A very interesting interview with Kim Leadbeater on her assisted dying bill. Many of the questions in this area reduce to value judgement on which there is room for disagreement. But there are two objective matters that should give pause for thought. /1 www.politicshome.com/news/article... - ThreadSky

profmarkelliott.bsky.social • 98 days ago

A very interesting interview with Kim Leadbeater on her assisted dying bill. Many of the questions in this area reduce to value judgement on which there is room for disagreement. But there are two objective matters that should give pause for thought. /1 https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/kim-leadbeater-assisted-dying-i-came-politics-make-difference

Comments

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•98 days ago

First, Leadbeater mentions the extensive work she has undertaken speaking to different stakeholders. That is laudable. But it cannot replicate the sort of pre-legislative process that could have taken place if legislation was not being enacted in haste as a private members' bill. /2

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•98 days ago

Second, Leadbeater is 'frustrated' and 'upset' that Cabinet Ministers — such as the Health and Justice Secretaries, to whose portfolios the Bill is directly relevant — have publicly raised concerns about the Bill. There is, however, no good reason why they should not have done so. /3

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•98 days ago

Expectations of ministerial neutrality arise thanks to the Cabinet Secretary's bizarre directive that ministers cannot speak out because collective responsibility has been suspended — turning on its head the normal consequence (ie allowing ministers to speak their minds) of such suspension. /4

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•98 days ago

Not only does suspension of collective responsibility not prevent ministers from speaking out, the Government's own Guide to Making Legislation requires it to set out its view by way of an impact assessment, which it has so far not done. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62fe365fe90e0703e1bb4844/2022-08_Guide_to_Making_Legislation_-_master_version__4_.pdf /5

profmarkelliott.bsky.social•98 days ago

I address these points in more detail in a recent blogpost, in which I argue that it is necessary to disaggregate views about the merits of assisted dying from concerns about the inadequate process whereby this legislation is being enacted. 6/6
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2024/11/18/assisted-dying-private-members-bills-and-government-neutrality/

thomasfelpersham.bsky.social•97 days ago

An intriguing thing about this Bill is that most commentators have focused on the proposed safeguards: the in-principle objections have been far fewer.

If this Bill fails, I wonder if the Govt will start from scratch with pre-leg scrutiny etc etc.

openpolicy.bsky.social•97 days ago

That is a very odd letter from the Cabinet Secretary. If collective responsibility has been suspended for this bill as a matter of conscience, then ministers should be free to speak their minds like any backbench MP. That's different than using the resources of their department for or against it.

almagroschool.bsky.social•98 days ago

Yeah, the whole High Court part seems like a recipe for confusion and disaster

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply