Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This House is now faced with a responsibility as profound as it is complex: to ensure that this Bill remains clear in its purpose, cautious in its application and compassionate in its impact. That purpose is simple, yet solemn: to grant adults of sound mind with a terminal diagnosis the legal right to seek assistance to end their lives in carefully regulated circumstances through a legal framework in which compassion and control co-exist. With that in mind, I rise to speak against new clauses 1, 2 and 9, which, while no doubt well intentioned, threaten to confuse, dilute or duplicate what is already a well-constructed piece of legislation.

I begin with new clauses 1 and 2. New clause 1 would prohibit healthcare professionals from raising the topic of assisted dying unless it is first broached by the patient. While that may be appealing superficially as a safeguard, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctor-patient relationship. We trust our clinicians every day to raise subjects of great complexity and moral weight.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, unfortunately, some of our constituents up and down the country do not trust our clinicians? They have grave concerns about the way in which they are treated, because they feel that they do not have a level of equality within our NHS, which is sadly the case. That was explained and shown during covid.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I fear there is some rhetoric that engenders a fear around the medical profession, which is misplaced.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will give way in a moment, if I may.

Those are not my experiences in clinical practice, nor are they those of family members who have worked in it. We must trust our medical professionals, who are highly trained and capable individuals, to have these difficult and complex conversations, which they do every day on issues such as aggressive chemotherapy or the withdrawal of ventilation.

[Daniel Francis]

The hon. Gentleman, like me, sat on the Bill Committee. He heard, as I did, that if somebody had a learning disability, they were five times more likely to have a “do not resuscitate” order placed on them during the pandemic. Did he hear that evidence? Why does he not agree with it?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. These are complex conversations that take place up and down the country every day; we know that they are taking place in St Thomas’ hospital at this moment. We are treating our medical professionals as though they do not take their professional obligations seriously. We must recognise the expertise that they bring and the sensitivities in which they have these conversations.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has the experience, as I and the relatives of many disabled people up and down this country have, of having to fight the medical profession to get the attention and the worth that a loved one deserves when the medical profession is not listening to us or to what that loved one needs. That is the experience of many people up and down this country.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I commend those family members who are really powerful advocates for their children, parents and relatives in their engagement with the medical profession. We are at real danger of treating our clinicians as though they have no care for their patients—

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am sure that all of us in this place respect and value our medical professionals. The simple point to make is that not everyone who goes before the medical profession has the same experience or confidence as some of us in this place.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is why it is so important that we have the rigorous training and safeguards that are a fundamental part of this Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will make some progress, if I may. The point is that people cannot have a fully informed discussion and weigh up the balance of the decision if they do not know the full options available to them. That is a part of informed consent.

[Shockat Adam]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will make a little progress, if I may.

In respect of new clause 2, those who have had the privilege of meeting a young person living with a terminal illness will know that they often display a maturity and a depth of understanding far beyond their years. To deny them the opportunity of a considered conversation about their future upon reaching adulthood is not an act of compassion, in my view; it is to abandon them. It is to leave them isolated, navigating a complex and deeply personal journey through the filter of online forums, rather than in dialogue with trusted, qualified professionals. We owe them better than that.

[Catherine Fookes]

My constituent Noah was diagnosed at 16 with an inoperable brain tumour, and he has said he would like the right to choose:

“The thought of being locked in unable to communicate is not how I want to spend the last months of my life. To end my life on my terms when the time comes would give me comfort.”

Noah does not want to be infantilised; he wants to be treated like the adult that he is. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Bill will give him that protection?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is a very powerful personal story from Noah, who I think reflects the maturity of many young people when dealing with these challenging issues.

By imposing, in effect, a statutory gag in this one area, new clauses 1 and 2 risk infantilising terminally ill patients, creating a chilling effect on communication at the very moment when clarity and compassion are most needed. If anything, new clauses 1 and 2 may result in harm to patients, forcing them to suffer in silence, unaware of lawful options simply because they do not know how to ask.

Finally, I turn to new clause 9, which presents a number of issues. In the first instance, subsection (1) would permit there to be, in effect, two different standards of proof. That must be legal nonsense. The boundaries of any legal test or hurdle must be clear. A failure to do so creates a great deal of uncertainty. Furthermore, the proposal to shift the standard of proof from the civil to the criminal, requiring panels to operate on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, is deeply inappropriate. The balance of probabilities is the cornerstone of medical and civil decision making. To adopt a criminal threshold risks freezing the entire process, creating a very risk-averse system.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

With new clause 9, we are talking about the occasion when the final potion is delivered to the patient to kill them. We do not deprive people of their liberty without proving something beyond all reasonable doubt. Why should we deprive someone of their life if we are not going to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that that is their will?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. These are individuals who are making this ultimate choice for themselves. My fear is that this well-intentioned new clause would make the Bill so unusable as to become ineffective. We are not prosecuting a crime here; we are enabling a choice under tightly prescribed circumstances.

