Danny Kruger MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 353, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert “, and (e) is not a prisoner”. This amendment makes prisoners ineligible for assisted dying.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In the circumstances my right hon. Friend is describing, the prisoner would be eligible for the compassionate release scheme.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Roger. I wonder whether you can advise me. I am perplexed about the position of the Government Ministers. It is an absolute pleasure to have them here, but I am confused by this Jekyll and Hyde character. They seem to have two personalities on the Committee, voting as private Members but speaking as Ministers. I wonder whether there is any precedent for that in any private Member’s Bill, or indeed any Bill, and whether Parliament admits the split personas that they have. I totally understand the rationale for having Government Ministers here. It makes me query the whole concept of this being entirely a private Member’s Bill, but I recognise the role of the Government in it. However, if the Government want Ministers present at this Committee, there are Standing Orders that enable Law Officers to attend in their official capacity but not vote. That seems to me to be the appropriate way in which Ministers should be represented here. If they want to speak on the appropriateness of particular measures in terms of Government policy and applicability, that is perfectly appropriate, but I do not understand why they are also voting on this amendment in their capacity as private Members. I wonder whether you can advise me, Sir Roger.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that, and that the Bill makes a distinction in respect of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which would be the doctor doing it to us. The Bill specifies that the drugs must be self-administered. I do not understand the logic of that distinction, but I recognise that there is an attempt to make the Bill more palatable and that the distinction has been preserved. Nevertheless, the Bill would enable a doctor to prescribe lethal drugs with the purpose of ending a life. That is an act that is performed: a person is prescribed drugs to end their life. Whether they take the pills or press the syringe themselves, the act has been performed, and the prescribed drugs kill the person.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is a great stickler for doing things in the right order. I am grateful to him for calling us to order on that point again. I dare say that he is absolutely right. All these issues are rather interwoven through the Bill. I will finish on a point about the role of the Court of Appeal. A rejected application—although not an approved application, I am sorry to say—can be appealed under clause 12. For the Court of Appeal’s review to be substantive, it must surely be able to review the evidence as fully as possible on what happened throughout the terminally ill person’s application.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is what I hope would happen if it was necessary for the prisoner to be released in order to avail himself of opportunities on the outside. If he is terminally ill, that is what should happen.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Before the break, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge gave a helpful account of the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with particular reference to the concept of “best interests” that applies in that Act. She explained that the best interests consideration kicks in only once the capacity test has been failed—once it has been concluded that someone does not have capacity. Therefore, there would be no best interests consideration in the case of assisted dying. Either a person has capacity and that is that—a rather low bar, which is, as we have discussed, appropriate for buying a cup of coffee, is got over, and they are off to the assisted dying commission, or whatever process we eventually try to set up—or they do not have capacity and are ejected from the system, and there is no best interests consideration. I reference that because my whole point is that the Bill does not use the Mental Capacity Act; it just uses the definition of capacity that is in it, and that definition is very weak. It is designed to assume capacity in the patient and, as we discussed earlier today, it can include somebody who has impaired judgment—they could be depressed or even suicidal. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said earlier, very honestly, that he would be content with somebody who had depression accessing assisted suicide, as would be possible under the legislation. The point is that once the test of capacity has been passed, there is no best interests consideration. It is a great abuse of the Mental Capacity Act, the whole purpose of which is concern for the vulnerable, for that purpose to be ignored once the usefulness of the Act has been fulfilled. This Bill does violence to the Mental Capacity Act in using it for this purpose. The fact is that that Act was designed for the opposite situation: to protect people from having things done to them. I will conclude shortly, Sir Roger, but that brings me to the point we have discussed at length already today: the crucial question of whether the decision to have an assisted death is different from the decision to decline or to cease treatment. I start by pointing out that case law specifies that to decline treatment is not to commit suicide —I recognise that the hon. Member for Spen Valley does not like the term suicide, and I apologise, but we are using legal terms here. The fact is that there is a distinction in law between the act of suicide and the decision to decline treatment. I refer in particular to the famous case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland in 1993, and quote Lord Goff, of the House of Lords, who said that “in cases of this kind, there is no