The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 109. Is it time to legalise assisted dying? (Kim Leadbeater)

Episode Date: November 25, 2024

Should assisted dying be legalised? How did the murder of her sister, Jo Cox, impact British politics? Why is the job of an MP so difficult? Rory and Alastair are joined by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater to discuss all this, and more. When life is difficult, Samaritans are here – day or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at [e-mail], or visit www.samaritans.org to find your nearest branch. TRIP Plus: Become a member of The Rest Is Politics Plus to support the podcast, receive our exclusive newsletter, enjoy ad-free listening to both TRIP and Leading, benefit from discount book prices on titles mentioned on the pod, join our Discord chatroom, and receive early access to live show tickets and Question Time episodes. Just head to therestispolitics.com to sign up, or start a free trial today on Apple Podcasts: apple.co/therestispolitics. Instagram: @restispolitics Twitter: @RestIsPolitics Email: [e-mail] Assistant Producer: India Dunkley + Alice Horrell Video Editor: Teo Ayodeji-Ansell Social Producer: Jess Kidson Producers: Nicole Maslen Senior Producer: Dom Johnson Head of Content: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor, Jack Davenport Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. Sign up to the Restis Politics Plus. To enjoy ad-free listening, receive a weekly newsletter, join our members chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to the restispolities.com. That's the restispolics.com. Welcome to the restis politics. Leading with me, Rory Stewart. And me, Alistair, and we're joined today by an MP who is much in the news right now, Kim Ledbetter. And that is because she is bringing forward a private member's bill on assisted. dying. That of itself makes her a leader because if that goes through, that is going to be a very, very significant change in Britain's national life, or should I say England and Wales, national life. But of course, people will also know that Kim is somebody who probably horribly first came to a kind of national prominence because of the murder of her sister, Joe Cox, somebody that both probably and I knew, and it was one of the saddest events of any of. anyone's life, but what it was like for Kim, heaven only knows more. We'll talk about that briefly. But she then became an MP by standing in the very seat that Joe had represented and become

something of a unifying figure in British politics at a time that that was sadly all too lacking. Well, come on to all that, Kim, but can we start with assisted dying? First of all, tell us how the private members bill process works and then why you chose this of all the things you could have chosen to try and get legislation on. Hmm. Hi, you two. It's good to see you. Nice to see you. So we're starting nice and light, straight in.

Yeah. Private members bill. So there is a process which happens every year in Parliament whereby there is a draw. And MPs can be put into this draw. And if you are drawn in the top 20, I think it is, you have the opportunity to put a piece of legislation before Parliament. And I, lucky me, was drawn top of the ballot.

And that, if I'm right, matters. because actually if you were drawn number 20, it would be pretty unlikely to make it to the floor of house. Yeah, the further down you are the list, the less likely that the legislation will get put before Parliament. So basically, when that happened, I was approached by lots and lots of organisations and groups and lots of journalists to say, what are you going to do? What are you going to do? And I knew the issue around choice at the end of life for terminally adults was one that had been discussed for, I mean, decades. And it hadn't been put before Parliament for nearly 10 years. And it was very substantially defeated then, wasn't it?

And it was defeated in 2015. So I knew that this was a moment in time. I also knew where the public mood was in terms of this issue, in terms of the polling that had been done saying that the public wanted, I think the law to change based on polling, but also they wanted the debate to happen. And I think the only way to do that would be through a private member's bill because it is a conscience vote.

So government would not put this bill forward as a government bill. Just before we get on to the depth that I see, what were some of the other bills that people suggested you take for? What were the other opportunities? What are you thought of? Why didn't I do puppy smuggling? Puppie smuggling. I'd have been the most popular person in the world.

I'm sure the abuse would have been far less. Not promoting puppy smuggling, clearly. Stopping puffy smuggling. Yeah, there was that. I mean, I'd really thought about doing votes at 16 because it's something I believe in. But I think the government has committed to making time for that. So I think that will come anyway. I hope in this Parliament.

There were other issues, sort of smaller issues, but important issues around things like pavement parking, around things around online. safety. One of my colleagues is doing a bill around mobile phones and 16-year-olds. So there were a variety of other issues that I thought about. And how does this work? It's that if you're a charity that cares passionately about an issue, one of the things you do is you look for opportunities for new legislation. And so when someone comes top of the ballot, presumably 20, 30 British charities will approach you and say, we care about puppy smuggling or we care about online safety. Were the things also in international development? I know that was something Joe cared a lot about.

Was it mostly domestic stuff? It was mainly domestic stuff that I was approached about, but there were a few other options as well on an international level. But again, realistically, you have to pick something that has got a good chance of passing, a good chance of getting through, and also something which means something to you personally. And whilst I don't have a personal story around terminal illness, this was something I'd thought about previously, and I knew what my position was. And I thought this was the opportunity to give Parliament a chance to debate,

something of real national significance. And you mentioned earlier abuse. You'd have got less abuse about puppies. Especially given what happened to Joe, was there a part of you that thought, I don't want to get engaged and involved in something where I know the views are going to be very, very passionate on both sides? So are you getting a lot of abuse? Well, in the same way that I sat down with my parents and my partner and talked about whether to stand to be an MP, I sat down with them and spoke about this issue because I knew that it would be controversial.

I knew that there are very passionate feelings around the subject of a sister dying. So I didn't go into it naively thinking that wouldn't happen. I think for the main part, people are being respectful. People are, as I've tried to do, trying to have a respectful and a robust debate, of course, but also a compassionate one. Because we are talking about really sensitive, difficult issues here. But yeah, there has been some abuse and some nastiness as well. But, you know, I don't want people to feel sorry for me. I am doing my job, and this is a really important part of my job.

I think there's a broader conversation. You've spoken about it a lot about the state of actual. our politics in the state of public life and the fact that it is a pretty toxic place to be and why would anybody put themselves forward to be an MP on the amount of crap that you get? Sorry, what is the rules on swearing on the public? No, no, you swear. We swear a lot. We don't swear a lot.

