Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Carla Lockhart

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not give way because of time.

The new clause would not affect any duty relating to a requirement to provide information. That concern over conscience was raised earlier this week by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in its press release, which announced its opposition to the Bill and set out its concerns that clinicians are still required to signpost patients to information on assisted suicide. It noted:

“For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved”

in the assisted suicide process. New clause 10 will not allay such concerns. When those representing clinicians express such concerns, we ought to listen to them—listen to the professionals. I encourage Members to listen to the royal college and the 250 GPs opposed to the Bill.

Turning to amendment 101, I have a word for our Down’s syndrome community. In a statement published on 9 May, the Down’s Syndrome Research Foundation said:

“We are deeply concerned about the risks of coercion and undue influence. In particular, people with Down’s syndrome and intellectual disabilities are at significant risk of coercion and undue influence, in part because of their need to trust and rely upon caregivers and medical professionals.”

I cannot comprehend why the hon. Member for Spen Valley declined to accept an amendment in Committee that would have provided explicit protections for people with Down’s syndrome. Again, that highlights the flaws and the risk of coercion. The reality is that vulnerable people who are more prone to coercion—for example, people with learning difficulties or a history of depression—have not been explicitly protected in the Bill.

This Bill is not safe and cannot be fixed. It is weaker than it was before the Committee began, and I encourage all concerned Members to recognise that it is flawed and that no amendments or tightening up will ever make it right to legislate to end one’s life with a legal drug.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many people have put in to speak today, and we appreciate the huge challenge to you, chairing this debate, and for the Speaker’s Office. It is normal for private Members’ Bills that the debate continues in an orderly and proper fashion so that everyone can have their say. We appreciate that that is much more challenging in these circumstances, but we have heard many times that we are running out of time, Members are not taking interventions because of concerns about time, and the informal time limit has dropped to five minutes. I am aware that the Front Benchers still need to speak. It is in the power of the Chair, of course, to refuse any suggestion of a closure motion. I would like to ask you whether there is any thinking going on about whether this debate can continue. Many of those who have tabled amendments have not yet been called to speak, and I, for one, would like to hear their points of view.

Retail Workers: Protection

Debate between Meg Hillier and Carla Lockhart

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on securing the debate.

My hon. Friend covered most of the important points, so, given the time, I will cut to the chase. However, it is important for me to put on the record that my constituency, which is in the borough of Hackney, has a high percentage of small businesses. More than 95% of them employ fewer than six people, and a large number of them are retail premises. A lot of them are small, family-run businesses. We pride ourselves on our independent shops, but I also want to focus on employees of larger organisations. As a number of Members highlighted, with more than 50 types of products restricted by law, many small retail premises deal with the frontline interaction between enforcement of the law and people who may not want the law to be enforced.

I have some simple asks of the Government. First, as was highlighted, it is now more than 200 days since the Government closed their call for evidence on violence and abuse towards shop staff. It is estimated that there have been 200,000 incidents of violence towards shop workers in that time. Around 12,500 of those incidents—I am a Labour and Co-operative MP—involved Co-operative colleagues. That is just unacceptable. If that were happening in any other sector, we would be having a hoo-hah in the main Chamber rather than a small, albeit important, debate in Westminster Hall. It is not acceptable that people have to face such abuse when they go to work.

That is not all in the hands of the Government, but I want to touch on what the Government could do. First, they could publish their response to the call for evidence. Even an interim response would help those of us who have an interest in this issue, including the bodies that my hon. Friend named, to get to grips with what can be done practically. We would rather get it right than have the Government wait ages and produce a blueprint that they think is right but that cannot be changed. We must engage from all our different perspectives. We have a shared agenda—I hope—to ensure that the people on the frontline are protected.

Secondly, it should be a legal requirement that shop workers who are employees and lone workers get proper support. If there is an argument for having lone workers—there may be challenges for employers if we suddenly say, “You must always have more than one person there”—proper devices should be available to them. Petrol stations, for example, have well worn routes for this, and bookies also have a process, although it is not always perfect. In many shops, people are very vulnerable: they are often right out there, loading the shelves and very much in the frontline. I do not think lone working is acceptable in most cases, but where it happens there must be proper support, which could be enshrined in law.

Thirdly, there need to be security guards. Big chains and employers should ensure that they have proper security and people trained to deal with conflict. Fourthly, we need more prosecutions. The number of prosecutions is just woeful.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for securing the debate. Last week, just outside my constituency, a lone worker was attacked when gunmen entered Bingham’s shop just outside Katesbridge. Does she agree that there needs to be tougher sentencing and more involvement from the police in setting up provisions for lone workers in shops in rural areas?

[Meg Hillier]

As I have reached the end of my time, I cannot go into any of the horrific examples, but I know all hon. Members are aware of such examples. I completely agree that we need more prosecutions and tougher sentences.