question of the patient having committed suicide, nor therefore of the doctor having aided or abetted him in doing so. It is simply that the patient has, as he is entitled to do, declined to consent to treatment which might or would have the effect of prolonging his life, and the doctor has, in accordance with his duty, complied with his patient’s wishes.” I also quote Sir Thomas Bingham, as he then was, who said that in the case of Tony Bland it was plainly not suicide, and that “it was not the discontinuance of artificial feeding but the patient’s condition and its underlying cause which caused his death”. In the withdrawal of treatment, it is not the act of withdrawing treatment that kills someone, but their disease, or the condition they have, whereas in assisted suicide it is the act that kills them. That is a crucial distinction, and that distinction is apparent. We heard it this morning in remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, and I think from the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who pointed out that there is a difference between the two cases, as is evident with respect to advanced directives that allow for the withdrawal of treatment. They do not allow for the active administration of treatment; they allow for the withdrawal of treatment. They would not allow for assisted dying, as the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire accurately said. This goes to the heart of the matter. There is a difference between being left alone and demanding that something is done to us. The state protects our right to be left alone. It does not yet give us the right to have something done to us simply because we asked for it.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My objection is not on the basis of criminality, innocence or guilt. I would not deny criminals this right because they are criminals. I would deny them what I regard as a dangerous opportunity because they are vulnerable. Whether guilty or not, whether they are on remand or not, they are in an equally precarious position and equally vulnerable, and that is why they should be excluded.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making such an important speech, and I am very grateful to her. This is a crucial discussion. The hon. Member for Ipswich suggested that the amendment would make things worse because it would apply a new test.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I trace our liberties to an evolution of British law, and of English law, that recognises the essential nature of our individuality as being socialised. We belong to one another and we derive our freedom from other people. Our autonomy, Magna Carta and all the liberties of the individual proceed from that. None of us, no man, is an island. That is what I suggest to my right hon. Friend. His point was about treating everybody as solitary individuals, making independent private decisions. That is not the way any of us operate; it is certainly not the way people in the most vulnerable circumstances operate. What actually happens is that we are heavily influenced by the people around us, by our circumstances and by the choices before us. To descend from the abstract, let us consider an actual case, albeit a hypothetical one. Someone is in prison. They have committed some crime, or they have not committed a crime but have been remanded. Their whole family life has been smashed to pieces over the years, or just recently. They then get the terrible diagnosis of a terminal illness. A doctor says to them, because they are allowed to do so under the Bill, “You know, one of your options is an assisted death.” I think that that would be incredibly influential, to the point of serious concern, for those of us who know how vulnerable people in prison are. The same applies to people living on the streets, the people my right hon. Friend was describing.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I respect that. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there would be a new test, but it is for a new situation. I want to alert the Committee to the purpose behind this amendment. I understand that we are in a slightly polarised discussion. The hon. Member for Bradford West and I both voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and it is not likely that we will ever support it. Nevertheless, I encourage hon. Members to consider that the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who is not opposed to assisted dying in principle, is genuinely trying to ensure that the Bill is as safe as it can be. All that has been proposed, as the hon. Member for Bradford West suggests, is a strengthening and a recognition of the importance of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, without the—

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend replied, “No”, to the interviewer. We are not looking at means-testing the triple lock. She was talking more generally about the challenge of means-testing in our social security system, which is a legitimate question for us all to consider, as I shall go on to discuss. I did not want to get too partisan in this debate, but— [ Interruption. ] Here we go! No, I won’t, genuinely, because the challenge of our welfare system is a shared problem that we face across the House. I will note in passing that our party’s record on welfare is a good one. We introduced universal credit, rationalising the spaghetti web of benefits that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman when he was last in office. We made work pay and helped people off welfare and into work, and we succeeded in that, with 4 million more people in employment in 2024 than in 2010. Let me point out that we had another mess to sort out in the public finances. When we took office, the Government were running a deficit of 9% and the Treasury was spending way more than it was earning. By the time the pandemic struck, the deficit was down to less than 1%. We were living within our means and were able to afford the generous uplifts made to benefits