Danny Kruger MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that, and I will leave it there, but does the Minister agree that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish who is administering the treatment in that scenario? If both their hands are on the instrument, whatever it is—a cup, a syringe or a button on a computer screen—it is very hard to know who has actually delivered the final act.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Let me let me look that up later. I am happy to exchange data, because this is clearly something we should be trying to get right. Nevertheless, I want to try to explain why I am suggesting that we have a problem with the drugs that are used in assisted dying and that it has been suggested we use here. Let me continue the quote from Dr Zivot: “When one watches an execution, it’s not clear that this is happening”— meaning that it looks like a peaceful, painless death. He continues: “There is not much to see. Executions, like, I imagine, medical assistance in dying, are a rather bloodless event; not much can be seen outwardly. But the autopsies revealed a very disturbing and surprising finding.” He makes the point that that is particularly disturbing, given that assisted dying often uses a paralysing drug, which induces the impression of peace and calm in the patient, when in fact something else might be going on below the surface. To conclude my quote from Dr Zivot, he says: “To claim that this is a death that is peaceful, well, it can be nothing else because now a person is unable to move in any way, but whether or not they have any conscious experience of what is happening is unknown…it should be clear to the Canadian public that the kind of death that they will experience…will be something other than the way it is represented. It could be exceedingly painful and more akin to drowning.” I cannot judge whether Dr Zivot is right, but we should be very wary of any claims that there is a simple answer to the question surrounding lethal drugs. To the point made by the hon. Lady, and I think by the hon. Member for Stroud, there is no evidence in the many reports from Dignitas, which has a regime very similar to the one we are imagining here—I will certainly look at the evidence mentioned made by the hon. Lady—that contradicts the concerns raised by Dr Zivot.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  There is great anxiety about the validity of much of the evidence in this space. I have great respect for the work of Dr Zivot, because nothing else gets us close to understanding the actual effect of these drugs, once somebody has died.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me come on to that, because I am not aware of any evidence from Dignitas that disputes the assertion that is being made—certainly none that would meet the concerns raised by the genuine evidence of the effect of pentobarbital on death row patients. Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do not think that Dignitas has supplied evidence to contradict the point that I am making.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister suggested that there will be a code of practice, but clause 30 says that there “may” be a code of practice. Does the hon. Member accept that there might not be one and that, even if there were, the only obligation on professionals would be to have regard to such a code? There is a big difference between that and a stipulation in the Bill.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the hon. Lady’s first point, about the gardener refusing to mow the lawn, the activities that an individual will be allowed to opt out of are clearly specified in the amendment and they are the activities covered under the Bill. It is not about unrelated activities connected with the premises but the provision of assistance—not just at the end but all the way along. I hope that is clear. On her second point, again we have—

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I trust this Secretary of State.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 435, in clause 18, page 13, line 6, at end insert— “(9A) Where the procedure has failed, the coordinating doctor must escalate the care of the person by making the appropriate referral to emergency medical services.” This amendment would require the doctor to escalate the care of the person in cases in which the procedure fails.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am sorry if I missed it, but are we not going to debate amendment 496?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the hon. Gentleman is right. Nevertheless, one of my concerns about the Bill is that we are leaving enormous areas of clinical practice, and regulated conduct for the professionals involved in assisted suicide, to be performed under guidance that is still to be set out and that it is the job of future Ministers to determine. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because he has correctly identified a group of patients for whom the drafted Bill may present obstacles to the fulfilment of their wish for an assisted death. My belief is that the ability to assist will probably cover almost anybody who wants it and has found a doctor who wants to help them, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there are some groups for whom that might be more of a challenge than others. I think the answer we are going to get—it is one made by hon. Members in the debate already—is that technology will fix it, and I fear it will, because I think we are going to find ourselves in a world in which it is perfectly possible for the administration of death to be enabled through some kind of technological device, which somebody with the most limited physical mobility will nevertheless be able to activate. I fear the insistence that we have on self-administration. Although we can all acknowledge, as referenced in the previous debate, the conceptual difference between administration and self-administration, we do have this idea that we are individuals cut off from each other and that there is an essential gap between us and other people. At the very end of life, though—in the moments that we are considering and legislating for—that distinction is void, because we are intimately connected with other people, as per the clauses that we are debating. I fear that we are going to find ourselves in a world in which a laptop will be set up and even a movement as small as the blink of an eyelid by the patient will be enough to trigger what will be called “self-administration” of the fatal dose. I oppose this group of amendments, moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, because I do not believe in assisted suicide. I do not understand why other supporters of the Bill are not following the hon. Gentleman’s lead, and acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy and assisted suicide, of course we should enable patients to have the final act performed upon them, rather than insisting on this arbitrary distinction that it is possible to insist on self-administration in all cases.