Prisoner Releases in Error

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think the public recognise that. They might not have visited our prisons, but they know that cuts in our public services are real. They see it in their local authorities. They see it in their local hospitals. They see it in their local schools. They know that things like Sure Start were decimated. I am afraid that our Prison Service, which the public do not see, was one of the worst-hit public services.

It is my job to minimise that risk to the public, which is why I am introducing new measures and have asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this issue very carefully. She is a former head of the National Crime Agency, and I know she will do a forensic examination. I will implement her recommendations so that we can bear down on this problem, but it is a paper-based system. Coming into this job, I did not realise that it was a paper-based system. I am not sure that the shadow Justice Secretary has realised that since he has been doing his job, but former Conservative Justice Secretaries know that it is a paper-based system, and they know that that is why errors happen.

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

Mistaken releases of prisoners do not just undermine public trust and confidence in the system; they cost money, because the police have to go and find them and return them to prison. Can the Secretary of State set out how much it has cost the police to return prisoners to prison since this Government came to power?

[Mr Lammy]

Previous Governments did not have that data, and I am pretty confident that I do not have that data. If it exists, it exists in the individual police forces that deal with these issues operationally. However, the hon. Member is absolutely right that every prisoner released in error has to be found by the police. I thank the police for all they have done, and I particularly thank Haringey police for finding the two high-profile cases.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

May I put on the record my sincere gratitude to the WomenCentre for doing all it can to support the victims of these crimes? Support services are a vital element of ensuring that victims and witnesses engage with the criminal justice system, and are kept informed about the uptake of their trial. We have ringfenced funding to protect these special support services. We are currently going through the allocations process to ensure that we have support services at the front of our minds, and I will be happy to keep my hon. Friend updated as that comes forward.

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

In July this year, alongside a cross-party group of parliamentarians and others, I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking a meeting regarding improving gatekeeping and alternative dispute resolution in family court matters. I have not received a response. Can the Lord Chancellor give me the reassurance that such a meeting will take place?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, I can.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going, on both the defence and the prosecutorial sides. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough. We need to consider once-in-a-generation structural reforms that will run a sustainable, proportionate system that will allow us to deliver swifter justice for victims. Investment and reform: that is what we will be getting on with and that is what we will report on in the autumn.

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

The Minister will know the high regard in which I hold her. With that in mind, does she, in her own heart, believe that intermediate courts will fix the criminal court backlog, or does she agree with the legal profession that that risks being a costly distraction from investing in the existing system? Does she agree with me that chipping away jury trials in the name of speed risks undermining the cornerstone of British justice?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I said in my opening response, jury trials will remain a cornerstone for British justice for the most serious cases but, as Sir Brian Levenson evidences in his careful report, juryless trials can be swifter trials. To put that into context, 90% of criminal trials in this country are currently heard without a jury—that is how our criminal justice system currently functions. Of course it is right that we listen to those who participate in the system, whether they are prosecuting or defending those in the system, but it is also right that we listen to the voices who have welcomed today’s report: the head of the Met police, former Lord Chancellors, a former Lord Chief Justice and the Victims’ Commissioner. Their voices matter too. Just as Sir Brian has done, we need to consider a package of measures capable of alleviating the acute crisis in which we find ourselves.

Criminal Justice

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable on these issues, is absolutely right. We are relying on the implementation of the Gauke review’s recommendations to do two things: to ensure there is capacity in the prisons for the growing number of people being sentenced in our courts; and, in the longer term, to reduce prisoner numbers through effective rehabilitation. That can take place in prisons—not in overcrowded prisons on the whole —but it can take place more effectively in the community by way of getting people back into normal daily life, which prison certainly is not.

In that vein, let me turn to the Probation Service, which will receive an additional £700 million a year to support the reforms in the sentencing review. That is a substantial increase in funding, which is intended to enable probation to supervise more people in the community and expand electronic tagging.

The Probation Service currently manages 240,000 individuals on court order or licence. Worryingly, in last year’s annual report, HM inspectorate of probation labelled 10 local probation services as “requires improvement” and 14 as “inadequate”. It identified staffing challenges, unmanageable workloads, deficits in casework and insufficient management of risk, public protection and safeguarding. However, it also found outstanding statutory victim work, commitment and vision from staff and some good partnership working. The Committee has seen that itself on its visit to probation services.

