A Shot Across the Bow?

1 August
The first debate was held last night. David Seymour's Supplementary Order paper limiting the bill to people who are "terminal" was  not unexpected but very sad. In the EOLC movement we have a number of people who have long-term irremediable conditions and might have hoped the bill could apply to them. The Green Party was not up to any kind of compromise, refusing to support the bill unless it was for terminal patients only. So, David and our supporters for EOL Choice have to accept that half a loaf is better than no bread, I guess. Anyway, the compromise was well received by the House.
A whole string of seemingly innocuous SOPs kept the House in session until 11.45pm.  One was that the definition of a psychiatrist should include five year's experience. Well, heck, you don't get to be a psychiatrist of any kind without an awful lot of experience. Each of these SOPs required a personal vote, some of which took nearly fifteen minutes. It looks already as if there is a deliberate attempt to slow the decision-making process down.
Next opportunity for debate is afternoon/evening of Wed 14 August.  Or maybe a week later, it seems.


29 July
Last Wednesday I was fascinated to hear the Speaker of the House read out a statement about how the debate for the End of Life Choice Bill would be handled.
He specially indicated that Part I of the debate would contain a few significant clauses which would, in effect, determine the substantive issue. No subsequent debate on what seems likely to be an extensive Bill would be able to contradict or undo an affirmative decision on the principles in Part 1.
He also provided a lot of detailed advice on the use of proxies, pointing out that if an MP was going to seek a proxy the member had better be sure how that person would vote.
I haven't ever heard such a specific and detailed statement of guidance from the Speaker. It looks as if he will manage a good debate and give fairly short shrift to Members who try to wear it down with unnecessary duplication and irrelevancies.