← 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.

[00:00:17] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters. The podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

[00:00:24] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy, and welcome to the latest in our series of special podcasts tracking the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the bill that would legalise assisted dying.

[00:00:36] Ruth Fox: And this week we talk to Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP who has emerged as the leader of the opposition on the committee doing detailed scrutiny of the bill. We began by asking him how he got that role.

[00:00:47] Danny Kruger MP: Well, I think I was quite vocal on the subject in the last Parliament and I chaired an APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) on end of life care called Dying Well, which is about promoting palliative care.

[00:00:57] So I got very involved in the whole question in the last Parliament and then when Kim came top in the ballot for the Private Members Bill and chose to do assisted dying, I sort of got mobilised again. But I actually think I'm prominent largely because Kim decided to have me on the Committee and I'm grateful to her for that because she didn't have to have me.

[00:01:14] She did have, by convention, to have a proportionate number of people who voted no on the Committee. As you know, she chooses who goes on the Committee. But she's supposed to respect the proportion of aye and no votes at Second Reading, and she has more or less, although slightly stacked in her favour. But she's had to select some people who are opposed. She selected me. I regret she didn't select some other, frankly, more senior, more prominent voices, particularly on the Labour side. You know, there's some very, very senior and respected people like Meg Hillier, Rachael Maskell, others who I think, frankly, would be doing a better job than me, not just in the Committee, but also convincing Labour MPs that it's not safe.

[00:01:49] But anyway, I'm very honoured to be involved, and it's been a fascinating process for me.

[00:01:55] Mark D'Arcy: When you started on this process, and it was fairly clear you were the most prominent opponent on the Bill Committee, did you attempt to sit down with Kim Leadbeater, have a cup of tea in the members tea room or something like that, just sort of talk through the issues informally?

[00:02:09] Have you managed to engage at that level?

[00:02:11] Danny Kruger MP: Well, I've known Kim for a while, since before we were both MPs, in fact, because we both worked in the charity sector before politics, and so we would always say hello to each other when we both became MPs. But I've had a couple of meetings with her on this subject since she selected the Bill and we had a sit down in her office probably after once, that's right, once I was nominated to the, to the Committee. We just discussed process and we agreed to treat each other well, as I think we've done, I mean, it can get fractious, but none of us are playing the man rather than the ball, and I think we both recognise everybody on the Committee is acting in good faith.

[00:02:45] I mean, I genuinely understand how, for Kim and others, this is a moral principle. They really genuinely believe in the importance of autonomy over end of life in the way that they frame it. So there's certainly nothing personal in my opposition to her. I'm afraid she's just, she's the one who's championing this thing, which I think is deeply dangerous.

[00:03:05] Ruth Fox: Have you been on a Public Bill Committee before?

[00:03:07] Danny Kruger MP: I've been on government bill committees. I don't think I've ever done a Private Member's Bill. If I have, it probably would have taken 10 minutes. Normally they are, you know, Private Member's Bills are usually non contentious. That's the point.

[00:03:17] Ruth Fox: Yeah.

[00:03:18] Danny Kruger MP: I mean, I think there is a big question, I don't know if you want to get into it about the appropriateness of the PMB (Private Members' Bill) process for legislation of this sort. It's unprecedented to do it like this, and it's, therefore, nobody on the Committee has any experience of doing this, including the Chairs, including the Clerks. We're all feeling our way, and history's being made.

[00:03:36] I mean, you've got this anomaly of Ministers sitting on the Committee in a dual capacity to speak as ministers on behalf of the Government, which is supposed to be neutral, but then to vote as MPs with their conscience and they vote with Kim. No one's ever done that before. So I think we are in a constitutionally unfamiliar space and certainly for me I don't know what's going on half the time and it's a very, very perplexing process.

[00:03:59] Mark D'Arcy: In the heroic age of Private Members Bills, as I think of it, in the 60s, when they abolished the death penalty, when they legalised homosexual acts by consenting adults over the age of 21 in private, etc, when they legalised abortion, these were all areas where they stopped doing something, didn't necessarily involve setting up very big, complicated, elaborate structures. This process is different because it does involve creating a whole mechanism to do something that the National Health Service had never done before. It's much more an act of kind of construction in that sense.

