← 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.

[00:00:17] 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 increasingly extended series of special podcasts, looking at the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Bill that would enable assisted dying in England and Wales. And with Report Stage for that Bill, a crucial moment looming next week on Friday, the 16th of May, we are talking to the Bills promoter, Kim Leadbeater. When we went to her office, we began by asking her why she'd postponed that Report Stage from April the 25th. Why the delay?

[00:00:55] Kim Leadbeater MP: Well, thank you for having me on your exceptional podcast. I'm feeling very nervous to be in such esteemed company with such parliamentary gurus. But, but yeah, look, I mean, I think I've always been really clear that for this really important piece of legislation, it's more important to get it right than to do it quickly.

[00:01:11] And whilst there was a date in for Report Stage, it felt that given the changes that had been made during the Bill Committee procedure, it was quite right that I give colleagues enough time to absorb those changes, read through the new bill as drafted, and it felt that giving people a few more weeks to do that was, was the right thing to do.

[00:01:29] And I've, I've really tried incredibly hard actually to make sure this procedure and process is fair. It gives colleagues time to process the information that they need to process. And this was just another way of, of trying to do that.

[00:01:41] Mark D'Arcy: What's coming up on Friday next week, Friday the 16th is Report Stage, which is often where Private Members Bills run into the sand, where they can be deluged with amendments and there isn't time to consider them all, and the bill just sort of goes into limbo or where it can be amended out of sight if there aren't enough people to defend the bill as as you want it to be.

[00:02:02] So first of all, do you see this as perhaps the, the biggest test yet?

[00:02:05] Kim Leadbeater MP: Um, I'm not sure if it's the biggest test yet. It's certainly a very important part of the process. When I reflect on Second Reading and I think about the excellent job that Parliament did in that debate, both in terms of the Speaker and the very pivotal role that he has, but also colleagues across the political spectrum and across the range of views that there are on this subject, I think what I hope will happen again at Report Stage will be that we will show Parliament at its best. And again, for me, it's really important that we give this Bill the time that it warrants. It's important that all different voices and opinions are heard, but what I really hope is that there aren't any political shenanigans.

[00:02:45] You guys know better than anybody that there are things that can be done to try and frustrate the parliamentary process, and I really hope we don't see that. And what we have is a fair, measured debate conducted in a respectful manner, as we did at Second Reading, no matter where people are on the issue.

[00:03:00] Ruth Fox: Kim, one of the things that you've got to be alive to, as listeners will know who tuned into our previous episode with our procedural guru Paul Evans, about the procedures at Report Stage, if you're going to talk first, you're going to need a new clause tabled so that you get selected first by the Speaker. Of course, it's in the hands of the Speaker. He will select, he will group the amendments. You won't know till the day what's going to happen exactly. But have you got plans? There's rumours in the press that you've got some new amendments to come through. Have you got plans for that?

[00:03:28] Kim Leadbeater MP: Yeah, I do. I've been, I've been working very hard on this with the civil servants from the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice, and one thing I would like to acknowledge is the hard work that many people have put into this Bill.

[00:03:38] Whilst the government has a position of neutrality on the issue, they've always been very clear that the Bill has to be workable and operable if it is to pass. And I've worked with an outstanding team of civil servants across the two departments. But you're absolutely right, we need to make sure that any changes that now need to be made, uh, put forward through myself, um, with the input from the government in terms of workability. So I will be moving some new clauses and some amendments, and the first one of those will be looking around the option of healthcare professionals and others to opt out of the assisted dying process if they choose to.

[00:04:12] There is already some acknowledgement of that in the Bill, but I'm very clear that we need to make sure that anybody who does not want to be involved in this assisted dying process should not be forced to do so. Whether that's for conscience reasons or whether that is for any other reason. So I'll be moving a clause to that end, along with a number of others as well. One around advertising, and I've spoken to colleagues across the House about this issue, and one thing I am very clear about that if the law is to change it would feel inappropriate for this to be something which was advertised. So I'm looking at an amendment to that effect as well. And then others around making sure everything is workable in terms of the actual process. So in terms of reporting, there's a huge amount of reporting involved in the Bill with regard to the Commissioner and the panels. So we just want to make sure that everything is wrapped up, belt and braces.

[00:05:00] Mark D'Arcy: One of the criticisms that people have immediately leapt on when it began to be rumored that you were going to beef up the conscience clauses in the Bill was that you didn't seem to apply it to institutions. So, for example, a Catholic hospice wouldn't be able to say, we will not have assisted dying services offered here. Is that the case? And if so, why?

[00:05:20] Kim Leadbeater MP: Yeah, I've, I've thought about this a lot and I've spoken to a lot of colleagues about this, and I've had very productive meetings with Hospice UK. I've visited my own hospices near where I live, and I think for me, what we need to do is to give the hospice sector the time and space to think about if and how they choose to have assisted dying as part of what they do. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that says that they have to, and equally, there's nothing in the Bill that says they don't have to. And I believe that that is the best position to be in. I don't think we should be dictating to hospices what they do and don't do around assisted dying.

