Thread by @nmdacosta

The @thetimes: "whether you are for or against assisted dying, this is no way to legislate for what would represent one of the most profound changes in the relationship between the state and its citizens".

🧵on last two days and a very novel form of govt neutrality 1/

First a recap. Cabinet Office guidance says when govt takes a neutral stance on a PMB they should do an impact assessment.

Neutrality indicates that the Government is prepared to accept it reaching the statute books with ALL of the consequences. 2/

https://x.com/nmdacosta/status/1856810045096284225?s=46

Yesterday, @NazShahBfd and @danny__kruger asked again why an impact assessment could not be provided, given that it would strengthen the Committee's ability to scrutinise the Bill.

The Minister gave - in my view - a novel response, which would not cut the mustard for a govt bill 3/

We heard that Ministers will speak neutrally as the govt, but vote as MPs with their conscience.

Both are pro-bill and voted with KL on all divisions including stopping @rcpsych from giving evidence

Their presence makes the Committee 65% pro-bill v 35% 4/

Danny Kruger raised the Jekyll & Hyde nature. The Chair Roger Gale said he would refer to the Clerk of the House because he thought 'there are issues'.

The Minister explained 'first principles' of the 'two functions' the Ministers are filling 5/

Hansard of the Minister's position with a little 'fudge' on the numerical composition of the Committee mirroring second reading (that would have been a 54% v 45.5% split) 6/

Then we had Sarah Sackman, the MoJ minister, push back strongly against amendments to include 'undue influence' etc on the face of the Bill.

We were told it was the Government's "settled position" that the bill as drafted was fine.

The Chair said it wasn't a matter for them 7/

Understandably @Rebecca_SPaul asked why if the Government had such a settled position why that wasn't explained in advance to give the tabling MP time to reflect 8/

Danny Kruger asked whether the Minister had discussed with the Bill sponsor the appropriate response to these amendments, and why that hadn't also happened with MPs tabling amendments...9/

When Naz Shah, on @JamesCleverly's admt, sought to avoid a long debate only for the Minister to object from a position of neutrality, she was shut down by the Chair

"If the government already has a position, I would value knowing that position, because it feels pointless"
...10/

3 questions then:

1. Clearly analysis is being done on the Bill. Why can that not be shared?

2. The Govt position will be prepared in advance. Why is the Govt waiting till the very end of debate? Withholding information wastes the Committee's time. 11/

@CommonsLeader @CommonsSpeaker @wesstreeting @ShabanaMahmood @Jesse_Norman

3. Is it recognised that withholding info prevents MPs tabling better amendments?

That it risks looking like a 'timing out' tactic? Undermining MPs' efforts to wrestle with a problem in the drafting.

And it is the public and the vulnerable that will suffer 12/

The only amending stage MPs can really rely on is this Committee Stage - for it to do what a PMB Committee has never done - detailed, thorough, work on a bill of this magnitude.

Waste these weeks, and all that's left could be as little as 5 'amending hours' in Report

13/

Once this Bill leaves the Commons, MPs do NOT get another chance to improve the Bill.

They do NOT get a vote on the final shape of the Bill.

Only on whether they accept the tweaks the Lords make.

Responsibility for getting this right, rests with the Commons.

14/

This is no way to legislate for a matter that will change our society so fundamentally.