and pensions in the last Parliament, as well as the huge package of support that we provided during the pandemic. I want to be fair and admit that, as the Minister suggested, the welfare system is not working properly at the moment. Too many people are being consigned to a life of inactivity and dependency, especially via the categories of sickness benefit. It is bad for those people, their communities and the country as a whole, including the taxpayer, who spends £65 billion a year on incapacity and disability benefits, rising to £100 billion a year unless reforms are made by the end of this Parliament. So what is going on? Those terrible figures reflect the fact that we have bad rates of physical ill health, including obesity and, as is strongly evidenced in the statistics, bad backs because we simply do not move around enough in the day. The figures also reflect a rise in mental ill health, which we see in alarming rates in schools and among young people. We have to do more on those issues through all sorts of interventions that lie more with the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care than with the Department for Work and Pensions. However, as the Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported last week, the rise in welfare claims cannot be attributed to worsening health or longer NHS waiting lists; the problem is growing far faster than that. Perhaps the problem is low wages that do not attract people into employment, and that is certainly a reality. Low wages have driven demand for the immigration that we have seen get so out of control in recent years. Profound changes are under way in the world of work, away from secure employment towards a more precarious jobs market. Labour is destroying jobs, taxing employment and discouraging new hires with its new Employment Rights Bill. However, the fact is that wages have risen sharply above inflation in recent years, which is why pensions are going up by earnings this year. Employers are offering good wages but are not filling vacancies. The issue is not health, although we have problems in health; the issue is not work, although we have big problems there—the issue is welfare. People are not being incentivised to take jobs because the offer from the welfare system is better. When I say welfare, I do not mean unemployment support. Thanks to universal credit and the last Government’s reforms, we saw record numbers of people move off unemployment benefit and into work. That is because we offered support to people to find work and imposed strict conditions that meant people had to actively look for a job. If they did not, they lost the benefit. That worked for a lot of people, but we found—here is the issue—that for a lot of other people, the incentives made them go the other way, further away from work into the sickness category, because that is where the good money is. In some cases, the money is double what they can get on unemployment benefit, and sometimes £3,000 more than the minimum wage. People almost certainly get it because the approval rates are high at over 90% for the limited capacity for work category. This is big and unconditional money. There is no expectation to do anything about the health conditions that mean someone is signed off sick. There is no expectation of being reassessed any time soon or, indeed, ever. That is the challenge, and I hope the Government will rise to it in the same way that we rose to the crisis in unemployment benefit in the last decade.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman reflects the experience that many of us have had in our surgeries. Nevertheless, I do not think that health reform on its own will do the job. As I mentioned, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has looked into the matter and reported last week, pointing out that the increase in welfare claims cannot be attributed to longer waiting lists or, indeed, to worsening health conditions. The welfare problem is outstripping the problems we see in the nation’s health, so we have to do more in the DWP. We wait with bated breath to see some movement on that front. In fact, it was in this debate last year when we were uprating benefits that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), now a ministerial colleague of the right hon. Member for East Ham, said that, “Labour has a plan”. That was a year ago. Seven months ago, Labour won the election. She did not say that the plan was oven-ready, but she implied it. I know the Minister says that the delay is because of a court case that happened two weeks ago, but I do not quite understand how that explains the delay that has been going on for seven months. Here we are approving a measure that will increase expenditure by nearly £7 billion, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and we have no idea how the bill will be brought down over time. But after much head scratching in the DWP—and, we are told, people pulling their hair out in No. 10—we are getting closer to the big reveal. We hear exciting hints in the media that the Government might scrap the limited capacity for work category altogether, scrap the work capability assessment, merge employment and support allowance into the personal independence payment system, or require people on sickness benefits to engage with work coaches. I am encouraged by all that pitch-rolling. If the Government are softening up their Back Benchers for serious reform, I applaud them for it, but I will believe it when I see it, because Labour opposed every step towards tougher conditions, more assessments and more incentives to work. They opposed reforms that we were introducing to the fit note system. In fact, I see from a written answer to a question in the other place that the Government say they have no plans to reform the fit note system, which I regret. I wonder whether the Minister could help clarify if that is the case. On universal credit, it appears that the sinner repenteth, or sort of repenteth. The Government are on some kind of journey. In the last Parliament, they