Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. An individual can attend an emergency department to be assessed and be seen by a doctor before a decision is made on whether that patient should be admitted to that hospital, transferred to a tertiary centre or discharged back into the community. New clause 24 seeks to provide clarity and certainty for practitioners on that grey area and, crucially, it seeks to provide a safeguard for patients who have yet to be formally admitted to an institution—a hospital, community placement or wherever—but need a crucial intervention.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened carefully to the Minister, who has addressed the issue with his usual thoughtfulness. I ask that he looks into sharing that data, particularly around new clause 24, but on the basis of the reassurances that he has provided, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I rise to speak to Liberal Democrat amendments 20, 10, 22, 24 and 21, and set out why, although I think they are honourable in their intent, I am unable to support them today. I will start with amendment 20. The purpose of the amendment is to require ICBs to ensure the availability of specialist crisis accommodation for people with autism and learning disabilities. The aim is to provide a safe and therapeutic alternative to detention, which I think we would all agree is a sensible course of action. Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows police to remove an individual who is experiencing a mental health crisis from a public place to a place of safety. That can, on unfortunate occasions, lead to detention in inappropriate settings, which may include police cells. That can obviously be deeply harmful, particularly to those with conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder or other learning difficulties.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 5, page 11, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert— “(b) in the case of a patient who lacks capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment), serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person, or in the case of a patient who does not lack capacity or competence to consent to admission for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment) serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of another person unless the patient is so detained by a constable or other authorised person; and”

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  All the amendments in this group have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). Amendments 52 and 53 deal with grounds for detention and treatment—specifically, with how those grounds differ depending on whether a patient has the capacity or competence to consent. At the heart of both amendments is the simple but vital proposition that capacity matters, not only ethically, but legally. The ability of an individual to make decisions about their own care must shape the basis on which the state may act against their will. The revised wording introduces an important distinction between the two scenarios, where a patient lacks capacity and where they retain it. In the first case, where a patient cannot consent because they are unable to understand or weigh up the relevant information, then serious harm either to the patient or to others may justify detention or compulsory treatment. However, in the second case, where capacity is intact, the threshold for overriding a person’s autonomy is rightly higher. In such circumstances, the justification for intervention must rest solely on the risk of serious harm to other people. This is more than legal tidiness; it is a matter of fundamental rights. The law should not permit the detention or forced treatment of a capacitated individual on the basis of a paternalistic judgment about their own safety—that is not a liberal mental health framework, but an arbitrary power. These amendments achieve something critical: they preserve the protective duty of the state, particularly to those who cannot protect themselves, but they do so without blurring the line between necessary intervention and justified intrusion. They are grounded in legal precedent, echoing the principles found in common law, the Mental Capacity Act and article 5 of the European convention on human rights. They introduce clarity where ambiguity once stood, and they ensure that the Bill reflects both compassion and constitutional restraint . [Interruption.]

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  There appears to be universal support for this damascene conversion by the Government. Last year, they told pensioners that the right course of action was to scrap the winter fuel payment for millions, but they are now telling them that a means-tested system is right, so how can pensioners possibly believe anything that the Government say?

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution has, in a matter of days, amassed over 98,500 signatures. Will the Leader of the House commit that the petition, once it reaches the 100,000-signature threshold, will be granted debating time at the earliest opportunity?

• 22 May 2025 · Independent Sentencing Review · Hansard source

  More

  Public confidence in the criminal justice system—and, importantly, the confidence of victims—is paramount. Since 2010, the use of community-based orders has decreased by 61%. That is in no small part because of concerns about offender engagement in the process. If the Government are going to pursue this route, what steps has the Lord Chancellor taken to model how many will reoffend and, more importantly, that they will be rigorously reinforced?

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s position appears to be predicated on a hypothetical judgment to a hypothetical claim. In this hypothetical scenario, why would the Government not simply appeal?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 May 2025 · Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Ministry of Justice conducted an impact assessment for this policy? If so, will it release that to the House as soon as possible? If not, can the Lord Chancellor confirm how she knows what impact the policy will have on victims and the wider public?

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister solve this equation? VAT is pushing more students into the state sector and increases in national insurance are squeezing staff budgets, yet the Government say their ambition is to improve school standards and staff retention. How does that add up?

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  10. What estimate she has made of the potential impact of increases in employer’s national insurance contributions on the number of teachers employed in schools.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Ukraine War: London Talks · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. The danger posed by China to our national security is self-evident. Can the Prime Minister explain why he and his Government have chosen to treat Beijing as a business partner and not as the hostile state that it truly is?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he set out what recent steps have been taken by the Government to support the Ukrainian prosecutor general in investigating and prosecuting domestic war crimes?