Marie Tidball MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Apr 2025 · National Wealth Fund: Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  There is currently no tram network from central Sheffield to Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side, Deepcar or Stocksbridge, and no operational train service to those areas. My constituents want the Sheffield tram network to be extended to Stocksbridge and to connect those rural communities with jobs, education and hospitals, as well as supporting the advanced manufacturing district and the steel plant in Stocksbridge. Will the Minister meet me and the Mayor of South Yorkshire before the spending review to discuss the next steps to establish the Stocksbridge extension to the Sheffield tram-train service?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A retired postmistress in my constituency served our communities at the post office in Parson Cross from 1994 to 2002 and was affected by the Horizon scandal, leaving her mentally and physically unwell. She has not been paid the compensation she is owed from the fixed sum payment scheme. Please will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can help my constituent and her husband Michael to expedite access to their compensation payment?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s commitment to steel. Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency is a strategically significant site with world-class, unique capability for creating specialist parts that will be essential in increasing our defence capacity and net zero infrastructure. Last week, I held a community listening event on the Government’s excellent steel strategy. The message was clear: let us ensure that British-made steel is best. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s news further demonstrates why it is so important that this Government are committed to a £2.5 billion plan for steel?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 518, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert— “‘coercion’ means behaviour of a controlling or threatening character, including but not limited to emotional or financial control, or improper interference with another person’s decision-making autonomy, which is exerted by a person or organisation, with the intention of inducing that other person to make the relevant declarations or to self-administer an approved substance under this Act against that other person’s will (and ‘coerced’ is to be read accordingly);”. This amendment provides a definition of coercion for the purposes of the Act. The terminology of “person” and “another person” reflects that used in clause 26.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Alex Ruck Keene’s sage words to me were that the problem with putting in more words is that it creates an opportunity for lawyers to find loopholes. In the example that the hon. Lady has just given, when we are talking about family relationships, I think we would all agree that, having thoroughly considered the evidence in this Committee, we do not want any interpretation of the offences set out in section 26 to exclude, for example, carer relationships. That is not a family member, but a carer might give close personal care to someone with a terminal illness. We do not want the courts to think that it was the parliamentary intention of the Committee to delimit it to only intimate or family relationships. There is a risk that the more we narrow it by example, rather than leaving the term broad, as it is currently—“person”—we risk delimiting it too far. We do not want to exclude a situation involving an offence that we hope would be brought before the courts for prosecution.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to amendments 518 to 520, which respectively provide definitions of coercion, dishonesty and pressure for the purposes of the Bill. In my speech on Second Reading, I said I would want to ensure that the final stages of the Bill define dishonesty, coercion and pressure. I have sketched out the definitions based on oral evidence given to the Committee, and am grateful for the extremely helpful input from Laura Hoyano and Max Hill, after the witness sessions, in establishing the content and parameters of the definitions. We have spent a considerable amount of time in Committee discussing the safeguards against coercion, for example, but I felt we had not spent much time discussing the content and parameters of the concepts. Although I will not be press the amendments to a vote, for reasons I will outline, it is important to ensure that our discussions of the concepts are on the public record. I will not press the amendments to a vote as I am convinced, after discussions with legal colleagues and having considered the issues very carefully, that the risks of setting the parameters on the face of the Bill are too great. It would risk ossifying the courts rather than ensuring that they use the full parameters of the concepts to encompass scenarios for the offences under clause 26 in circumstances that the Committee may not currently conceive of. In other words, I am convinced that to limit the definitions of the concepts in statute would create the risk of excluding criminal behaviour where the threshold of the offence would otherwise be met under common law. I believe that instead, mirroring the approach to coercion taken in the Serious Crime Act 2015—a point I will return to—the Ministry of Justice must draw up details of the concepts and examples of their application in the context of the offences set out in clause 26. Doing so will be helpful for the medical practitioners, along with other professionals, who use the Bill if it becomes law, and in the training to be provided for them under the Bill to enable medical practitioners to evaluate whether each patient has been subjected to coercion, pressure or dishonesty by another person in applying for assisted dying. In criminal law, definitions of coercion, dishonesty and pressure are not placed on a statutory footing. First, on dishonesty, Ivey v. Genting Casinos is the lead case because there is no statutory definition of dishonesty. The case provides not a definition but a two-stage test. The courts are familiar with the legal elements of dishonesty from case law: for a long time the part-subjective and part-objective Ghosh test was applied. That was amended in 2020 by the Supreme Court in the Ivey case, which disapproved the former test but retained the question: “Was his or her conduct dishonest by the standards of an ordinary decent person?” Similarly, “pressure” does not have a statutory definition in criminal law, but essentially means forcing someone to do something against their will. Having looked at this issue carefully, I am satisfied that the wording in clause 26 is enough to signal to anyone involved in a relevant application to bring a criminal prosecution what they should look for in terms of acts and intent. The common law is thus well placed to further develop the concepts in the context of the offences set out in clause 26.