Quite a lot. No, Rory swears a bit. I swear very, very occasionally when... We've actually been banned from the BBC and British Airways because of our swearing is. Oh, really? British Airways? Yeah, British Airways. Fuck them.

We're in trouble now. Anyway, I'll try and keep it. And all those mothers who come up to me and say how wonderful it is that they're 11 your old listens to the show are now going to be like reeling away. So let's maybe move on to the nab of the issue. Can you, in sort of simple terms, make the case for why you think this is a law that we need? Yeah. What made me put the bill forward was looking at the situation as it is now. And the reality is we have got a legal framework, or rather a lack of a legal framework around end of life. So at the moment, there are only limited options for someone who is terminally ill.

And just to be really clear, the title of the bill, and I know you've said a sister, Dine, and of course that is the subject, but the title of the bill is terminally ill adults, end of life. So this is not about a sister dying of a broad nature. It is very specifically about. And there's got to be a terminal illness, incurable, six months to live, max. Very strict criteria. So I looked at that sort of space and the stories that came to me were stories of people who have had harrowing, traumatic deaths, often with very good palliative care.

And there's a conversation to be had about palliative care. And I'm glad that we're having that conversation. and that should continue whatever happens with this bill. But despite very good palliative care, people who are telling stories of loved ones who have had horrible deaths, sometimes hours, sometimes days to die with palliative care. And there are many examples of those,

including the gentleman who'd been married to his wife for 40 years, she got a horrible throat cancer, and it took her five days to choke to death. And she was screaming at him to end her life, and he stood over her with a pillow. And you can only imagine what that's like. You can't imagine what that's like, actually, can you? And he said, I couldn't do it,

because I didn't want her last memory of me to be standing over her with a pillow. I met a woman the other day whose mum had got liver cancer and esophical cancer and her choice was which one do you want to kill you? Because one of them's going to kill you. We'll treat one and the other will kill you. And the lady said, do you know what?

I'll never forget Kim as the tumours were bursting in my mum's throat. I'll never forget the smell in that room. Now when you hear stories like that with palliative care, but horrible heroin, traumatic stories which have left individuals having horrible deaths and loved ones traumatised, we've got to question whether there should be another choice for those people.

The other things, of course, are the people who have got the money to go to another country. Often we talk about Switzerland, which can be £10,000,000, 15,000 pounds. They do it on their own often because their relatives can be prosecuted, because that's what the law says at the moment. Because they are assisting them to die. Their death. So they only do it if they can afford to do it, and they often do it prematurely because they have to be well enough to travel. So that traumatic journey that they have to go through the secrecy involved in that, That was something someone said to me the other day.

We treated like criminals. We feel like criminals because we can't tell our family and friends. We can't have a proper funeral. So there's that. Then there are people who take their own lives because they are so desperate and so fearful of what their end will look like that they take their own lives. Paul Blomfield, who's an ex-collectual who was the MP for Sheffield Central, tells of his father taking his own life. Another gentleman I met the other day, his father was ex-military, managed to have kept a gun, shot himself to death in his back garden, and his daughter found him. A horrible, horrible, another gentleman who actually came up to me in my constituency two weeks ago.

A lovely old chap, he came up to me, you'd like this, Rory. He went, Kim, I'm a conservative voter. And I said, that's fine, I thought, where's this going? He said, thank you for doing this bill. He said, because my wife had terminal cancer and she'd taken her own life. Not only did he have the loss and the grief of losing his wife, he then had eight hours been interrogated by the police. Because they thought he might have done it. Now, all of that, I just think that can't be right.

And I think we've got a duty to do something about that as legislators. So the arguments that people seem to be making against, one is about safeguards and the other is about coercion. And I guess the other one is the slippery slope argument. Do you want to take those one by one? Yep. What did you say first? Safeguards.

Safegars. Look, there are 31 jurisdictions around the world who have an assisted dying option. So we're talking about jurisdictions at some countries and some states. How many countries are actually got laws similar to yours? Yes, it's 31 jurisdictions and 13 countries, which means 300 million people have got access to some form of assisted dying. I've put together, along with a lot of expertise, a wide amount of consultation with lots of different organisations, whether that's palliative care specialists, whether that's medics, lawyers, judges, disability rights activists, and the families that I've talked about to produce what is the most robust piece of legislation on this subject.

There are layers and layers and layers of safeguards because I know that's what mattered to people. So two doctors are involved in the process, a high court judge is involved in the process, the individual can change their mind at any point in the process. And on the point of coercion, who is checking and when are we checking for coercion now? Do you know when we're doing that? When the person's dead? So that's when we say, oh, I wonder if someone was involved in that process. What this bill does, it makes coercion a criminal offence with a maximum of 14 years in prison.

It has doctors checking for coercion. It has a high court judge double, double checking that the, this person has not been coerced. It is their clear, settled and informed decision to do this. I saw an exchange in The Observer at the weekend, Charlie Fortner, who's very, very in favour of your bill and has campaigned on this issue for some time, debating with Sonia Soda, leader writer at the Observer. And she was making the point that she didn't feel that doctors, particularly doctors under pressure in a really struggling national health service, necessarily have the wherewithal or even the time, to check into issues like coercion. Do you understand why she might be coming from that angle

or that she comes at the slippery slope angle that says, well, okay, it's very tightly drawn now, but in future, who knows where it goes? Yeah, so two separate points. So on coercion, look, you speak to doctors, and there are doctors, another Conservative MP who actually used to be a doctor has come out this morning in support of the bill.