I will however raise my concern about the ability of Serco, the current electronic tagging provider, to deal with the dramatic increase in demand on its services that will inevitably result from the sentencing Bill. The Committee has been in frequent correspondence with the Prisons Minister to raise our concerns regarding Serco’s poor performance, which has also been highlighted by Channel 4 and its “Dispatches” programme.

The Committee has identified several issues with management of the tagging contract, including substantial delays to the fitting of tags, even to serious offenders. We were shocked to learn that financial penalties have been levied on Serco every month since it took on the service in May 2024. It is unclear how Serco will be able to deal with increased demand given its unacceptable performance in managing the electronic tagging service at its current level.

I turn briefly to conditions in the prison estate. In 2023, HM chief inspector of prisons Charlie Taylor said that one in 10 prisons should be closed down. He stated that about 14 Victorian jails were so poorly designed, overcrowded and ill-equipped that they could not provide proper accommodation for prisoners. Last year, 63% of prisoners reported overcrowding. That is often with two or more prisoners in a cell that was designed for one person, with no private toilet facilities.

Drugs are an increasing problem in prisons. The Committee has covered that extensively in its “Tackling drugs in prisons” inquiry, which is due to report shortly. Between April 2023 and April 2024, almost 50,000 adults aged 18 and over were in alcohol and drug treatment in prisons and secure settings, which was a 7% rise compared with the previous year. In the 12 months to December 2024, there were 10,600 assaults on prison staff—violence is also on the increase in prison, which is partly a result of the unpredictable environment created by the abundance of drugs available—which is equivalent to 122 assaults per 1,000 prisoners, an increase of 13% from the previous year and the highest number of assaults on prison staff recorded in one year. The use of force by prison officers and rates of self-harm among prisoners have also been increasing in recent years. Self-harm was 10% higher in 2024 than in 2023.

Overcrowding, increased drug use, violence and self-harm contribute towards a distressing environment in prisons such that the vital function of prisons to rehabilitate offenders can be almost impossible in some institutions. We are undertaking a major inquiry into rehabilitation and resettlement, which I hope will shed more light on these troubling pictures.

Beyond all that, we have the continuing scandal of IPP prisoners—those imprisoned for public protection. I recommend to the Minister the proposals published this week by the Howard League on a new approach to IPP prisoners, which would serve to reduce the numbers continuing in custody substantially.

Let me turn to His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which is the second-largest body in the MOJ. In the Government’s main estimate for 2025-26, spending on HMCTS accounted for 21% of planned resource spending and 12% of capital spending. The current backlog of outstanding cases in the Crown court stands at about 4,000. That is a result of a number of factors, one of which is the shortage of criminal lawyers, driven by low legal aid pay rates and poor working conditions. The backlog in the courts is detrimental to the lives of thousands of people. Victims, witnesses and defendants alike are forced to wait in limbo for justice.

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

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about court backlogs. Another factor is having the appropriate magistrates, legal advisers and so on to hear these cases. The Magistrates’ Association has raised concerns that the spending review allocation is insufficient to tackle that. Does he share those concerns?

[Andy Slaughter]

I do share those concerns. I want to take only a few more minutes with my speech, so I do not have time to go into what is happening in the magistrates courts as well—that is a debate for another day—but the shortage of magistrates, the shortage of legal clerks and low pay rates across HMCTS are clearly some of the factors that prevent us from getting to grips with the backlog, even though I have no doubt the Government wish to do that.

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s allocation of 110,000 sitting days in the Crown court for 2025-26: the highest sitting-day allocation made since HMCTS was created and the biggest financial settlement ever made for the Crown court. I hope that that is enough to bring about some reduction in the backlog. However, I note that the allocation is below the 113,000 days that the Lady Chief Justice told the Committee the Crown court could sit for in the last financial year, and there have been similar increases in sitting days for other courts, including the magistrates court, which will sit for up to 114,000 days a year.

The Government have acknowledged that the allocation of days is not enough on its own to severely reduce the backlog in the Crown courts and that more radical reform is required. I therefore welcome Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of criminal courts, which will propose options for both short and long-term reforms aimed at ensuring cases are dealt with proportionately in the light of current pressures on the Crown court and explore how the courts could operate as efficiently as possible. I look forward to the first report of the review, which is due to be published next month.

I will briefly touch on the role of the Legal Aid Agency. In terms of expenditure, the LAA is the third largest body within MOJ. Its day-to-day budget was around £0.9 billion, which comprised 8% of the MOJ’s total resource budget. Between 2009-10 and 2023-24, resource expenditure on legal aid decreased by 2% in cash terms and by 31% in real terms. I was surprised to see that the spending review did not include a specific funding allocation for the Legal Aid Agency; the only reference to it was in the context of potential efficiency savings that the MOJ will make in the review period.