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s concern about my experience on social media. I referenced prostitution because he, or another Member, asked me in what circumstances it might be acceptable for an owner or occupier of a premises to specify activity that may or may not—

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that is right—I am not going to pretend otherwise. I recognise that, in those circumstances, it would be distressing for the individual who lives in the care home either not to have this new treatment—this service—or to go elsewhere to have it. I recognise that that would be an imposition on and an inconvenience for them, and possibly quite distressing. Nevertheless, I proposed the new clause to protect everybody else who lives in that community and the staff who work there. I did that specifically from the point of view of the conscience of staff; if an assisted death takes place in a premises, everybody is involved. The facilitation, the admission of the doctors involved and the support of the process is the responsibility of the occupiers of the premises—the management of the care home.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I propose to press both my amendments to a vote if necessary. Amendment 462 agreed to. Amendment made: 496, in clause 18, page 12, line 28, after “professionals” insert “, and such other persons,”.— (Kim Leadbeater.) This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may be accompanied by such persons (other than health professionals) as the doctor considers necessary.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 440, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for York Central. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Banbury. Surely it is the case that the interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and the timing of those interventions, must be properly recorded. Should the procedure fail, the need for record keeping is of significant importance, as with all medical record keeping. The doctor with the patient should write up the notes, including the times at which they reacted negatively to the procedure, the amount of medication that they consumed, any side effects and any action taken. That is good practice. In other jurisdictions there has been poor record keeping, as I mentioned, when things have not gone according to plan. We do not fully understand what happened in those instances or, more generally, the prevalence of complications in those jurisdictions. That information will be vital if further interventions are required, including emergency care. Clause 22 deals with two situations: if the person decides not to take the substance or if the procedure fails—the phrase “Other matters to be recorded in medical records” seems a rather innocuous title for a clause that deals with such situations. In fact, I think that is the only mention of the procedure failing in the whole Bill. However, the clause, and amendment 380, simply require the co-ordinating doctor to notify the commissioner that it has happened as soon as practicable. Do we have any sense of when the doctor should judge the procedure to have failed? I would be grateful if the Minister or the promoter could offer a definition of procedural failure. What does that actually mean? That question arises in other jurisdictions that have assisted dying laws. A 2019 paper by the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers said: “There is no clear cut-off for what constitutes ‘delayed time to death’ or ‘failed oral MAID’.” At what point does a delayed time to death yield to failure? That question is not just abstract for us; it is a philosophical question in other contexts, but we are required to answer it. That paper goes on to suggest that “clinicians should decide with patients in advance at what point they will consider inserting an IV and completing the provision”, which is a rather euphemistic term but we know what it means. That is legal in Canada, but it would not be here, so what happens? In written evidence, Dr Alexandra Mullock, who is a senior lecturer in medical law and co-director of the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy at the University of Manchester, pointed out: “The Bill is silent on the precise obligations of the doctor if the procedure fails.” Clause 18(9)(a)(ii) states that the doctor must remain with the person, but what the doctor should be permitted to do, either in relation to aiding recovery or supporting the person to die after the initial attempt has failed, is unclear. She said: “During my work with the Nuffield Citizen’s Jury, the issue of what happens if the drugs do not end the person’s life was raised within the evidence presented to the jury, and this became a point of concern for several jurors.” She also said: “By not addressing this question within the Bill, it allows doctors to exercise clinical discretion, however, it is arguably legally and ethically preferable to clarify the position and address public concern by including a clause that covers this problem.” I hope that is helpful. I will end by referencing the hon. Member for York Central, who tabled amendment 440 and made the case very powerfully. She said that should the procedure fail, the need for record keeping is of significant importance, as with all medical record keeping. I have already said that, but we cannot have too much of the hon. Member for York Central.