said they would scrap universal credit, then they said they would replace it, and now, as we have heard, they are reviewing it. I am glad to hear that, although the right hon. Gentleman just said that they are reviewing it over the course of this year, so that seems to be unrelated to the Green Paper process, which we are expecting in the spring. I would like to understand how those two processes are aligned. Rather than scrapping, replacing or reviewing universal credit, I invite the Government simply to use it. It is a flexible system, as we saw during the pandemic, and it works; it just needs to be adapted to the new challenge. In conclusion, let me make a few suggestions for the right hon. Gentleman to consider as he prepares his Green Paper and his universal credit review. The back to work plan that we announced before the general election would have got 1.1 million people into work, using more support and tougher conditions—“more support” meaning more of the WorkWell pilots that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) introduced. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State praising those pilots yesterday, although sadly without attribution. In our view, the work capability assessment should be face to face, and it should be asset-based, not deficit-based; it should be asking what a claimant can do, not what they cannot do. The claimant should begin the journey of recovery—the journey back towards work—then and there. Rather than budgeting for ever higher welfare, as we are doing today, we should be investing in a universal support system to run alongside universal credit. We also need tougher conditions. We simply cannot have people with a bad back or anxiety being signed off sick for the rest of their lives; they need to know that we believe in them, and that believing in them means having high expectations of them. In exchange for benefits paid for by working people, claimants should take active steps, when they can, to address their physical and mental health needs, and they should work meaningfully on their own health and wellbeing. That will not look the same for everyone and it must not be a tick-box exercise. That is why we need the help of civil society, not just coaches and therapists, providing the human touch and the range of help and opportunities that people need. Most of all, we need a clear message to go out from the Government that unless a person is so severely disabled or ill that they genuinely can never work at all, they will not have a life on benefits. That clear message, enacted through reform that the right hon. Gentleman’s Department must bring forward urgently, is the only way to get our exorbitant welfare bills under control, and to get our workforce and our economy moving again.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Let me state at the outset that the Opposition support the measures to uprate pensions in line with earnings and benefits in line with inflation. I am honoured, personally, to take part in this important annual ritual, which is never well attended but is always a high-quality debate. The traditional star of this debate is, of course, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who this year has descended from the clouds of the Work and Pensions Committee to the sweaty arena of ministerial office. No one is more qualified than he to take the office that he now has. No one has more genuine expertise and compassion for the people that we all want to support than he, so I am very pleased that he is in this role. I just note in passing how much the House misses the expertise of departed Members. Paul Maynard, David Linden and Nigel Mills all used to take part in this debate to great value. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is taking up his position as a new star of this annual debate. Despite the formality, it is an important debate, because it is an opportunity for us to take stock of the welfare and pensions system as a whole. As pensions and the triple lock were mentioned, I am happy to provide some clarification for the right hon. Gentleman. I think he has misunderstood, or our leader’s position has been misquoted, because we are not looking at cancelling the triple lock. It is his colleague, the new Pensions Minister, who has been very clearly quoted saying that the triple lock is a silly system and indefensible. I look forward to further clarification from Government Members.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity. We had a whole series of plans that were sadly interrupted by the general election result, and I will come on in a moment to some of the suggestions I have for where the Government might go.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was a key part of the reforms brought in towards the last part of the last decade, enabled by universal credit—a much simpler system. I am glad to say that we managed to reduce that taper significantly and to incentivise work.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, there are questions about the long-term sustainability of our pensions system and our national insurance fund, but I think the shadow Chancellor was talking about the very long term, rather than the immediate situation that we are in. There is no intention, on the Conservative Benches anyway, to review the triple lock at this stage.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 3 Feb 2025 · People with Disabilities and Long-term Health Conditions: Work Support · Hansard source

  More

  The answer to my question is £1.8 billion. That is the cost of Labour’s economic inactivity and its failure to reform welfare since the election. The sum is the same as the saving from cutting the winter fuel payment plus the income from taxing family farms. In opposition, Labour opposed imposing conditions on people claiming incapacity benefits. Does the Minister still rule that out, or will the Green Paper face reality and require people to take action, where they can, to address the health needs that mean they are signed off work?

