The bill to introduce assisted dying is a private members’ bill , its recognised that the matter is an example of a conscience vote where MPs should be given a free vote. Parliamentary time has been freed up for the bill with the Prime Minister’s approval.
Since the Bill was published, a number senior Labour MPs and Government ministers have indicated that they cannot support the Bill, whether that be because of outright opposition to its aims or because of reservations over its present form. There has been some pushback against that this week. First in this report on one minister’s decision, it is suggested that the Prime Minister is warning ministers about speaking because that would undermine Government neutrality on the issue.
Secondly, here, Sherelle Jacobs complains about people like Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health entering the debate.
It is worth observing a few things here. First, that there is a significant distinction between allowing parliamentary time for a debate, not whipping and being neutral. The Government cannot pretend to be agnostic on whether this is a good thing. It may acknowledge that it is divided but that is a different thing. Further, there is a difference between a Government being formally neutral on an issue and preventing individual ministers from having a position. It is worth noting that even when the Government was not neutral but had a preferred position on Brexit that individual ministers were permitted to speak and campaign in line with their own views.
Indeed, when the Prime Minister lets it be known that he wants there to be time for the bill, then his silence may well be seen to speak volumes. How neutral exactly is the government?
The pressure on ministers not to speak is deeply concerning. Surely they should be free to speak openly at least in their capacity as constituency MPs and to make known their personal position. As a minimum, their constituents have a right to know where they stand.
Furthermore, when specific departments are directly affected by any potential change to the Law, as are the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice, it is surely nt only reasonable for the ministers for those departments to speak up but incumbent on them to do so. Indeed, given that most people recognise a level of complexity about the decision, then it seems strange to expect MPs who are not experts in this area to debate, scrutinise and vote on a bill like this without the input of ministers helped by the research and advice of their civil servants.
Faithroots 