1. This is far more complex than bill backers (and frankly No 10) anticipated and want to admit.
There are huge problems with writing a bill, and then asking the policy questions.
e.g. capacity
Professor Gareth Owen is a Professor of Psychological Medicine, Ethics and Law at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King's College
2. This will be a profound cultural shift. Australian assisted dying specialists, like US witnesses, believe 'feeling a burden' is a valid reason to choose assisted suicide.
3. That there is a big division between those that think capacity is enough - as in this bill - and those (e.g. psychiatrists, social workers, palliative care doctors) that want to look at what else may be going on when somebody wants help ending their life
Professor Meredith Blake, University of Western Australia; Professor Gareth Owen, Professor of Psychological Medicine, Ethics and Law, King's College
4. That for medical practitioners that participate in assisted dying/suicide it is "just another treatment option" to be raised
5. GPs do not want Assisted Dying to become part of their normal practice and think - as others have suggested - the Government should create a separate service to provide it
Michael Mulholland, Honorary Secretary, Royal College of General Practitioners echoed the BMA
6. The judicial stage needs to be "completely rethought" in the view of Professor Laura Hoyano, and the appeal stage is completely one-sided. Other legal witnesses have suggested entirely different approaches.
7. There's a 'record no evil, hear no evil' approach to record keeping and national reporting - you cannot look behind the veil
[Nor did the Committee get the chance - only overseas practitioners that are positive about assisted dying/assisted suicide got invited
8. We heard moving testimony from several people whose family members had died by suicide or sought assisted dying. They were supportive of the bill but did not go into bill specifics.
The Committee did not hear from any that had opted for assisted dying and developed doubts
9. The Bill is cavalier with Welsh devolution, a situation worsened by the Senedd's recent vote against Assisted Dying.
I cannot stress enough how much outcry there would be if this was the government doing this.
Professor Emyr Lewis
10. The Committee will get no assistance from the Government in understanding how the vulnerable will be affected (as suggested by Baroness Falkner, Chair of EHRC).
Daniel Francis MP asked for assessments prior to line-by-line scrutiny. Ministers said no.
11. Our words will be redefined
Alex Greenwich, MP for Sydney, Parliament of New South Wales (did for NSW what Kim Leadbeater hopes to do for England and Wales)
Assisted Dying campaigners want to use the threat of the Parliament Acts to get peers to wave it through. They're trying to get Govt to say the Acts can be used. They'll dress it up as endorsement and kickstart a new firestorm for Labour. Here's what that means politically 1/
Immediately after the locals, Labour MPs desperate for a 'reset', would see the King's Speech dominated by this Bill. Will the govt pick it up?Force it through? Will MPs sign up to a third year fighting for an inadequate bill? For all of the next session to at least mid 2027? 2/
Would they be willing to vote for the exact same inadequate bill, knowing even supporters think changes are needed? Court the perception that this is the one thing Labour planned for and care about? See the PM, once again marching to a celebrity tune, asking his MPs to go with him 3/
Day 6 of Committee of the Whole House on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill likely to start c. 12.15pm/12.30pm and run to 5.30pm. Here's a look ahead to what the day may cover... link below to watch 1/
You can find amendments here (listen out for their numbers, which are in the left hand margin for each amendment, and listed below for each group): bills.parliament.uk/publications/6… 2/
Group 1 - Eligibility - amdts protect people made vulnerable by mental illness, poverty, disability, coercion, or in institutional settings. Peers are concerned the Bill could allow others to initiate the process, enabling others to raise or drive a request for assisted death 3/
Falconer wants peers to curtail debate on Starmer's Bill and limit their concerns to just 10 issues. IF they agree to his timetable, he's offered to say what he is willing to do on those issues. He isn't offering a compromise nor proactivity - all the movement is on one side 1/
Peers' shouldn't hold their breath. He's not interested in smoothing passage. If he was he would have dealt with issues raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee. He said he would on 12 Sept, 4 months on he's not done so 2/
His default is resistance: "I reject that view because I am absolutely satisfied..."; "I say that it is clear enough on the face of the Bill"; "I am not in favour of any change". He even resists what he's previously supported and hates being found out 3/
Morning all, Committee Day 4 in the Lords starting at 10am. First up interaction with Deprivation of Liberty safeguards; Scottish provisions; GP access; how to care for three vulnerable groups: pregnant women, homeless, and prisoners; return of the Court? parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2c…
I can't tweet along, but will pull out aspects. Other accounts like @ddhitchens and @RightToLifeUK are bound to cover too!
@ddhitchens @RightToLifeUK Govt Chief Whip emphasising "it is not a Government Bill, it will not become a Government Bill, the Government is neutral. That will not change".
Something very odd is happening behind the scenes on Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill.
Multiple sources say Falconer is talking up with Govt bypassing the House of Lords entirely using the Parliament Acts — and has been planning this since the summer 1/
That's why their first move, within hours of Committee starting, was to cry foul. They WANTED to escalate.
And why language since then has hinted at something imminent:
e.g. Kim Leadbeater to Times Radio: “I’m looking at ways..." and Paul Brand below: 2/
Now hearing some peers being told: “Accept our bill — or we’ll ram it through unchanged next session using the Parliament Acts and you will not have a further say”.
Classic bullying. But here’s why that threat is nowhere near as scary as they want you to think 3/
To take this stance after just 2 days in Committee makes clear that Team Bill have no intention of doing anything about the concerns, so it is intolerable to listen to the arguments of peers bearing testimony to the vulnerable who may be coerced into ending their lives 1/
Legislative rule no 1 is to have a two house strategy - for an easier ride in the Lords do more work in the Commons. Very few concerns were addressed there. Over 500 c’ttee amdts were tabled but just 25 accepted (18%) were not Kim’s or her allies. Most made were tidying. 2/
With a majority of 61% on the Committee, the sponsor had complete control and was supported by both Government ministers who had voted for the Bill, in rejecting swathes of amendments. Yet that was the chance to get the bill right, nor arrogantly dismiss concerns 3/