in the region, on the Security Council—as we did on Friday—and closer to home in order to pursue those arguments.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. This is clearly a difficult and dangerous moment for the middle east. A way must be found through the dreadful impasse that has led to the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.

As has been said time and again, the key to a sustainable end to the conflict is the release of the remaining 59 hostages so cruelly held by Hamas terrorists since the atrocities of 7 October. Their continued captivity is intolerable. The British Government should be able to bring their influence to bear, and the Foreign Secretary should be directly involved in all efforts to find a way through, working with Israeli counterparts, the US and key regional players and mediator countries. We said that in the Chamber yesterday.

The Minister stated yesterday, as he has today, that the Government are

“in regular contact with all those involved in negotiations.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 147.]

That includes the Foreign Secretary, who spoke to his Israeli counterpart last week. Will the Minister inform the House what direct Minister-to-Minister discussions have taken place about the current military operations? Were Ministers informed in advance, and have they been given any information about the objectives that Israel is seeking?

Every week we come here to ask questions of Ministers, and it is unclear exactly what level of influence the Government have. What is the Government’s plan? What is their vision of a way through? What discussions have they had in recent days with vital interlocutors?

On humanitarian aid, does the Minister feel that he has made any progress in his efforts to try to unblock the current aid access situation? We have spoken about this many times. Will he update the House on what has been happening to British aid while the restrictions remain? Where is that aid?

It was the Conservatives’ position when in government, as indeed it is now the position of the Labour Government, that there can be no role for Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists in Gaza’s future. Will the Minister be proposing to our critical partners a road map for how this will end and how that future will become a reality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has been fearless and persistent on those questions. I do condemn the comments of Israeli Ministers which amount to forced displacement or the annexation of Palestinian territories. We recognise international humanitarian law and call on all our allies, including Israel, also to abide by it. The scenes in Gaza in recent days have been hard to watch, and we will continue to make those points to the Israelis with all the force that my hon. Friend would expect.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Israel’s expansion of military activity in Gaza, including a strike on UN medical facilities, displacement of civilians and the Defence Minister’s new proposal to seize large swathes of territory is gravely disturbing. It seems that international humanitarian law is being violated. This week’s reports that the Israel Defence Forces killed and buried 15 humanitarian workers in a mass grave is also appalling. The ceasefire must be restored. Israel must immediately end its illegal blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza to bring desperately needed relief to 2 million people who have suffered enormously. Hamas must also release the remaining hostages immediately and unconditionally.

Will the Minister update the House on the conversations he is having with Israeli, American and middle eastern partners regarding the restoration of the ceasefire? All sides must recommit to a political process. He says that there is only one route, so I ask him once again: will this Government now recognise a Palestinian state, giving hope to millions of Palestinians? Will he also outline what the UK is doing to hold those who attack aid workers in violation of international humanitarian law accountable and to protect those aid workers who remain in Gaza?

British Indian Ocean Territory

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I share my hon. Friend’s bafflement. With so many issues going on in the world, I do question the number of times this one has been raised. We have answered all the questions before. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of the deal. It is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. Once signed, it will protect the base on Diego Garcia, which was under threat, and cement the presence of the UK and the US in the Indo-Pacific.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Following yesterday’s intervention by President Trump, it appears that the White House has the final say on the future of sovereign British territory. Meanwhile, the Chagossians continue to be ignored. The process of securing the deal has been shambolic. Chagossians have been denied their right to a say, and it is shameful how they have been treated. Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to ensure that the Chagossians are finally included in discussions at this eleventh hour of the negotiations?

Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government seem to be willing, reportedly, to negotiate such significant payments to Mauritius at a time when winter fuel payments have been scrapped.

The confected consternation of the Conservatives is also bemusing, given that it was their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement. As the Minister confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security. Can he confirm when that will happen and that this House will have a vote on any final deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Is it relevant to the questions we have just had?

[Amanda Martin]

It is linked to the comments of the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). In her question to the Minister, she noted that the winter fuel payment had been scrapped. This is simply not true. The winter fuel payment has not been scrapped, it has been means-tested, and to say otherwise is misleading. It is similar to when the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition Government means-tested child benefit—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we have got the gist; it is a point of clarification rather than a point of order, and the hon. Lady has got it on the record. Let us move on.