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)
I've been given a copy of a briefing from Labour MPs 🧵.
Campaigners want Lauren Edwards or Andrew George to insist an identically flawed and widely criticised bill should become law using powers designed for, and only ever used by, an elected government.
Text:
The Parliament Acts plan: Members are being asked to force an unsafe bill into law
When it comes to enabling the state and doctors to help end vulnerable people’s lives, Parliament must be confident that any law it passes is safe. This Bill has already failed once because of its inadequacies.
Assisted dying campaigners want MPs to demand that the Parliament Acts are used on a Private Member’s Bill for the first time ever: to insist an identically flawed and widely criticised bill should become law using powers designed for, and only ever used by, an elected government.
This plan would mean entrenching in law known risks to vulnerable people – and to the NHS – that have been identified by experts including the Royal Colleges and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Even the Bill’s sponsor has accepted that changes are needed in at least eleven areas.
Throughout, politicians on both sides have expressed strong support for palliative care, including hospices. Yet over the period this Bill has been debated, the availability of that care has shrunk. Hospices are cutting services, closing beds, and struggling to meet rising demand. Choice cannot be theoretical.
The Parliament Acts plan asks MPs to close their eyes and pretend the law is fit for purpose and no changes are needed.
This Bill? This way?
The Parliament Acts were created to ensure an elected Government with a mandate could pass its legislation.
This Bill is a Private Member’s Bill: no manifesto commitment, no impact assessment, no white paper, no pre- legislative consultation, and no Government endorsement of safety. Royal Colleges and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have refused to endorse it. The sponsor in the House of Lords has accepted that at least eleven separate aspects need to change. Attempts are being made to downplay what is being asked of MPs, but forcing this bill into law is dangerous and places vulnerable people at risk.
Members are being asked to support a Bill which is nowhere near ready to be made law, against the warnings of the Royal Colleges, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Delegated Powers Committee, and the former Chief Executive of NHS England.
Who says the Bill is unsafe?
A Lords Select Committee took evidence from the relevant Royal Colleges, professional bodies, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, mental health and domestic abuse charities, and ministers. None would confirm that the Bill is safe, and neither would Government ministers when the Committee asked them to do so
Royal College of Physicians: “...people [will make] these choices because of the lack of provision around good palliative care...it feels really wrong... where the disadvantaged populations are, there is service under provision and then that inequity and gap is just going to get wider and wider.”
Royal College of Psychiatrists: “Currently, needs can be identified but not necessarily met. Somebody could proceed where they may have made a different decision had those needs been met.”
Association for Palliative Medicine / CLADD Group:multidisciplinary involvement comes “too late... with the wrong people... and in the wrong form”.
British Association of Social Workers: the Bill “does not interface with adult safeguarding”, creating “significant problems”.
Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse:safeguards are “not sufficient to support those who are being coerced, particularly those who will be at their most vulnerable”
Royal College of Pathologists: medical examiners
are “not trained to identify” concerns around domestic abuse and “it is entirely possible” they would miss them under the Bill as drafted.
Mind: “the safeguards described in the current Bill are not adequate ... we feel we cannot support it in its current form”.
British Geriatrics Society: “There are inadequate safeguards within the Bill to protect older people, and there are no specific safeguards focussed on older people.”
National Down Syndrome Policy Group: “The Bill presumes the best, rather than legislates for the worst. That is the real risk with the Bill.”
Equality and Human Rights Commission: the Bill “does not really engage with the broader trends or cultural issues” around coercion. A legal challenge to the six-month limit will “almost certainly” be made,
and “it cannot be guaranteed that, whatever Parliament says, it will not be expanded by the courts”.
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee: a “fundamentally flawed approach to delegated powers”, with “sweeping, unspecified and unjustified” powers and “unknowably broad” provisions. It allows any government to change any aspect of the NHS, including rewrite the foundational purposes of the NHS first inscribed in law by the Attlee Government.
So @lewisatkinson is backing the Parliament Act Plan - an identical bill, all the flaws, all the risks, no changes, force it on to the statute books. He wants to introduce the Bill in the middle of the by-election (10 June) making it a key issue before polling day 🧵1/
Just when the Labour Party is working out if it can recover, find a new way forward, he wants to plunge the Party back into at least another 12 month fight over a terrible, reckless bill, and then vote after vote to fill in the detail of how exactly to end lives on the NHS 2/
A Bill which has been widely criticised by the Royal Colleges and the Equality and Human Rights Commission and which has significant problems. Here's
Labour colleague Luciana Berger setting out the problems 3/
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".