The Westminster lensArchive · §02 Speeches · 860 contributions

Speeches by Kruger.

Every Hansard contribution by Danny Kruger this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.

Showing 421440 of 860 contributions · most-recent first

← PreviousPage 22 of 43Next →
DateDebate & contributionWords
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

This is a very important point, and I am grateful for the hon. Member for Spen Valley’s admission that this is not a judicial process. We have constantly been told that the Bill has been gold-plated with the judicial stage of the application process, but we have now heard that there is not a judicial stage. We have als

healthsocial-care
114
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Danny Kruger; we are easily confused. [Laughter.] The hon. Lady talks about the question of oaths, and it is extraordinary. Does she agree that it speaks to the confusion about whether the panels are a judicial construct at all? They have a judicial function—they exercise a judicial responsibility—but they are composed

healthsocial-care
84
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

rose—

healthsocial-care
1
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I have made this point before, but I will do so again: it is very welcome to have these extra professionals involved in the process. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that it would be so much more appropriate to have them involved early on, at the assessment stage? We all want it not to be just a rubber stamp, but they

healthsocial-care
94
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

The hon. Lady cites James Munby, who correctly identified the problems with the High Court process as it was designed and exists in the Bill. Is she aware that he also strongly objects to the amendments? He thinks that the newly proposed scheme fails on all the same tests, and he regards it as just as unsafe as the pre

healthsocial-care
61
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Could you just repeat that? [Laughter.]

healthsocial-care
6
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

healthsocial-care
23
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Again, I will not press this amendment; I just want to put on record my support for the principle. This amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, is quite a clever device: if we were sticking with the High Court, it would have meant that someone with genuine concerns, for example a family member or acquain

healthsocial-care
213
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I beg to move amendment 312, in clause 12, page 8, line 34, at end insert— “(7A) Any person who wishes to challenge an application for a declaration under subsection (1) must enter a caveat in any district registry of the High Court within 14 days of the application being lodged or received, stating their belief that t

healthsocial-care
149
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

healthsocial-care
13
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I recognise that we are moving on and that we want to get on to the substantive clauses, and I certainly will not press these amendments to a vote. However, I want to put on record that I have extreme concerns about the role of the proxy in clause 15. It is unclear to me why a proxy is needed. I regret that we are not

healthsocial-care
90
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I beg to move amendment 432, in clause 12, page 8, line 31, leave out paragraph (a). This amendment is linked to amendments which remove proxies from the Bill.

healthsocial-care
29
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Those might be appropriate reasons; I hope that can be specified. The crucial thing is that if there is an unwillingness—not an incapacity but an unwillingness—to proceed, that is of some concern. It is not that they are no longer able to do it—possibly for the reasons that the hon. Lady suggested—but if there is an ac

healthsocial-care
176
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I want to speak briefly in support of the hon. Lady’s amendment and also in support of amendment 310, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. The hon. Member for Richmond Park is absolutely right. I will not rehearse her argument, which is very straightforward. The question is: what other reason could there be to j

healthsocial-care
122
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 423, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) To inform their assessment, the assessing doctor must— (a) consider whether they should consult a health professional or social care professional with qualifications in,

healthsocial-care
427
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

The hon. Gentleman accurately points out that doctors are not social workers or psychiatrists, and we are asking them to make a difficult judgment, in consultation with the patient, about whether they should engage wider family in the discussion. That goes to the broader point: we are imposing a huge obligation on doct

healthsocial-care
108
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

As ever, the hon. Gentleman speaks very powerfully. Does he acknowledge that under the amendments, and under the Bill, it would be possible for a patient to proceed without informing their wider family, if they and the doctor conclude that it is not appropriate or necessary? The value of the amendments is that they wou

healthsocial-care
80
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I am afraid there is a huge degree of subjectivity throughout the Bill, and we are putting an enormous obligation on doctors to use their best judgment. However, I think it is right to stipulate more clearly that it is appropriate, in general, to inform patients’ families. Leaving the vague term “appropriate” essential

healthsocial-care
1,212
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Amendments 307 and 308 concern the question of who should be informed when an application has been made or when an assisted death has been approved, and at what stage it is appropriate for family members or next of kin to be informed. During the debate on clause 8, we discussed whether a patient should be asked to stat

healthsocial-care
340
11 Mar 2025Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

I beg to move amendment 307, in clause 9, page 6, line 18, leave out from beginning to “advise” and insert “unless the assessing doctor has concluded in good faith, that this would not be in the person’s best interests.” This amendment would require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin that the perso

healthsocial-care
75
← PreviousPage 22 of 43 · click a debate to open the transcript with this MP’s speeches highlightedNext →
Sources
SourceHansard · official report
MethodEach row is one contribution (intervention or speech). Word count from the official text.