[00:06:01] You know, the palliative care sector and the hospice sector have got a range of views on this issue, and I've met with lots of palliative care doctors. I've met with lots of people who work in hospices, and I think we should give those sectors the time and space to think about what a change in the law means to them. And I certainly wouldn't be saying to any particular institution, this is what you should do, or this is what you shouldn't do. And that feels like the right thing to do.

[00:06:26] Mark D'Arcy: So if someone were to put down an amendment, and there's plenty of time for that to say that hospices don't have to offer this service or can't be compelled to offer this service, wouldn't be a problem for you.

[00:06:35] Kim Leadbeater MP: Well, the thing is, the Bill already says that by not saying it, if that makes sense. And I think what's happened in other jurisdictions has been, you know, certainly the palliative care sector. There has been some nervousness around the introduction of assisted dying, and that has evolved over time, and there are hospices and palliative care providers who do offer the choice for terminally adults to have an assisted death at the end of their lives. And there's those that don't. And it feels to me that letting them decide. Is the best option that we could have as a result of legislation.

[00:07:06] Ruth Fox: Does that work in terms of the sort of operability though? Because I mean, there's a lot of powers in this bill conferred on ministers. Thirty eight I think of the 55 clauses, there's powers that the minister is going to decide at a later date how the operationalisation of this is, this legislation is gonna work.

[00:07:21] But if you're at hospice and this Bill comes in, isn't it the case that sort of the expectation is. This applies unless there's an explicit opt out actually written into the legal text.

[00:07:33] Kim Leadbeater MP: Well, where does that expectation come from, I would ask?

[00:07:36] Ruth Fox: Well, I think if the law says X happens unless Y or Z is an opt out, then X happens, and therefore the expectation would be in law that the hospice will be required to offer or to respond to requests for assisted dying.

[00:07:51] Kim Leadbeater MP: But I would argue it doesn't say that in the Bill. It doesn't. Therefore, I think it is up to hospices to have that conversation with their board members and with the people who support them, and then to think about what this could and should look like for them. And I think that flexibility is really, really important because I know there are hospices who would want to offer that holistic approach to end of life care and choice that assisted dying would be part of. And I fully appreciate that there's those that might not, and I think it's up to them to make that decision rather than to have that dictated to them by legislation.

[00:08:21] Ruth Fox: But then what happens to the patient who wants to apply for an assisted death and they're in a hospice, they apply and the hospice board and trust say, actually we don't want this in our hospice. You are then denying the choice to the person in that hospice.

[00:08:36] Kim Leadbeater MP: Yeah, I mean, I mean, you're absolutely right. It, it does create a tricky situation, but I think we would get to a point where hospices would be very clear about what their position was and patients prior to going into hospice would probably be aware of that.

[00:08:50] And also their position might change with time. That's the other reason I think we've got to allow that sort of flexibility. So again, I'm really conscious that that sector should be given that time and space and flexibility, whereas individuals I think should absolutely be given the right to say, this isn't something I want to do. And, and there will be professionals who feel that and that's absolutely fine. But I think for an institutional level, it feels it would be wrong to dictate in law either what they should do, or what they shouldn't do.

[00:09:17] Mark D'Arcy: We don't know if they're going to be selected yet, but there are some amendments down from people like your very senior colleague, Meg Hillier, chair of the Treasury Select Committee. She's suggesting, for example, that doctors cannot initiate conversations about assisted dying. There's another one that says that they can't begin these conversations with under 18s.. What's your view on those?

[00:09:35] Kim Leadbeater MP: So in terms of the conversation with the doctor, we discussed this at length at Bill Committee, and I thought long and hard about it and had multiple meetings with the British Medical Association and other healthcare professionals around it.

[00:09:46] And the real feeling is that if this option is available to terminally ill people, the doctor should be able to have that conversation. Because what you can't have is a medical or healthcare, or however you want to describe it, a choice available to a patient and you're not able to talk about it. And palliative care doctors I've spoken to have been very clear about that. GPs have been very clear about that. So it would be wrong, and again, in other jurisdictions, it's played out to this effect where they've had what they call this gag clause and it just creates uncertainty for the patient. But what you also shouldn't be able to do in my view is discuss assisted dying in isolation. So I've strengthened the Bill through Bill Committee so that it's very clear about that. What the doctor has to do is give the patients the options that are available to them, including palliative care, including counselling, whatever those options are. It is down to the patient to make those decisions.

[00:10:41] But the doctor must be able to have that open and honest conversation with patients and, and as I say, I, you know, I don't have a medical background, but I have been guided by that decision very clearly by medical and healthcare professionals. And I think if you didn't discuss this with a patient and then let's say they had a different course of treatment which went wrong, I think you would put yourself in a very difficult situation for them to think, well, look, no one spoke to me about this. And as I say, other jurisdictions where they've started from that point, they've actually removed the gag clause for want of a better expression.