[00:04:33] Danny Kruger MP: Yeah, very well put. I think that is a key difference. The other one is that those Private Members Bills were essentially Government measures. But because they were conscience issues, they were put through by a private member, but usually with the consent of Government and acknowledged majority in Parliament. Whereas this is a much more contentious issue. It didn't have a big majority at Second Reading and the Government is supposed to be neutral on it. In practice though, it is quite analogous to those earlier PMBs because the Government clearly is behind this bill. The Prime Minister does support it. And Government is lending its support behind the scenes to Kim to enable the bill to pass in a state that it's happy with.

[00:05:10] So, it's a very complicated and I think uncomfortable situation. I'm not sure I have the answer to it, frankly, because these are conscience issues. Is it therefore appropriate for it to have been a manifesto commitment and then a government measure? I mean, my view is probably yes. I think if we're going to do something this big, and as you say, it's about creating a new structure, a new mechanism, with all sorts of implications. Not just in the more profound sense of how it affects our society and our attitudes to the frail, elderly, disabled people. But it's going to significantly affect the way the NHS works. I think for that reason it should be owned meaningfully by the Government. And the Health Secretary and the Justice Secretary should be pushing this through.

[00:05:52] We've got this strange situation where the Health Secretary and the Justice Secretary are opposed to the bill. Whereas their junior ministers, who are the ones who sit on the Committee with us are in favour. So in all sorts of ways, it's a very uncomfortable situation, and I don't envy any of the people involved in trying to push it through, because they're doing it against the grain of the way our parliamentary system works.

[00:06:10] Ruth Fox: Yeah, one of the problems, of course, is it's difficult to imagine that a party would adopt it going into an election in their manifesto and push it through as a government bill, precisely because of the differences in the parliamentary parties on this, because it's a matter of conscience.

[00:06:22] So Private Members Bills, historically, that's been the sort of the root taken to these issues, but we've never had a bill where, you know, we've had public evidence sessions, for example, where you've got the media and social media in particular focus on, on the process, uh, sort of much higher levels of public interest and engagement than you would have seen in the 1960s, because we're just living in a different kind of media and communications world. So we'll perhaps come on to sort of reform of Private Members Bills in the future, and I think this is certainly something the Modernisation Committee in the House is going to have to look at.

[00:06:56] But just going to that point you said about Ministers, have you had direct engagement with Ministers? You know, you are producing amendments, it's a stakhanovite task, sitting a couple of days a week, extended hours. Have you had engagement with Ministers, with government lawyers about the drafting of amendments?

[00:07:15] Danny Kruger MP: Absolutely not. And I've got a great deal of respect for Stephen Kinnock and Sarah Sackman, who are the ministers sitting opposite me. They have a huge task. I mean, I regret, frankly, that they are spending eight hours a day, two days a week, not doing their real jobs, which is fixing the social care system, fixing the courts, but defending this bill.

[00:07:35] Anyway, that's what they're doing. So, presumably, I imagine there are many, many civil servants on the job behind the scenes. You know, Kim has that whole machinery behind her and behind the bill. I and my colleagues have absolutely nothing apart from some amazing volunteers, really brilliant people who've been helping us to draft amendments, work out the implications of what the different clauses and the amendments coming, from the other side because of course the bill as presented in Second Reading is not the bill that is now being voted through every day. It's changing because Kim and the government are introducing changes, some of which improve the bill slightly, some of which I think significantly change it in a way that MPs at second reading didn't approve. So there's a lot of work going on on the other side and we don't have the resources at all to match it.

[00:08:17] And I think that is something to consider. Should it, would it be appropriate in these big pieces of legislation that are delivered in this way for MPs involved to have a bit more resource? But I am concerned about the mismatch of power in the process. And one example of this, and again, it goes to this question of, is it a Government bill or a Private Members Bill.

[00:08:36] In a Government bill, we'd be sitting Tuesdays and Thursdays. There's a day in between to work out what you're going to do the next day. It takes a whole day to prepare for a day of Committee, at least, multiple days, in fact, for dealing with sitting till 8pm, 9pm at night. There's a lot to get through, and there's only eight of us on the Committee who oppose the bill.

[00:08:54] Not all of my colleagues are actively involved in all of the different clauses or engaged in them, so it falls only to a few of us to properly as it were challenge on every clause that goes through some of them more important than others but we're looking at everything. It's a huge amount to do. We simply don't have the time to do that job properly in my view. The related problem again going to the government versus Private Members process the way it works in normal legislation is that if the government's tabling an amendment to a clause in a bill, they have to give a week's notice, whereas a private member only has to give three days notice.