Neil Shastra Hurst, I think his name is. So there's support coming in from all different directions, which is fantastic. But we've got Peter Princely, who's one of the new Labour MPs, who was a nose and throat specialist, he says, this is what doctors do. Doctors check with patients for coercion

in other circumstances at the moment all the time. I think it's been a bit disrespectful to medical professionals to suggest that they don't. But again, as I say, go back to the previous point, there is no one checking for coercion now with people who are taking their own lives who are terminally ill. So surely having it written in law

within a legal framework with layers and layers of checks is far, far better than the situation we've got now. In terms of slippery slope, Look, the title of the bill cannot be changed. Terminally ill, adults, end of life bill. That is it. There is no mention of disabled people. There is no mention of mental health conditions.

There are things that are very, very clearly excluded from the bill. And if this bill passes, if it becomes law, it cannot be changed. In other jurisdictions, there is a different system where the courts can get involved. We don't have that system. And indeed, that's why the courts have thrown this issue back to Parliament and said, this is up to you to sort it out. So I think there's sort of two levels of this. One of them is whether this is a good thing to do, and the other is what it feels like to try to do something like this.

Let me have one more go on whether it's a good thing to do, but I don't think we'll resolve that in this conversation. One of the points I think Sonia makes quite powerfully in the observer is that coercion isn't always a black and white thing. So she imagines the case of an elderly person who might be depressed, but might not be depressed forever, who might be very worried that they're being a burden to their family. I was a little troubled by you talking about somebody being worried about the smell in the room. So again, if you were an older person, you might think, oh, I don't want my relatives to see me in an undignified position. I don't want to expose them to the fact that I might smell or be disgusting in my final words.

And what I suppose she's doing is you say, put all those things together, then the exact question of what it means to choose a sister dying, is a bit more complicated because the tests which I guess you're applying, which are, is the person autonomous and making a free choice on the one hand, and is it in their own interest, their own well-being, has a very strong contextual subjective element. And while, of course, you know, someone's going to be sent to prison for 14 years, if they're literally forcing their relative, there are many, many subconscious small signals, maybe overinterpreted by the elderly person,

which could encourage them down that path? Yeah, and coercion can take different forms. You're absolutely right. But as I said previously, there's no monitoring of that at the moment. So this bill would actually create a situation, but at least someone is checking how that person feels, how that person feels internally and externally.

And there would be robust training. So this law, if it passes, wouldn't come into effect for probably up to two years. So within that, we have got the time to do the training around coercion, which, you know, some doctors again have said to me, of course we check for those things now already, but this would be embedded in a thorough robust training program. And the smell, just going back to your point there, the smell was of the tumours bursting, so it wasn't about indignity in different respects. But also, you know, and I think,

you know, I've spoken to people who are terminally ill, and I think, again, let's go back to their voices, surely it should be their choice of what their end looks like. And we're describing situations there, which I know I wouldn't want for me. Now, if this bill passed and heaven forbid I ended up being a person who was within the scope of the bill. I have no idea what I'd do. I'm not saying this would be for me or it wouldn't be for me. But what I would want is the autonomy and the choice to have an end at a time of my choosing, in a manner of my choosing with a dignity that I have had through the rest of my life

and I would want to have in those final moments. Maybe I'm missing it. But I guess anyone listening to this who's been badly ill and has been looked after by a family member, not terminally ill, but just badly ill, will have experienced that sense of feeling guilty, feeling I'm being a real burden, feeling I'm putting a huge amount of pressure on the family. And at some part of your brain thinks, I'm being a bother here. It would be much better for the family if they weren't having to put up with this, see this, look after me in this way. But that's where those layers and layers of checks and going to your point previously,

this wouldn't be, I mean, some people said it's too long a process that I've proposed, but it wouldn't be a quick process. It's not a decision, there we go. And there are checks and checks. there's seven days in between the first doctor and the second doctor, and at every stage those checks are being made. After the high court judge has said the person is eligible and can continue, there is a 14-day period of reflection. So there are opportunities upon opportunities for that person to change their mind and for them to say, actually, this isn't for me.

Even on the day, they can say, actually, you know, I don't want to do this. So the checks are there, the safeguards are there in a way that they're just not there at the moment. That's the other thing. Let's always come back to the problem we're trying to solve. So the idea of coercion and burden, we have no idea where the family's members say, yeah, I think it's time now, isn't it? You need to get yourself off on that plane and get yourself off to Switzerland. No one's checking that.

No one's monitoring that. So it has to be better than the current situation, which has no legal framework around it whatsoever. And just on that you said that this bill can't be changed. I mean, all bills can be changed. A new parliament can come along. No, but that would be a new bill. Exactly.

So, for example, is it Canada, where they've suggested that mental health can be part of this, if you've got severe mental illness regardless of age. And they've pushed back on that and they've delayed that, I think, which is absolutely the right thing to do. So I guess that's what the slippery slope argument people are saying, is that once you've opened this debate, then does it then take you into places that your bill, as you rightly say,

lots of safeguards. Some have actually complained the safeguards are too strong. Absolutely, yep. But that in a sense, you're opening a debate, which could go past your time in Parliament in all sorts of directions. Does that worry you at all? I really worry about the mental health thing. That's my only...

I support you a bill. I think Rory's got a lot of doubts, but the big worry I have is about if it eventually does go into something like mental health. Yeah, look, this is for terminally ill adults. There's a whole different conversation about other conditions, and that is not this conversation.

We need to be really, really clear about this. This is giving dying people options at the end of their life in their final days and months, and it's about giving them the choice and the autonomy and the dignity that I believe they need. It very explicitly says in the bill, not mental health conditions, not disabilities. So the conversations that we have around those areas, let's keep having those

conversations, but most mental health conditions, you know, can be treated. And we should look at improving mental health treatment in this country. And I'm really pleased that we're having conversations like that, because that's a valuable conversation, also about the rights of disabled people, who are not included within the scope of the bill quite rightly. But let's fight for the rights of disabled people as well. Let's talk about better palliative care. So that broader debate is important, but for me it's really important about crystallising this, about the people who will come with in the scope of the bill who just want the choice. How annoyed were you that Westreting, who's the health secretary, who like everybody,

he's entitled to have a view, but he is also a member of the cabinet, senior member of the cabinet with responsibility, as it were, for this area, that he seems to be saying that you can either have this or you can have decent palliative care. Do you think that has damaged your campaign? Well, I totally reject the argument about an either-or-or-this-is-not-about-great-pative care and improving palliative care where we need to or having choice for dying people. Why can't we do both? Indeed, we've got a duty to do both.