[00:11:14] Ruth Fox: Another aspect to Report Stage will be whether or not the Government considers that it has got any amendments it needs, not on policy issues but on the operational workability of the Bill. And you bring those forward as you did at Public Bill Committee. So are you expecting, or do you know the Government's got plans for further amendments that it thinks it needs to tidy up and tighten some of the legislative text?

[00:11:36] Kim Leadbeater MP: Yes, so, so I've been working, again, as I say, with civil servants very closely on this.

[00:11:39] You're absolutely right. The workability and the operability of the Bill is something that's clearly very important from a Government perspective and, and from my perspective. So there will be amendments which I will bring forward, things like some of the reporting around. We've tried to think of literally every scenario. So if one of the doctors passes away, for example, what happens then and who steps in and, and, and how does that reporting mechanism work? So there'll be things like that around workability and operability, which again, I, I would hope colleagues, wherever they are on, on the argument, would be able to support those. Because if the Bill is to pass, it's very important that it is workable. So there, there will be some of those.

[00:12:12] Mark D'Arcy: Let's talk a little bit about the, the timing for this legislation. You've got Friday the 16th through a day of Report Stage. Do you expect that you're going to need more than one day of Report Stage for your Bill?

[00:12:22] Do you expect that you'll have an additional day perhaps for Third Reading?

[00:12:26] Kim Leadbeater MP: It's difficult to say, and this, you know, is something which I don't really have a huge amount of control over. I can control the amendments that I'll be tabling, but what I can't do is control how many other amendments are tabled.

[00:12:36] And clearly the person who will make those decisions around what amendments are selected and how they are grouped is the Speaker. I know he's very keen to make sure that this is a good debate, a powerful debate, respects all the different views on, on different sides of the argument and the debate, and gives people enough time to be heard.

[00:12:54] But ultimately, until probably the day before, actually, we won't know how many amendments have been tabled and how many amendments have been selected and how they've been grouped. And you are the experts in this more than I am. But yeah, so, so we won't know until very close to the day what that looks like.

[00:13:08] And as a result of that, we won't know how much time we'll need. But again, I would rather we give this piece of legislation the time that it needs. That might be one Friday, two Fridays, three Fridays. Could be more, but we need to do the job properly.

[00:13:22] Ruth Fox: You're going to need your colleagues, your supporters, for the Bill to turn out on Report Stage. Because this is a bit like Second Reading. You need to get a minimum of a hundred members through on some of those closure votes that we've talked about in previous episodes in order to bring debate to a close on a group of amendments in order to put them to a division in order to get to the final point at Report Stage, in order for if Third as and when Third Reading happens, so you need them to turn out. What are you doing in terms of persuading, cajoling,

[00:13:49] Mark D'Arcy: Whipping even!

[00:13:50] Ruth Fox: Whipping them to try and get them, get them to come stay around in Westminster on a Friday.

[00:13:55] Kim Leadbeater MP: No, you're absolutely right. I mean, I'm having lots of conversation with colleagues because it is important that they attend all the Fridays that are needed to get the Bill through, whether that's one or two, or three or four or however many.

[00:14:06] So I'm having lots of those conversations. But to be quite honest, because people do feel passionately about this issue, they feel strongly about this issue, as difficult as it is not to be in your constituency on a Friday, which is generally where we all want to be, I think people are very prepared to dedicate the time that is needed. And going to our previous conversation people do need to be here for all those dates because there will be important amendments to be voted on as we've discussed, and then there will obviously be the final vote. But I also think looking at the polling around assisted dying, there is such a huge amount of public support, and I know that colleagues across Parliament have been contacted by people in their constituencies who have been affected by the status quo. Families who have lost loved ones under very traumatic circumstances and had very harrowing and traumatic deaths. People who have lost loved ones through suicide because of their terminal illness that they have felt very desperate and taken their own lives. People who have had the trauma and indeed face the expense of having to go to Dignitas or Switzerland to make the choice that they want at the end of their life.

[00:15:08] We've all had those emails in our inboxes. We've also obviously had emails from people who are against the changing the law, but I think it's the very personal stories that we've all had, which certainly when I'm speaking to colleagues, have really made it clear to them that the status quo is not acceptable and the law needs to change. And that I believe will be a very big incentive to get people here on a Friday. Even as I say, we might want to be in our constituencies doing all the other important things that MPs do.

[00:15:34] Ruth Fox: If, uh, it's a big if, but if your Bill gets through the Commons, gets through Report Stage, gets a Third Reading it then has to go to the House of Lords. Now, a couple of things sort of arise and I, I'm getting phone calls from MPs saying, can you please explain this timetable, Ruth, you know, 13 Private Members Bill Friday's, it's got to be done by July.