[00:09:27] And that matters because it really takes time to work out what you think and then to table a contrary amendment or an improving amendment to their amendment. And a bill won't be called for debate or division if it doesn't have a day's notice at least. So the point I'm making is we don't ever have enough time to respond to what's going on, because the amendments that are coming only have three days.

[00:09:46] Unless we are instant in our response to them, which we obviously can't be, we won't be able to table a counter amendment in time for the debate to take place. So we're just always at a disadvantage. I mean, that's the process. I don't want to be totally critical, by the way. I do think it really strengthens my belief in Parliament and in the Committee process.

[00:10:04] This is too much, and we're not doing the job properly. It's too fast, it's too much, not enough support on our side. But if it were all properly resourced and there was enough time, I do think this line-by-line scrutiny, when the sponsor has to defend the clauses, the people proposing amendments have to really explain them and engage meaningfully in debate on them.

[00:10:24] It is a really brilliant process, and sometimes we get, I think, very, very good debates in our Committee. There's some very intelligent, capable people on both sides, so I'm partly impressed and partly depressed by what we've, what we've learned.

[00:10:35] Mark D'Arcy: The big change that's been made so far is on the oversight of the process, is on taking out the original idea of having a high court judge overseeing the handling of each case, and having instead an independent expert panel. Now supporters of the bill have been saying most people think that actually strengthens the system. It's a distinct improvement. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that you disagreed with that view. But do you think it actually swings opinion in the wider House of Commons that they've changed this oversight mechanism in such a significant way? Or is that something that people are essentially shrugging over?

[00:11:10] Danny Kruger MP: No, I think that a lot of people are very concerned about that. They're concerned about it in itself because it is a significant diminution of the safeguards in the bill if there's no longer to be a judge hearing the case and deciding on it. That's what we were promised at Second Reading.

[00:11:25] By the way, I support the introduction of more psychiatrists and social workers, which is what's being introduced. That should just happen at the beginning of the process, when the clinical stage, when the person's being assessed, not at the last stage. And we should add it in, not replace the judge. We still need that judicial stage.

[00:11:40] So I think people are of the view that this is a step back from the gold plated safeguards that were promised at the beginning and what people voted on at Second Reading. But I think the more substantial problem is one of process. The House of Commons supported this bill, not in detail, but in principle, because they recognised that this bill conveyed the intention to legalise assisted suicide.

[00:12:02] And there was a clear intention to do so in a way that is as safe as possible. You know, the safest bill in the world. And the role of the High Court judge was presented by Kim and all the advocates of the bill MPs who spoke at Second Reading in favour of it as the principal evidence that this bill is safe.

[00:12:22] To then change that in committee, once there's momentum behind the bill, once people have voted aye in favour, when there's a Committee that is stacked in favour of the bill and behind Kim so there's no chance of refusing this amendment, it's passed now, we'll have the chance at Report Stage to remove it, but as you know, Report Stage is not the time to be doing substantial amendments to a bill.

[00:12:43] There'll only be the opportunity for a few amendments probably to be voted on. This one might not be it. So, in answer to your question, I'm getting a lot of MPs of all parties saying to me, I'm very concerned about what's happened with the High Court judge, I thought that was in the bill, and I'm dismayed that it's not.

[00:12:58] Mark D'Arcy: There's even been talk that the European Convention on Human Rights might be impinging on the workings of assisted dying in the UK.

[00:13:06] Danny Kruger MP: The other thing that has concerned me in the debate has been the sense that, well, the statement from government that certain safeguards that we wanted to introduce would be ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) or by a British court relying on the European Convention.

[00:13:23] For instance, we attempted to insist that you shouldn't be able to insist on assisted dying in a care home because they're the rights of the care home operator and the other residents and the staff there. Whereas the minister responded by saying that would be an infringement of the ECHR, you know, right to family life or something, right to privacy.

[00:13:43] And he deployed that argument in other spaces as well. I'm very concerned if the government is genuinely of the view that if Parliament wants a certain law to pass with certain protections, in this case for care homes or hospices, that it should not do so out of fear of a challenge on ECHR grounds. Now, I mean, there's a whole wider topic about the role of the European Convention vis-a-vis parliamentary sovereignty, but we are always told that Parliament is sovereign.

