Thread by @EllieCumbo

Here are a few things people won't know if they're not in the weeds of it:

The Bill sponsor's new clauses & schedules to introduce Assisted Dying Panels were published on 14th Feb.

Last Thursday, with the debate due the following Tuesday, she withdrew a major new clause- (1/12)

https://twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1900095250284052671

the one stating what a panel is/does. She tabled a new version, which at last stipulated that the panel must hear from the person seeking an assisted death. (N.B. the panel still does not have to question them, or the doctors).

There was no prior communication to the (2/12)

committee members about the change.

Why does it matter? This is an improvement, isn't it? Well, withdrawing the old clause meant that all the amendments other MPs had drafted to it became null & void- including those saying that the panel *should* have to ask questions.

(3/12)

You can't amend something that isn't being put into the Bill.

So, MPs' offices were left scrabbling around on Friday morning to redraft & retable once they realised- Friday was itself already past the deadline for tabling amendments to be debated on the following Tuesday,
(4/12)

but the Chairs made an exception.

We've now had the debates on panels, & move on to the next bit of the Bill. That's critical to understand about how a Bill committee works- you can only debate what's been tabled by the time you get to that bit, with no going back.

(5/12)

This is a perfect example of why many of us think the process has been the wrong one from the start. Policy is being developed on the hoof, those trying to scrutinise are running to keep up, & once a clause is voted on, it's done.

See also when the Chief Medical Officer (6/12)

made the committee aware of an error in his oral evidence, about the law on people's mental capacity to make major decisions.



It's normal to make slip-ups when discussing complex matters. If this had been an early meeting with civil servants, he (7/12)telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/1…

could have clarified a few days later, with final decisions on the content of the Bill unlikely to have been made in that timeframe.

What happened instead? By the time he realised & communicated the error, the committee had moved past the clause on capacity law. Too late! (8/12)

All amendments relating to that clause had already been rejected by a majority of the committee, some quoting the very evidence from Whitty that he later said was incorrect.

This is nothing short of farcical; it is no way to make robust law on matters of life & death. (9/12)

With 3/4 days left for committee, it's not too late to change course. MPs can vote against at the next stage (5 hours of Commons debate in which most members won't get to speak). I know many share the concerns.

Alternatively, the Govt could refuse to give it more time. (10/12)

We could then work up something properly informed & scrutinised, that fits our NHS and legal systems instead of the US systems it's been copied from.

And that's my answer to the "people who oppose this Bill will never be happy" narrative.

I said I'd reserve judgment & (11/12)

wait for the committee to do its work, despite my concerns.

I'm now clear: in 15+ years of a policy career, I've never seen a Bill less up to scratch. The subject is simply too important & complicated for Parliament's quickest & dirtiest process.

It should not progress.
(12/12)