[00:15:53] Well, we don't know when the parliamentary Session will end. There are 13 Private Members Bill Fridays, the 13th expires in July. Unless and until we know that there are more Private Members Bill Fridays beyond that, in theory, the bill has to come back by that last Friday sitting in July. But in between, it would have to go to the House of Lords where it may or may not be amended, and you therefore have to have parliamentary ping pong.

[00:16:17] My impression is that the parliamentary Session is not going to end in July. In fact, the Impact Assessment for the Bill that the Government's produced says in it, uh, in one paragraph, that it presumes that Royal Assent will be granted in October. So I'm assuming the Government thinks that the Session is not going to end in July either, that we're going to have longer than the, the usual sort of 12 months. In which case the Leader of the House of Commons can come to the House and put a motion down saying we're going to offer some additional sitting Fridays on a pro-rata basis in the Autumn to give the Lords sufficient time. So that's my assumption at the moment. Is that yours?

[00:16:52] Kim Leadbeater MP: You know, as much as I do, Ruth. Um, I wish I could give you some secret insider information on this, but I don't have any.

[00:16:58] And to be quite honest, I think because I've been so absorbed in the Bill, I've just been very conscious of getting through the next bit and what happens after that, which I, I hope sincerely that we do get to, to the Lords stage. But I also, as you say, I've got no reason to believe this will be a short parliamentary Session.

[00:17:16] We've got a lot of legislation that the Government still needs to get through, not just this Bill, but lots of other pieces of legislation as well. So I would hope that the Bill has got time for full passage and Royal Assent before the end of the parliamentary Session. But as I say I don't know any more than you do on that one.

[00:17:31] Mark D'Arcy: One other point that comes out of the Impact Assessment is it talks about the Bill getting its Royal Assent in October if it gets through Parliament. Then they are talking about perhaps four years to set up the system. So we are in October. 2029 and then potentially you might just be getting the first people who've been through the assisted dying process and applied and been told that they, yes, they can have it. That might actually come into operation at the very end of this decade.

[00:18:00] Kim Leadbeater MP: Yeah, I mean, and I, and I hope that isn't the case, Mark, because I've been as flexible as I possibly can in terms of the, the implementation period. Originally, the Bill said two years, but I've extended that to up to four years because again, it's very important that we get this right rather than do it quickly.

[00:18:16] So I'm, I'm very understanding of that. And because of some of the changes that we've made in terms of additional safeguards to the Bill, particularly the introduction of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the multidisciplinary panels that will take time to implement and to set up. And I, and I fully understand that, but for me, four years is very much a backstop.

[00:18:33] Other jurisdictions have implemented similar, not, not the same, but similar systems far more quickly. So whilst I'm very sympathetic about giving relevant Government departments time to set this up, I do think we need to be doing it as quickly as it is possible to do, doing it safely of course. So one of the other things that I've put into the Bill through Committee Stage was the fact that the Commissioner has to be appointed within a year, but also there has to be reports to Parliament every six months on progress.

[00:19:02] Because what I wouldn't want to happen would be four years passes and suddenly everyone goes, oh gosh, assisted dying, we need to do something about it. The work needs to start on this, and there will be a considerable amount of work in order to do a thorough job, but I wouldn't want to rush it, and that's why having that extension period, I think is important.

[00:19:20] Ruth Fox: Just going back to the Impact Assessment, it's been held up as this critically important document. Lots of MPs waiting for it before Report Stage when the Government promised that they'd have it. In practical terms, it's actually quite a, a relatively vague document in very, very broad parameters for things like estimated costs, how many deaths they think, how many people would take up an assisted death, how many would, would get through the process. How many wouldn't be eligible. Lots of assumptions having to be made in quite broad terms about the costs to the NHS or to other services, things about savings. My impression is that most MPs don't generally read the Impact Assessment for, for Government bills. Um, so I'd be very surprised if they've read all 120 odd pages or whatever it is.

[00:20:04] But have you had any kind of reaction from MPs to it since it's been published? Has it helped or hindered do you think the position of MPs on the Bill?

[00:20:11] Mark D'Arcy: Has anybody told you it's changed their mind even?

