Progression of Bills through Parliament
Debate between Meg Hillier and Simon Opher(3 days, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Meg Hillier
No.
The point is that the Lords had a discussion about what to do in those circumstances, for which there was no policy. Such things are important to nail down and resolve, yet that issue is still not resolved.
There is public support in principle for the Bill but that is not carte blanche. There is massive concern about the detail, but I do not have time to go into all of it. We know that most of the royal colleges are concerned about the Bill. It is important to remember that we are legislators: we make law that must be deliverable and unambiguous. The Commons is not simply a debating Chamber. Members debate, and this Chamber is a debating Chamber—we are not voting on law in this debate—but it is important that we legislate for the real world.
There is a role for a revising Chamber, because, frankly, we do not do that well in the Commons. We often have very little scrutiny, alongside in-built Government majorities. In recent times, perhaps because of the nature of a large majority, business has run short in the Chamber. We are unable to make changes in secondary legislation because of the in-built Government majority on delegated legislation Committees. The assisted dying Bill had an awful lot of Henry VIII powers: 42 delegated powers for any future Government—who may be mad, bad or dangerous, and of any existing party or one yet to be thought of—to make these decisions. That is what we would be giving away if the Bill were to pass. That is why we have a revising Chamber to discuss such matters. As I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, there was no real pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and little time for MPs to engage with it. The Bill Committee sat for a long time but it had an in-built majority.
It is important that we discuss how we legislate, but let us not demonise the House of Lords. We in the Commons need to do a better job. That is not just about standing up and reading out pre-prepared speeches; it is also engaging and having discussions. In my 21 years in this House, I have had the privilege of engaging on issues with people with whom I disagree. Sometimes we find points of agreement, but we challenge each other in the House on such issues. We are not doing that well enough in this place. We need the Lords to do it.
Dame Meg Hillier
I have very little time left and I need to make a couple of other points. [Interruption.] Well, we have had strict instructions on time. I will, as I said at the beginning of my speech, take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central in a moment.
The Bill that was introduced did not benefit from Government drafting, from policy development or from the whole weight of the machinery of Government and Whitehall, which includes interaction between Departments, such as on how money is spent.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Debate between Meg Hillier and Simon Opher(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 2, which stand in my name, and consequential amendment 2, and I will touch on others at the end. These amendments—without being dismissive of those who helped me draft them—are imperfect. Those of us who are not the promoter of the Bill have not had the support of Government drafters in tidying up the Bill. We need to acknowledge that the Bill in front of us today is the Bill—more or less—that will or will not be passed by this House. For any amendments made, by the point of Third Reading, that is it—there will be no further opportunity to redraft them.
Sadly, one of these amendments was rejected in Committee. If those changes had been discussed before the original Bill was published, or even in evidence before Committee, we would have been in a better place to get that tighter drafting that is needed in making good legislation. We are not a debating society; we are now legislating for a law that would enable the state to assist in people taking their lives. I am sad that we are able to discuss these amendments only now. I did not get the opportunity to be on the Bill Committee, but I commend all Members who spend so many hours discussing and debating those issues.
The ramifications of the clauses I want to talk about are important for potential users of a service, for medical professionals, for families and for other health professionals. The Bill currently allows doctors to suggest assisted dying to a patient who has not raised it themselves. This, I believe—as I know many others do—presents a serious risk that terminally ill patients, already highly vulnerable, will feel pressured to end their lives.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I realise that my hon. Friend’s new clause 1 comes from a good place, but can she not see that it is inconsistent with our ethical obligations as doctors? That is why the British Medical Association has suggested that although there should be no duty to raise the issue, neither should there be a ban on doing so. I ask her to consider that the Australian state of Victoria initially had such a measure—a so-called gagging clause—as part of its Bill, but it was removed because it caused confusion and was detrimental to patient care. Should we not learn from that?