Concerns have been raised about the sustainability of the criminal legal aid sector, given the number of legal aid firms and of solicitors and barristers practising in this area. In March 2025, the Law Society said that the number of criminal duty solicitors had fallen by 26% since 2017 and that that may, in future,

“leave many individuals unable to access their right to a solicitor and free advice.”

Even though I welcome the MOJ’s announcements in December 2024 of an additional £92 million per year for criminal aid solicitors, and I look forward to seeing the results of its consultation on that, it may well not be enough. Indeed, the 15% uplift in criminal barristers’ fees as a consequence of the Bellamy review took so long to come in and was so far overtaken by other increases in cost that that again needs to be looked at in the near future if we are to sustain the criminal Bar.

Independent Sentencing Review

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry to hear of the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent; those are truly horrible circumstances for any family to find themselves in. I can assure her that we will be rigorously pursuing the recommendations in the Gauke review relating to ancillary orders, which are other orders that we can make that curtail an offender’s liberty, including lengthier driving bans, which I am considering bringing forward.

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

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That issue is why already today I have announced measures to toughen up community punishment, and we will be going further in some areas than even the review recommends. I absolutely agree that community punishment has to maintain the confidence of the public. Like all other Members, I am a constituency Member of Parliament, and I want my constituents to be able to see community punishment as real punishment. It is on us to make sure that it is worthy of that name. That is why I am considering going further on unpaid work, working with businesses to see whether salaries could be paid into a victims fund. That might be one model. I want to see offenders filling potholes and cleaning our streets, and I will be working with local authorities to ensure that we go as far as we can, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government are committed to toughening up community punishment and making sure that it maintains the confidence of the public.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is quite right. We faced a real emergency when we came into office. It is unconscionable that any Government would do that to an incoming Government. The previous Labour Government added 28,000 prison places in 13 years. In their 14 years, the Conservative Government managed to add 500. In 10 months we have already delivered 2,400 prison places.

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

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?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are always alert to the need to assess how policies apply to the wider public and victims. That is important.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I start by gently pushing back on what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire said about this being a fork in the road. I do not see the Bill giving patients that ultimate option. They have the choice to opt for an assisted death while continuing with their palliative care all the way along; in fact, they could then decide that they did not wish to have an assisted death, although that opportunity would be open to them. I do not think that the choice is the binary one that has been presented; I am sure that was not the intention, but I just wanted to gently push back.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley continues, I should point out that when Members say “you” or “your” they are referring to me in the Chair. It has happened a couple of times. We all do it—we all make mistakes—but please make the effort not to use “you”.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to you, Chair, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate for her intervention. She is right: it is absolutely critical that patients are given the full information in order to make an informed choice. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. But actually that goes entirely with the wording of the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member for Stroud has already highlighted the relevant provision—clause (4)(4)(c), which states that the initial discussion must explain and discuss with the patient

“any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

Therefore a requirement to have those discussions is already stipulated in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate makes an interesting point about who has that discussion. But are we saying that only a palliative care specialist is capable of having those discussions? Of course, those who work in the field are highly trained individuals, but we must not be unfair or do a huge disservice to other healthcare practitioners who provide excellent palliative care in this country.

My father was a general practitioner for more than 40 years. He provided a huge amount of palliative care throughout his career, both in the community and in hospices. Look at Marie Curie’s own website, which talks about the provision of palliative care in this country and very much about primary care provision and secondary care provision. Within secondary care, of course, are the specialists—clinical nurse specialists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists; I could go on. But of course, as the hon. Member for Stroud will know particularly well given his former profession, there is another body of general practitioners, community nurses, district nurses, advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists and social workers, who are all involved in this process.

I think the amendment comes from a good place; at first blush, I can see absolutely where it is coming from. But despite that, it leads us down the bureaucratic thicket that Chris Whitty spoke about.

[Naz Shah]

Professor Sleeman’s evidence to me around palliative care says:

“‘Essential’ services are not provided: A good example is that our study of community services that are provided to people with advanced illness found that just 1 in 3 areas consistently provides a 24/7 palliative care telephone advice line—even though this has been a NICE recommendation since 2011…Another example is that the most recent NACEL audit (National audit) found just 60% of hospitals provide a 7 day face to face palliative care service— even though this is also a NICE recommendation, and was a recommendation in the One Chance to Get it Right report (that came out of the Neuberger review—around 2015.)”

