Assisted Dying

Debate between Danny Kruger and Paul Blomfield

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I greatly respect the campaigners who are proposing a change in the law and the people who signed the petition. Nevertheless, it is not the case that the majority of the public support what is euphemistically called “assisted dying”. When the details of the proposed law change are explained to people, a majority of people oppose a change in the law. Crucially and most importantly, the doctors who work with the dying—people in palliative care and geriatric care, and GPs—overwhelmingly oppose a change in the law, because they know what we are talking about. Nor is it the case that in countries that have legalised assisted dying—

[Paul Blomfield]

When the BMA consulted its members, more doctors supported a change in the law than opposed it.

[Danny Kruger]

The BMA has decided to be neutral on this matter. Most of the doctors who supported a change in the law are do not work with the dying and the elderly. I accept that a majority of doctors have now accepted a change in the overall position. What I am talking about is people who know what they are talking about—I say that with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who I understand has a lot of knowledge of this topic, as well. My point is that while there might be overall polls that suggest public support, in fact, when professionals, members of the public and MPs get the chance to look at this closely, they end up opposing a change in the law, and for good reason.

Palliative care services do not rise in countries that have legalised assisted dying compared with countries that have not; they flatline. Of course, all palliative care services are going up because the population is ageing, but they decline in countries that have legalised assisted suicide.

[Paul Blomfield]

Has the hon. Gentleman not read the Select Committee report? We looked at every single jurisdiction. There was no evidence that palliative care declined in countries that adopted assisted dying. There was only evidence that it had opened a debate that had led to an increase and improvement in palliative care.

[Danny Kruger]

The point I just made is not that it declines, but that it does not increase compared with countries where assisted dying is not legal. Often, the increase and investment in palliative care is actually because there is more spending on assisted dying, which has now been legalised in those countries. I am very happy to take up this point offline, because it is very important, and I recognise the Select Committee looked closely at it in its report. However, there is an important point about the investment in palliative care in countries that have assisted dying and those that do not.

I am not sure whether this point was in the report, but what does go up in countries that have legalised assisted suicide is suicide itself in the general population. The fact is that suicide is contagious. Suicides among people who would not be eligible for assisted suicide increase in countries that have legalised it. I am afraid that is understandable when we consider that the Government have told society that some people would be better off dead. We have policies in this country to prevent suicide—we want to stop people committing suicide. It is important that we recognise the potential implication of a change in the law for others.

As that suggests, this is a profoundly moral question. I recognise that there are people with deeply held beliefs on both sides. There is a quasi-religious belief in the notion of autonomy and choice as the only moral question in this debate, and I have heard that suggested. It is important to acknowledge that the people with the least agency and autonomy—the vulnerable, the disabled, the mentally ill, the frail, the lonely—are the ones who suffer in every country where the law has been changed. It is not surprising that every country that legalises assisted suicide starts with very tight restrictions, and then the scope and the access expands. I will demonstrate that offline after the debate, because it is true.

[Paul Blomfield]

We looked at this in detail as a Select Committee. Not a single jurisdiction that has defined its law in terms of terminal illness has chosen to broaden it.

[Danny Kruger]

The definition of terminal illness is incredibly difficult, and people can always find a doctor to demonstrate it. That has happened in Oregon, in Canada and other countries. Again, let me take this up offline. [Interruption.] I respect position of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, but I stand on the point that the scope, access and eligibility expand, and of course it does, because expansion is implicit in the principle.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between Danny Kruger and Paul Blomfield

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 10.

There ought to be a basis for cross-party agreement, as there was in the Lords. I sense from many of the contributions so far that there will not be cross-party agreement, and that wiser heads are not prevailing on the Conservative Benches—those wiser heads are being kept below the parapet.

I read the letter that the Minister circulated yesterday, in which she acknowledged that creating a statutory tort

“has been a contentious measure throughout the passage of the Bill”.

That is something of an understatement. She went on to acknowledge that, in what she must recognise was a thoughtful and serious debate in the other place, many peers had

“raised concerns that the measure would subject higher education providers, colleges and students’ unions to costly, time consuming and unmeritorious or vexatious claims”.

But in her letter she just brushed that aside, on the basis that she had spoken to many academics who agreed with her, which is a rather interesting example of cancel culture at work, as she casually disregarded views that do not fit with her own.