[00:20:13] Kim Leadbeater MP: No one's told me it's changed their mind, and I haven't had a huge amount of feedback from colleagues around the Impact Assessment. I think for me it's really important that we don't distill this conversation and this debate to being about money. Clearly, it will cost money to set the assisted dying service up. It will save money in other respects. And I think what I'm really keen to do is to keep the debate around the human side of this issue, but also we do need the Impact Assessment. We need to have a look at what this could look like. But you're absolutely right. It's difficult to say in exact terms. I mean, what the Impact Assessment has done, however, and it's a very thorough piece of work, it's looked at other jurisdictions with similar types of legislation. So in terms of numbers in other jurisdictions with similar laws, it's less than 1% of deaths. So they've based some of the statistics around that. The eligibility criteria for this Bill are very, very strict, other jurisdictions have broader criteria. So they've looked at the numbers of people who they think might want to access the choice of assisted dying, and also the number of people who we know start that process, but actually never use it because it's the comfort and the reassurance that it provides to them that enables them to live as best as they possibly can for however long they've got left. So it's taken that into consideration. It has looked at some of the financial implications. But I honestly don't think MPs will make their decision on this issue based on the Impact Assessment, which is fundamentally quite a, it's not a, a human document, it's, it's a very, you know, it's a very procedural document. And actually I think this issue matters to people on a human level. So, whilst it's important, and I welcome the considerable amount of hard work that went into it, for me if we distill this issue to pounds and pence, then we're really missing the point.

[00:21:51] Mark D'Arcy: Now you've been dealing with this process ever since you came first in the Private Members Bill ballot all those months ago now, and it's been a pretty tough yomp, hasn't it?

[00:22:01] Both in terms of doing all the necessary parliamentary work, the kind of unofficial whipping, the drawing up the bill, all the drafting, all the policy consultation, but also taking all the abuse on social media.

[00:22:13] Kim Leadbeater MP: I think a pretty tough yomp is a good description, Mark. Yeah, it's not been easy. And I guess there's two sort of main aspects to that.

[00:22:19] One is the volume of work, which has been extremely significant, but that's okay. I am fine with that. I'm, I'm not scared of working hard and I've had an excellent team supporting me, and particularly as I say, the, the civil servants that have been involved in the Bill.

[00:22:33] But you're absolutely right. I mean, I, I knew it would be a controversial issue. I knew it would be an emotional issue for many people. I didn't think some of the abuse and nastiness would've been quite as bad as it is. And that's hard to take on a personal level because people questioning your motives, when actually you are trying to do what you believe is the right thing by lots of people.

[00:22:52] And when you spend a lot of your time with people who are either terminally ill themselves and just want that choice to take control and have the dignity that assisted dying offers or the families who have lost loved ones under very difficult, harrowing circumstances and had very painful deaths. And unfortunately that's not tens of thousands of people, but there are a significant number of people who, despite very, very good palliative care, have had difficult deaths. And, and it's generally through nasty forms of cancer, like bowel cancer, pancreatic cancer, mouth cancer, throat cancer, where it is very difficult to ease those people's suffering at the end. So when you spend a lot of time with those people, it motivates me to keep going. And literally every time I'm out and about, someone will stop me and say, thank you for doing this, because they've been impacted by it.

[00:23:44] But I also understand that there are a number of people who sometimes, for deeply religious reasons, which I'm very respectful of, would not want to see a change in the law, and most people are able to have that debate and hold those different views with respect. Sadly, that hasn't always been the case.

[00:24:04] And also what's been quite upsetting has been the misinformation, which is the society and the world that we live in now. So things have happened and have been said, particularly in Bill Committee, and then suddenly the version that appears on social media is actually not what happened at all.

[00:24:17] And that's been upsetting to deal with because what do you do? Do you get involved in a spat on X or Facebook or whatever it is. Well, I don't want to do that. I don't want to spend my time doing that. I've got more important things to do. So that's been hard and I'm sure will continue to be hard. But you know, we could get into a much broader debate around politics and social media and disinformation and misinformation in lots of other ways.

[00:24:37] But what I also think is, colleagues here, MPs, have taken this issue really seriously and, and I think have not been distracted by, you know, the air war for want of a better expression.

[00:24:46] Mark D'Arcy: I did want to ask you about that really. I mean, how, how have you got on with people like Danny Kruger who've led the parliamentary opposition to your bill? What has your relationship with them been like?

[00:24:54] Kim Leadbeater MP: Well, I try and get on with everybody. That is my general starting point. And Danny's got very strong religious views. He's got very strong views on this issue and other issues like abortion, which I profoundly disagree with. But to be fair to Danny, he's been very respectful.

[00:25:08] I've tried to be very respectful of him, and most colleagues I think, have behaved in that way and despite holding different views. You know, one of my key ways of doing this job and, and my approach is to life, and it goes back to the thing that my sister said in her maiden speech in Parliament is, is finding that common ground and focusing on the things that we have in common.

[00:25:26] Now, there are some issues where, sadly, that's difficult to do so when we can't find common ground and we can't agree I think what's important is that we disagree respectfully. And I think for the main part that has been the case, but I think what everybody wants is to give terminally ill people who inevitably are coming toward the end of their days to give them what can be described as a good death. Now, we might have slightly different views on what that choice should look like, but I think that is where everybody in this debate is coming from. You know, the people who support a change in the law and those that don't. And I think maybe if we can coalesce around that, that will be a good place to get to.