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry; I mis-spoke. I should have said that we have ruled out clarifying the expectations of what doctors should do in the event of an assisted death, and whether or not that is specified by the patient. Earlier today, the Committee again ruled out specifying what the obligations on doctors are if complications arise, whatever the patient has discussed earlier. With this amendment, we now seem to be ruling out gathering any information about what happened, which is surely vital not just for safeguarding but to develop good practice in the operation of the Bill, a point that the hon. Member for Ashford made earlier. There is too much silence in the Bill, between the taking of the substance and death, on what happens if there are complications, what is permitted and, now, what is recorded. Amendment 439, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, attempts to address that point. I hope that the Committee will accept it.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is helpful, but if the patient were holding the cup and the doctor held their hand to help them tip it into their mouth, it is not clear to me at what point assistance would end and self-administration would begin. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that. What about the scenario in which the patient’s finger is on the plunger of a syringe and the doctor assists by putting their finger on top of the patient’s and assists them to press the button, adding a little force to that being given by the patient? Does he regard that as within the scope of self-administration, or does that cross the line into directly administering the procedure?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), my Wiltshire near-neighbour, for her powerful speech representing the many thousands of people who supported the petition. I pay tribute to our visitors in the Public Gallery, many of whom I detect might qualify as WASPI women. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) about the power of this campaign, which demonstrates what people power can do to get the attention of Parliament. I hope they feel that this debate has advanced their cause—we will hear from the Minister shortly about whether that has happened. I also pay tribute to hon. Members across the Chamber for their speeches. I agree with those of them who pointed out the cross-party nature of our efforts. It has been very powerful to see, in particular, the friendship between the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), which is a moving sight. They are the conscience and soul of their respective parties, and I hope that the Minister will listen to his hon. Friend just as I listen to my right hon. Friend. I recognise that the question is a complex one and the Government have had a difficult time in thinking about what to do. It is true, as the ombudsman’s report pointed out, that there was no direct loss of income to women from the maladministration. However, it is also true that the bad communication of the policy change led directly to people’s income being impacted negatively and to their making decisions in the absence of full information from Government about their future income, as many hon. Members have powerfully expressed on behalf of individual constituents. It is also true that the question of how to communicate with individual members of the public is a fraught one, but it is simply not credible to say that the communications with this group were adequate. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) powerfully pointed out, if the Government also say that there is very little point in sending letters because people do not open them, then what is the point in the Government communicating with the public in that way on any topic? It is also true—this is the final defence of the Government, as it were—that dealing with 3.5 million people, all of whom have difference circumstances, is a complex matter. I recognise how difficult that is, and how enormous the potential bill for the taxpayer could have been if every single one of those women received the maximum compensation. I have said that this issue is very complicated, but it is also fundamentally very simple. Other hon. Members have made this point more powerfully than I can, but the fact is that Labour MPs campaigned to fix this problem, right the wrongs that had been done to the WASPI women and, if they won the election, see justice done. That has not happened. As hon. Members have said very powerfully, our democracy depends on us MPs fulfilling the promises that we make when we stand for election. If we do not do that, we will have a bigger problem than the injustice done to the WASPI women; indeed, our whole democracy will be in crisis. I recognise that more could have been done by the last Conservative Government before the election. However, we were waiting for the ombudsman’s report and the suggestion that we kicked it into the long grass is a little unfair. The fact is that the ombudsman’s report arrived a matter of weeks before the general election was called. I am confident—my party made clear pledges to this effect—that we would have fulfilled our commitment to the WASPI women in light of the ombudsman’s report. Exactly what we would have done, I cannot say. Sadly, no one will ever know because the public took a different view about who should take the matter forward. Nevertheless, I can say with absolute candour and confidence that we would have done more than nothing, which is what the Labour Government have done. Leaving party politics out of it, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who said that this is a matter for Parliament. The report came from a parliamentary ombudsman and it is Parliament that decides on these matters. Like her, I take hope in the many excellent, powerful and brave speeches made by Labour Members here in Westminster Hall today, and by many other Members who have stood in public and pledged their opposition to the decision made by their own party leadership. I honour them for the commitment they are making to honour the pledges they made when they stood as candidates, and I very much hope that the Minister is listening to them.