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s important point, but does he agree that not every GP is able to keep abreast of all the palliative care advances being made, which palliative care consultants would know about?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which leads on to the point I was going to make. We are getting bogged down in nomenclature about what speciality is involved when this is actually about training. It is about whether the individual having the conversation has the requisite skills to have a meaningful conversation. Clauses 5(3)(a) and 8(6)(a) stipulate that the co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor

“has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.

That is the key part. This is about ensuring that people having incredibly sensitive, challenging and difficult conversations with patients about choices available to them at the end of life have the requisite skills and knowledge to do so. That may not be applicable to each and every general practitioner, but those having those conversations should have that knowledge.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech, but I am concerned that he suggests that the skills required are simply the skills of conversation. The skills required are the skills to understand the patient’s condition and lay out very clearly to them their prognosis and the treatment options available to them.

With all respect to my hon. Friend’s father and other GPs, I cannot accept that every GP is fully qualified to understand the dying trajectory of the patient before them—perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm his belief that that is so. If that is true, what is the point of the palliative care profession? We have GPs already and are now introducing psychiatrists and social workers into the mix; I do not understand why on earth it should be regarded as unnecessary to include professionals in palliative care—the key skill that we all recognise as so important in this space. Why not?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I fear that my hon. Friend may be oversimplifying what I was saying. Perhaps I was not clear enough, so I will elucidate. I was certainly not suggesting that the required skills were merely those of being able to have a consultation and a conversation. I was talking about having the skills to have the information that needs to be imparted and the knowledge that underpins that and being able to articulate that within a consultation. It is a much wider picture than just having the communication skills—it is having the knowledge that underpins that. I am saying that that is not necessarily the domain only of someone who works in palliative care. There are a number of specialists who work within this field—it is a multidisciplinary field—and they all bring their expertise. The issue is about ensuring that anybody having these conversations has the knowledge base to conduct them properly.

[Naz Shah]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will try to make some progress. I want to move on to the other point I want to address, which is around bogging down the whole process with layer upon layer of bureaucracy. We are talking about a relatively small group of patients who are in the last six months of life and are then battling against the system that is meant to be helping them. If we put in layer upon layer and hurdle upon hurdle, it will become a much more difficult system for people to navigate. That does not mean that it would be a less robust system, but it would be a more difficult system. We are trying to make life easier, not harder, for those patients. This comes back to the central point that Professor Whitty made in his evidence about overcomplicating Bills: we overcomplicate Bills out of good intentions, but rarely make the safeguards more robust—in truth, we make them less safe.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Go on—I am feeling generous.

[Juliet Campbell]

I want to go back to the point about making the Bill more complicated by putting layer upon layer on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West spoke about health inequalities and how not everyone is given the same advice to the same level. If we were to introduce a palliative care specialist we would guarantee that everybody was given the same advice and information. We could therefore help reduce the health inequalities and inequalities of access to information that we know exist in our healthcare system.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. The reality is that, regardless of specialty title, there will be individuals who are better placed to have certain conversations and discuss certain issues than others. I look back at my own clinical practice: some colleagues would have had a better bedside manner than others, for example. I do not think this comes down to the name of the specialty; it comes down to the underpinning skills and knowledge. That is the point I am trying to make.

We can get bogged down by saying, “Everybody has to see a palliative care specialist”. Of course, that is open to people: if they wish to have a referral to a palliative care specialist, they can see one. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people may not want that. We cannot be removing the autonomy of patients when their decision-making process is that they choose not to engage with that. They may want to speak to their GP because they have had a relationship with them over 30 or 40 years and have the patient-doctor relationship that is so important when dealing with these important discussions. Perhaps they would feel less comfortable having that discussion with a clinician they had just met for the very first time.

[Naz Shah]

rose—

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will give way because the hon. Lady has been very patient.

[Naz Shah]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous with his time. I want to bring in something that is very real for me at the moment. As a result of a hit and run, I have nerve pain for which I receive steroid treatment. I had treatment a couple of weeks ago and suffer from pain at the moment. My doctor is not a specialist in nerve pain; he has to refer me to a musculoskeletal service and I have been waiting for over a year for surgery.

