Speeches by Shah.

“We have heard before that the panel’s decision must be unanimous. However, I have tried looking in the Bill and it does not state that specifically. My understanding is that two people could nod their head, the other one would not have to, and it would still pass.”

“I want to speak to amendment (c) to new schedule 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. The amendment requires members of the panel to have undertaken training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control, and financial abuse. It extends the principle of amendments 20, 21, and 22, also tabled…”

“I struggle to agree that there would be impartiality, because there are people who are committed, believe in, agree with or are advocates for assisted dying. Does that not raise a concern about potential bias—subconscious bias, even?”

“Will my hon. Friend give way?”

“I appreciate that. None the less, I will speak briefly to the amendment as I still have concerns. The amendment provides an absolutely necessary safeguard and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has accepted it. I am pleased that it extends to panel members, but it does not meet the safeguarding needs when it comes …”

“It is a majority vote, not unanimous.”

“I appreciate that, under the new clause, the panel can hear from anybody. Can the Minister confirm that the panel is unable, unlike a mental health tribunal, to summon people to appear before them or insist that witnesses appear, and to make them swear under oath when presenting their evidence?”

“My hon. Friend is making very important points. Is he aware that Professor Mark Elliott, one of the UK’s leading professors of public law and a former chair of the Cambridge law faculty, has spoken about the “asymmetrical nature of appeals under the Bill,” and said: “At best, suggestions that judicial review is an adeq…”

“The Minister is being generous with her time. I just want to confirm that the Bill does not require the social worker to be a palliative care specialist. Am I right in thinking that?”

“I want to understand and clarify something. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the commissioner is sitting as a judge, but my understanding is that the commissioner is not sitting as a judge. What did he mean?”

“The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. I refer back to the point on jury trials. When we have criminal trials and jury trials, they go through not every single thing in somebody’s life, but the actual act of criminality itself and what is relative to that criminal act. That does not mean to say they trudge through a…”

“I rise to speak in support of amendments 305 and 306, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Under amendment 305, a doctor would have to explain what effects the medicines would have as well as death. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, and what other Membe…”

“I completely agree with the hon. Member. He said it much better than I did in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, so I thank him for that.”

“This relates to my point, Mrs Harris, I promise you. DNA evidence subsequently proved that Andrew Malkinson was indeed innocent, yet he was allowed to remain in jail. Members of this House expressed serious disquiet about the conduct of the chairwoman of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, over the Malkinson case. In July last ye…”

“I completely agree. That is the case in the Bill, which raises concerns. Finally, Parliament needs to get back into the habit of holding powerful commissioners accountable. There is no mechanism in the Bill for removing a commissioner even if they somehow failed significantly in their duties. We might say to ourselves,…”

“My hon. Friend’s intervention takes us back to the concerns I already have. I understand that mental health tribunals relate to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which would inform people on that panel in making their judgments. I have spoken extensively against the use of the Mental Capacity Act in this particular field.”

“I absolutely agree that we have not thought this through enough, because that process has not been laid out. We really need to think about these potential eventualities. When such cases happen, the public, including family members of the person who has died, will rightly demand answers, and so will the media. They will…”

“I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I reject the facetiousness of his point. Let me speak to the issue of unconscious bias in relation to the proposal before us. In 1992, there was a jury trial, which found my mother guilty of murdering an abusive partner. In 1998, I went to the High Court and put it t…”

“The truth is—I said this in my previous speech, which I will not repeat, as instructed by you, Mrs Harris—that neither of the safeguards is strong enough. As it was, the Bill was not strong enough—that has been recognised and changes have been proposed—but neither is the idea of a commissioner. There is another great p…”

“I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I will look at it, but that was not my understanding. There are multiple reasons to oppose new clause 21. With it, the Bill will reduce the impartiality that would have been provided by having a High Court judge rule on applications. It will increase the risk that a lar…”