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is without a doubt the greatest Back Bencher in the House of Commons, and I very much agree with what he is saying. I reiterate my appreciation of and respect for colleagues across the House and particularly those Labour Members who have spoken today and in other places in support of the WASPI women. Let me finish by putting a specific question to the Minister. When we were here in Westminster Hall a couple of months ago to debate this issue, it was his first day in the job. By the way, we should not be blaming him for coming up with this policy; he was a Back Bencher when it was conceived and he just had to come out and defend it, which he did. On that day, during the last debate on this topic, he said: “We will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.” —[ Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 157WH.] I would be grateful if he told us what progress has been made on this matter and what action plan we can expect. What update can he provide? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just said, I very much hope that he will work closely with the WASPI women themselves and their representatives to develop that action plan. This battle is not over; as we have just heard, there is a case in the High Court about it. However, Parliament remains powerful enough, and has the authority and the ability, to right the injustice that has been done over so many years to these women. I very much hope that the Minister—who, as I say, cannot be blamed for conceiving of this policy—having heard the powerful speeches from parties across the House and being aware of the strength of feeling in our constituencies, will feed back to his colleagues in the Government that a mistake has been made and that the opportunity still remains to right this injustice.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Pension Credit Uptake · Hansard source

  More

  That is 45,000 more awards than in the same period last year, but 880,000 people are eligible—that is a pathetic achievement, and the Government have spent millions of pounds on advertising this. We still have thousands of people waiting for their winter fuel payment, and the winter is over, so it is a little late for the Government’s next advertising plan. The fact is that we still do not know who has missed out, what the waiting time for those payments was, and what the effects have been on pensioner poverty or on hospital admissions, which have increased significantly for pensioners. Given the scandalous failure of their pension credit campaign, will the Government release all available data on the impact of the winter fuel payment cut?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Pension Credit Uptake · Hansard source

  More

  When the Government scrapped universal entitlement to the winter fuel payment, they said that all 880,000 people eligible for it would get it through pension credit. We now know that that did not happen; they have got fewer than 120,000 new pensioners enrolled. More than three quarters of a million of the poorest pensioners have missed out on vital support this winter, so will the Minister tell us whether that was the plan all along—to save money at the expense of the poorest pensioners—or will he admit that he has completely failed in his duty towards the poorest elderly people in our society?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Victory in Europe and Japan: 80th Anniversaries · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Government for these excellent plans. The ghosts of men who went to liberate Europe and never came back are all over Wiltshire—the county that I represent part of. Lord Alanbrooke’s diaries are full of the villages and towns that he visited during the war while supporting our troops who were preparing to go and fight in Europe, and Wiltshire was very much the launching pad for Operation Overlord. In addition to the plans that the Minister has set out, may I encourage her to consider ensuring that there is proper, senior representation from a national level in Wiltshire around D-day?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Young Carers: Educational Opportunities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing the debate, for his very good speech and also for the work he has done in support of young carers over the years. It was good to hear about that. I also pay tribute to other hon. Members who have spoken today and brought a wealth of insight to our debate, particularly the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). He and I serve on a certain Bill Committee and I feel I am getting to know his family very well. The more I hear of them, the more I like them. I pay enormous tribute to him and his family for what they do in often very difficult circumstances and I am grateful to him for what he said. I particularly pay tribute to young carers across our country. As the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) has just said, it is absolutely inspiring and humbling when we hear the testimonies of the unsung, often unacknowledged work—even by themselves, as she says—that they do. It is always great to have the opportunity to hear about them and from them. If any of the young people in the Gallery today are young carers, I pay tribute to them and thank them for what they do. I hope they feel that they are being properly acknowledged in Parliament today. As we have heard, it is not just the additional responsibility and the weight of caring for a family member or relative that is all-consuming for young people. It is the sacrifices that come with that. For young carers, it often means missing out on social plans with their friends, not being able to commit to extracurricular activities outside the school day, and too often having to miss school in order to fulfil their duty as a carer. We have heard that point made. The Carers Trust surveyed over 1,000 young carers and the results were saddening. A key finding was that almost a third of young carers reported that they always or usually struggle to balance their caring responsibilities with school, college or university work. We understand that there are 54,000 young carers in England and Wales, and their overall absence rate is 12%, compared with just 7% for pupils who are not young carers. That means that a young carer misses more than one school day per fortnight on average. This