And I think the other thing is, isn't it brilliant that we're talking about palliative care in a way that I honestly don't think we would have done without this bill? I think that's fantastic. Let's also celebrate the many amazing people who are working in palliative care up and down the country day in and day out. I have a hospice near me and they're doing fantastic things. I visited them. I spoke to them about the bill.

I met with the Association for Pallative Medicine. I understand their concerns. I was chatting to some people the other week, one from California, yet one from Western Australia who have got an assisted dying program there. And they were saying they had the same fears within the palliative care sector, but actually now it's been going for a few years and they work together very holistically. So let's look at how we can have choice at the end of life in a very holistic way. And palliative care is part of that conversation as well.

In terms of interventions by cabinet members, there are 650 MPs. Everyone will have a different opinion and they're entitled to that opinion. I think my concern more with the health secretary was that broadening that conversation out into more of the detail, which needs to come, but maybe not now. Let's look at the bill now. Let's look at the issues. But he also said there could be significant cost implications. Yeah, and there's no evidence of that whatsoever. So I mean, I mean, in terms of, yes, of course, departments have to do an analysis of the implications, but the government will implement the will of the House, the will of Parliament. So if this passes the stages, each department that's implicated, we'll have to look at what's

involved and quite right too. But in terms of cabinet members, I mean, Liz Kendall is a very big supporter. You've got people like Lisa Nandi, very big supporter. You've got other members of the health team, Stephen Kinnock. Karen Smith, has campaigned on this issue for 20 years. It's one of the reasons she got involved in politics. So there are different views. Quite right, too. There are different views. But the thing on the 29th November is every person gets one vote. And that's a good thing about our democracy, isn't it? So no one's vote is more important than anybody else's. So I think this is incredible because I don't think on the podcast, I don't think we've ever

encountered a more clear example of Parliament making an unbelievably important ethical judgment, very, very fundamental kind of changes almost 2,000 years of British law. So I wanted to look at this question because if you're an alien coming down, what we're looking at is a system in which 650 members of parliament are making this decision. It's just a way of not talking about your bill, just bills in general. What is this funny system we have where these 650 elected people with their parties and their constituents make decisions, as opposed to a couple of other ways we could do this. We could do this through a referendum. That goes well generally. Well, yes, but but, but, but, but I'd be interested to hear why you think a referendum, given this affects

everybody, why a referendum might not be a way of resolving this. Another way of doing it could be through a citizens assembly. Which have had to have been citizens of families. But you could make a much more official citizens assembly, charge it with this, really have that as an opportunity for the public to explore through a jury system, this kind of thing. Or I guess you could have a Royal Commission, which could sit and take expert evidence over a number of years and then make proposals to Parliament. So how does this way up against... I think the thing for me on those points, Rory, is that this is not a new debate.

Maybe if that was a brand new issue, that might be the starting point, that this isn't the starting point. This debate has been going on for decades. So people pretty much know a lot of the arguments around the debate. And there are people, look, let's be clear, who would never ever want to change in the law for various reasons, some of religious reasons, and other reasons, would never want to change the law at all.

There are other people who are very clear that they think the law needs to change, and there are lots of people who generally often actually agree in principle, but want to look at the detail, and we've now got that bill. So I think that the debate is going on already. It's been going on for years.

People are speaking about it up and down the country now more than ever. That's really important. MPs are taking this really seriously and going out into their constituents, and I know, because they're telling me this every day, speaking to people about their different views, holding round tables,

holding sessions with people. So a lot of that is going on, maybe not in the formal way that you might suggest, but it is happening anyway. And certainly there's a huge debate going on within the media around it. So I think those things are happening. But again, your question is,

do we have the right system of democracy where 650 people decide everything? You could say that about any issue, couldn't you? I read the bill last night. I mean, I've read a lot of bills in my time, but this is something where, as you've set out, it's quite simple to understand. I think what you're saying.

I've tried to do that. Right. But then when you read the bill, it sort of feels unbelievably complicated. Just talk us a little bit through that process. How do you actually go about drafting a bill on something so sensitive, which then gets literally debated line by line in Parliament at various stages?

I mean, you don't naturally have the experience for that. Do you presume you have to go and find people who literally know how you write a bill? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's a huge piece of work. I mean, the advantage I had was that, as we've said before, there are many places around the world where this is legal. And we've drawn a lot of that experience. That was a big part of the research.

We've also got bills going through Scotland, the Scottish Parliament, the Isle of Man and Jersey. So there's a lot of evidence out there and different jurisdictions, different bills doing different things. And we've had several bills that have gone through our own parliament over recent years as well. So pulling all that together was a huge, huge piece of work. In terms of the actual drafting,

I got someone who was able to help me, he's got a huge amount of experience in drafting parliamentary legislation. Who works in Parliament now? No. No, it doesn't work in Parliament. Now is retired, yeah, yeah, which is obviously really important. Does Parliament give you support? No.

They don't? No, not when it's a private member's bill. So you've got to go and do it all on your own? Yeah, it's a big job. Did you know that? Big job. Big job, hard work, yeah. And cost money, how do you pay for people to help you?