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. I think we are united in principle, but perhaps take different views on the best way to ensure that this happens in practice. To give an example, if the word “intimate” is used in those circumstances, were a court to interpret it, it might include a husband, wife or partner, but not a brother, sister or parent. So already, in using that one word, we have potentially created further risks. By defining it, in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, we are excluding a relationship that we would want the court to look at, to weigh and judge whether there was potential dishonesty, coercion or pressure by that person, in that relationship with the person seeking assistance. I give that as just one example of the risk created by adding language, rather than leaving it more broadly for a court to interpret on the basis of the facts of the case.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that it is helpful to have it on record that we have evaluated these concepts from all sides, but determined that putting them in the Bill is not the right thing to do and would be too restrictive at this point?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is the final new clause of the Committee. As I said in support of new clause 25 and associated amendments last week, I want to strengthen the voice of disabled people in the Bill. New clause 35 would require the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to establish a disability advisory board that would report annually on the implementation and impact of the Act on disabled people. The new clause has been designed to ensure that disabled people have a voice at the heart of the Bill and an ongoing role in monitoring its impact. The disability advisory board model reflects a structure that was used at the Department of Health to implement the Autism Act 2009 and monitor the implementation of its provisions, statutory guidance and strategy. It was a highly effective body. Including a disability advisory board structure on the face of the Bill would entrench the board in the work of the commission, enabling a long-term and iterative structure in which disabled people could report on the reality of the impact of the Bill on disabled people across this country. This reflects comments made by Dan Scorer of Mencap in oral evidence. He said that if the Bill was passed, “We would want to see strong representation from patient groups…as well as from people who have been involved in the process, such as family members, advocates and clinicians, to make sure that if serious issues are being raised, they can be picked up early and addressed.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 280-81, Q367.] The board must therefore consist of “(a) people who have a disability under the Equality Act 2010, (b) representatives from disabled people’s organisations, and (c) other such persons or organisations as the Commissioner considers relevant to the impact of the Act on disabled people.” The commissioner would, within six months of being appointed, have to appoint a programme board to advise on the implementation of the Bill, and annually thereafter report on the impact of the Bill’s operation on disabled people. The clause reflects the learning of Dr Greg Mewett, the specialist palliative care physician from Australia who gave oral evidence to the Committee about the Australian implementation taskforce, which includes a strong disability advocate. My new clause would go further, by including a rigorous reporting process that requires the advisory board to report to the Secretary of State and the commissioner within six months of the commissioner being appointed, and annually thereafter. It also provides: “The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of any report under subsection (3), lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.” In the oral evidence sessions, I asked witnesses for their views on what structures or mechanisms could work to facilitate the opportunity to hear the voices of disabled people in monitoring the implementation and impact of the Bill were it to pass through Parliament. Dr Miro Griffiths said: “I think there needs to be further robust action around how to collect data and allow it to be analysed, to see the trends that are occurring in why people are pursuing this option and how that may play into broader political and socioeconomic issues, such as a lack of services elsewhere or frustrations for disabled people and their families in trying to access particular services…I would therefore encourage their representation on any form of advisory council. I would also request that disability studies scholars, who are often left out of the discourse around disability policy, are part of any form of mechanism to advise or scrutinise.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 145, Q183.] Subsection (2)(b) and (c) would provide for this. Professor Tom Shakespeare corroborated the benefits of such an advisory board, calling it a “very good idea.” Importantly, Fazilet Hadi, from Disability Rights UK, stated: “Should the Bill go through, it would be good to see a monitoring mechanism. I cannot say what that should be, but it would be good to see disabled people shape it. Some 45% of older people are disabled people, so disabled people are going to be very affected by the Bill.” Poignantly, she went on: “It is often our experience that we are the last people who are spoken to; maybe that is what is behind the question. We should of course be at the table now in respect of whatever mechanisms, and in the shaping of any implementation, should the Bill be passed.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 175, Q227.] There is, and there should be, nothing about us without us. As a disabled Member of Parliament, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for inviting me to sit on this Committee. Through this new clause and my earlier new clause 25, I have worked hard to put together a structure that ensures that disabled people are firmly at the table in the process of monitoring the implementation and impact of the Bill. I urge members of the Committee to support new clause 35.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Just to put this one to bed, which is where we all need to go at this stage, I did seek advice from those that have worked in this field, and it is not a concept used commonly in the criminal law. It is instead used in the law of equity and would not be as relevant in this context. There were other, sharper elements that could make up this concept of coercion that were better and more well understood in the context of the criminal law.