While I accept that each of these new clauses in their own way seeks to improve the Bill, we must be cautious about layering protections to the point of paralysis. The Bill as drafted is not a blank cheque—it contains safeguards, panel oversight and rigorous eligibility criteria. Let us not bury its moral clarity under legal clutter. In defending this legislation, we are not abandoning care; we are affirming dignity. Let us do so with confidence and reject these amendments.

[Gregory Stafford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like your advice. Mr Speaker said that more than 90 people wish to speak in the debate. We have been debating the amendments for an hour and a half and four speeches have been made. If we go to 2 o’clock, that will mean fewer than 20 speakers. I understand that whether a closure motion can be moved is at the discretion of the Chair. If we have not got past, let us say, 20 or 30 Members speaking in the debate, can you give us any indication of whether, if you are still in the Chair, you would accept a closure motion at that point?

Ukraine War: London Talks

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Diolch yn fawr; I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in these issues and her support. We have been doing a huge amount with Ukraine to support its energy sector against the terrible attacks that have been taking place, but we have also been working on how we might co-operate together on energy in the future. That is a crucial question for all of us across Europe. I continually raise with European and other counterparts the issue of removing the dependency on supplies from Russia and elsewhere. We need to look at new partnerships and ways forward in which we can support all our energy needs—whether that is through renewables, through nuclear or in other ways. This is an important issue, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising it.

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

Can the Minister update the House on whether yesterday’s meeting involved discussion of any potential future co-operation between the US and Russia on energy? If it did, did he impart to his US counterparts that such an arrangement would be a folly?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said before, I will not get into the detail of talks and discussions. We are very clear on our position, which is that we need to support and stand with Ukraine. We are having productive and constructive talks. Those continued yesterday with the United States, European allies and others, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) a moment ago.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister will have heard the feelings of the House, so can he provide us with the specific guarantees that the Foreign Secretary has secured in relation to preventing hostile states such as China from increasing their influence in the Chagos islands while we as a nation are still paying for them?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member has asked an important question, and I have answered it a number of times. To reiterate, there will be robust security provisions in that regard. That is why China has not welcomed this deal. We will have full UK control with the United States over Diego Garcia. We will have a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, and we will have a robust mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Crucially, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, either civilian or military.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I have regular conversations with the Business Secretary. As the Minister for Industry made clear on Thursday, this Government believe in the UK steel sector. We have prioritised engagement with British Steel, and have made a generous conditional offer of financial support. We remain in negotiations with the company and trade unions to secure the best possible outcome.

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

T4. What further information did the Foreign Secretary have that led him to make a decision that differed from the detailed objections of the police, the security services and our allies, and to support the new Chinese super-embassy? Will he share that information with the House?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman must have missed the letter that the Home Secretary and I, quite properly, wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who, acting in her quasi-judicial capacity, has a decision to make. We were clear about the fact that security interests are paramount, and we made our views very plain so that they could be considered.

Syria

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to raise those issues. It is important to remember that Syrians have now been in this country for many years indeed. Their lives are here; their children were born here. Those are just not the first issues that come to mind. It is also important to recognise that Syria’s neighbouring countries—Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan—bear the biggest number of displaced people who have had to flee Syria. We can see from the scenes in the region that Syrians want to go back—they are desperate to go back—and we should support them to do that with the public services that they will no doubt need.

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

No one should grieve the demise of Assad, who was propped up for far too long by Russia and Iran. However, the links of HTS to al-Qaeda mean that the future is far from certain or secure. With that in mind, what steps have the Government taken to promote the rule of law in Syria?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Twenty-one years ago, al-Qaeda drove a truck-bomb into our consulate in Istanbul, killing 16 British and Turkish members of staff, and we should never, ever forget that. It was in the serious context of HTS being an alias of al-Qaeda back in 2017 that it was proscribed in the United Kingdom. I will not comment on issues of proscription, but one would expect any responsible Government to consider the detail of these issues very soberly and carefully, with partners such as the United States, for which that organisation remains proscribed.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

Let me comment on arms sales, as they have been raised again. I will not rehearse the arguments about the F-35 exemption. In relation to the arms that are licensed to be sold to Israel, the category that has been suspended is the category that posed a risk of being involved in breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. Those weapons, we also believe, would be the weapons at issue in the west bank and in Lebanon. There is a second category of weapons that are for resale elsewhere, which is not relevant to events in Israel. There is a third category of weapons that are used either for defensive purposes or for purposes with which nobody in this House would disagree: body armour and helmets for aid workers going into Gaza, for example.

I say gently to colleagues across the House that there is not, in the rest of the arms sales, some solution to the dilemma that faces us. The suspension of arms sales has been done carefully and has been aimed at the potential breach of international humanitarian law. It has been reached carefully and judiciously, including in relation to the F-35. That remains the position.

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

I have a degree of sympathy with the Minister, who has been asked to substitute in lieu of the Foreign Secretary today, so I will ask him a question of fact. Does he recognise that pursuant to section 23(6) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, representatives of a non-state party to the Rome statute will remain immune from prosecution unless that non-state party expressly waives that right to the ICC?

[Hamish Falconer]

I do not need sympathy, just careful listening. The same question was asked by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and the answer is the same. The shadow Attorney General has raised the matter with the Attorney General, and a letter will be sent in due course.