[00:14:10] And I regret that we have ministers suggesting that international law should trump the decisions of Parliament. You know, the fact is, if Parliament did want to protect care homes from the obligation to facilitate assisted dying, and it put that in primary legislation, It would be a very brave judge, whether in Britain or in Strasbourg, who would say that is an infringement and it would be, I think, a very reckless minister in consequence of a ruling from a judge to say, okay, fine, we'll disregard or overturn a law passed in Parliament because a judge says that it's a breach of somebody's human rights.

[00:14:46] So, you know, this, this eternal question of the role of the ECHR is being activated here again, and I regret that.

[00:14:53] Ruth Fox: And looking ahead to Report Stage, so we're assuming that Kim will want to get the bill into the next stage on the 25th of April, which is the next Private Member's Bill sitting Friday for consideration of it at Report.

[00:15:07] What do you think is the trajectory in terms of the ending of the Committee stage? Because it could go through to Tuesday the 8th of April when the House rises for Easter, but there are suggestions that actually, and particularly given that you were sitting late this week, that it might actually wrap up earlier than that.

[00:15:23] What do you expect?

[00:15:24] Danny Kruger MP: I think we're hoping, well, Kim is hoping and Kim's in charge, uh, so we're expecting to finish next week. So we've now got to, I think, clause 32. So there's only 10 clauses or so left, plus all the new clauses, schedules and so on. So there's probably another full day's debate to be had.

[00:15:40] And I mean, I think we could have taken longer. We should be taking longer over this. I think we are rushing it. I'm afraid to say a lot of committee members are not speaking at all. Because they don't want, they want to just speed the process up. Which is why everyone's probably so sick of my voice and a few of us who are speaking on every clause.

[00:15:56] So yes, I think we're going to finish next week. And then, as you say, the expectation is, it's again up to Kim, but she will probably call for Report Stage to be on the first available Friday, which is the 25th of April.

[00:16:08] Mark D'Arcy: And what will you be teeing up for discussion then? You'll presumably have a few ideas about what amendments you'll try and push at that Report Stage.

[00:16:17] Danny Kruger MP: So one thing which is a new, Ruth, you'll know about this, it used to be the case that you couldn't bring an amendment back that had been debated and decided in Committee at Report Stage. So the whole House of Commons wouldn't have the opportunity to debate it if it had already been debated by the Committee.

[00:16:32] But now we are able to do that, which is good news. So I think, remember, amendments aren't just tabled by Committee members, they can be tabled by any member of the House. And we've been debating amendments tabled by MPs who aren't sitting on the Committee. So lots of MPs no doubt will want to try and re-table amendments that have been rejected.

[00:16:48] I'm sure I will too. I don't know how many, whether it's a question of putting lots down and hoping some land or concentrating our fire, more on a few, but in a sense it's not up to me or anyone what amendments get tabled. Any MP can do that, so there'll no doubt be a lot. But yes, I mean, we will want to be trying to restore the safeguards that we were promised and to strengthen the bill as it stands. There's a whole bunch of things.

[00:17:11] Mark D'Arcy: So bring back the judges?

[00:17:12] Danny Kruger MP: Well, we'll see. Yes, I mean, I think in principle we should be. I mean, I haven't discussed with colleagues yet how we'll do that. But I certainly think judicial stage was something that House of Commons voted for.

[00:17:22] And it feels very wrong that that's been taken out. So there's a whole bunch of things I think we should not give up hope that we can get accepted by the bill sponsor and the government. I mean, the fact is they have been accepting some of our amendments. I had one accepted yesterday, which will require the doctor, before the fatal drugs are finally administered, just to verbally say, do you want to proceed, or to communicate, you don't have to go ahead, because I fear, a real danger, that people will feel that the train has left the station, once the doctor's in the room, with a needle, or whatever it is.

[00:17:51] They accepted that, it doesn't really change the process or anything, uh, you know, it's welcome, but cosmetic.. There have been a number of those sorts of changes accepted, which is good, but there's a whole bunch that we fail to get them to agree to. Including by the way, and this is I think relevant to the Hansard Society, which is the role of Statutory Instruments in delegated legislation.

