💸 Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

• The Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock, moved a motion to authorize payment from public funds for any expenditure related to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, emphasizing that it’s a matter for Parliament to decide, not the government.
• The money resolution is necessary to allow the Public Bill Committee to consider clauses with spending implications, and the government remains neutral, merely enabling further debate.
• Dr Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister, acknowledged the importance of the money resolution for progressing the assisted dying Bill, despite the opposition’s neutral stance on the Bill itself.
• Concerns were raised by Jim Shannon about the Bill Committee’s makeup and process, including a private session and the withdrawal of judicial opinions, which he believed contravened House rules.
• Mullan emphasized the need for clarity on how the government plans to fund and resource the assisted dying services if the Bill becomes law, requesting details on internal cost estimates and funding sources.
• Kim Leadbeater stressed that the money resolution is standard procedure and necessary for the Bill to proceed to further scrutiny, warning against procedural tactics to halt debate.
• Sir John Hayes raised concerns about the open-ended financial commitment the resolution entails and its potential impact on existing resources, especially palliative care.
• Maya Ellis expressed worries about funding assisted dying while other NHS services, such as maternity care, are underfunded, fearing that it could divert resources from palliative care.
• Kit Malthouse argued that rejecting the money resolution could damage Parliament’s reputation and emphasized the existing cost of end-of-life care, urging support for continued debate.
• Paula Barker echoed the importance of continued, transparent debate, reminding members that the money resolution is standard and crucial for the Bill’s progression.
• David Smith highlighted the lack of cost estimates for the Bill and warned of potential negative impacts on underfunded palliative care services.
• Dr Ben Spencer stressed the necessity of scrutiny and impact assessments for such significant legislation, criticizing the lack of detailed spending plans.
• Antonia Bance expressed concern over approving a “blank cheque” without understanding the full financial implications and costs involved in implementing assisted dying.
• Liz Saville Roberts supported the motion to allow continued debate and scrutiny, emphasizing the need for workable legislation for both England and Wales.
• Anna Dixon raised concerns about the sufficiency of the private Member’s Bill process for such sensitive legislation and the lack of clarity on costs and funding sources.
• Jim Allister criticized the motion as a “blank cheque,” urging transparency on costs compared to current spending on palliative care and suicide prevention.
• The Minister for Care reiterated the government’s neutral stance and expectation of publishing an impact assessment before Report, commending the resolution to the House.
• The money resolution was agreed upon, allowing the Bill to proceed to further stages of debate and scrutiny.
• Jim Shannon raised a point of order concerning a perceived undermining of his integrity by Kit Malthouse, who clarified his remarks and apologized if any offense was caused.

The parliamentary session on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on the financial implications and procedural aspects of the Bill. Here is an in-depth analysis of the disagreements showcased during the session:

1. Disagreement over the Nature of the Money Resolution: There was significant disagreement regarding whether the money resolution served as a ‘blank cheque’. Sir John Hayes and others, such as Maya Ellis, argued strongly that the motion’s wording was too open-ended and did not provide clarity on costs. On the other hand, Kim Leadbeater and other proponents of the Bill insisted that this was a standard procedure and essential for the Bill to proceed, countering the notion of it being a blank cheque.

2. Concerns Over Financial Implications: Several MPs, including David Smith and Antonia Bance, expressed deep concern about the unknown costs of implementing the Bill. They highlighted the potential strain on the NHS and judicial system, and questioned the diversion of funds from palliative care to assisted dying, showing a distinct disagreement with those who implied these concerns could be addressed later in the legislative process.

3. Procedural Disagreement: Jim Shannon raised concerns about the transparency and setup of the Bill Committee, suggesting there was a secrecy process involved, which sparked a disagreement with Kit Malthouse, who refuted the accusations of secrecy. This resulted in a point of order being raised, showing tension around the process’s integrity.

4. Debate Over Parliamentary Scrutiny and Debate: There was disagreement on whether opposing the money resolution would end the debate prematurely. Ruth Cadbury and Kim Leadbeater expressed hope that the debate would not be stifled by voting against the money resolution, while others like Anna Dixon and Dr Ben Spencer argued that the lack of financial data needed to be addressed before proceeding further, illustrating a desire for more thorough scrutiny.

5. Impact on Other Services: Maya Ellis and David Smith brought up the issue of funding other crucial services like maternity and palliative care, suggesting that funding for assisted dying might come at the expense of these services. This was in stark disagreement with those who believed that the Bill should move forward to get answers on these financial impacts, as pointed out by Daisy Cooper.

6. Philosophical Disagreement: Notably, Jim Allister and Carla Lockhart voiced philosophical opposition to the funding of assisted dying, contrasting starkly with those who saw it as a procedural necessity to investigate and debate the issue further, such as Liz Saville Roberts.

Overall, while there was a clear disagreement on several fronts, the nature of these disagreements did not escalate to extreme levels but rather maintained a tone of procedural and technical contention. Thus, a rating of 3 reflects the moderated level of disagreement, where views were strongly expressed but did not lead to significant disruption of the session or personal attacks.