commonly leads to persistent absence: 39% of young carers were persistently absent in 2022-23, compared with 21% of those who are not young carers. That is twice as many. The impact is undeniable, not only on the educational attainment and opportunities of young carers, but on their sense of being included in the school community, which is so important. I was saddened to read in the survey that 28% of young carers report that they either never had, or did not often have, someone at school, college or university who understood that they were an unpaid carer. An even higher rate—40%—said that they never got, or did not often get, help from their school, college or university, so even when it is acknowledged that they have caring responsibilities, many of them do not feel that they get any support from their institution. As hon. Members have said, there is no doubt that more support needs to be instilled in schools, local authorities and communities. A point was made about the record of the last Government. I do not want to go too much into defensive mode, because I very much acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex—she is clearly speaking the truth on behalf of young carers, as other hon. Members have—but in government, we were determined that all young carers should receive the support they need to succeed in all stages of education. The pupil premium, which was introduced under the last Government in 2011, gave schools in England additional funding to improve outcomes for children facing disadvantages. It has supported the roll-out of support for many young carers. I take the hon. Lady’s point—she may well be right—that it would be appropriate to have a targeted pupil premium for young carers, by making them automatically eligible for the pupil premium, and I would be interested in the Minister’s view. I understand that 60% of young carers are eligible for the pupil premium at the moment—that speaks to the disadvantage that many of them face—but it might be appropriate to be more targeted and specific about their eligibility.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Young Carers: Educational Opportunities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it would be a helpful incentive to identify young carers among the school population. I will come in a moment to further support that schools need to do that work. As has been mentioned, there are bursaries, introduced by the last Government, to help with the costs of education, such as travel and books, childcare and residential costs when required. In the 2023-24 academic year, more than £160 million of bursary funding was allocated to institutions to help disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds with the cost of taking part in education. I recognise the hon. Lady’s point that those bursaries can come quite late in a child’s education, and that it would be good to be more proactive. It might well be that more work can be done to ensure that children and their families get the opportunity to apply for the bursaries, and to encourage schools to support them to apply earlier on, because I bet loads of families do not know that these bursary opportunities exist. Another programme introduced by the last Government, in 2014, was the Young Carers in Schools programme, which addresses the need to ensure that schools do more to identify young carers and increase their engagement in school. The programme set out 10 key steps to help schools to identify and support young carers. Each step provides key practical tools that can be adapted to support the individual school. The hon. Lady made the point that provision can be quite patchy across the country, and I dare say she is right. Again, national schemes are great, but only in so far as they are properly applied, uniformly, to the best possible standard. I hope that the Department is working on ensuring that there is greater coverage of that useful programme. The Young Carers in Schools award allows schools to gain recognition for their success in supporting young carers. I would be interested to hear from the Minister to what extent that programme has been successful. It also enables schools to share good practice. My understanding is that its impact is positive: 94% of schools said in response to a survey that their staff were more likely to know what to do if they identified a young carer and how to support them. That sounds improbably good, and it might be that that is a somewhat superficial response; nevertheless, it is encouraging to hear that schools are positive about that programme. There is also encouraging evidence about the impact on young carers themselves. On higher education, there is depressing research, cited by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, that shows that young carers are significantly less likely to graduate than young people without caring responsibilities. I understand that the Office for Students launched an equality of opportunity risk register, which identified 12 sector-wide risks that may affect a student’s opportunity to access and succeed in higher education. It made reference to young carers in six of those key sector risks, so there is obviously recognition of the extent to which caring responsibilities can impact on one’s opportunities in higher education. More needs to be done to set out how education providers will improve equality of opportunity for students from disadvantaged backgrounds so that they succeed and progress in higher education and onwards. There is clearly more to do to ensure that all young carers get the support they need to succeed. I urge the Minister to engage with young carers—I am sure she is doing so—schools and local authorities to identify what additional support young carers need, to ensure true equality of opportunity for every pupil.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In that case, what is the difference? It is not necessarily the case that the judicial stage has to be incredibly time-consuming, onerous or distressing for the patient. It is about the legitimacy of the process and the rigour that is applied to it. If the hon. Gentleman wants people to be sped through the process without going through the distress of further explanations, surely he should be objecting to the panel too.