[00:26:02] Ruth Fox: One of the, I suppose the counter arguments from critics would be that, you know, I understand the concerns of those who are terminally ill and wanting, as you say, that good death. But the, the counter side is the risk of somebody taking an early way out under coercion from family members or friends and so on, and, you know, the balance of risk in the Bill. Is there not a risk that somebody does end up taking that route of an assisted death under coercion? And is that a price? Terrible way of putting it, but is that a price worth paying?

[00:26:33] Kim Leadbeater MP: No, I mean, it's absolutely not a price worth paying. I think two points on that, Ruth.

[00:26:37] One would be, at the moment, nobody is checking for coercion with anybody who has a terminal illness who might end up taking their own lives. No one knows what is going on behind closed doors. We just do not have that information because there is no legal framework around it. And even, you know, people who choose to go to Dignitas in Switzerland, if they've got the money to be able to afford to do so, we don't know if they're being coerced into that decision. We don't know the conversations that are going on, so at the moment there are no checks and balances around that. So that's why I think the law needs to change.

[00:27:08] But what we've got before us here is the most robust piece of legislation that exists in the world. And there are multiple layers of safeguards to the extent where, you know, I've had people who who are terminally ill contact me and said, goodness me, Kim, you're making this incredibly difficult for me to just make the choice that I want to make.

[00:27:24] And I'm, I'm very aware of that. But we've now got two doctors with a compulsory referral to a psychiatrist, if either doctor has any doubt about capacity of the patient. We've got a multidisciplinary panel, which now includes a social worker and the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers and the British Association of Social Workers were very keen that they should have their expertise as part of this process.

[00:27:46] We've got a, a psychiatrist, which could end up being another psychiatrist on the panel. We've got legal expertise and oversight in the form of either a retired judge or a KC all. Headed by a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner who is either a judge or a retired judge. Now the layers of safeguards that are in place there.

[00:28:04] Plus, of course, we added compulsory training on coercion to every doctor and every panel member who will be involved in this process, and lots of other layers of safeguards as well. Now that for me is a really thorough, robust process, and if you compare that to what there is now, ie nothing, I think it's very difficult to argue unless you are fundamentally opposed on faith reasons or or religious grounds, that this is not an improvement on the status quo.

[00:28:30] And I do feel passionately about that. And I do think as legislators, we have a duty to make law that improves things. And I firmly believe that this Bill does that.

[00:28:41] Ruth Fox: So, Kim, you're not quite through to the end of this process. There's still a way to go, but you've, you've had a, a lot of experience now of this legislative process, Private Members Bills, a lot of it mirrors the process for Government bills as well. What are your thoughts on it?

[00:28:55] Kim Leadbeater MP: Hmm. I mean, what I would say in my own personal experience has been, it's been an extremely thorough process. It's been very, very robust and it's been a privilege in, in some respects to be at the heart of that process. But I can also see why outsiders looking in would think, goodness me, what the heck's going on? Because it does feel like that a bit sometimes as well.

[00:29:14] And the Private Members Bill process is obviously a different process to normal Government legislation, as you say, but there are a lot of similarities, and I think because the Government have been so supportive in terms of the workability of the Bill, I have experienced what it's like working as a Minister would with Government departments, and that is a very thorough process.

[00:29:32] But in terms of some of the nuances and some of the quirks around parliamentary process, thinking more broadly, I can understand why people looking inward think, goodness me. Like I say, what, what the heck's going on? But you know what? I've been here now nearly four years. Parliament is a crazy world. It's bonkers in many ways. There's so many things that happen, you know, more broadly speaking that I think many MPs still think, hmm, what's going on there? But it's a system that's developed over centuries and there's also a lot to be very proud of. There's a lot that is tradition and I'm supportive of that in some respects. But I also think there probably are things that could be modernised.

[00:30:09] But getting that balance I think is quite challenging 'cause you wanna be respectful of what's gone before. But equally it is 2025 and some of the stuff that we do in this place at times feels like we're stuck a couple of hundred years ago.

[00:30:22] Mark D'Arcy: And is it your instinct that this is going to get over the line?

[00:30:24] You're actually gonna get this into law?

[00:30:26] Kim Leadbeater MP: Um, I mean, I really hope so. What, what I would struggle to understand would be colleagues who voted at Second Reading, who had got nervousness around safeguards, if they look at the Bill in detail, which I really hope they do, and I believe colleagues will do, they will see the things that have been added, which have really enhanced the safeguards.

[00:30:43] And if that was their concern, I think it would be difficult to see a world where they would vote against this Bill having voted for it at Second Reading. Similarly, there may be people who voted against Second Reading who think, actually, let me have a look at this. I'm not against this in principle, so let me have a look at the Bill as it now stands, let me look at the, the things that have been added. In terms of disability rights as well, I mean, a couple of very important changes were made by my colleague Marie Tidball, who I think you had on your podcast recently, who was very nervous about this change in legislation, and she voted for it Second Reading, but with an element of trepidation around it.

