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

Debate between Naz Shah and Kim Leadbeater

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 January) meet—

(a) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 January;

(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 29 January;

(c) at 11.30 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 30 January.

(2) during further proceedings on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Committee do meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays while the House is sitting at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm.

(3) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

[Naz Shah]

I beg to move manuscript amendment (b), after “General Medical Council”, insert “, Royal College of Psychiatrists”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

By adding Karon Monaghan KC, an eminent equality and human rights law barrister, amendment (e) would add balance among the lawyers in the Committee. I would also like to add James Munby, or someone from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, because we need someone who can speak to court capacity issues in relation to the Bill. Professor Katherine Sleeman is a great expert on all these matters.

I am going through the list, and I am unclear what the Australian MP would add. If we remove the other two, there are other pro-AD Australian experts who will speak instead. If we replace those three, who are experts from—

[Kim Leadbeater]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend has just mentioned two names that are not in her amendment, and I find that slightly confusing.

[Naz Shah]

These are replacements of the words in your paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank colleagues for their time this afternoon. It has been an extremely productive session. I am very proud of the tone of the debate: I think we have done a very good job, as we did on Second Reading, of showing this place in a good light.

I reiterate that there are a range of views in this Bill Committee, in the same way that there are a range of views across the House on this significant and deeply emotive issue. There are a range of views among the witnesses we will hear from, and I spent a huge amount of time ensuring that. Colleagues have given me more than 100 names of people they might like to hear from. I had my own list of people I would like to hear from, and many of them are not on the list of those who will give oral evidence.

I have tried to be extremely balanced, so we will hear from people with a range of views and opinions, but most importantly we will hear from people with expertise. That is the purpose of the Committee: to hear from people who can advise us on the detail of the Bill. We will go through this Bill line by line, and we need to hear from people who can help us to do that. We have some fantastic expertise on the Committee, but for many of us there are areas that we need to learn more about. It is important that the witnesses give us the information to enable us to do that, rather than—as numerous colleagues have said—once again going over the fundamental principles around assisted dying, because we did an excellent job of that on Second Reading.

At the end of our endeavours, we will produce a piece of legislation that will be re-presented to the House, and colleagues will again have the opportunity to vote on it however they see fit. There may be people in this room who vote differently from how they voted on Second Reading; there may be colleagues out there who do likewise, one way or the other.

I am very clear about this Committee’s role, which is to work on the Bill together, collegiately and collaboratively, irrespective of our different views, and re-present it to the House so that the House can continue to do its job. It is not just the Commons; the Lords will also have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and table amendments. I have always been open about the fact that this is about us working together. Where the Bill needs to be amended to make it more robust and alleviate people’s concerns, whether that is around coercion or capacity, that is now the Committee’s job. I stand ready to serve and to do that.

We have spent a lot of time this afternoon on this, and quite rightly so. As far as I am concerned, we are now in a position to move forward. I am very happy that we will hear from so many witnesses over several days, and I am happy that I have added more time to that so that we can hear from more witnesses, which I think is important. As colleagues have said, our job now is to get on with this really important piece of work.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the promoter of this Bill, because she has been very helpful. She has certainly added one of my key witnesses to her list, and I am grateful for that.

I want to respond to some of the points that have been made. One of the biggest issues for me is amendment (b), which would insert “Royal College of Psychiatrists”. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made the point that all psychiatrists come under the GMC, but not every member of the GMC is a psychiatrist. That speaks to the issue of coercion, mental health and capacity. That is the expertise that I am looking for in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, and I would really like to hear from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

I am happy to be guided by you, Sir Roger, because I am new to this process and I have not done a Bill of this nature before, but my only worry with the outside evidence and briefings is that they will not be on the record when we are looking at Hansard and seeing whether they have been taken into account. I would be happy to receive some assurance about that. Yes, we can organise lots of briefings and lots of experts, but does that not defeat the object of having this debate so robustly in the first instance?

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the issue of language, and the point about added value. I think that language is correct, because I do want to add value to this debate. I want value added, because it is important for my constituents that when I vote on the Bill on Report, I do so knowing that I have listened to all sides of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked whether this is a for-and-against argument. In particular, he said that we do not need to hear from those who are opposed, because we want to strengthen the Bill so that it can go through the House. Although I appreciate the sentiment, I put it to everyone that it is not about getting the Bill through; it is about getting the right information so we can scrutinise whether it is fit to go through the House. For that reason, it is important to hear from those who are opposed. It is naive to think that we only need to hear from people who are in support.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Debate between Naz Shah and Kim Leadbeater

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the scandalous way that the proud Yorkshire city of Bradford—a place close to my heart, having worked there for more than a decade—has been let down yet again. Would she also agree that for the towns and villages in my constituency of Batley and Spen, we need more detail on the stopping patterns at intermediate stations? Faster trains between cities on existing lines do nothing to free up the capacity that we desperately need.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with the valid points she makes.

Campaigners say that it was quicker to travel to places from Bradford on a steam train than it is on today’s network. The Edwardians could get on a train from Bradford to Wakefield and it would take 30 minutes. Today, it is 48 minutes. Bradford is Britain’s seventh biggest city, with the youngest population, and it is the worst connected major city in the UK. We were promised a through line and were betrayed by this Government. Only a few weeks ago, at the annual Bradford chamber of commerce dinner, the new president Victoria Wainwright said, “This isn’t the end of the line for business in Bradford; it’s never the end of the line for Bradford”, because despite the failure, neglect, and contempt that this Government have shown towards Bradford and its people, Bradford is still reaching new heights.

Bradford is the only city outside London that has two FTSE 100 companies—Bradford & Bingley and Provident Financial. We are proud to have in Bradford the headquarters of Morrisons, one of the country’s largest supermarkets. Najam Kidwai, who is from Bradford, today listed a company on NASDAQ that is five times over-subscribed with more than $1 billion in share orders. We have curries that Lahore and New Delhi struggle to compete with and milkshakes that have been tried and tested by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. We have the Bradford literature festival, which is the most diverse festival in Europe, and we are bidding to be the city of culture, because, among other things, Bradford has one of the largest collections of David Hockney’s work, is a UNESCO city of film and has a world heritage site.

I end by asking hon. Members to imagine the potential that Bradford could unlock if the Government supported it and it got its fair share—I would be happy to work on a non-partisan basis with the Government on that. With the transport investment alone, we would have unlocked a £30 billion economic boost to the region within a decade; brought more than 6.5 million people to the city; created 27,000 jobs; generated a 10% uplift in land value; and unlocked 1.3 million additional accessible jobs within 90 minutes of Bradford.

When I was growing up, I knew my mother had been down to town because she used to walk through Rackhams and try on all the nice perfumes—a bit like people do in Selfridges these days. That is what Bradford used to have, and it deserves to be back at its best, not just for Bradford, but for the whole of the north.

The litmus test of levelling up is levelling up for Bradford. I am grateful to my friends, the hon. Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), who have supported NPR, but the Government have failed. It is time for the Government to remove the iron gate in front of Bradford. They need to support us, invest and allow Bradford to unlock its full potential.