Well, people have done it voluntarily. Yeah. But it has been huge. And then obviously I've given all my time to it, so the many meetings that I've had of different organisations, I've chosen to do this as a priority. I've got a fantastic team of staff. As you will know, Rory,

can't do this job without that and they have kept everything else going along within the office, but this has been a huge piece of work, no two ways about it. But I think it's really, really important. And that's why you're quite right. It is a very robust piece of legislation. But what we've also got is some explanatory notes which go alongside it, which again, you'll be aware of, which break it down into more layman's terms. But I make no apology for it being a really thorough document, which is extremely detailed for all the reasons that we've already discussed. Before we go to a break, Rory. Oh, you just said go to a break. I know, but she's just said that which way.

It's so tricky, isn't it? Before we go to a break, has Kim said anything to make you more drawn towards the bill? I mean, she's given me a lot to think about it. I mean, I think it's very, very, very, very, very difficult. I mean, in a way, I think this is a three, four-hour conversation that we can't really have. And Kim's got very strong views. And she's trying to take a bill through Parliament. So I don't think we're going to resolve the issue in a short podcast.

But it's so good to have the debate, isn't it? And do you know what, whatever happens? happens with the bill, it's so good that people are talking about these issues. We're talking about palliative care. We're talking about disabled rights. We're talking about death and we don't do that very well in this country. We're quite nervous. We're quite reluctant to do that. And whatever else happens, I'm so proud of the way that people are having those conversations up and down the country. And literally, you know, at a train station, people are stopping me in the street saying thank you, often because of their own personal experience of how things are now.

But also, thank you for doing this and having this conversation. I think that's for really important. Okay, well, good luck. After the break, we're going to talk about other parts of your life. All this stuff. Hey, this is Michael and Hannah from Gollhangers. The Rest is Science. This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK. We often think of beating cancer as treatment, but imagine stopping it before it begins. After years of work, Cancer Research UK scientists are launching a clinical trial of lung vacs, the first vaccine designed to prevent lung cancer. It builds on Tracer X, the world's largest cancer evolution study, which tracked lung cancer cells over many years to uncover the disease's earliest warning signs. Lung Vax is designed to train the immune

system to spot these signs early on, destroying 40 cells before cancer develops. So it's not treatment, but preventative, with the potential to stop lung cancer before it starts. The first stage of the trial starts this year focusing on people at higher risk. It shows what long-term research makes possible. For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit cancerresearchuk.org forward slash the rest is science. Hi everybody, it's Dominic Samark here from The Rest is History. Now, some of you may have heard me on your show, The Rest is Politics when Rory was away and I was filling in and enjoying Alistair Campbell's tremendous banter. And I'm back to tell you about our new series on the rest

is history, which is all about Britain in the 1970s, a period with a lot of uncanny resemblances to our own. So right now we're living through a moment when oil shocks generated by war in the Middle East are rippling through the world economy, when Britain feels like it's sunk in a bit of a malaise. People are arguing about Europe. The government has got a few issues with the trade unions, And we have a kind of, I suppose you'd say governing elite, a kind of political class that is really struggling to come to terms with all of these issues. And people are asking if Britain is governable at all. So there are a lot of parallels between that Britain that I'm describing, which is our Britain and the Britain of the mid-1970s. So in this series that's coming out on the rest is history,

we're looking at these and other issues. We'll be talking about the rise of Margaret Thatcher, obviously a colossal figure in our political life even now, whether you love her. or loathe her. We'll be talking about the very first Brexit referendum of 1975, a subject that I'm sure Rory and Alistair will have strong opinions about. We'll be talking about the fall of the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson. And we'll be talking about one of the grimmest moments in Britain's economic history, the moment in 1976 when we had to go cap in hand, as people said at the time, to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, for a then record bailout. Now, if that sounds like that sounds good to you. How could it not sound good to you? Of course it sounds good to you. We have a clip for you

to listen to at the end of this episode. And if you want to hear more, just search for The Rest is history wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to The Restless Politics Leading with me, Rory Stewart. And me, Alistair. So here we are. I last saw you, I think, on a train where we had a long conversation about Parliament. So the first half, we talked about one of the things that you presumably find very positive about Parliament, which is your ability to take through this bill and make a major change in legislation. But open the curtains on Parliament. Help me, because Alistair often thinks I'm too negative. He thinks it's much better than I make out. Because he's never been an MP roaring. I've seen it from the good side. So tell us a little bit,

because I do feel that we have that in common in trying to help the public understand just some of the things that are wrong about the system and that are mad about the system. Give us a bit of a sense of that? Yeah. It's a world like no other and I find it frustrating. I don't particularly enjoy being an MP. People often say, are you enjoying it? And I'm not sure that's a word I would use. It's a really privileged job. I appreciate that. It's a well-paid job. It's a privileged job. It's a really important job. But I wouldn't say I'd get much pleasure out of it in lots of ways. And maybe that's because I didn't particularly ever want to do it. I mean, there's people in Parliament who have spent their entire life wanting to be an MP and that certainly wasn't my story.

Just develop that a little bit, because I also didn't find it pleasurable or enjoyable. Tell me a little bit about, I've written a whole book about why I didn't find it in job. Yeah, we all know that. We all know that. We all know that. Every knows that. Tell us why you don't find particularly pleasurable or enjoyable. There's a few different challenges and frustrations.

