← Back to Parliament Matters episode page

This transcript is automatically generated. There are consequently minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript please first check against the audio version. Timestamps are provided for ease of reference.

[00:00:00] Intro: You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/PM.

[00:00:16] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox,

[00:00:23] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark Darcy, and welcome to the latest in our series of special mini pods following the detailed progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the bill to allow assisted dying.

[00:00:35] Ruth Fox: And this week we've spoken to Bambos Charalambous, the Labour MP, supporter of the Bill, who's on the Public Bill Committee, performing an unusual role.

[00:00:43] We spoke to him on Zoom. And if you hear any odd background noises, that's because as we spoke to him there was a demonstration going on outside his parliamentary office.

[00:00:57] Mark D'Arcy: Well, we're delighted to welcome to the pod Bambos Charalambous, Labour MP, who's been a member of the Public Bill Committee, considering the Teminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as it's officially known. So Bambos, first of all, the committee's now on what many think is going to be the most significant change that's going to be made during the committee process, the switch away from having High Court judges presiding over the consideration of applications for assisted dying to having a multidisciplinary expert panel instead.

[00:01:27] So those debates have been had. And as I understand it, the clauses about the judges being the people who preside over this have been taken out. But the new system hasn't yet, as it were, been plugged into the bill. Is that correct?

[00:01:40] Bambos Charalambous MP: That is correct, Mark. We've deleted Clause 12 that deals with the High Court Judge.

[00:01:45] And that's going to be replaced by a number of new clauses and new schedules. Those have been debated. We've had a very lengthy debate about the replacing of the High Court judge with a panel overseen by a commissioner. And, uh, those will be voted on at the very end of the bill after we've got through all 43 clauses and the amendments to those clauses.

[00:02:03] Ruth Fox: So just to explain for listeners, uh, you can go back to one of our previous special episodes, uh, where we had, um, former clerk, Paul Evans on to take us through the amendment process. But that is the unusual situation in a Public Bill Committee, which is difficult for people outside to understand, perhaps when they're trying to follow the bill, is that sometimes you get this separation of debate and division. You might debate these issues when it comes up in relation to a clause. But as you say, if it's a new clause, then those are voted on right at the end of the process.

[00:02:34] Bambos Charalambous MP: Yes, that's right. So when we've completed Clause 43 and any amendments to everything up to Clause 43, we then get onto the new clauses, and they'll have been debated previously. And we'll just go through voting on them at the end of the bill, so on the last day, that's what will happen.

[00:02:49] Mark D'Arcy: And the new clauses we're talking about here are to create a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner. It'll have to be an ex senior judge who will sit at the head of an authority that appoints people to go on these panels. Then there's the clauses that create these multidisciplinary panels that will consider the circumstances in each individual case. And the reason this is attracting so much attention is that this is the biggest departure from the original content of the bill, and it changes the reassurance mechanism. So instead of having a High Court judge presiding over the cases, you have these panels. And some people see that as a drastic weakening of the safeguards around assisted dying.

[00:03:28] Bambos Charalambous MP: Well, personally, I think it's a strengthening because you would have a social worker and a psychiatrist. As well as somebody from the legal profession, either a retired judge or a KC.

[00:03:39] Uh, so you have a panel of three. They would look at issues around coercion and, uh, duress. They'd also be able to see if somebody's mental state is um, at the end of life, so that would be something they would consider. But this would be after two doctors had seen and spoken to the person who wanted to end their life. So it's just really looking at, uh, whether those doctors had reached the right conclusion. And they'd have investigatory powers as well, so they could scrutinise things and request documents to actually be satisfied that things are done, and that's far more powerful in my view than what the High Court judge would have done, which would have been pretty much just to rubber the stamp the decision of the two doctors.

[00:04:17] Ruth Fox: And Bambos, this departure has come in part in response to the evidence received at the start of the Public Bill Committee, including from people associated with the legal system and the judiciary, that there were concerns that there wouldn't be the capacity for the High Court judges to handle this all on their own.

[00:04:35] What assurances have you got that there's going to be the capacity in terms of social workers and psychiatrists? And on the judicial side, the option has been added that you could have a former or retired High Court judge to expand the capacity there. What assurances have you got that there'll be enough in respect of those other professions to be involved in this process?

