Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson]

I note that the Health and Social Care Committee and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) have undertaken a report, so they will advise us on that issue. [Interruption.] I am aware that I need to finish, so I urge hon. Members to support the amendments of my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) to ensure that we do not allow the Bill to implement sweeping Henry VIII powers on such a sensitive and important issue, and to ensure that we collect, through new schedule 2, important monitoring data on how any assisted dying or death service will operate. We need transparency.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 15 and amendment 54, and against new clause 5. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, new clause 15 would not classify a death under the Bill as suspicious or unexpected, so a full coroner’s inquest would not be needed.

If the Bill becomes law, assisted dying would be a legal, strictly regulated and well monitored choice made freely by the individual concerned. To be absolutely clear to hon. Members, it is not assisted suicide. The Bill concerns people who want to live but who, faced with an inevitable, irreversible and terminal diagnosis, want choice over the manner of their death. That is an important choice that removes some of the trauma and anxiety for not only the patients but their family and loved ones. New clause 15 and its consequential amendment 54 will ensure that families who are naturally grieving the loss of their loved one are not needlessly subjected to an invasive coroner’s investigation.

[Dr Opher]

It is important to realise that if there are any suspicions around an assisted death, a coroner can still be involved. The new clause does not exclude that, but it stops the automatic referral to a coroner.

[Lloyd Hatton]

I share my hon. Friend’s sentiment. I firmly believe that we should protect bereaved families against such a distressing ordeal happening automatically, particularly when the process, as set out in the Bill, will already be legal and transparent.

With that in mind, it makes practical sense to support new clause 15. If we pass legislation to permit assisted dying with the full weight of the law behind it, we must also respect that choice in the way that we classify and record such deaths. Those deaths would not be in any way unexpected or suspicious, so to classify them as such would simply be inaccurate.

As has already been touched on in great detail today, if the Bill is passed, it would implement the most robust assisted dying framework anywhere in the world. It already includes multiple layers of oversight. In my view, the process is cautious, thorough and robustly safeguarded. A retrospective investigation would be to duplicate the process, and risks suggesting wrongdoing when none has occurred.

[Anna Dixon]

I wonder what my hon. Friend’s view is of the opinion of the Royal College of Pathologists—the body responsible for medical examiners—which is that:

“deaths following assisted dying should be notified to the coroner, just as other deaths following the administration of drugs, prescribed or not, must be.”

[Lloyd Hatton]

I respectfully disagree with that position. I believe that there are already levels of safeguarding in the legislation.

New clause 15 is a compassionate and practical clause that would ensure the law works not only with the individual making the choice, but for the family they leave behind.

I move now to speak briefly on new clause 5, which I would strongly encourage Members to vote against. Tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), the new clause would require the Government to publish a report on any impact the Bill might have on civil procedure rules and probate proceedings. As has already been pointed out, the chief medical officer has warned that we are at serious risk of creating a “bureaucratic thicket” with this legislation. In my view, new clause 5 would do just that: requiring the Government to publish such a report would create unnecessary bureaucracy and divert resources without adding any material value.

As Members will be aware, the Government have already published an impact assessment on the relevant impacts that they deem the Bill could have. There is nothing in the Bill likely to result in any changes to civil procedure rules, so there is no obvious justification for producing a formal report on that issue. It is important that we remain focused on practical and meaningful safeguards, rather than procedural requirements based on immaterial impacts. Introducing extra reporting requirements based on speculative impacts risks creating unnecessary red tape without delivering any practical benefits. I therefore urge Members to reject new clause 5 and accept that no additional reporting in that area is needed.

As we rightly scrutinise the Bill today, on top of nearly 97 hours of scrutiny so far, which is more than many Government Bills receive, we must keep dying people at the centre of the debate. I speak today in support of new clause 15 and its consequential amendment 54 and in opposition to new clause 5 for exactly that reason—to keep terminally ill people at the centre of this discussion, and at the centre of this piece of legislation. No matter where we stand on this pressing matter—whether Members support it or have reservations—it is crucial that we collectively ensure that the Bill is workable, compassionate and truly centred on the dying person. As legislators, that must always be our chief concern.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I rise to support and speak briefly to amendment (a) to amendment 77, tabled by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), and I will speak to new clause 13, amendment 96 and other amendments if time permits.

I was rather confused when I looked at the amendment paper a few days ago and noticed that amendments that would directly impact on Northern Ireland had been tabled. When last I checked, the Bill as a whole extended only to England and Wales, so I find amendments 76 and 77 perplexing. To be clear, health and criminal justice are devolved matters. The people of Northern Ireland elect their own Assembly to make precisely these sensitive decisions, including whether to legislate for assisted suicide, which is an issue of profound moral weight and cultural consequence.