I think there are two big things for me. One is you've got two lives, and I find that really hard to manage. So I've got my life in Yorkshire, which will always be my real life. Then I've got my life in Parliament working down here. And I think you've almost got two jobs there. You've got the job of being a really good constituency MP, which is what I, focused on for my first three years. I got offered various jobs and I said no to everything in parliament. Oh, do you want to be this PPS? Do you want to be this shadow minister? And I said,

I've got a job. I'm an MP. And I couldn't understand that that wasn't a job in its own right. So as a constituency. Then you've got the parliamentary side of the job, which is obviously the time that you spend in London, in Westminster doing that as well. They're both massive jobs. So I think that that's one of the first challenges. And you've got two different lives with different people in those lives. And I find that really, really quite hard as well. Then you've got the fact that you are expected to know everything about everything. human being can know everything about everything. So you're one minute you're having conversations about the Middle East and the next minute you're talking about people's wheelibins and potholes,

you know, and everything in between. I find that really, really bizarre. I completely relate. So psychologically, I found it awful having to at one stage be a full-time constituency MP, a full-time Westminster Parliamentarian and a full-time international development minister. And then I also agree this thing about pretending to be an expert and everything that you don't know about. But you and I find that really troubling and unsettling psychologically, but many of our colleagues seem to be fine with it. What do you think is it about you and I? That's wrong with you? What's wrong with those wrong with those wrong? Why do we find those things disturbing? Roy, you do quite a good job at being an expert about everything. Come on, Roy. He is an expert. Let's not. I think it maybe

it's a personality thing. For me, I like to take a very thorough approach to things. I like to know detail and the realities in this job, you can't do that. And I'm really uncomfortable with someone giving me a piece of paper before a meeting and saying, there you go, I want to know why I'm in that meeting, I want to know the background to it, I want to know the wise and wherefores, and the reality is you just don't have time to do that. So time is the other thing in this job that you never have any time for proper planning and preparation for things, and you never have any time for reflection. And as much as I'm a hundred miles an hour person, as you can probably tell, and get very excited about things. I'm also quite a reflective person. And you don't have time to process things that have happened and think about the next steps. So that that can be really challenging. I mean, that's why I've been really clear with the bill to carve out time to make sure that I do this properly because that isn't always possible in this job and I find that really frustrating. Now, I met your mom and dad at an event that I did a lecture with you about and Roy was beamed in, which was in memory of Joe. Yeah. And I know this is difficult, but I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about Joe. Do you think, do you think if Joe hadn't been the MP that she was and then met the horrible

end that she did, you would ever have become an MP? It's unlikely, but not impossible. I'd always been interested in politics. I'd always been interested in people. And for me, politics is about people. That's the thing that I do enjoy about the job, that you can help people. You felt with Joe, she was kind of always made for politics. It was the direction that Joe's life went in.

You always went in a very different direction. Yeah, yeah. I mean, even at primary school, I remember one of my primary school teacher saying to me, oh, she'll be prime minister one day or that one. Because I was always quite clear. I have a strong sense of injustice. If I see things that need to be changed, I see things that are wrong, which again goes back to the pill, then I want to solve that.

And I think I've always had that sort of moral drive and compass to try and make a difference in things. But what I think I saw and I learned when Joe became an MP was the difference that you can make at a community level as well. And the difference you can make to people's lives on a really sort of micro basis as well as the big picture stuff. And you're right, Rory Joe had got a career in international development and global issues. But actually, you know, as an MP, you can also really change the community where you live. And I think that's really important. So I didn't set out on this path. but I hope because of my life experience

I've worked in the private sector, public sector, voluntary sector I've done a lot of different things with my life that brings a different kind of something to Parliament in the way that maybe people have been down a more traditional route don't have and I think there's room for all those things Just tell us about the day that Joe died where you were, what you do, you know you heard it's really worth thinking about Joe's murder

because I've not dealt with it I really know that that is the case I've never processed it, I've never grieved I've literally just put my head down and thought, right, just keep going, just keep going. And when I think back to that day and it feels so long ago in some respects, but then also really recent in other respects. And it was during the Euros, the football was on. So we were at home.

My partner just had an operation on a foot, so we were sat in a chair with a foot up like Jim Royal, and we were about to watch the footy. But I'd taken my car in for a service and I thought I was trying to be healthy, not easy anymore, again in this job, Rory, very unhealthy lifestyle. So I ran down to get my car from the garage and then. I got a phone call, tell me what happened. And it's just impossible to describe that feeling. And it's impossible to describe how your life can change like that.

And everything that's happened to me since, I'm just doing it. I don't even know if I'm feeling it, but I'm just doing it. And I've never had any counselling about it. And maybe I never will and maybe that's fine. And I keep thinking, well, I can get to a year, then I can get to two years. Then I thought, oh, I'm doing all right. I can get to five years. And it's eight and a half years since Joe was killed.

and now I'm at a point where I can get to 10 years. And then we'll see where we are after that. But it's just really bizarre. And again, going back, you know, talking about death all the time at the moment, which is really hard emotionally on lots of levels. I'm hearing about horrible deaths. But I suppose what it's made me think about is with every death there is a loss. And it's like an onion, isn't it?

At the centre of the onion is the loss. So we lose someone we love. And then there are the layers around that loss. and some of that might be pain, it might be shock, it might be someone being very poorly and ill, it might be a tragic accident, and then you've got murder. And where does murder fit into that?

Someone actually wanted to kill another person and wanted to kill a specific person in this instance. So all that is like somewhere around in my brain and maybe at some point I'll deal with it. And do you know what, maybe I never will? And maybe I'll just keep going and trying to do the best I can. When it happened, there was this sort of extraordinary moment in politics. David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn went up to your neck of the woods together.

Every MP said things. There's the plaque in Parliament with Joe's words that we have more in common than divisors. So it felt for a while like one of those moments that was going to improve politics, bring politicians together, around a sense of community, values, national interest. didn't last long did it? Well, exactly. Do you think that's always the case? Do you think there's something inherent in our politics that means we are always going to be polarized? There is going to be more division maybe than there is in the real world.

Well, look, I think it's what you guys talk about all the time. No one's saying that we've got to agree on everything. But two things. One, let's try and find common ground where we can. And two, when we do disagree, let's try and do it well and with respect. And we need to keep working at that. Because I don't think as a society and certainly globally, we're seeing that play out as best as it could at the moment.

And that really does concern me. And there's so many layers to that. Gosh, we could do another 10 shows on it, couldn't we? But, you know, the dehumanisation of MPs. I literally felt people just treat me differently as soon as I became an MP. Worse? Yeah, yeah, far worse. Well, you had that horrible campaign as well.