[00:04:54] Bambos Charalambous MP: We'll have at least two years to plan before the Bill will take effect. And, um, they would sit in an ad hoc place, they wouldn't be sitting all the time. It would be as and when required, so I think that's also an important factor. It wouldn't be like a permanent sitting committee. So I think that should be able to be covered.

[00:05:10] But, uh, that would be down to the commission to make sure those people are recruited and things are in place for that to happen. But I'm quite confident that will be able to happen.

[00:05:17] Mark D'Arcy: Do you get any sense that this change is going to swing opinions on the bill?

[00:05:22] Bambos Charalambous MP: Just from MPs that I've spoken to, they actually, when you speak to them about it, they think it's better because there's greater scrutiny. Because the High Court judge would have just not had the same powers or the same expertise as the panel has. So I think people I've spoken to say, when you explain to them, they think, well, that's far better than what we had before.

[00:05:40] Mark D'Arcy: Because there has been a statement put out by, I think, 26 Labour MPs saying that they think this is a weakening of the bill.

[00:05:46] Now, these were people, largely, who voted against the bill at Second Reading, so maybe there's no change there. But there is a thought that this might be something that when the bill comes back to the full House of Commons for its Third Reading, could lead to it getting into some difficulty.

[00:06:01] Bambos Charalambous MP: We can't predict the future but I think if people scrutinise the new proposals and if they have a discussion with people on the Committee and find out more about it, I think they'll be pleasantly surprised that this is actually a strengthening of the oversight in the Bill.

[00:06:15] It's just a question of people finding out more and having the conversation. Some people will not be convinced by anything so they just don't want the bill to go ahead, which is fine, that's their perspective. But I do think this is better than what we had before in the bill.

[00:06:27] Ruth Fox: Can I ask about your role, Bambos?

[00:06:29] Because on the committee, you obviously took part in the questioning of the witnesses at the start of the Public Bill Committee process. But since we've moved into discussion of the amendments, you've not been involved in intervening or asking questions and so on. It's almost like you're an unofficial whip for the supporters of the bill, you're moving the adjournment at the end of each session and so on. Is that the role you're playing?

[00:06:54] Bambos Charalambous MP: It is, yeah, so I just have to make sure there are, the people are in the room and on time and that we check the progress of the bill because the bill has to go through its committee stages. So I'm the unofficial whip and believe me there are plenty of people who want to speak on the bill itself without me adding anything to that.

[00:07:10] So yeah, so I'm the unofficial whip as it were and the reason for that is because it's a Private Members Bill there couldn't be any Government Whips. It's quite a strange role because normally on a bill committee you'd have a government whip and an opposition whip. Because it's a Private Member's Bill and it's one that's attracted a lot of interest they wanted somebody who'd been a Whip before who could help guide it through its, uh, committee stage. So, that role, an unofficial role, has fallen to me.

[00:07:35] Ruth Fox: Who is your opposite number then on the, on the opposition side?

[00:07:39] Bambos Charalambous MP: Well, I speak to Danny Kruger. I also liaise with Kim Leadbeater and we, we see where we want to get to.

[00:07:44] I also advise whoever's chairing the committee as to where I think we'll get to. If there are votes, we try and, uh, choose a sensible time when it'll be convenient to start. It's not always possible, but we do our best. Also, I want to make sure that everyone has their say, that everyone is allowed to express their views. But we also need to make progress, so that does mean sitting a bit later sometimes.

[00:08:04] Ruth Fox: Could you perhaps explain then, Bambous, because one of the things that this week at the opening of proceedings on Tuesday morning that surprised quite a lot of people listening outside was the announcement from the Chair of the Committee, Roger Gale, talking through the logistics, what you were saying about, you know, planning the sitting times and obviously alerting members to the fact that there would be divisions in the House chamber that they'd have to go to and they'd have to come back to the committee and so on. But the thing that stuck out to everybody was his suggestion that he was willing to sit through the night if necessary. And that got a lot of people thinking, what? What was his thinking there?

[00:08:40] Bambos Charalambous MP: I mean, Sir Roger's a very experienced parliamentarian. He takes his role very seriously. I think he just wants to make sure that the bill does get through and that people are aware that there might be interruptions over the course of the day. Yesterday, we had five votes on the Employment Rights Bill, so that interrupted the bill so we had to finish early.