[00:18:11] As you know, often a particular aspect of implementation or the sort of ongoing management of a particular, you know, whatever the legislation is regulating can be left to Ministers to decide in secondary legislation. It doesn't have to go to the whole House of Commons. There's a huge amount of that in this bill. Yeah.

[00:18:27] And you guys yourselves in response to earlier assisted dying bills that have been rejected you complained that there was too much being left to ministers and also to the negative procedure which means they don't get debated by the Commons and voted on unless the Leader of the Opposition and the Government agree they should be.

[00:18:44] Which basically means never. Especially on a conscience issue like this.

[00:18:48] Ruth Fox: Yes. Very rarely.

[00:18:49] Danny Kruger MP: Whereas what we should be doing is the affirmative procedure, whereby it does have to go through Parliament to get approved. So the regulation of the whole drugs regime, for instance. You know, what drugs? How will they be prescribed? Who will look after them? How will they be transported and stored? All these really, you know, detailed but important questions. What's the oversight of the data? What information is going to be collected in order we can track that this thing is working safely? All of that is just being punted down the line to Ministers also to draw up Codes of Conduct about how doctors should operate, how they should conduct the process. Again, not being properly given to Parliament to approve. I, I really regret.

[00:19:23] Ruth Fox: I, I think Danny, I mean, this has been our interest in the bill, as it is with all, with government bills, you know, we're neutral on the question of assisted dying. Staff here have got personal views on it, but as an institution we don't have a view on, on the question of assisted dying.

[00:19:37] But we do have a view on that balance of power between Government and Parliament and whether or not ministers should be subject to more democratic oversight and whether the Bill is too framework and too much, as you say, is being punted down the line to ministers to decide at their discretion. And certainly that's been an issue that we flagged and you've raised a number of times in the Committee.

[00:19:59] And I was very struck by the Minister's response on this. It did sound like he was very much reading out his departmental brief, but essentially the sort of position seemed to be we can't have parliamentary scrutiny or active debates and votes on this because there's a risk that it'll delay the operationalisation and implementation within the two year period for the act to come in. Which I have to say I personally found, knowing how the procedures work, a bit ridiculous, because, I mean, the Government could lay the regulations and they could be debated and voted on by MPs within one or two days if that's what they needed.

[00:20:34] Danny Kruger MP: Even in retrospect, if necessary.

[00:20:36] Ruth Fox: Yeah, and we've suggested the made affirmative procedure, as you say, you know, do it retrospectively. You know, let's be honest, the affirmative procedure, debates in Delegated Legislation Committees, or retrospective debates, sort of after the fact, none of that is adequate. And it all just reinforces our view that delegated legislation needs to be radically reformed.

[00:20:56] Danny Kruger MP: You've probably seen Lord Hermer's opinion there. Yes. Because his Attorney General, very interesting, you know, came into Government with Keir Starmer and said very clearly and boldly, as if he was still in opposition frankly, you know, it's outrageous that the government uses so much delegated legislation, and this is a new government's opportunity to rethink that, and I agree.

[00:21:14] I mean, I, you know, I was, I sat there through the Coronavirus debates, or rather the non debates, and think we, you know, Government has been disregarding Parliament too much of late. And there we had an actual crisis on our hands. Here it is, we're creating something for the future. And as you say, it's very wrong to say that somehow that parliamentary scrutiny will be a unacceptable barrier to the implementation of something we haven't yet even begun to plan, so I regret that they're doing it this way.

[00:21:40] I think they should listen to Lord Hermer and do this properly. And this is an opportunity. You know, we are innovating here with both this new proposed treatment, assisted suicide, also in the way we do legislation and I regret that we're not doing it in a way that actually restores people's confidence in Parliament. I mean, I think a lot of the opposition I notice online to the Leadbeater bill is not to the principle of assisted dying at all.

[00:22:03] I think a lot of people are very very concerned about the failure of proper scrutiny, we've got one more day of committee and that is the day in which we're going to be debating the actual operation of this new regime, how assisted dying will be delivered. Will it be delivered in the NHS? They said it would be. Okay, so how does that work? Will private providers be able to do it and make money on it? We don't know yet. And here we are the end of the week before we get to that stage. We don't know what the uh, regime that's proposed actually is, and we won't have time to table counter amendments or improvements to their amendments because we won't see them until a day or two before the debate.

