Could judge U-turn wreck assisted dying Bill? ‘More than 100’ MPs ready to shift position after High Court safeguard dropped_Nhy
Hopes are rising that a new law legalising assisted dying could be defeated by MPs unhappy at plans to ‘water down’ safeguards.
Politicians across the Commons who had previously backed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill said they were now thinking again amid an angry backlash against the shock removal of the need for judges to oversee the process.
Opponents pointed out that the architect of the plan Kim Leadbeater had won over the Commons last year by insisting that judicial oversight would provide the strongest protections in the world against vulnerable people being pressured into ending their lives.
But under the Labour backbencher’s new proposals, which she has dubbed ‘judge plus’, lawyers, psychiatrists and social workers would instead be involved in approving applications by terminally ill people who want to be helped to die.
Only 28 former backers would need to vote against the landmark legislation when it returns to the Commons for it to be defeated.
The Independent today suggested as many as 140 could withdraw their support in the wake of the amendments being made before MPs vote again in April.
Reform’s Lee Anderson yesterday became the first MP to publicly withdraw his backing. His colleague Rupert Lowe also suggested he will switch to a no vote.
Labour opponents of the assisted dying Bill have said scrutiny of the legislation ‘feels chaotic’ following the announcement of a major change to the proposals before Parliament.
Reform’s Lee Anderson yesterday became the first MP to publicly withdraw his backing, telling the Mail: ‘I support assisted dying but this Bill becomes less credible by the day. It looks like it’s being forced through at any cost therefore I fail to see how I can support this Bill at third reading.’
His colleague Rupert Lowe said: ‘I voted in favour of assisted dying at the first stage in order to give MPs a chance to debate the detail, in the hope that a balanced approach could result in responsible legislation.
‘That is evidently not happening, especially in view of the latest change which removes even more desperately needed scrutiny. I find the way that the process has been handled to be bullying, unfair and reckless. Unless that all significantly changes, I will vote against the bill.’
Other senior MPs who voted for the bill in November including former ministers Sir David Davis and Alistair Carmichael said they would study the detail of the new proposals before making a decision.
In a statement on Tuesday evening, 10 of Ms Leadbeater’s colleagues said the ‘promise of High Court scrutiny of each application for assisted dying’ had been a central part of Ms Leadbeater’s pitch to MPs at the end of last year.
Senior Labour MPs Florence Eshalomi and Dame Meg Hillier put their names to the statement, alongside Antonia Bance, Jess Asato, James Frith, Paulette Hamilton, Adam Jogee, David Smith, Yasmin Qureshi and Melanie Ward.
The group, all of whom voted against the Bill when it first came before the Commons in November, said: ‘Supporters of the Bill insisted that it was a key part of the protections for vulnerable and marginalised people.
‘Yet despite repeated assurances until just days ago the proponents of the Bill have changed their argument – and fundamentally changed the Bill.
‘All MPs have an important job to do to make sure that the assisted dying Bill is fit for purpose. Yet the process feels chaotic, with the Bill changing significantly from what was presented to Parliament at second reading.’
In a statement on Tuesday evening, 10 of Ms Leadbeater’s colleagues said the ‘promise of High Court scrutiny of each application for assisted dying’ had been a central part of Ms Leadbeater’s pitch to MPs at the end of last year.
Their comments came after the first day of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill by a Commons committee, which also saw complaints that the proposed changes – which have not yet been published – hindered examination of the legislation.
Sean Woodcock, another Labour opponent of the change, said the involvement of a High Court judge had been a ‘central plank’ of the Bill and expert evidence had been based on that system.
Parliamentary process allows amendments to be made throughout a Bill’s passage, provided they do not deal with sections of legislation that have already been discussed.
Kit Malthouse, one of the Bill’s supporters, said the changes had been made ‘in response to evidence that has been heard by this committee’.
Adding that the committee’s work was ‘not the end of the process’, he said any further evidence sent to MPs could be considered in future stages.
As it stands, the Bill could see terminally ill adults in England and Wales with less than six months to live legally allowed to end their lives, subject to approval by two doctors and a High Court judge.
Ms Leadbeater had previously said the High Court approval element made her legislation the strictest in the world.
She has now proposed a judge-led Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission that she said would give a greater role to experts, including psychiatrists and social workers, in overseeing applications.
The commission would be led by a High Court judge or a former senior judge and receive all applications and reports from two independent doctors, which would then be referred to a three-member panel chaired by what has been described as a senior legal figure.
Experts would face a ‘very strict recruitment procedure’ to sit on the panel, Ms Leadbeater told the BBC earlier on Tuesday.
She also insisted the change would not move the process behind closed doors, saying there would still be ‘public proceedings’.
During Tuesday’s scrutiny of the Bill, Ms Leadbeater indicated that she would support proposals to require doctors to refer a case to a psychiatrist if they were concerned someone applying for assisted dying had their judgement impaired by a mental health condition.