[00:08:59] But we do need to get through the Bill, we're only on clause 13 at the moment. There are 43 clauses, and the Bill needs to be out of committee within the next couple of weeks, really, before the end of March.

[00:09:09] Mark D'Arcy: Is the Bill on course, do you think, to make what people are assuming is the unofficial date that's been set for its report stage, which is the 25th of April?

[00:09:18] Bambos Charalambous MP: I think so. There are a few clauses that may be quite hotly debated, but I think that there are some clauses that It won't be so debated. Towards the end of the bill, there are some clauses about the title of the bill and start dates and that sort of stuff, which won't be contentious. So I think with a fair wind, we should be able to make it through to complete these stages within the next few weeks. But that depends on how long members want to speak for, how long they want to debate issues for, and we need to make sure that there is proper debate about the Bill.

[00:09:46] Mark D'Arcy: And what's the mood like on the committee now? There's been a lot of noises off on social media, which suggests that things are getting a little bit tetchy. When you're in the room, what is it like?

[00:09:55] Bambos Charalambous MP: In the room, it's done in a very considered, thoughtful manner. People are very respectful of each other. Obviously, social media is another thing. I tend to avoid going on social media unless I have to. But in the Bill Committee, people are very comradely, and they respect each other's views.

[00:10:11] And even though there might be vehement disagreement with, um, something that's being put forward they do it in a very friendly way, in a very considered way, so there isn't any animosity in, in the actual Committee itself.

[00:10:21] Mark D'Arcy: No sense of that bleeding through then, that the social media noises off aren't driving people into a sort of more bad tempered mood.

[00:10:28] Bambos Charalambous MP: I don't think so. I mean, I think they leave any frustrations at the door of the Committee. And the debate has been good, has been thoughtful, and people are respecting that.

[00:10:36] Ruth Fox: Can I ask you, Bambos, about the workload? Because it is considerable. I mean, you're meeting two days in succession, four hours at a time.

[00:10:43] As you say, you've got to go off and vote on, on government business in the Chamber. You've got all your constituency work as well. Are you finding, for example, it's closing out your opportunities to be involved in other things, I would imagine. And have you seen any sort of increase in, for example, your postbag by virtue of being on the committee? Are people contacting you about the bill to press you to agree to certain things or to lobby you on questions? Is that constituents or is that the wider public?

[00:11:12] Bambos Charalambous MP: I have had some emails from constituents, but I obviously had a lot more prior to Second Reading. I don't think on that level in relation to the bill that hasn't increased that much.

[00:11:22] I've met with a number of organisations who have an interest in the various clauses of the bill and it's been good to hear from them, to hear their concerns and their views about what needs to happen. It does take up a fair bit of time I won't deny that but then being on any bill committee does take up a lot of time and it's just something that you have to sign up to. And I think the people that are on the Bill committee accept that it will take up a fair bit of the time, but they also care passionately about the bill one way or another.

[00:11:50] It's, uh, it's something that they're deeply concerned about.

[00:11:53] Mark D'Arcy: Well, Bambos, thanks very much indeed for joining us here on Parliament Matters. Really appreciate your update on what's going on the Bill Committee. I'm sure we'll talk to you again before the whole saga's over.

[00:12:01] Bambos Charalambous MP: I look forward to it, Mark. Thank you Mark. Thank you Ruth.

[00:12:04] Ruth Fox: Thanks, Bambos.

[00:12:05] Mark D'Arcy: So, Ruth, what do you think we learned from that?

[00:12:07] Ruth Fox: Well, Mark, I think it's interesting to hear from someone who's playing this unofficial Whip's role. He's got, obviously, a coordinating role. I think it's interesting he's there to try and make sure all the troops turn up on time, which I think broadly has happened.

[00:12:19] And, uh, it was interesting he to hear him about the the timetable, which we should perhaps flesh out a little bit in a minute.

[00:12:25] Mark D'Arcy: Yeah, I one of the things that I took from that is that he is remarkably unfazed by the idea that changing the oversight mechanism, so getting rid of that High Court judge and having this expert panel instead, is going to make any difference to the votes in the House of Commons.