[00:22:42] So that's what's happening next week, the last day of the debate, and a very, very important set of clauses and amendments, which we haven't yet got sight of. And what we're doing now at the moment is voting through a bill that will enshrine lack of proper scrutiny over a very important new service that the NHS is going to be mandated to provide.

[00:23:03] Ruth Fox: But Danny, I mean, I buy that argument to a point, particularly obviously on delegated legislation, but isn't it also true that a lot of government legislation goes through with less scrutiny than this? You know, you get 13 days for the Planning and Infrastructure bill that's going to be debated in Parliament at Second Reading next week.

[00:23:21] There was a bill given a recent Second Reading that also had been published just 13 days beforehand. The government will have, as, as Kim does, you know, an inbuilt majority on the Public Bill Committee. Amendments will only be accepted if the government wants them. You get a day on Report. Recent bills, actually, they're offering two days on Report, but only because the government's massively amended them in Committee and wants to do so again at Report Stage.

[00:23:45] So I buy the argument about about the process to a degree, but I, my worry about all of this is that the public are engaged in looking at this and seeing all the flaws in the process, which are true, but then thinking that somehow the process for government legislation is somehow remarkably better. And my worry is that actually it's not.

[00:24:03] Danny Kruger MP: Yes, no, I take that. I mean, I think that's absolutely fair. And yeah, I don't think we should be pretending that the whole problem is just because it's a Private Member's Bill.

[00:24:11] Ruth Fox: Yeah.

[00:24:11] Danny Kruger MP: As I was saying, I think it's really a Government bill, but one that has the advantages for the government. of enabling them to, as it were, hide behind Kim.

[00:24:20] But you're absolutely right, even Government bills don't get full scrutiny. And this is our parliamentary system by which the majority of the House is in charge. I mean, I think we've, obviously there have been innovations over the years, and I think the introduction of Select Committees and breaking the power of the Whips to appoint Select Committe chairs and members has been helpful there. You know, Parliament has become to a degree more independent of government over recent years, but the fundamentals remain, which is Parliament is essentially a self governing institution and the majority of MPs are effectively a dictatorship.

[00:24:52] And that means the PM is so it'll be very interesting to see where the Modernisation Committee gets to but I think we have learned in this exercise on the assisted dying bill that even when Government is notionally not driving it we have real deficiencies and I think we could do this a lot better.

[00:25:11] Mark D'Arcy: Plenty then for MPs to chew on in the Report Stage discussion of the bill. Friday the 25th of April looks like the likely date, but there is talk too that there's going to be a whole separate Third Reading debate, quite unusually for this bill, which might be taken on a later Friday. Do you think you have an even remote chance of being able to stop the bill at Third Reading?

[00:25:31] Is there a possibility in your mind that MPs could vote this down at that stage?

[00:25:36] Danny Kruger MP: Firstly, on the process and the number of days, I think it's really important that there is, I think there should be more than one day for Report Stage because at the Second Reading, only a minority of colleagues were able to speak. It was an absolutely packed house. Lots and lots of MPs didn't get a chance to have their say. The bill has changed substantially since then, and I think it would be very wrong to try and rush this through. So I hope we'll have more than a single day of Report anyway. And it would be very wrong, in my view, to go straight from Report to Third Reading on the same day. So I really, really hope that doesn't happen.

[00:26:07] In terms of what might happen at Third Reading, well, let's see what happens at Report Stage in terms of amendments. I think if there are substantial amendments to restore the judge and to strengthen the bill in the way that many members who voted for the bill last time hoped would happen. I mean, lots of MPs said they'd only vote for it on the basis they expected it to be improved in Committee, as Kim and others promised it would be. You know, if they're satisfied, that's happened and indeed there might be some people who voted no fearing that it wouldn't improve, who are sort of reassured that, okay, no, this is safe. Then I'm sure the bill will be fine and we'll pass through.

[00:26:37] But if that doesn't happen, we had a lot of MPs who voted Second Reading only voted Aye only conditionally. And so, yes, I think there is a real chance that if the bill is not made substantially safer than it is currently, then MPs will decide either because they've realised, as I've always argued that there is no way to do this safely because you can't frame a law that, that protects the vulnerable. They, they might have, having thought about it fully, and the debate's been helpful because everyone's been thinking about it. People might have thought, well, I, I don't mind the principle of autonomy and principle, but in practice I see that it can't work.

