Back in November, MPs waved through Kim Leadbeater’s assisted dying bill by 330 votes to 275. Some of those who backed it at second reading claimed they were not yet convinced about the merits of the measure, suggesting they would need more time to scrutinise the legislation. Supporters oozed assurances: there would be ample scope at the committee stage.
So, with the 23-man committee now up and running, Mr S thought he would check in on how it is all going. Sadly, it seems the pro-euthanasia lobby is not exactly playing Marquess of Queensbury rules. With MPs due to start hearing evidence and debating amendments next week, Mr S has done a quick run down of the committee’s failings thus far…
Fixing the maths – At second reading MPs backed the bill by roughly 55 to 45. Including the two ministers appointed to the committee and Leadbeater herself, the committee split equates to 14 in favour, nine against – a 60/40 split. Basic parliamentary arithmetic should have resulted in a 13-10 committee division. Talk about the logic not stacking up…
Last minute changes – Leadbeater sent round her witness selection last week, and then changed it. The committee was then only told the changes at 10 a.m. yesterday. Let’s see if this is to become a running theme.
Handpicking the lawyers – The committee got off to a great start yesterday with Leadbeater proposing eight witnesses from countries with assisted dying laws, all of whom are in favour of Britain adopting this change. Of her nine lawyers, six are in favour of the change and three are neutral.
Exclusion of the disabled – One group of people particularly concerned about the bill are those with disabilities. Every single user-led disability organisation publicly opposes the bill – yet the only disabled MP appointed to the committee is a supporter. Leadbeater suggested no witnesses from disability organisations.
Excluding the RCP – You’d think that the assisted dying bill might want to hear from the experts. But apparently not, with MPs voting yesterday 14-8 to not allow the the Royal College of Psychiatrists to give expert evidence on issues including coercion and capacity. Given that they’re amending the 1961 suicide act, you’d think the MPs might want to hear from psychiatrists, eh?
Kit Malthouse, a supporter of the bill, suggested that the panel didn’t need to hear from the RCP. The reason is simple: that it would represent a ‘doubling up’ of witnesses, given the General Medical Council will be providing testimony. It was only after a backlash to the RCP’s exclusion that the decision was – belatedly – reversed.
Talk about starting as you mean to go on…
Comments