Covid: Fifth Anniversary

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for securing the debate and for his tribute to public service workers.

We should never forget that in places like Edinburgh, everyone—from bus drivers to bin lorry drivers— took huge risks at the start of the pandemic because the consequences and transmission of the virus were not understood. At this point, I must mention my lovely wife, who worked in end-of-life care as a nurse all the way through, as well as the fantastic Hannah in my office, who worked in a care home.

Covid has not disappeared. The fantastic covid memorial wall across the river from this building tells us that. The number of hearts on it is slowly growing. I hope that, when she responds, the Minister will give us an update on any plans to make the memorial permanent and acknowledge the fantastic work of the friends of the wall.

Covid has not gone away yet. In one week alone in Scotland last year, 443 people were hospitalised with covid. Long covid is now just as prevalent as strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing up long covid. The organisation Long Covid Kids, which was founded by my constituent Sammie McFarland, highlights the experience of young people with long covid. Does he agree that we must ensure we give long covid the consideration it needs alongside other illnesses when we develop health policy, even though we are five years on from the pandemic?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. I hope I will be able to expand on that in the time I have remaining, but that organisation sounds fantastic, so I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning it.

One of the most powerful things about being an MP is the people we meet, particularly in our constituencies. One of those people is Sophie, who attended my surgery in the fantastic Fountainbridge library. Her story starkly portrays the reality of living with long covid. Sophie enjoyed a full and active life before the pandemic. She used to run to her office in the mornings, where she oversaw a small, dedicated team of designers—I am sure she was not too sweaty after her run to work. She now relies on a wheelchair to get around and is largely housebound. She says,

“I am desperate to get back to my career and live again”,

but doctors have been unable to help her.

Sophie is one of a small but growing number of constituents who write to me with stories that highlight the seemingly irreversible impact that a covid infection has had on their lives. With no proven treatments or a cure in sight, we cannot afford to treat covid as old news. We need to keep talking about it, and particularly about those people who are suffering from long covid. It should not be an economic argument, but the impact of long covid on our economy is significant: it is estimated to cost us £4.2 billion up to 2030.

As long as treatment options remain limited and new patients continue to join the thousands already grappling with long covid on a daily basis, we need to do just three things to help them and reduce the burden on our NHS: we need to empathise with those who have this condition and treat it seriously—too often, they are seen as working the system, and I know through the people I have met that that is completely untrue; we need to invest in new trials and research; and we need to recognise that while the threat of covid may have diminished, we have to take it seriously and ensure that vulnerable groups are vaccinated.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I will follow on from my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). I have been meeting a group of clinicians who approached me, led by Dr Rae Duncan, a consultant cardiologist and long-covid physician and researcher at Newcastle hospital. She has provided me with a detailed briefing note; the two-minute limit will not allow me to do any justice to it, so I will circulate it to hon. Members, but its message is very straightforward. The team want to get across the message that covid is not over. It is not seasonal, and it is not just a cold. It is a long-term, substantial and chronic burden.

[Lloyd Hatton]

I will be brief. This is Diabetes Week, and we are rightly looking at the impact that diabetes has on children. Does the right hon. Member agree that a similar approach must be taken for long covid? We must look at the unique impact it has on children and young people, so that we can better understand it.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

NHS Funding: South-west

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In less than a year, this Government have recruited 1,700 new GPs, delivered 3.5 million new appointments and cut waiting lists by more than 200,000. Just today, we heard in the Chamber the good news from the spending review: a record cash investment increase, in real terms, of 3% every year up to 2029, the equivalent of £29 billion extra a year. That will help to put our NHS back on the road to recovery.

In Dorset, we are already seeing the impacts of the investment. Dorset ICB has seen 13,600 extra urgent dental appointments. The public health grant for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council is up from £22 million in 2024-25 to £23.3 million in 2025-26. There have been four surgeries identified for enhancement in Bournemouth, one of which is in my constituency, and the waiting list for University Hospitals Dorset trust is down by 1,715 between July and now.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for setting out so clearly the work this Labour Government are doing to fix our NHS. Will he take the opportunity to welcome the investment of some £100 million being delivered by this Labour Government that will totally rebuild the emergency department and critical care unit at Dorset county hospital? Does he share my belief that fixing the front door of our national health service is essential for driving down waiting lists in Dorset?

[Tom Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I, of course, welcome that investment and it will benefit both his constituents and mine.

We are also seeing significant investments in the Royal Bournemouth hospital. Just yesterday, I was standing on top of the Coast building at the hospital, at the topping-out ceremony. The Coast building will feature 110 new beds across four floors, a larger kitchen and a catering facility. If we look across from the top of that building, we will see the new £91 million Beach building that houses the emergency department from the Royal Bournemouth. Services moved into that building in May, and it will also contain a maternity unit, critical care and a children’s unit, which will be moving in next year.