Calloway after you. So there's that. There's the need to have good people in politics. We need good people to put themselves forward. But why would you, particularly if you're a woman, or if you're from an ethnic minority background, or you're gay? why would you put you...

You know you're going to get loads of shit. But I also think politicians have got a massive rolling this as well. How we behave and how we treat each other and people is a big part of it. The media, I mean, we've just been looking at some of the media coverage of the bill around, you know, and I'll do a full interview for like 15 minutes and they'll pick one bit out and they'll skew it. And I think, that's not what I said. And that drives me insane. Then you've got social media, which obviously can be brilliant in lots of ways,

but can also be hugely, hugely toxic and damaging. So there's so much that we need to address, and it's hard to know where to say. I agree. It is very hard. But I think it's worth punching this bruise in a way and keeping making this point again and again. There's something very weird. Your experience in your constituency is positive and healthy. Your constituents when you... But it wasn't in the campaign though. It was horrible. With your constituents, I would guess. Generally, generally, most people are really nice. Generally speaking, you might find them reasonable, rational, you enjoy engaging with them there. And yet somehow nationally, we end up in the United States, kind of voting for Donald Trump. So

some strange thing happens between the nice, normal, engaged person that you're talking to on their doorstep. And then what happens when somebody goes into the ballot box and produces something, just help me with this. Because, listen, if you were looking for somebody to run your local, I don't know, pizza restaurant, you would not hire Donald Trump. You wouldn't, so why would you... I would. I'd love it if you did that. Why would you hire someone like that to run a country?

What is it? What's happening in a democracy? Let's take Boris Johnson or let's trust. These are people who manifestly unsuitable for any normal job, but are somehow given the job of running a country. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to unpick there. But in terms of, I think it shows how people feel about politics. And I think it shows that people are disillusioned, they're disengaged.

And how do we address that? We address that by politicians behaving well. We address it by better, more civilised discussion and debate within politics. I also think we address it with political education. We don't teach people about politics and about how the political system works. I love, as I would imagine you did Rory, going into schools. I love going to primary schools are the best where they've got the school council and they vote for the school counselors. But then when we get to secondary school, the curriculum is under so much pressure and teachers are under so much pressure.

We don't have political education. So until we explain to people how the system works, why would they give a toss about the system? Do you know what I mean? Because the system, they don't understand it. You know as an MP, you get emails about everything. People think you're a lawyer. They think you're a police officer. They think you're on the council.

They think you do all these other jobs that you just don't do and you have no control over whatsoever. They don't understand what an MP does. So until we start having a better system of education, then I think people are always going to think that we're all idiots. And it is hard. So there's so many layers to unpick with that. And that thing around simple solutions to complex problems,

we live in a culture, don't we? Whereas if you can't say it in three words, no one's interested. This is a cue for you to plug my books now. You've both got brilliant books. Let's plug all the books. But you know, 30 seconds on TikTok. Well, what can you solve on 30 seconds on TikTok?

What can you solve in a three words? Well, you can make America Great again. You can get back control. Yeah, stop the boats, blah, blah, blah. You know, we could go on, couldn't we? But that just isn't the reality of most issues and most situations. But people have lost patience. I understand it because we move in a really fast-paced society.

And I'm the worst person for doing that, dashing on from one thing to the next. And I love that in lots of ways, but it doesn't leave any room for nuance and debate. And that's why what you guys do is so good. Are there any of the arguments coming against the bill with which you have some sympathy, some understanding? Oh gosh, I have sympathy with all the arguments against the bill in terms of the other issues that we need to talk about. But what I'm also clear about is that they are separate issues. They're part of the broader debate. But if we are going to champion the rights of disabled people, let's champion the rights of disabled people.

And I've said this. I've said this to colleagues like Tanny Gray-Thompson, Liz Carr, who made that amazing, very funny, under weird circumstances documentary. I've said, I will fight for your rights all day long, similarly around the need for better palliative care. Absolutely. Let's have that conversation as well. But let's not do that at the detriment of the rights of dying people who are terminally ill. It doesn't have to be either or. Well, look, I'm loving this and I could do this for another hour. But I'm going to hand the last question to Alistair with huge thanks for your honesty and frankness. Thank you, Ron. I want to take you back to the bill. Are you going to win it? I think it's going to be really close. And I don't know the numbers at the moment. I think it's going to be really, really close. People keep texting me saying, I'm going to support.

And then you'll hear somebody on the news saying they're not going to support. So who knows which way it's going to go. But let's have the debate. That's what's really important. Let's talk about all those really serious issues. And let's try and show Parliament at its best, because far too often we see it is worse. So this is an opportunity.

Who's your chief whip? Who's your numbers guy? Oh, we've got quite a few people. Let's mind, Campbell. Keep your nose out. I see Kitmore House is on the face of the bill. Well, that's the other thing which is really interesting is it's got really good cross-party support. You know, from all the different major parties, people are supporting it.

It shows that it genuinely is a free vote, and people have got very personal views on it. So that is a good thing. And again, that's where you often see Parliament at its best, cross-party working. We don't talk about that enough either. Well, good luck, Kim. And Rory will say he'll think about it. And thank you very much for joining us. I'm such an admirer of yours.

Thank you for coming. Likewise. Thank you. So, Rory, what do you make of all that? I think Kim is a wonderful person. I obviously really enjoy all my interactions with her. She's one of the rare MPs, partly because she came from outside the system, who's prepared to say the emperor has no clothes.

She's prepared to be brutally, brutally flank about how daft and mad what goes on the House of Commons is, which I think people who have been in it since they were in their teens are sort of almost processed and institutionalized so much they can't even see. how mad it is. One other thing which we didn't get into is trying to understand the profile of people who are supporting this bill. And it's an interesting mixture, I think, of more right-wing Brexit supporting Tories and more kind of blar-right centrist labour. Maybe it's too complicated, and I'd have to do a very detailed analysis of who they are. But I wondered whether you could find a connection between people's views on assisted dying and their views on other kind of socially-kinded.