[00:27:12] Some might come to that, or others who still really do believe in assisted dying, just think this bill doesn't work. It's too broad. The crucial point is this bill is not just for the people that the campaign is for, which is people at the very end of their life, the last few days, facing an agonising death who just need to be put out of their misery in their final days.

[00:27:30] This bill is for anybody who's got a terminal diagnosis of six months, and that includes a huge number of people who you or I, or I don't think anybody except the most extreme sort of libertarians, would think should be able to summon the state to give them a lethal injection. Um, even MPs who feel that they might believe in the principle of assisted dying for that tiny number of most desperate cases will think this bill isn't it.

[00:27:53] And finally, I think we'll have a group of people who think the process has been bad, hasn't been sufficient scrutiny or accountability or time. And if we're going to do this, let's do it properly and bring it back, you know, whether as a Government measure or as a private measure, just with proper pre-legislative scrutiny, proper opportunities for everybody to properly analyse the bill.

[00:28:13] Mark D'Arcy: You've given us a glimpse there of the depth of your opposition to this. Given the opportunity to do so, would you talk this bill out, stop it by procedural means, just keep talking until the music stopped and, uh, the allotted time was run out?

[00:28:26] Danny Kruger MP: Well, I'm not sure there is that opportunity, to be honest, because the majority of the House of Commons can always vote to close the debate and to bring a decision.

[00:28:34] So, I don't think the opportunity for talking it out exists. And I don't want to rely on procedural techniques to do this. Obviously, we have to follow the process of Parliament. And, you know, as I've been explaining, I feel that Bill's backers have been, not abusing, but cleverly using the processes of Parliament.

[00:28:51] For instance, you know, the late tabling of amendments and so on. And the stacking of the committee, the stacking of the evidence. So, we're all, in a sense, playing by the rules. And I'll play by the rules all the way. But I'm afraid, even if I were minded to, I don't think there is the opportunity to do anything other than bring this thing to a vote at Third Reading to say whether we want to do it or not.

[00:29:11] And, um, I think that's going to be the moment of truth.

[00:29:14] Mark D'Arcy: Danny Kruger, thanks very much indeed for joining Ruth and I on the pod today. Thank you.

[00:29:18] Ruth Fox: So, Mark, that was very interesting. What did you make of it?

[00:29:21] Mark D'Arcy: Well,, it was fascinating to listen to Danny describing his interactions as the debate in Committee has proceeded and it's interesting to hear him say that he actually enjoys and he's kind of impressed by the process of going through things clause by clause even with all the limitations of lack of resources for his unofficial cross party group of opponents of the bill to take on the machine that he says is behind Kim Leadbeater's bill And the other thought I had listening to it is how different it sounds hearing his account of what's going on inside that Committee as compared to the kind of social media greek chorus that's flamming up every division and assuming whoever's doing what it's the result of evil and bad faith the whole way. It's all much more collegiate by his account.

[00:30:04] Ruth Fox: Yes I mean if you listen to the sound and fury on on on social media, it's it's pretty terrible But what we've heard from MPs on this this mini podcast series on both sides of the debate and all have broadly said the same thing, you know, very respectful, very engaged. I thought he was very reflective, really interesting about the sort of the process and the procedures, the pressures of the, of the role, you know, just in terms of the sheer workload, um, but also thinking about, you know, how the system could be improved.

[00:30:31] Mark D'Arcy: Yeah, I mean, Private Members Bills can be issues like this, which are hyper controversial, probably the most controversial thing that will happen in this Parliament. Or, on the other hand, they can be something that's very low scale, where the scrutiny is almost a ritual and is over in a matter of minutes.

[00:30:48] Some bill Committees for Private Members Bills barely take 10 minutes to go through their entire repertoire of proceedings. So this is a procedure that can contain multitudes, I suppose, and his reflections on how it's unfolded for something of this magnitude are something that I think the Commons Modernisation Committee ought to listen to for the future, because it is definitely a parliamentary process that is now ripe for reform.

[00:31:14] Ruth Fox: Yes, I mean, as we've been banging on about at the Hansard Society for many years. The other thing I took from it. Um, I suppose a bit of news, really, is that he's expecting the Committee to conclude its proceedings next week. Which is a little earlier than we anticipated, because they could go through to the last day before the Easter recess on April 8th, but they're sort of finishing, it seems, a week earlier.