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 26 puts in place the elements of the offences under the Bill. It is right that it does that and draws the parameters very tightly and firmly. Under criminal law, those concepts are defined nowhere else on the face of a statute. My severe concern, having listened to the Committee and its worries about concepts such as coercion, is that we risk restricting our understanding of the concepts too tightly, and therefore excluding cases of the kinds that we want to include. By leaving them in the Bill but not defining them, we enable the common law courts to interpret the facts on the basis of the lives of the real people that come before them. I want to make sure that, where it is right and proper that those courts interpret the law on the basis of those facts, they are able to do so and are not restricted by too limited a definition in the Bill. I want to ensure that more, not fewer, cases can be encompassed. As I said in my speech, we have talked about these concepts in quite an abstract sense. I wanted us to ground that in the reality of what we might want guidance and further advice on those concepts to look like. That would follow the convention, as I have said already, in other areas of the law, such as domestic abuse, where the primary legislation does not define the concepts but secondary legislation provides further details and real-life examples for practitioners and the courts.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the thorough and thoughtful discussion that we have had from Members on both sides of the Committee Room. I am pleased and reassured that we have that discussion on record, so that those looking at the work that we have done in this Committee will understand the depths and levels at which we have thought about these important concepts in this space and the extent to which we have challenged and checked Ministers in making sure that they understand our concern about these provisions being properly put in place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for her important input, which I hope will be reflected in the training. I am glad that we have come this far and that we have a level of unanimity across both sides of the Committee Room. That is a nice point to reach as the Committee comes towards the end of its journey, and it reflects the essence and the intention that were so evident on Second Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  For the avoidance of doubt, socioeconomic status would have been a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, were it not for the previous Conservative Government.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It sounds that I may also have the support of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, which also makes me very happy at this stage of the evening! I tabled these amendments because I passionately believe in inclusive healthcare for disabled people, removing barriers to such healthcare where possible, and ensuring that disabled people have a strong voice in advocating for themselves and the healthcare they need or desire. I have tried to write the amendment and the new clause to ensure that access to an independent advocate operates across the functions of the Bill. I have been keen to ensure that this provision acts in conjunction with new clause 27, which I will speak about at a later stage. I hope, as I said in an earlier response to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, that that will provide a solid and robust opportunity to monitor the impact on disabled people of the Bill, if it does pass through Parliament, through its implementation and in practice. Taken together, the measures will create a solid foundation to enable disabled people to have a voice and will provide a strong structure for accountability in the Bill. I acknowledge the Minister’s comments, and will work with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to ensure that it is watertight. Amendment 517 agreed to. Amendment made: 534, in clause 30, page 18, line 30, at end insert— “(da) the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of section 6.”— (Jack Abbott.) Amendment made: 523, in clause 30, page 18, line 31, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— “(1A) The Secretary of State may issue one or more codes of codes of practice in connection with any matters relating to the operation of this Act not required under subsection (1) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”— (Danny Kruger.) This amendment, which works together with Amendment 447, would clarify that the Secretary of State is not required to issue a code of practice under subsection (1)(e) but instead has the discretionary power to issue further codes of practice as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Amendment made: 417, in clause 30, page 18, line 32, at end insert— “(1A) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue one or more codes of practice in connection with the arrangements for ensuring effective communication in connection with the provision of assistance to persons in accordance with this Act, including the use of interpreters.”— (Jack Abbott.) This amendment is linked to Amendment 416. Amendments made: 216, in clause 30, page 18, line 37, leave out subsection (4). See the statement for Amendment 188. Amendment 217, in clause 30, page 18, line 38, leave out “that procedure” and insert “section 39”.— (Kim Leadbeater.) See the statement for Amendment 188.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I should add that new clause 25(2)(e), on training, is central and will also assist in that respect. If the Chair will permit, that is why I talked about new clause 27, which builds in a strong structure that can reflect on how the provisions operate in practice.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  First, it is necessary that a patient should be able to engage with all the provisions in the Bill. The reason I did not support the previous amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford was that they would only have provided advocacy at too late a stage and would not effectively support a patient at that point we talked about in clause 4, which is around the moment of seeking assistance. I hope that answers the question.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 517, in clause 30, page 18, line 30, at end insert— “(da) arrangements for a qualifying person requesting assistance to end their own life to receive the support of an independent advocate under section [ Independent advocate ].” This amendment would add arrangements for a qualifying person to receive the support of an independent advocate (NC25) to the list of matters that codes of practice may be issued on.