Thomas Mason

Priest of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.
Cares for: Darlington Ordinariate Group; S. Mary, Barnard Castle; & S. Osmund, Gainford.

[Rosie Duffield MP @RosieDuffield1]

Yesterday, the latest Secretary of State for Health confirmed he will leave a legacy in his short time in post - the trial of drugs, previously banned by the last Government, on children as young as 11. He is "following clinical advice", yet dozens of clinicians oppose this.

[Jonathan Hinder MP @Jonathan_Hinder]

MPs are scheduled to vote on the puberty blockers trial TODAY.

Drugging *physically healthy* children to stop them turning into adults?

Madness.

@LabWomenDec
@AllianceLGB
@SexMattersOrg

[Thomas Mason @tjwmason]

@DrMichaelBonner Alas, as in Britain, using an English name rather than Latin. #decline

[Nikki da Costa @nmdacosta]

I agree with you that MPs voting at second reading for the Bill are voting for the Parliament Acts.

But it does feel like this blog crosses quite firmly into advocacy - skipping over detail in order to argue for a view you agree with - particularly as it contrasts with Hansard Society’s previous commentary that we really are in the realm of “invention”.

What has changed since May, when you and @RuthFox01 said this:

“The Parliament Act procedure is not designed for legislation that requires extensive amendment. Its core requirements – particularly the need to pass an identical bill in two successive sessions – favour continuity over revision. Bills enacted under the Parliament Act have only ever been altered minimally.”

Similarly in January you said “the idea of multiple suggested amendments or a large number of suggested amendments... would be pretty unprecedented and we’d have to start really from scratch”.

Now your blog seems to suggest that it's all quite simple and MPs deeply worried about the kind of problems identified by the DPRRC, Royal Colleges, EHRC, and even Lord Falconer can be reassured that these can be dealt with through the suggested amendment process. That is quite a big leap.

You set up a false equivalence. The suggested amendments process is just that - suggestions - and an “attempt to correct defects”. If the Lords do not accept them, then the Bill becomes law as it is. That is not the same for MPs as knowing amendments have been incorporated. It also gets the sponsor completely off the hook - amendments could go up that are then not accepted by the Lords, perhaps cyncially that's even pre-arranged and a strategy to get it over theline for third reading, and there's not a thing MPs can do.

I am also deeply concerned that you think a single day for your suggested amendment process ought to do it. That puts you squarely in the realm of grouping and selection, with many issues discounted. At Report we saw the inadequacies of that, when only seven amendments that did not belong to the sponsor were allowed a vote. This compounded the problems of the Committee voting down so many amendments, despite Cabinet Office guidance emphasising that as much work as possible should be done in the first House.

Your proposal looks like an even worse version: MPs divide on just a few selected questions. Would the Speaker take moral responsibility for the Russian roulette of which amendments make it in? Or is it a Government decision on what motions get to have time. Those are not neutral decisions, with huge ramnifications for vulnerable people if a particular safeguard isn't allowed to be considered.

You also make a very big assertion that the Government should accept the principle that it should provide time / faciliate legislation if the House otherwise lacks “an adequate parliamentary opportunity” to decide a question of conscience. Does this hold for Opposition Days? Other motions? The precedent, and the loss of control for business managers, is very significant.

Finally, I wonder how you square recommending such a truncated process with the extent of the criticism Hansard Society has previously made of the powers in the Bill. Criticism backed up and expanded upon by the DPRRC. Those concerns are now compounded by the fact that not putting the detail of safeguards on the face of the Bill was judged by the MoJ, in the case of the Isle of Man Bill, as breaching the ECHR, and likely to leave vulnerable people exposed.

[Philip Murray @philipmurraylaw]

What many supporters don't realise is that when Catholics or other religious groups speak out against assisted suicide, it's nothing to do with forcing our religious beliefs on others. It's about our religious beliefs serving as a wellspring of concern for the poor, the marginalised, and the most vulnerable. It's the same as when we call for policies that prioritise the disabled, the unemployed, the homeless, migrants and the poor.

[teresa smith @treesey]

Worth MPs revisiting this

[Diane Abbott @HackneyAbbott]

The assisted suicide Bill is a dangerous mess of a Bill, with fewer safeguards than when it began. If the exact same shambles is revived, it will face strong opposition.