I mention that because we already have care pathways for specialisms such as nerve pain. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred earlier to somebody who had cancer and it was a horrible experience. I would like to have thought that in that instance they would have been offered tube feeding. However, to go back to the point, the GP does not necessarily have the skillset. My GP, and there are lots of them in that practice—it is a brilliant practice at Kensington Street—has to refer me on. That is the point of the Bill. The amendment speaks to developing an established care pathway. If we are to pass this legislation into law, we must ensure that there is a care pathway to explore palliative care.

At the moment clause 4(4), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to earlier, says this has to be explored in the wider term. However, what that looks like is not a specialty. For some people with cancer and palliative care needs and six months to live, their trajectories could be—

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, Mr Efford. How can a GP guarantee that all those options have been covered, even in that initial discussion?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a number of points. First, may I say that I am sorry about her own health issues? I think she hit the nail on the head when she said that the GP may not be able to offer that service. For instance, take shoulder injections. Some GPs can do a shoulder injection with steroids; some will refer to the hospital for it. My father was a GP who could do them, but others would have referred to me when I was an orthopaedic surgeon and I would have done them in clinic.

This will not be right for every single general practitioner; the issue is about having a cohort of general practitioners who have the skill and ability, and about having a flexible system that works for patients. It all circles back to the training point. The individuals who do this have to have the requisite skills. That, of course, will be set down in regulation.

The other point that the hon. Member for Bradford West made is that clause 4(4)(c) says that any clinician having that discussion must be able to explain

“any available palliative, hospice or other care.”

It therefore follows that if the clinician is unable to do that because of a lack of skill or knowledge, they should refer on to somebody who can do it. That is the fundamental principle of having informed consent and discussion with patients. If a clinician cannot provide that information, they ask for somebody who can. That was not uncommon in my practice: if I had something that was outside of my area of knowledge or specialist interest, I would refer it to a colleague. That is how those conversations take place.

The Bill as it stands allows that flexibility for patients without confining them. But it gives them the very welcome option of a palliative care referral; that is entirely open to them—it is not closed off from them. Of course, they will be fed into the palliative care route anyway, following the trigger of their terminal diagnosis. They will be going on the journey, and having further conversations around their end of life care. Those are the points that I wish to make.

[Rebecca Paul]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am feeling generous—it is a Tuesday.

[Rebecca Paul]

A thought has suddenly been triggered: we are talking as if the provision of this service is undertaken by the NHS, but what are my hon. Friend’s thoughts if the service were being delivered privately? How does that interact with his automatic assumption that there would be a referral to a palliative care specialist?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I do not think that offends the principle at all. Whether I was working within the NHS or the private sector, if a patient requested an onward referral to a different specialist, I would action that. If I did not have the requisite skills or knowledge, or felt that they would be better served by a different speciality, I would refer on to another clinician. I do not see how it would be treated any differently in the NHS than it would be privately. I am afraid that I do not follow that argument.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I will address the amendments in two different ways. I will start by looking at the technical issues around amendment 281, and then I will look at why I believe, as other colleagues have said, that the amendments are not necessary given what already exists both in the Bill and in terms of good practice in our health service.

First, I worry that amendment 281 will not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) intends. Clause 1(2), to which the amendment relates, provides an overview of the other clauses in the Bill, and therefore cross-refers to sections 5 to 22. Clause 1(2) does not impose duties on persons in and of itself. The duties are set out in the later clauses to which it refers. Adding an additional subsection to clause 1, as proposed by the amendment, would not result in a requirement that the person must meet a palliative care specialist. That is a technical detail to reflect on.

In addition, the term “palliative care specialist” is not a defined term. Palliative medicine is a designated speciality of the General Medical Council, and a doctor can apply to be entered on to the GMC specialist register for the speciality provided that they have the specialist medical qualification, training or experience. However, the current wording of the amendment means that it is not clear whether it is seeking to require the person concerned to meet with one of those specialist doctors, or whether a meeting with another medical professional specialising in palliative care—for example, a specialist palliative care nurse—would suffice. There is no equivalent specialist register for specialist palliative care nurses. It is a technical issue, but an important one.

I also point out that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central has put an incorrect explanatory note with the amendment, which refers to terminal illness. That might just be an error, but I wanted to point that out.