These developments are all part of a £500 million transformation of University Hospitals Dorset sites, which is much needed and will have a critical impact. These investments across hospitals, and across Dorset, will improve care for the people of our region—for my constituents—and will support our staff, who have been really looking for light at the end of the tunnel after 14 difficult years of Conservative rule, so that they can care for patients in modern, purpose-built facilities.

I would like more. Despite all the investment and the upcoming reform, I would like the funding formula to be changed so that it reflects the age profile of our local area. The south-west and especially areas such as BCP have a much higher older population, but not the funding to match. Our house prices are high but, unlike in Hampshire, UHD staff do not get pay weighting. I would also like to register concerns about proposals to create new subsidiary companies in Dorset and Newcastle. I have called for a pause in those processes, because I have concerns about the terms and conditions. Existing staff who are TUPE-ed into a subco have their existing terms and conditions protected, but I am concerned that when new staff are recruited into subcos, they do not have existing NHS terms and conditions. That could particularly affect lower-paid roles.

In conclusion, I thank the Government for their prioritisation of our NHS. I feel that the NHS is firmly on the path to renewal and is in safe hands.

Parkinson’s Disease

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. Over the last few years, too many patients living with Parkinson’s disease have sadly been left facing unacceptable waits to be diagnosed and treated; they then face further challenges accessing the medication they need. That has ripple effects across our communities—it certainly does in my communities in South Dorset—as the neurological condition impacts not just the person with the diagnosis but their family and loved ones.

Many Members will be very aware from their inboxes that thousands of patients in England—far too many—are on a waiting list for neurological services, and around half are left waiting for more than the NHS target of 18 weeks. That means that the illnesses of many patients may have gone undiagnosed, with their conditions worsening as they wait to be seen by the necessary specialist doctor.

Patients living in coastal communities, including in South Dorset, often encounter specific challenges when accessing healthcare, and they also face higher incidences of long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s. Too often, patients in my community are confronted with a long wait for an appointment with a specialist and a long journey to the nearest major hospital. That problem is compounded by a national shortage of Parkinson’s specialists.

More than 20 constituents have written to me to raise this worrying state of affairs. Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world, and we must do more to support those whose lives have been changed by the disease. I join my constituents in South Dorset and charities such as Parkinson’s UK in their support for the Parky charter. It sets out five principles to improve care for everyone with a Parkinson’s diagnosis. The Home Secretary has rightly pledged to support those principles, which include delivering referrals in under 18 weeks; providing comprehensive information; giving automatic access to free prescriptions; comprehensive care; and increasing funding for research into the condition. On that last point, Parkinson’s is deemed incurable, but it does not have to stay that way. Treatment options are very limited in this country. More funding could certainly enable the development of innovative, life-changing treatments, or even a cure in the longer term.

Progress has already been made on the five points in the Parky charter. This Labour Government have already begun clearing the NHS backlog, with waiting lists down by some 219,000 since July, and I believe that their elective reform plan will mean more neurological appointments every year. By providing extra appointments, scans and operations, in particular at evenings and weekends, the Government can clear the backlog so that everyone is seen within the critical NHS target of 18 weeks.

More broadly, I hope that the Government’s 10-year plan for our NHS will radically reform how people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s disease are treated through the NHS. The Health Secretary’s action to clear the backlog, the 10-year plan and the elective reform plan have begun to improve care for those with Parkinson’s disease, but we can and must go so much further. I hope that today’s debate will galvanise support across the House for the vital mission of ensuring timely diagnosis, comprehensive care and dignity for all people living with Parkinson’s. My constituents and their loved ones and families deserve nothing less.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to shift care from major hospitals into community hospitals.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

On behalf of His Majesty’s Government, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on reaching his 70th birthday—I think you said 70th, Mr Speaker, but I am sure you meant 60th.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), we promised in opposition to transform the NHS into a neighbourhood health service, and we have hit the ground running. As a first step, we have announced the biggest boost to GP funding in years—an extra £889 million—which will recruit 1,000 more GPs. We are delivering 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments, and we have given adult and children’s hospices a once-in-a-generation £100 million funding boost. At the same time, we are delivering our plan for change and have cut waiting lists for five months in a row. Change has begun, but the best is still to come.

[Lloyd Hatton]

I, too, pass on my best wishes to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

In South Dorset we urgently need to restore clinics and shift services back into our community hospitals in Weymouth, Portland, Swanage and Wareham. Sadly, the previous Conservative Government hollowed out those community hospitals, meaning that services left our towns to go further and further up the road. Combined with poor transport links, this means that many local people in my patch find it difficult to access the care they need. With that in mind, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to restore clinics and services in our community hospitals, and will he support my campaign to restore the chemotherapy clinic at Wareham community hospital?