We should be clear in this debate that, on both sides of the House, we all strongly believe in freedom of speech within the framework of the law. We should particularly cherish it in our universities, but we should also recognise the difficulties associated with legislating to that end. The right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), the former universities Minister and, as of today, the new Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, saw those difficulties for herself when she explained the Bill’s operation at the start of its long life.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who is no longer in his place, said he is concerned that we have reached the point at which this sort of legislation is necessary. How we manage the rights and obligations of free speech has been a live issue of concern for many years, and not simply in relation to universities. That is why Parliament has framed the limits of free speech.

In a previous life, I was responsible for co-drafting the University of Sheffield’s code of practice to ensure compliance with section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, and I oversaw its operation in providing a platform for speakers with whom I profoundly disagreed. There is an irony in that, because the Government soon came to regret the way the Act’s provisions were used to secure platforms for those with whom they profoundly disagreed, and they raised those concerns with universities and students’ unions.

Some of the invitations to speakers after the passage of the 1986 Act were made vexatiously by those who were more interested in testing the legislation, or in trying to create embarrassment for a university and its students’ union, than in the issue under discussion. The fact that 36 years on we are debating the same issue is a reflection of the difficulties of making laws in this area, and that is something we should think about carefully when there are good alternatives.

More recently, I served on the Public Bill Committee for the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, and I recall expressing my concerns over aspects of the Government’s proposals for the creation of the Office for Students. I argued with the then Conservative Universities Minister, now Lord Johnson of Marylebone, who made the case for the Office for Students as the way of regulating the sector. So I was interested to read his contribution to the debate in the House of Lords, where he argued that clause 4 was not only unnecessary but would “undermine the regulator”—the regulator that the Conservative Government have put at the centre of the higher education architecture in this country. He powerfully made the case that the OfS can deal with these issues more effectively than civil litigation by imposing

“conditions of registration on any provider that falls short of the enhanced duties created by this Bill.”

He went on to say that those conditions of registration provide a wide range of

regulatory tools…from simply seeking an action plan from a university…through to imposing fines on an institution if it does not deliver”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 716.]

I was also struck by the contribution of another Conservative former Universities Minister, Lord Willetts, who highlighted the role of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, in addition to the OfS, in providing a “clear process” to which any student can turn with a concern about any potential suppression of freedom of speech. But far more importantly—this point has been made and Ministers would do well to pay regard to it—Lord Willetts argued that the provisions of clause 4

“could have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.”

He set out two ways in which this might be the case. The first was that

“people who are thinking of…inviting speakers or organising events—

would be—

“inhibited from doing so for fear that they could potentially find themselves caught up in complicated and demanding legal action”.

I have to say that in a different way I saw that chill factor in operation as a result of the 1986 Act.

Secondly, Lord Willetts highlighted the costs of litigation and the uneven resources available to those taking and defending action, pointing out that there is a “real risk” for student unions that would not have the resources to defend themselves against litigation. As he said, student unions

“are an important place in which students with a wide range of political views have their first experience of organising debates, exchanging ideas and disputing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 713.]

He pointed out that the “threat” of potential litigation that could bankrupt a student union would not serve the interests of freedom of speech in our universities.

So two former Conservative Universities Ministers—the two who have arguably had the most impact on our higher education system over the last 13 years—are both saying that the tort provided by clause 4 is wrong and both back Lords amendment 10. It did not stop there. Lord Pannick argued that effective regulation from the OfS is quicker and cheaper than civil litigation. My good friend Lord Blunkett, who has talked about his experience of being no-platformed as a Secretary of State, made the case that the tort will cause “more confusion” and “difficulty”. Lord Grabiner has been mentioned and, as somebody who should know, he said that High Court judges are less well placed than the regulator to deal with these issues. Lord Macdonald, as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, said that the clause, far from encouraging free speech, will have a “chilling effect”.

The case could not be clearer. Creating the tort would cause confusion, slow down redress, open the terrain to vexatious claims, waste resources, undermine the regulator that this Government have put in place and, above all, create a chill factor that would undermine free speech. We should come together tonight to reject clause 4 and support Lords amendment 10.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise in support of the Government and am pleased that they have decided to reinstate the clause that includes the tort. I was taken aback by the shadow Minister’s suggestion that such a provision was otiose. He suggested that there are much larger issues that the House should be debating. I think that this is where we see a real difference between our parties. The fact is that we think that few things are more important than the quality of cultural and academic debate in our country, and the context in which young people are educated and brought up. But a spirit of oppressive cultural conformity has taken root across the institutions of the United Kingdom and, worst of all, it has taken root in our universities, where freedom of speech should be protected.