Coming on to the broader grouping of the provisions: as has been said by colleagues, the amendments are tabled with really good intentions by someone who cares passionately about the palliative care sector. But they are not necessary given the process that is already set out by the Bill. Both doctors already have to discuss all treatment options, and must make a referral if they have any doubt about the diagnosis. It is very clear from clauses 4 and 9 that both the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must discuss all treatment options with the patient, so they will have all the options laid out before them. That is really important because we have to think about what happens in reality. This initial discussion, in many cases, may actually take place with a palliative care doctor, and in many cases it will be highly likely, given the nature of the conditions we are talking about, that the patient may already be receiving treatment or advice from a palliative care team.

We seem to have created a narrative where this conversation is happening in isolation. Actually, as other colleagues have alluded to, we have a patient-centred approach in our healthcare. This person does not just suddenly arrive and have this one random conversation. I am sure medical colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but if a doctor is dealing with a condition of which they have very limited knowledge, one of the first things they would do would be to refer to a specialist.

As is covered in clause 9(3)(a), if the doctor has any

“doubt as to whether the person being assessed is terminally ill,”

they must

“refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who holds qualifications in or has experience of the diagnosis and management of the illness, disease or condition in question;”

Clause 9(2)(a) also states that both doctors must assess the patient’s

“medical records and make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate;”

They can speak to anyone they want to, and they would in reality—of course that is what they would do. They would not sit there and think, “Oh, I don’t know enough about this condition so I will just keep going.” They would refer to specialists.

It is also really important to acknowledge what goes on at the moment. I was looking at some research last night: NHS England also has comprehensive guidance on personalised palliative and end-of-life care through a comprehensive personalised care model. None of this stops with the introduction of assisted dying as a choice for people. It would continue to happen. Patients are already getting that really good level of care.

Reform of Private Family Law Hearings

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a sad reality of life that marriages fail. It can happen for a variety of reasons, and I do not seek to provide a critique on the underlying causes in today’s debate. However, one of the tragic consequences of divorce is the disruption and pain that it causes to children.

It is evident that an amicable relationship between parents would enable arrangements in respect of where a child resides following a divorce to be made without the intervention of the courts, avoiding much additional heartache and the adversarial nature of contested hearings; but such contested hearings cannot be avoided in each and every case. While it may be the intention of the system to protect the privacy of individuals and families during these hearings, the reality is an increasingly inefficient and, at times, unresponsive system that fails to place the emotional and psychological needs of the parties at its centre. The flaws in the present system are regrettably clear for all to see, and in failing to address them, parties are left with a system that undermines the very values that it seeks to uphold—values such as fairness and natural justice, with the wellbeing of children at their core.

This is such a vast topic that it would be inconceivable to address all the issues in the course of an Adjournment debate, and I will therefore focus on the constitution of those on the bench who hear child arrangement order cases. The reason is simple: the anchor point in all family law cases involving a child should always be that child’s best interests, and the creation of an outcome that supports and promotes the child’s safety and emotional and psychological wellbeing and protects his or her future prospects.

It is almost inevitable that each and every Member of this House will have had experience of child arrangement orders in some way, shape or form, whether through constituency casework, personal experience or family and friends, because such cases are sadly far from rare.

If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tell the story of one such case, which I suspect will resonate with many up and down the country, because it is sadly an all-too-familiar experience. This is the story of a young child who, by virtue of their age, cannot fully articulate their wants or desires, whose loyalty is split in two, who does not want to be seen to betray either parent, who is already dealing with their world being turned upside down and whose future is decided in a sterile magistrates court, often as a mere timetabling exercise. That child now faces birthdays, Christmas and Easter all split in half, with weeks cut in two and weekends alternating between one household and another, leaving them with no sense of oikophilia—the love of home. This is a child who feels different from their classmates because they are forced to go to school with their overnight bag; a child who constantly lives with the anxiety of turning up to school without their sports kit because it is at the other parent’s house; a child who feels nomadic, often confused and invariably distressed.

The scale of the problem can be seen starkly in the figures from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. As of 31 August last year, there were 16,671 open private law children’s cases involving 25,670 children. In the first quarter of 2024, the average time for such cases to reach a final order was some 44 weeks. During that period, children are left with uncertainty.

Magistrates have formed an integral element of the England and Wales legal system since the 12th century and the reign of Richard I, who appointed the first keepers of the peace. Almost 200 years later, pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, the term “justice of the peace” was formally introduced. I do not propose reform of the role of magistrates lightly. However, I have reached the view that there is an overwhelming policy argument for doing so.

