| Yesterday,
the Prime Minister refused to allow a free vote to his colleagues
on the Mental Capacity Bill. Why did he not vote himself? |
 Well, I do not always vote on measures, but
of course I supported the Government's position. I will explain
why I did not feel that it was right to have a free vote on the
issue. I understand that there are strong feelings on both
sides of the House on the issue, but there are also very important
public policy considerations. Just as we must ensure that we
protect people and their interests properly—the amendments
that we will table in the House of Lords will see to that—it
is also important that we do not end up in a situation in which
doctors and consultants are confused about the law and may lay
themselves open to prosecution in circumstances in which no sensible
person would want that to
happen. |
|
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) (Lab/Co-op)
Despite the welcome engagement between
the Lord Chancellor and His Grace Archbishop Peter Smith on the
issue of euthanasia by omission, including food and fluid, there
is still a concern on the part of a number of Members on this
issue. Can the Government give us an assurance that they will
embrace the spirit of new clauses 1 and 2, for which I did not
vote? To ensure that we bring clarity and sense to such a complex
and sensitive issue, will the Prime Minister meet a delegation
of concerned Members so that we get on the statute book a very
welcome and appropriate Mental Capacity Bill?
|
Despite
the welcome engagement between the Lord Chancellor and His Grace
Archbishop Peter Smith on the issue of euthanasia by omission,
including food and fluid, there is still a concern on the part
of a number of Members on this issue. Can the Government give
us an assurance that they will embrace the spirit of new clauses
1 and 2, for which I did not vote? To ensure that we bring
clarity and sense to such a complex and sensitive issue, will
the Prime Minister meet a delegation of concerned Members so
that we get on the statute book a very welcome and appropriate
Mental Capacity Bill?
The Prime Minister: I should thank my
right hon. Friend for the very reasonable way that he puts his
point and say that I would of course be happy to meet him and
his colleagues. Importantly, the Making Decisions Alliance said
yesterday—it is an alliance representing some 40 charities
whose words should at least carry some weight for us—
"the Bill could finally give those
we work with real control over their day to day lives . . . All
of this could be lost if the Bill is sabotaged by misplaced fears
about euthanasia".
There is obviously an issue of concern
and this is what the Catholic Archbishop raised with me yesterday.
We will do everything we can to meet that concern and make sure
that we avoid any doubt about the purport of the Bill, but let
us be quite clear. What is right is to make it clear that
someone's life cannot be ended intentionally. That must be right.
I hope, though, that the whole House understands that what would
be wrong—this is what we were advised that the amendment
that we voted against yesterday would do—would be to end
up in a situation where the Tony Bland
1judgment
was overturned. That would be very damaging for relatives, for
individuals and for the medical profession.
So we need to make sure that we take account of the very sensible
points that have been made by my right hon. Friend, but that
we do not end up giving ourselves, and indeed the medical profession,
a serious public policy problem. That would be wrong and I could
not endorse it.
Column 1664
|
![[photo Mr Tony Blair]](images/tony_blair.jpg)