[00:12:41] There doesn't appear to be any sense of tension or worry around that. The backers of the bill think that people, if anything, are going to decide that this is a better mechanism than the one it replaces. Well, we shall see. That's one to watch.

[00:12:55] Ruth Fox: Yeah, and I was interested in his comments about the announcement by Roger Gale at the start of Tuesday's session, which I have to say, when I first heard it, my heart dropped.

[00:13:05] And I thought, goodness me, are we actually going to have to sit through the night listening to this for the podcast? But we haven't. I wasn't sure whether it was a threat or a promise.

[00:13:13] Mark D'Arcy: Well, sometimes, I mean, you used to see this a lot in the House of Lords. There'll be a lot of sabre rattling about how we'll have to sit through the night to get this bill through if amendments keep being debated so slowly and then lo and behold, the amendments start to be debated a bit more quickly.

[00:13:25] Ruth Fox: Yeah, I mean, as you say, it is quite difficult, I think, to follow from outside without all the paperwork. This separation of debate and division, it's quite confusing. So we know that the High Court judge, the original proposal is out. And we are expecting that the new proposal from Kim Leadbeater will go in, but we haven't quite got, we've had the debate on it, we haven't quite got to the division on it, that will come much later in the process.

[00:13:49] Mark D'Arcy: So you've got things like, um, new clause 14, creating a voluntary assisted dying commissioner who will oversee the whole sort of national level process. And then there's new clause 15, which is about setting up these multidisciplinary panels that we were talking about just there, and those don't get voted till right to the end now because they're new clauses, not existing clauses, and they deal with the amendments to all the existing clauses, then do the new bits.

[00:14:14] Ruth Fox: Yeah, so tune into our earlier special podcast with Paul Evans, who explained in wonderful detail the amendment process and the way in which you have to work through clause by clause and the separation of debate and division.

[00:14:26] Mark D'Arcy: Because you can imagine that there were people who were watching that committee and its proceedings live on the internet, thinking, hang on a minute, they don't seem to have voted on what they've just been debating. Well, this is why - the weird and wonderful intricacies of committee procedure. They do all the existing clauses and amendments to them, and then they only take new clauses right at the end of the process. So those votes will be probably several sittings away at the very least, I would have thought before they finally get to them, but they are the crucial votes.

[00:14:53] And because the vote on getting rid of the High Court judges went the way that the proponents of the bill wanted it to, I think the assumption is that the same committee is going to vote in the same proportions on the multidisciplinary panels when that bit comes up.

[00:15:08] Ruth Fox: There's a fairly regular pattern in the divisions, although interestingly this week there were a few instances where some of the divisions went through on 20 votes in favour and 2 against.

[00:15:18] The 2 against being Danny Kruger and Rebecca Paul, Conservative MPs who are clearly the hardest, the hardliners, yeah. But otherwise most of the votes were in favour. Most of the divisions are going through on the kind of the split between the supporters and opponents of the bill at Second Reading, broadly speaking, as you'd expect.

[00:15:33] Mark D'Arcy: And Bambos was saying that the bill is pretty much on course to return to the House of Commons for its Report Stage debate on the 25th of April, and there are some interesting little nuances to keeping to that timetable. First of all, that means that the committee has to stop before Parliament has its Easter break, so. The committee's final session would be what?

[00:15:54] Ruth Fox: Well, I think, I think it will probably be Tuesday the 8th of April. So it's about three and a half weeks away. In practical terms, if they continue to sit for Tuesdays and Wednesdays, that means they've got seven days in committee left.

[00:16:06] Mark D'Arcy: And of course, as Sir Roger Gale was mentioning, they might sit very, very late just to get the work done.

[00:16:10] Ruth Fox: They could, or they could add extra days as we've discussed previously. So, get it out of committee on Tuesday the 8th of April. It then comes back to the Chamber, to all MPs to consider what amendments have been made to the Bill in Committee that would be Friday, the 25th of April. I think one proviso on that, and that goes to the questions about these amendments is that the Government, of course, has promised an Impact Assessment for Report Stage.

[00:16:35] I don't think they could go ahead with Report Stage unless they've got that Impact Assessment, but they also need a reasonable amount of time from MPs to have read that Impact Assessment. So, you know, if it comes out on the 23rd or 24th of April, I don't think that's going to be acceptable to many members.