I am not for one moment suggesting that magistrates do not have an important role to play in the justice system; self-evidently, that would be a fallacy. However, I am increasingly convinced that the nature and focus of their work should be reconsidered, and in the case of child arrangement orders, it is my overwhelming view that the magistrates court should no longer play a role. The reason for mounting this argument is simple: there is an inequality in our legal system when it comes to private law family cases. These are cases that decide the nature and degree of contact a child has with each parent, determine the long-term future of a child and, by their very nature, have a significant, lasting impact upon any child.

Presently in this country, private law children’s cases can be heard before a bench of three magistrates or a district judge with a family ticket. Magistrates are a lay bench who, well-meaning as they may be, are not required to hold any formal legal qualification. While magistrates undergo some specific training following their appointment, it is not more than a handful of days a year. In comparison, a district judge hearing such cases undergoes much more rigorous training and must have a law qualification as a prerequisite. The stakes in cases such as these could not be higher. This singular, most important decision, if misjudged, can set in motion a truly devastating series of events, thereby irreversibly damaging a child and their life chances.

Let us contrast that with the role of magistrates in the criminal courts. The maximum sentence that magistrates can hand down is 12 months. Sentences beyond that are remitted to the Crown court to be heard by a circuit judge. In comparison, a decision about a child’s domestic arrangements until adulthood are frequently made by individuals with no specialist knowledge or training in family law. Furthermore, in the absence of formal legal training, subconscious bias is likely to run higher among magistrates than among members of the judiciary.

We can also take note of the approach taken by other courts in England and Wales. Specialist judges preside over employment, immigration, business and property, and social entitlement cases. Even in cases where a panel of three hears the case, it is a legally qualified, specialist judge who sits in the chair.

Given the importance of such decisions to a child’s long-term prospects, the outdated practice of magistrates hearing private law children’s cases should, in my humble opinion, be abolished. It is an inefficient and unreliable system of dispensing justice in the modern world, and it runs the risk of reaching inconsistent decisions of varying and questionable quality. Far too often, one hears of cases simply being decided as a timetabling exercise, and of a child’s weekly diary being carved up without proper thought or consideration of the impact on that child. Removing the role of magistrates in private law family cases, and ensuring that all such cases are heard by a specialist family judge, would ensure greater consistency of decision making, applying a more judicious and impartial approach.

On this most consequential of issues, we should ensure that those who preside over family cases are not only appropriately legally trained but well versed in the emotional, psychological and social factors at play. There should be much greater focus on ensuring that decision makers are trained in childhood development, domestic abuse dynamics and trauma-informed practices. The system in England and Wales is virtually unique in permitting lay magistrates to determine such matters, with most jurisdictions across the world entrusting the decision to a suitably qualified judge. In more complex cases, we should consider the use of specialised panels, as deployed in other tribunals. Such panels could have a judge as chair and suitably qualified wing members, who may include experts in child psychology. By adopting this model, the panel can take a more holistic approach to decision making.

My ask of the Minister is very simple. If we aim to create a better future for our children, if we truly believe in progress and not merely maintaining the status quo, and if we are to be believed when we talk of improving life chances for generations to come, the Minister should commit to reforming this outdated and harmful system, and ensure that all child arrangement cases are appropriately considered by a qualified judge.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

That is exactly right. As I have mentioned, I am not bringing in the concept of encouragement; it is already in the law and currently an offence. I am putting forward this logical amendment in order for the Bill to deal with that. If we do not do that, we have not circled the wagons.

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

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend speaks to the amendment with very good intentions due to genuine concerns about the safeguards. We have talked a lot about coercion. Clause 1(2)(b) sets out a requirement that the person,

“has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.”

“Pressured” is an important word. If we look at the case law, there are the comments of Lord Nicholls in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Etridge (No. 2) in 2002. He looked at two components of the concept of undue influence. There are acts of improper pressure or coercion, such as unlawful threats, which fit with the coercion element of the Bill as drafted. There are also relationships where one has acquired over another a measure of influence or ascendency, of which the ascendent person takes unfair advantage without any specific acts of coercion. Could my hon. Friend set out why she thinks “unduly influence” would add something beyond what “pressured” already does in the Bill?

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about these things and is well qualified on the legal side. I value his contributions on this matter. The reason I want to include “unduly influence” is because it deals with those more subtle forms of coercion. Arguably, it could be included in “coerced or pressured”, but by including “unduly influence” in the Bill it becomes more explicit that a clinician has to be looking for it. In the absence of the language, clinicians will not be required to look for those more subtle forms of influence.