• 3 Feb 2025 · People with Disabilities and Long-term Health Conditions: Work Support · Hansard source

  More

  The media report that people in No. 10 are tearing their hair out in frustration at the DWP taking so long to come up with welfare reforms. We have already been waiting seven months, and now we are told it will be March before there is a Green Paper, and presumably there will be no actual legislation until the end of the year at the earliest—they will be totally bald in No. 10 by then! Given the constant rise in the welfare bill, what is the financial cost so far of Labour’s inactivity?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It is great to hear about the case for common law over the Human Rights Act. Yesterday we heard about parliamentary sovereignty. This is a tremendous process we are having here. Professor Hoyano said that the person in the street would not see the difference between a patient requesting to die by the withdrawal of treatment versus the active administration of fatal drugs, whereas I think you said, Professor Owen, that you did see a profound difference between that decision on the part of the patient and also, presumably, the act on the part of the medical professional, in the case of either the withdrawal of treatment or the administration of fatal medication. You said that you would be happy to draw that out; could you do so? Professor Owen: Yes. I am happy to try now, but also to do it further with some written submissions if that would be helpful, because it is such an important point. First, for the man on the street, or the person on the bus, one thing to remember—this comes out in the public opinion polling—is that when you ask about assisted dying, some people think that that is access to palliative care. There is a degree of misconceptions that are out there in the public that are important to bear in mind. On the distinction between the decision around the refusal of life-sustaining treatment and the decision regarding assisted dying, what are the similarities? Well, they are both about life and death. What are the differences? One is a refusal; one is a request. One is traditionally considered to be about bodily integrity—it is the so-called shield of the person, or the patient, against the intervention on the body that is being made by the medical profession. You are giving the patient an important right, which is a shield-like right. That contrasts with a request for assisted dying, which is a request. You are involving other people in an act that is an act of ending one’s life. That is not something that the medical profession has been comfortable with, going back thousands of years. So you can discern a number of differences. Could you reduce those differences to one thing and one thing only, and be particularly precise about it? Probably not. I think you are talking about differences that cluster and group, and which we overall accept as a difference of kind. The other issue here that is important is intention. When you are assessing somebody’s decision to refuse a life-sustaining treatment, the doctor there does not have the intention to end a person’s life. That would be a concerning intention were it there—and sometimes it is looked for, actually, if it is disputed. But of course, when a doctor is involved with a process where somebody is seeking assistance in the ending of their life, it is quite difficult to say that the doctor does not have an intention to end life. One could go on with a discussion of the differences, but the similarity is that we are talking about life and death.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Professor Preston, I wonder what you think about this idea of a panel instead of the High Court judge. A lot of Members who voted for the Bill on Second Reading did so partly on the basis that there would be that judicial stage. Although we can all recognise the value of having more expertise involved, the role of the judge is essentially adversarial in principle, and the public would expect it to be. They would be hearing arguments and taking evidence. Do you think that the Bill would be safe without that? Secondly, do you not agree that, as we heard earlier from a law professor, the right of appeal should be in both directions? There should be the right of appeal against an approval as well as against a denial? Professor Preston: I think we suggested a panel. I submitted some evidence after the last Select Committee inquiry about a panel that could operate outside. Lots of the reasons I gave were about helping to navigate, helping to identify doctors and helping to support people who feel vulnerable within the NHS. What increasingly came out from the idea of a judge is the question of what exactly their role is and the fact that there is no right of appeal. However, if you had a panel, that would give a much more thorough understanding of what is happening. The additional safeguard is that the panel could say there needs to be a palliative care consultation. You would have to be sure the doctors who are doing it are, based on their register, qualified to have a palliative care conversation so that all options have been explored. My fear is about if we do not specify what training is or what these people’s expertise is. Most doctors do not know too much about palliative care or what the options are. You do not need to see a palliative care doctor, as a palliative care nurse can talk you through it, but the additional power of that panel is that it could be answerable to the court or some other sort of assisted dying tribunal.