The thing that's going to be really interesting, though, is there are so many new MPs. I didn't get the sense that Kim is fully across how everybody's placed. That's why I was asking about who her chief whip was. Yes. I mean, she's got, as you pointed out, that she's got people like Kit Malthouse who are more experienced and relatively, you know, senior MP now, although it's only been since 2015, but is quite good at moving things in the House of Commons. Depends how much she's listening to and using him, if she's being too idealistic about it, she might be in trouble. Because as you point out, this can only get through if you genuinely have lists and you're calling everybody all the time, you're making sure they turn out. Because many MPs will be tempted to slip and avoid

it. If they can't quite work out what they think, and it's not a three-line whip in any way, it's a vote of conscience, they won't turn up at all. I think they're given this going to be such a big debate. After we finished recording and I said, you know, who your main speaker is going to be. And of course, it's up to the speaker who gets called. But at the same time, I feel you need to kind of frame. She's obviously going to be a big voice. You need other voices. And I'm not sure they had that sort of properly planned out. I think this is a campaign. Yeah, the way I read it, I'd be surprised if it passes, but I've been interested in some of the Labour MPs I've been talking to some of the new ones. Some that I thought would be totally opposed are actually

one in favour and one or two on balance. What sort of people did you think would be opposed? What's the sort of personality and character that might be opposed? I thought people who were very, very Christian. Right. I thought it would be opposed. And actually, they weren't. In fact, one was sort of slightly angry at the suggestion that they should be. And then the other sort of feeling I got was this sense of the danger. even though it's a private members bill, that this becomes the thing that Labor get known for. Right.

It's almost like a distraction from the stuff they actually want to be focused. So there will be people who are in number 10, who are trying to drive through their reform agenda, take control of communications to the grid, keep the momentum up from the budget, and they're thinking, wait, wait, wait, we've lost two weeks of momentum because everybody's talking about a sister dying

instead of talking about our reform. Yeah, and not just number 10, I think some of the MPs who think, you know, they're talking about, rolling away in their constituency whatever they're doing. And some of them, for the first time, having to get used to this sort of bombardment of organised emails, emails, campaign messages, abuse, all that stuff. Because people feel very, very strongly about this.

People getting hundreds of emails from both sides. Yeah. I don't think they're getting quite as much as I thought they might be. But I think it's their first experience of that. I think the farmer's lobby is also involved in that at the moment. But it's one of those issues that is, I think also for new MPs, I talked to a new MP who said it was the first time he'd really felt that sense of weight of responsibility that it's a free vote and only these 650 people can vote. And it's a really big issue for the country. And that's where, of course, things can also tend towards not changing the status quo.

I mean, this was the trick of the Conservatives and the voice referendum in Australia. if you don't know, vote no. Yeah. So there will be people whose instincts are, well, I'm not quite sure. Yeah, I wish you hadn't said that, Rory, because the other side, if I were them now. You think that may be their slogan. Well, I think there are some, listen, I think she's done an amazing job. If you read the bill, I mean, I had no idea that you couldn't actually get any current parliamentary drafting help.

You have to do it all in your own. She has to go and find outsiders. But there will be arguments that people can pick apart. I think the debate will be important. I think it's one of those occasions when the debate in Parliament will be important, where people will listen to other contributions. I hope so, because I think people should take it seriously. It's an example of a bill that came before us in 2015, which I remember.

I remember people like Andrew Mitchell being very keen on it and pushing us, in fact, on the podcast over the last two years to get it more on the air. I remember other bills. The bill on a sister-down. But Andrew's interesting. is Andrew's in favour? Andrew's in favour and has been, for the last couple of years, trying to encourage us to talk about it more on the show.

So there's obviously a group that care passionately about this. I remember Rebecca Harris, who joined Parliament with me and who I think is now the shadow chief whip of the Tories, trying to bring through a bill as a private member to change winter and summertime. So her argument was that we're all getting up, I can't remember whether it isn't unnecessarily an hour earlier or an hour later, and she said this was a legacy from weird theories about farmers

in the 19th century. Isn't it all to do with kids going to school in Scotland? That's right. Kids go to school in Scotland. So she really came along with, you know, a fine modernising idea that she was going to finally sort out the nonsense of British summertime

and that unfortunately was defeated by... Oh, that's probably a good thing. Your conservative instincts come in when it comes to Greenwich meantime. My worries about Scottish children be knocked over by milk vans. There are, very good. And what about...

She claimed there was no evidence of this. It was a bit like Kim. Actually, she had like 300 pages of research. There's no evidence. Saying that this was all stuff that you and I are worried about that ceased to be a problem sometime in the 19th century. And I guess the other thing that, I know Kim, she's a friend, and it's quite difficult talking to her about Joe Cox, her sister,

because you could see how even all these years on, as she said, she hasn't processed it. She's very open about that. She's never grieved. She's never gone and talked to somebody about it. And then it was an extraordinary comment where she said, and maybe I never will. Maybe I never will process that I'll just keep plugging on.

Yeah. This is surprising because, as you say, the conventional wisdom of our age would be that you must grieve, you must process. And also, she's somebody who, you know, she's going to get known because of the assisted dime bill. She's somebody who's previously is big on the kind of mental health, well-being agenda. So I think she should. And I've said that to her. But, you know, in the end, it's such a personal thing. And but I thought it was very moving the way she talked about it.

And I don't think she would have become an MP if Joe had not been murdered. I think that it was something about being in that place at that time when that by-election came along. Anyway, Roy, I think we're agreed that Kim Led Beater is a very, very fine woman. And we wish her all the best, don't we? I wish her all the best personally. I'm not sure I'd be voting for her bill. We'll carry on disagreeably about assisted dying. Thank you.

Bye-bye. soon.