[00:31:38] I've heard that from other sources as well. So it seems as though they want to sort of get it, get it finished next week so that MPs have, you know, the other backbenchers who are not on the Committee have as much time as possible to sort of see the final version of the bill that comes out of Committee and then they can have time to consider what they want to, to do with it in terms of amendments and so on for the next, next stage, which will be Report on the 25th of April.

[00:32:02] Mark D'Arcy: Yes, as Danny was saying, it does take a while to go through the detailed wording that emerges and decide how, as a parliamentarian, you want to respond to it. Do you want to put down an amendment? Do you agree with this particular clause? Are you completely against it?

[00:32:16] What might you do at Report Stage when any MP can propose an amendment to the Bill and hope for it to be debated by the whole House of Commons? So that's a moment.

[00:32:25] Ruth Fox: Yeah, and remember, of course, we, we, the, the, bit that we're missing in the jigsaw is the Impact Assessment. Um, so we are expecting that from the Government.

[00:32:32] The Government said that will be available to MPs at Report Stage. We don't quite know when. Um, one would hope that it might emerge before MPs, uh, go for the Easter recess. Um, but we don't know.

[00:32:43] Mark D'Arcy: But we don't know. And there are of course a few important matters still to be debated in the final day of detailed debate that he's talking about that will take place next week.

[00:32:51] Ruth Fox: Yes, I mean we're coming up to some really important clauses, vital clauses really, about the provision of the bill through the National Health Service, or indeed other private sector providers, and clauses on the monitoring and review of the process by the Chief Medical Officer. And we know that there's, we haven't seen the full suite of amendments that have been tabled for next week, but we know that there is one, pat ourselves on the back, that will grant if it's agreed, the Secretary of State, the power to make regulations to amend the founding principles, if you like, of the National Health Service in the NHS Act 2006, which amended the original 1946 Act.

[00:33:29] We flagged that, if you remember, on our second podcast in this mini series, when we talked to the drafter of the bill, Dame Elizabeth Gardner, and highlighted that this was a possibility that you'd need to amend those principles perhaps in order to make provision for assisted dying being provided on the NHS. Because the founding principles that are laid out talk about a health service to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people and prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. And if you're going to have an assisted dying service how does that fit with those provisions and therefore you might need to change the wording of the act.

[00:34:05] Mark D'Arcy: Quite a challenge for the next generation of parliamentary drafters, I think. One other thought that I had listening to Danny Kruger talking about his experience on the Committee, and indeed watching him in action in that Committee, is that here is someone who is demonstrating a set of parliamentary skills, basically being prepared to fight to the last ditch in a cause that he knows he's not going to win, because he knows there's a majority against him, and it does rather strike me that that is a skill set that the Conservative Party, in its current parliamentary position, really could rather do with.

[00:34:38] Ruth Fox: Yes. Yes. Another thing to look out for, Mark, one of the clauses that will be debated next week is the provision to review the Act, uh, five years hence.

[00:34:49] Mark D'Arcy: Post legislative scrutiny, our old friend.

[00:34:51] Ruth Fox: Yes, yes. So, uh, we've been talking about this actually on our other podcast that's out this week, our main podcast.

[00:34:57] Mark D'Arcy: Everything but the Assisted Dying Bill podcast.

[00:35:00] Ruth Fox: Yes. And, uh, we talk about post legislative scrutiny on that, and, and, interestingly here, there is going to be a, a, a provision, or, assuming MPs agree it, there'll be a provision for review of the Act five years after it's, uh, after it's passed. So, uh, there's a link between our two podcasts.

[00:35:15] Mark D'Arcy: So why not listen to find all the other parliamentary news and events that we've been discussing there?

[00:35:20] Ruth Fox: Yeah, and that's particularly focusing on the Spring Statement as well, that the Chancellor will be making next week.

[00:35:24] Mark D'Arcy: Brace yourself.

[00:35:26] Ruth Fox: So, Mark, I think that's probably all we've got time for this week.

[00:35:28] We'll be back next week to, uh, to discuss those final stages in Committee and see what happens next.

[00:35:34] Mark D'Arcy: Join us then. Bye.

[00:35:35] Ruth Fox: Bye.

[00:35:39] Intro: Parliament Matters is produced by the Hansard Society and supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. For more information visit hansardsociety.org.uk/pm or find us on social media @HansardSociety.