Commons lawmakers on the dying bill's Public Bill Committee have just begun scrutiny of bills by line. The committee has already held several meetings, but they were dedicated to taking evidence from witnesses.
You can see the minutes of the committee here.
And it's here Commons Paper Set amendments to the proposed bill.
good morning. In Congress, lawmakers and colleagues do not simply vote yes or no in the proposed law. They will discuss it for a long time over weeks and months, and will consider the amendments in one line. This process is at the heart of Congress' democracy, and in theory, this is how it can be improved before it reaches the bill.
Today there is a good example of this. The terminal adult (end of life) bill is perhaps the most consequential bill through this parliamentary session and the Labour MPs who sponsored it. Kim Leadbeaterannounced a major change. As Jessica Ergott The judiciary said the process would take too long and choke the court, so she wants to abolish the requirement for applications for assistance deaths approved by a high court judge. Instead, the panel of experts with legal chairs will examine dying applications already approved by two doctors.
LeadBeater I've written an article for the Guardian and explain her reasoning here.
In this article, Leadbeater argues that the change will make her bill “even more robust.” And she calls it “Judge Plus.” It implies that it includes safeguards beyond sign-off by judges. (She uses the term because the judges chair a committee where the panel of experts is appointed. However, the panel that actually makes the final decision is not led by the judge.
In an interview this morning, Leadbeater claimed that the table of revisions showed that the Congressional process was working exactly as intended. She said to today's program:
I think this is exactly what the process is designed and is intended to hold a comprehensive bill committee hearing from over 50 witnesses. If you don't listen to witnesses, why not listen to the expertise they have?
But whatever it says in textbooks about democratic theory, the actual government is usually very reluctant to tinker with the wording of the law once the bill begins to progress through Parliament. That's because any modification is considered a sign of weakness to the enemy. And that's exactly what happened with the dying subsidy bill.
Danny KrugerMPs who are opposed to the bill (he is a conservative, but it's a free voting, conscience law, party labels are not particularly relevant), posted this On social media last night.
High Court Approval – The main safeguards used to sell Assisted Suicide Bill to lawmakers have been withdrawn. Instead, there is a panel that does not include judges of those committed to the process without hearing arguments from the other side. Disgrace
And in today's program, he suggests that this amendment means that when MPS voted to pay 330 votes to 275 votes on his second reading, they did so on the wrong premise. I did.
If this is a plan, then we must ask why this is not a plan put on MP when the entire House voted it on the second reading. At that point, the main safeguard of the bill, that people can be confident that they are safe for vulnerable people, was that there would be a High Court judge to approve the application.
It's now been deleted. I don't think this new system has passed the House if it doesn't involve a judge. A fair person like a judge – [was in place].
Kruger had hinted at the Commons majority because the bill would now disappear.
This is the agenda for the day.
9.25am: Members of the Public Bill Committee for the dying bill will begin scrutiny of the bill's single line.
9:30am: The National Bureau of Statistics publishes the latest data on happiness.
morning: Keir Starmer Chairs Cabinet.
11:30am: Downing Street hosts lobby briefings.
11:30am: Health Secretary Wes Street asks questions at the Commons.
2:30pm: Starmer's former chief of staff, Sue Gray, takes his seat as the lord.
If you would like to contact me, please post a message under the line or message me on social media. I can't read all the messages BTL, but if I put “Andrew” in a message directed at me, I'm more likely to see it because I search for posts that contain that word.
If you want to flag something urgently, it's best to use social media. You can contact me on Bluesky at @AndrewsParrowgdn. The Guardian has given up on posting from the official X account, but individual Guardian journalists are there. I still have an account. I'll send a message to me with @andrewsparrow and look at it and respond if necessary.
When readers point out mistakes, I think it's very helpful. The error is too small to fix. And I think your question is also very interesting. I can't promise to reply to all of them, but I try to reply to as many things as I can on BTL or sometimes blogging.