[00:16:50] Mark D'Arcy: I think they need it there to provide Easter holiday readings for MPs. Yes, exactly.

[00:16:53] Ruth Fox: So I think that's one proviso is how quickly can the government get that out? And that is an unknown. I

[00:17:00] Mark D'Arcy: suppose though that the officials who'd be drawing up those Impact Assessments won't be sitting there waiting for the final votes.

[00:17:05] They will start assuming how the votes go and write on that basis. And if things change, they'll change their draft.

[00:17:10] Ruth Fox: Yeah, I mean, they may well have been pretty close to what they need anyway, but I think that's just a logistical point that will need to marry up on the timings. And then I think unusually for this Private Members Bill, there will then be a separate debate for Third Reading, which would have to be on a sitting Friday.

[00:17:29] And the next sitting Friday after the 25th of April is the 16th of May. Now, I say it's unusual because most times Private Members Bills, because they tend to be small, technical pieces of legislation, they've got Government support, very often nothing happens in committee. There's no amendments in committee. No amendments in committee. Effectively, therefore, they don't need Report stage and it goes straight to Third Reading and it's a done deal.

[00:17:50] Mark D'Arcy: Yes, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred pounds. I mean, having spent a disturbing amount of my life watching Private Members Bill debates on a sitting Friday, the Third Reading stage is often incredibly perfunctory.

[00:18:03] You know, the proposer of the bill thanks their producer and their director, the Minister says something nice about the proposer of the bill, the opposition spokesperson says something nice about the proposer of the bill, and it's all over in a matter of minutes. This I think will be different because there will have been a significant change in the content of the bill between the original Second Reading debate and it returning to the House of Commons. The committee will have made a significant change that MPs will want to debate at Third Reading. So. We were saying this in earlier editions of this pod. There will now need to be some sort of provision made for that to be discussed and it looks as if that provision is being made.

[00:18:37] Ruth Fox: Yeah. Assuming it does have Third Reading on the 16th of May, then it would be off to the House of Lords.

[00:18:44] Now, unless something changes in the length of the session and unless the government decides that it's willing to add extra sitting Fridays, or it's willing to make time in government business time, it then has to come back from the House of Lords by 11th of July at the latest. I mean, that's the last sitting Friday, so that's the last scenario.

[00:19:03] But if the House of Lords wants to make amendments, and then the Commons has got to consider them, send them back to the Lords, then come back to the Commons, 11th of July is arguably too late, so they would need the previous sitting Friday. In which case, they might be wanting to get it back from the Lords on the 4th of July, the previous

[00:19:18] Mark D'Arcy: And that's pretty tight.

[00:19:19] Ruth Fox: Yeah, the 12th, the 12th of the 13 sitting Fridays. So it gives them two days to sort out the Commons and Lords sort of reconciling on the text of the Bill.

[00:19:28] Mark D'Arcy: So, so the Peers would be expected to process this whole thing in something under six weeks, probably, taking into account various minor recesses and things that they have along the way. And that looks pretty tight now. As you say, if the Lords does make any changes, they do have to be processed in the Commons. That would normally happen on a Friday. They start running out of these sitting Fridays for Private members Bills. What then? Would the government decide that the bill, having received a Third Reading in the Commons, is deserving of having a little bit of time allocated to it?

[00:19:56] It's not the hugest concession to make. Just to make sure that this bill doesn't fail simply for lack of parliamentary time at that point. I mean, if the bill's had a Third Reading in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords not allocating the time just to fill out the final dots and commas and get the text absolutely right seems a bit absurd.

[00:20:17] Ruth Fox: Yes, it would, it would look very, uh, very, very strange. And, uh, just before we go, if you, uh, were looking out for our regular main podcast, looking at this week issues on, uh, the Planning Bill, the internal row in Reform UK, and the implications for Parliament of that, that should be in your podcast feed as we speak.

[00:20:37] See you soon.

[00:20:38] Mark D'Arcy: Bye bye.

[00:20:41] Intro: Parliament Matters is produced by the Hansard Society and supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. For more information, visit hansardsociety.org.uk or find us on social media @HansardSociety.