[00:31:14] She's added new clauses around a Disability Advisory Board, independent advocates. So we've added additional safeguards on the issues that people cared about at Second Reading. So there might be colleagues who were nervous at Second Reading and voted against, and I would like to think some of them would revisit the Bill and say, you know what this is good for me, I can see the additional changes that have been made, and I would support it. I really hope that that does happen.

[00:31:36] Mark D'Arcy: Kim Leadbeater, thanks for joining Ruth and me on the pod today.

[00:31:38] Kim Leadbeater MP: Thank you very much indeed.

[00:31:42] Ruth Fox: Well Mark, what did you make of that?

[00:31:45] Mark D'Arcy: Well, we've all been rather curious as to quite why there had been the delay, and Kim Leadbeater answered that in, in some detail.

[00:31:52] And we also got a chance to talk about the long awaited Impact Assessment into the Bill. Hadn't been published, uh, by the time of our last podcast. So there are a couple of sort of substantive developments there. And also the mood music was extremely interesting. Listening to her, kim has been taking this it seems one step at a time. You know, she hasn't been thinking too far ahead. She's concentrated on getting through each stage, crossing each legislative bridge, you might say, as it comes, and she sounded reasonably confident that it would indeed get through the House of Commons in due course, possibly with more than one day of Report Stage and Third Reading debate.

[00:32:31] Ruth Fox: Yes. I think that was something that struck me that she is only taking this one stage at a time and not looking too far ahead, which I have to say surprised me. Because I would've thought you'd want to take a slightly more strategic approach to sort of planning this process and how you take the legislation through and thinking about, for example, now at Report Stage, thinking about if you are gonna get it through, how are you gonna deal with the, the Lords? I mean, if, if this were a Government bill, you'd have a Lord's handling strategy. And certainly I would be concerned about how long the Lord's are going take over it. Is it going to take an awful lot longer than, than normally would with a Private Member's Bill. And she's got to think about what is it that the Lords are going to take most interest in?

[00:33:10] Mark D'Arcy: And I think it may well be your favorite subject.

[00:33:12] Ruth Fox: Yes. I think delegated powers is going be one of them, certainly, and I don't think it'll get as easy a go through on, on the powers as it has in the, in the Commons. Listeners, just to recap, I mentioned this in our conversation with Kim. This is a bill that is just 55 clauses long, very long for a Private Member's Bill, but comparatively short compared to some Government bills, but it's got 38 powers in it.

[00:33:35] And of those 34 confer power on primarily the Secretary of State, sometimes the Chief Medical Officer and others to make regulations that will determine, you know, key aspects of how this assisted dying service is gonna be operationalised.

[00:33:53] Mark D'Arcy: Things like what drugs can be used, for example.

[00:33:55] Ruth Fox: Yes. And five of these powers are Henry VIII powers, which enable Ministers to amend primary legislation - an Act of Parliament that's already been approved by both Houses of Parliament - to amend it in certain ways. So they are important provisions. There's also nine new criminal offences in this Bill. So incredibly important powers. And I think, for example, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform committee in the House of Lords, which looks at delegated powers in all bills, it will be going through these with a fine tooth comb.

[00:34:26] Mark D'Arcy: Yeah. And that's certainly one of the things to watch out for in the House of Lords, because that's a constitutional sensitivity that's much more apparent with Peers than it often is with MPs. And the other thing that we touched on there, it's the complexities of the parliamentary timetabling of the different stages for the Bill.

[00:34:42] If the Bill is untouched by noble hand in the House of Lords and they don't pass any amendments, then it just goes straight to the Monarch to be signed into law once it's had its Lord's Third Reading. If on the other hand, an amendment or two is made, then the Bill has to go back to the House of Commons to allow MPs the chance to accept or indeed reject those amendments.

[00:35:02] So at that point, because it'll almost certainly be later than July that that point is reached, the Government is going to have to find more Commons time to complete the processing of the bill to deal with any Lord's amendments that have arisen. And that's the very complicated timetabling point we were discussing with Kim Leadbeater.

[00:35:19] Mm. She seemed fairly sanguine about it without giving any hint that the Government had told her in words of one syllable that it was prepared to tilt the scales to provide her with that little bit of extra Commons time.. Hmm. But, uh, it would seem very odd, wouldn't it, for a Bill that had been given a Third Reading of both Houses not to get into law because of a question of providing a little bit of Commons time.

[00:35:38] Ruth Fox: Yeah, I mean I, we touched on it in the conversation, didn't we? At Report Stage, I think a number of MPs are going to probably make the point that they feel that this process has been rushed. Now, the reality is that compared to Government bills, it hasn't been particularly rushed, but there has been this concern about the deadline in July of the final sitting Friday for Private Members Bills in the House of Commons. And we've talked extensively on these special podcasts about implications of that, needing to get it back from the House of Lords by that final sitting Friday in mid-July. I actually no longer think that that's going to be a concern as, as we discussed with Kim, because I think it's pretty clear now, we've got evidence, not least in the Impact Assessment that the Government is thinking about an extended Session. That this session is not going to end at Summer recess around the one year mark from the last King Speech.