Labour MP Lauren Edwards to reintroduce assisted suicide Bill
https://t.co/Nd2c4FT45N

[teresa smith @treesey]

“We just cannot support this Bill”

President of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr Lade Smith, told @BBCNewsnight that they do not support the Assisted Dying Bill due to concerns they say “have not been addressed”

[Tim Farron @timfarron]

Holyrood rejected AD because - despite a majority supporting the principle - MSPs properly scrutinised their bill and listened to expert opinion. The supporters of AD in Westminster appear to have learnt nothing from this…

[Prof Katherine Sleeman @kesleeman]

Lauren Edwards MP statement says “[The TIA bill] was rightly described as the safest and most robust assisted dying law anywhere in the world”

No. It was only described this way by the people trying to push it through.

Here is how others described the Bill:

1. The Royal College of Physicians said the Bill is unsafe

2. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said the Bill is unworkable, and unsafe

3. The British Geriatrics Society said the Bill’s safeguards are not adequate

4. Domestic abuse charities said the Bill is unsafe

5. Organisations representing disabled people said the Bill is unsafe

6. Royal College of GPs says the Bill lacks adequate safeguards

7. Lord Stevens, ex NHS CEO, said legislating for assisted dying in the current climate of hospice cuts is “utterly ridiculous”

8. MIND says the safeguards are not adequate

9. The CLADD group at KCL (DOI) have said the Bill is “not fit for purpose”

10. The British Association of Social Workers say the Bill’s is not safe enough

Spot the pattern?

[Tim Farron @timfarron]

Assisted Dying will return to the commons - but with its supporters making zero attempt to listen to the growing body of expert clinical opinion who have told them the bill is unsafe. I thought we progressives were meant to be led by the evidence and care for the vulnerable?

[Dan Hitchens @ddhitchens]

1. This statement contains several inaccurate or confused claims.

First, Edwards says the bill is only for those “at the very end of their lives.”

But the bill’s “6-month prognosis” criterion is very broad: 1 in 5 of those eligible will actually have at least 3 years to live.

[Catholic Sat @CatholicSat]

Yesterday the US Catholic bishops consecrated the nation of the United States of America to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

[Benedict Kiely @benedict_kiely]

Fr. Ragheed Ganni - killed this day in Mosul in 2007

[Thomas Mason @tjwmason]

@exceeding_love According to the pre-1859 rubrics, the service of Restoration is said. It would seem that the Ember fast is to be kept, the only instance of omitting a fast being when Christmas falls on a Friday. Worth noting that there is no liturgical observance of the Ember Day in the B.C.P.

[Peter Hitchens @ClarkeMicah]

Happy Oak Apple Day! https://t.co/hbBtjQ439w

[Nikki da Costa @nmdacosta]

I've been given a copy of a briefing from Labour MPs 🧵.

Campaigners want Lauren Edwards or Andrew George to insist an identically flawed and widely criticised bill should become law using powers designed for, and only ever used by, an elected government.

Text:

The Parliament Acts plan: Members are being asked to force an unsafe bill into law

When it comes to enabling the state and doctors to help end vulnerable people’s lives, Parliament must be confident that any law it passes is safe. This Bill has already failed once because of its inadequacies.

Assisted dying campaigners want MPs to demand that the Parliament Acts are used on a Private Member’s Bill for the first time ever: to insist an identically flawed and widely criticised bill should become law using powers designed for, and only ever used by, an elected government.

This plan would mean entrenching in law known risks to vulnerable people – and to the NHS – that have been identified by experts including the Royal Colleges and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Even the Bill’s sponsor has accepted that changes are needed in at least eleven areas.

Throughout, politicians on both sides have expressed strong support for palliative care, including hospices. Yet over the period this Bill has been debated, the availability of that care has shrunk. Hospices are cutting services, closing beds, and struggling to meet rising demand. Choice cannot be theoretical.

The Parliament Acts plan asks MPs to close their eyes and pretend the law is fit for purpose and no changes are needed.

[UK in Holy See 🇬🇧🇻🇦 @UKinHolySee]

His Majesty The King has sent a message of congratulations to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV on the first anniversary of his election, reflecting upon the enduring ties between the United Kingdom and the Holy See. 🇬🇧🇻🇦

[Catholic Sat @CatholicSat]

Today is the Feast of the English Martyrs, commemorating all those Catholics, lay and religious, men and women, who were executed between 1535 and 1679 for treason and related offences under various laws enacted by Parliament during the English Reformation.
Orate pro nobis

[Thomas Mason @tjwmason]

@ALucieSmith As others have noted, there isn't a legal prohibition on using C.ofE. titles, just a politeness on our part. That said, 1898-1920 we did use a C.ofE. title - Menevia being the Latin title for St Davids.