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I take on board and appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. I hope he will agree that subsection (3) emphasises the purpose of the new clause, which is that it should apply across the spectrum of access to assistance and enable people to effectively understand and engage with all of the provisions in the Bill. I very much wanted to ensure that it would apply and be accessible at every stage.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak to my new clause 25 and my related amendment 517. I note with pleasure that the Committee has agreed to amendment 447, which mandates the need for the code of practice. I also support amendment 394, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. My new clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations for independent advocates to provide assistance to qualifying persons under the Bill. Amendment 517 would add “arrangements for a qualifying person…to receive the support of an independent advocate” to the list of matters provided for by the codes of practice in clause 30. The issue is deeply important to me. On Second Reading, I said: “so often control is taken away from disabled people in all sorts of circumstances. In order to ensure that there is compassionate choice at the end of life, it is right that the Bill is tightly drawn around the final stage of terminal illness for adults and includes the strongest safeguards.” —[ Official Report , 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c.1052.] Those safeguards must include strengthening the voices of disabled people, both in the Bill and in the monitoring of its impact on disabled people if it is ultimately enacted. I tabled new clause 25 and the related amendment 517 alongside my proposed new clause 27, which would mandate a disability programme board to strengthen disabled people’s voices, empowering and better enabling them to be treated with dignity and respect when they are a qualifying person seeking to understand their options around end-of-life care. Subsection (3) of new clause 25 states: “The role of independent advocates is to provide support and advocacy to a qualifying person who is seeking to understand options around end of life care, including the possibility of requesting assistance to end their own life, to enable them to effectively understand and engage with all the provisions of this Act.” During one of the Committee’s oral evidence sessions, Professor Tom Shakespeare—the leading disability scholar and public policy expert—was asked which of the Bill’s measures could be strengthened to further protect disabled people. He said: “We could have more of an advocate for the person who is requesting assisted dying—somebody who will support them, within the law, to make that decision or to think about their decision.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c.144, Q181.] My new clause responds to the evidence from witnesses during those sessions and augments proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It extends those proposals in two ways. Under the new clause, “qualifying person” would include those with a learning disability, those with autism and, importantly, those who have a mental disorder under section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983. It also extends the scope to cover those who, as set out in subsection (4), “may experience substantial difficulty in understanding the processes or information relevant to those processes or communicating their views, wishes or feelings; or…meet criteria that the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.”

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That the domestic violence protection centre or home can refuse to let that lady stay there because she has latterly discovered that she is pregnant as a result of the abuse and wants to seek an abortion.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To clarify, in my very clear example—it is a real-life example that reflects the experiences of someone who attended this Committee yesterday—the person has a terminal condition and enters a care home that makes her comfortable and is near her family, but discovers while the hospice or care home is trying to find methods to palliate that she is allergic to opioids and therefore her condition cannot be palliated. In the hon. Lady’s scenario, she would not be able to choose assisted death because that care home has a blanket policy against it. That would discriminate against that young woman, who has an allergy to opioids that means that she cannot be palliated.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Just so I am clear, if a young woman is escaping domestic abuse and goes to a domestic violence space close to her home so that her children can carry on going to school, but finds out once she is there that she is pregnant by the abuser, does my hon. Friend think that that is acceptable?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to hear my hon. Friend’s answer. I ask that question because I can imagine an analogous situation of a woman suffering from breast cancer who is allergic to opioids but does not know that when she enters the care home. If her cancer reaches a stage of terminality but she cannot pursue palliative options because of her allergy to opioids, assisted dying would be the only option for her to die with dignity and not in great discomfort. Under my hon. Friend’s scenario, that woman would not be able to pursue an assisted death in that care home.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  After 14 years of Conservative failure, there is a 29% employment gap and a 17% pay gap for disabled people in this country. We must therefore ensure that the social model of disability is central to Government decision making, to achieve inclusive growth that enables disabled people to fulfil their potential. I welcome the Secretary of State’s proactive approach to reasonable adjustments and the £1 billion support package to get disabled people back into work where they can work, as well as her recognition that PIP is designed as an in-work benefit to enable people to live independently. Research shows that supportive, incentive-based approaches massively outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. What work has she done to develop inclusive growth strategies across all employment sectors, to close the disability employment gap and the disability pay gap?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct the record and make a declaration of interests. In my excitement while making my first intervention during proceedings on the Employment Rights Bill yesterday, I did not point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or mention my proud membership of the Community, GMB and Unison unions. I would like to ensure that that is on the record as well as in the register.