[00:36:27] Mark D'Arcy: And of course, if a Bill isn't passed by the time it gets to the end of a Session, certainly a Private Member's Bill, that's it. Yeah. You don't get a carry over order for a Private Member's Bill That allows it to continue into the next parliamentary year, so to speak. Yeah.

[00:36:38] Ruth Fox: So I think the Session is going to run in into the Autumn, possibly even longer than that, but it's certainly into the Autumn.

[00:36:43] I mean, why? The people who wrote the Impact Assessment are presuming for planning purposes that the Bill, if it gets through both Houses, would get Royal Assent in October. If the Session was ending in the Summer and they were up against this 13th Friday deadline in July, you'd be looking at Royal Assent before Prorogation for the next King's Speech. So that would be well before October. There is also the fact that we're only on the seventh Opposition Day debate in a Session and under Standing Orders the opposition are entitled to 20 each Session.

[00:37:14] Mark D'Arcy: There's, so that's a lot of opposition debates they'd have to find in a very short time.

[00:37:17] Ruth Fox: Yes. And, and you just look at the state of the Government's legislative program and the bills that they've still got to come through.

[00:37:21] So I think my view over the last month has hardened that they are gonna go for an extended Session. Therefore, the 13th Friday is probably not going to be the last one. However, the Government does have to act because the Leader of the House is going to have to provide additional sitting Fridays in the Autumn for Private members' Bills pro-rata, which means it's going to have to be another motion.

[00:37:43] It would be helpful, I think, for the Government at the Report Stage debate or before at Business Questions the day before, to indicate that that's the case.

[00:37:51] Mark D'Arcy: Yeah, actually say it? Yeah, go on.

[00:37:52] Ruth Fox: Yeah. Rather than sort of people like myself, you know, because I'm getting a lot of contact from MPs asking about the timetable, being concerned about it. It would be helpful if they just said, without indicating when the Session is going to end, but that the expectation is that they will still be continuing in the Autumn and further time will be provided.

[00:38:10] Mark D'Arcy: But let's not run before our horse to market, because they still got to get this Bill through its Report Stage first.

[00:38:15] And one of the other things that came through very strongly in that interview was that Kim Leadbeater wants to be sure that her supporters are there. They've got to vote through any amendments or new clauses that she wants to put into the Bill. They've got to vote through closure motions to make sure that they can actually get to the votes to make actual changes to the Bill.

[00:38:33] So they've got to be able to divide up the debate, chunk by chunk, and that's going to require a hundred plus supporters and enough to give her an outright majority in the Chamber to be present next Friday the 16th, and then beyond that and any subsequent Friday. So a big commitment, especially in a political backdrop where Labour MPs may be feeling the hot breath of the electorate on the back of their neck at the moment, to give up a lot of constituency Fridays potentially, to ensure that this Bill gets into law.

[00:38:58] Ruth Fox: Yes, because you could be looking at more than one Friday for Report Stage. Because she doesn't know, nobody knows what the Speaker will decide about the grouping of amendments. And of course a Third Reading as well. Yeah, so certainly one, possibly two, potentially three Fridays being taken up. We'll have to see. But yes, the MPs need to turn out.

[00:39:16] This is as, as important as the Second Reading in terms of the need for, for attendance. I think also for the watching public. It got a lot of publicity, got a lot of attention. Viewing figures were high for it at Second Reading. There were a lot of MPs saying this is a, you know, great moment for Parliament, great moment for the House of Commons. If you were to then revert to the Chamber being half empty.

[00:39:38] Mark D'Arcy: It would, I think it would be catastrophic for the House of Commons, for the watching public to see a Bill on an issue of such importance killed by procedural game playing. Yeah. Yeah. Or. Pure lack of interest. Yeah. This is something an awful lot of people care about.

[00:39:53] It's one thing to vote it down in the light of day and say on balance, we don't think this should become law. It's quite another for the thing to die of either disinterest or manipulation of the rules.

[00:40:03] Ruth Fox: Yeah. I have to say in the conversation, I wasn't entirely convinced by some of her arguments about, uh, for example, the conscience opt out for hospices and care homes, for example. I'm not sure that that's to use the term workable, but we'll have to see.

[00:40:17] Mark D'Arcy: Yeah, those changes may or may not be made come Report Stage and we'll be reporting on that in detail on the day. So look out for our podcast, not on the usual Friday, but on the subsequent Saturday, Saturday the 17th. Our next special podcast will be out then.

[00:40:30] Ruth Fox: We'll see you then, Mark.

[00:40:31] Mark D'Arcy: Bye-bye.

[00:40:35] 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.