Community Pharmacies: Devon and the South-west

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord]

It is flawed, particularly for those parts of the country that are rural and coastal, such as those represented by my hon. Friend and myself. In Honiton and Sidmouth, the average age of my constituents is 56. I went to a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people last week, and we hosted Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England. He described how, while in some societies people move away from the coast and rural areas to seek comfort and care in towns and cities, in England we do quite the reverse. That makes it even more crucial that we maintain our pharmacies in those rural and coastal communities.

In short, we are calling for the Government to provide funding to halt the closures and stabilise the sector, ensuring that rural communities such as those in Devon are not left behind. We want to see the role of pharmacists expanded to give them greater prescribing rights and allow them to take on bigger public health responsibilities.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

It is really important that we widen the discussion to talk about not only stemming the loss of pharmacies, but how we can put pharmacies back. In the south-west, community hospitals would act as an excellent venue for them. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be looking at community hospitals as a potential venue for new pharmacies, so that they are a bit of a one-stop shop where people can access healthcare and advice?

[Richard Foord]

I think the hon. Gentleman has come up with an absolutely brilliant idea. Community hospitals are potentially hubs where pharmacies might sit in the future. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate; she has done a great thing by doing so.

World AIDS Day

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for that vital point. HIV is a condition that knows no boundaries. It does not affect any one type of person: there is no one community that is alone affected by HIV. It knows no boundaries; it affects everyone.

After 14 difficult years for the health service, we are not on track to reach the 2030 goal. At every single stage of the HIV treatment process, we are missing critical opportunities to get people on PrEP, test for HIV and ensure that everyone living with HIV has the support that they need.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis—we can see why it is called PrEP for short—is an incredible advance in HIV prevention. It is a simple daily pill, now in generic form and therefore incredibly cheap, that prevents HIV completely if taken correctly. I have spoken before about how life-changing a drug it is in removing the fear and stigma of HIV. As a gay man who grew up in the 90s and noughties, the legacy of HIV has always weighed on me and, I am sure, on many others like me. Our sense of self, our sexuality and our relationships were always intertwined with the stigma and presence of HIV. Being able to take PrEP is game-changing, and not just for the individual and their wellbeing: it has a massive public health benefit. It has driven the significant falls in new transmissions, particularly among gay men, who have largely been the people who have accessed the drug to date.

It is unacceptable that the drug is not being accessed by everyone who could benefit. The average wait list for this preventive medicine is 12 weeks. We know from research that people have acquired HIV while waiting to access the drug. That is a significant failure that I hope the new HIV action plan will address, as well as turbocharging access outside sexual health services—the only place where it can currently be accessed. It is entirely wrong that NHS silos are holding back access to PrEP in primary care, including in pharmacy and other settings.

It is also unacceptable that people cannot get a postal test for HIV and sexually transmitted infections in 30% of rural England. It makes no sense that my borough of Hillingdon—not so rural, but on the edge of London—has a completely different postal testing system from the 30 other London boroughs that have their own system. Far too often, the patient is left to navigate complex systems. What test they get will vary depending on where they live. In vast swathes of the country, there is no option to test at home, although sexual health services are often inaccessible and chronically overwhelmed. Far too often, the individual has to fight for an appointment, and only those with the sharpest elbows, or persistence, get access to the sexual health services that they need.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an eloquent speech. The point he makes is really important: in rural and coastal communities, testing services and public health awareness can often feel particularly remote. Looking at how we use primary care, particularly community hospitals and GP surgeries, will be essential to improving testing and public awareness. Does my hon. Friend agree that pushing this out into communities is essential to ensuring that take-up is just as good in a rural or coastal community as it is in a big town or city?

[Danny Beales]

I completely associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments. Particularly in rural settings, if getting to a sexual health service means travelling for miles and sometimes for hours, a lot of people, especially on the lowest incomes, will put off getting the test until another day. Unfortunately, we are seeing persistent rates of late diagnosis and of undiagnosed HIV outside major cities. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

What about those who make it through the complex online systems—the 8 am call queues, only on a Thursday—and actively go out and seek a test, or those who are fortunately now being found in our amazing opt-out testing pilot? If they are diagnosed with HIV, they are not always getting the support that they need to access HIV treatment in the long term.

We have some of the best—if not the best—HIV treatment and specialists in the world. HIV is now a treatable long-term health condition. “U = U. Undetectable = untransmittable.” We need to say that over and over again. In simple terms, it means that when someone is on HIV treatment, they cannot pass HIV on. That is a powerful and life-changing message. Despite the advances, 14,000 people living with HIV in England are essentially lost to the health system. They have been diagnosed with HIV but are not being seen by their clinic because of stigma, poverty and other barriers that are holding them back from getting that life-changing treatment.