The provision is something that is included in the assisted dying laws of other jurisdictions. We have the opportunity here to learn and benefit from jurisdictions that have already implemented it. We heard various witnesses give us very useful evidence during the sessions. For example, California includes “undue influence” in the law. We should recognise that there is value in including it here. It is a well-established legal term that is used in myriad situations, so it is relevant that we include it.

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

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

I think that the hon. Member’s intervention responds to some of the points of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire.

We have heard a lot about the equivalence of endings versus decisions. The example given earlier, of somebody pulling the plug because they did not want treatment any more, happens in very few cases. From my experience of working in the NHS and with disabled people, when people are at the end of life, their cases sometimes do end up in court in front of a judge. That may be because there is a difference of opinion—be it medical, between the family, to do with capacity, or whatever the issue is. We are removing that. My understanding is that the promoter of the Bill is removing the need for the judge and is proposing a panel, which is what I read in The Guardian earlier.

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

I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me with an area of her argument that I am conflicted by. I have heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, drawing the distinction between those who refuse treatment for a condition that is then terminal and those actively seeking assistance in ending their life. There is a third group who choose to refuse food and nutrition. That is not a treatment in the conventional sense, to combat a disease process, that is normal sustenance that would keep someone alive. Given that the MCA applies to that decision and someone’s ability to refuse on that basis, how does that interplay with the amendment as proposed?

[Naz Shah]

I have tabled an amendment to a later clause that talks specifically to that. The word “only” needs to be removed. We have seen this in Oregon, which I will come to later. We heard in the oral evidence that 60 women assessed to have capacity died because they had anorexia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

My understanding, which comes from Chelsea Roff, was that that happened specifically in places such as Oregon and California, but I am happy to revisit that. Coming back to the point, we must ensure that people with an eating disorder such as anorexia or a mental health condition will be excluded from the Bill. That will be my second amendment. I do not know if that answers the question.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It may well have been the way that I phrased it, but the point I was seeking to make was that the Mental Capacity Act, as it currently operates, can be used for those patients who choose to refuse food and water. My view would be that that is a distinct group of people who are refusing active treatment. Given the hon. Lady’s distinction between those who refuse treatment in the conventional sense and those who are seeking assisted dying and her view that for the latter group the MCA is not the appropriate mechanism, is she saying that for that group of individuals who refuse food and water—effectively choosing to end their life through starvation—the MCA is not an appropriate mechanism to assess their capacity?

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but we are not here legislating on anorexia; we are here legislating on the option of assisted death. I am trying to understand where he is going with that argument. It genuinely does not make sense to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I am still having that debate in my head, and I am not convinced. I will not digress—I will come to the point—but there is a conversation about whether it is “treatment”, “assisted suicide” or “assisted death”. Those terms have been bandied about. I genuinely think that, ultimately, we have to use the word “suicide” because we are amending the Suicide Act 1961. I appreciate the context in which the promoter of the Bill puts it forward, but the truth is that it is about taking one’s life, so that is how I respond to that question.

To come back to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, the reason why I will support them is that I have way too much experience of people in vulnerable positions, and I have a lifetime of experience of seeing what happens. I do think there are options when somebody has a diagnosis of terminal illness. The prison systems are set up to be able to give them compassionate leave and to explore other avenues. Once they are outside that system, they can access support and have their vulnerability reduced.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Will the hon. Lady help me to understand her position? Is it a fundamental disagreement with any prisoner having access to assisted dying, or is it a fundamental issue with completing the final act, as set out in clause 18, while being a prisoner? For example, the hon. Lady touched on early release on compassionate grounds. Under those circumstances, there may be a prisoner who has been given a six-month diagnosis, and their early release may not be until the last couple of weeks of their life. Should they be deprived of going through the process and the assessment, albeit not enacting the final act until they have been released?

[Naz Shah]

Yes, I think there should be a deprivation of that final act, because there are vulnerabilities with that prisoner while they are inside a prison. What they need is not an option of assisted death at that point. That speaks to the amendment that I tabled, which is about making sure that we do not have the conversation in the first four weeks in any case, because a diagnosis of terminal illness affects people’s mental capacity and mental health. We know that: we have heard it from the psychiatrists. It is common sense; it does not take a genius to work it out.

We know that people in prison have additional vulnerabilities. We are having a debate about the issue of capacity, which we have clearly not agreed on. A person-centred care package needs to be about supporting the person, removing vulnerabilities, giving autonomy, and offering choices around accessing palliative care and medication, so that they are in a much stronger position to make an informed choice.