Opponents of assisted dying legislation reacted with fury tonight after the scrapping of a requirement for a High Court judge to approve applications to die.
Members of a committee scrutinising the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were accused of broken promises after voting to remove a key clause.
A majority of MPs on the 23-member scrutiny committee opted to make the major change to the Bill from when it was first introduced to Parliament last year.
The proposed legislation aims to allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with less than six months to live, to legally end their lives.
It had initially been said this would only be allowed with the approval of two doctors and a High Court judge.
But Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Bill, later proposed scrapping the High Court oversight in favour of an assisted dying commissioner and expert panels.
Under her new plans, the panels will feature a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker who will decide on assisted dying applications.
The change has seen her accused of backtracking on pledges that saw supporters of the Bill boast the legislation in England and Wales would be the strictest in the world.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Bill, proposed scrapping the High Court oversight in favour of an assisted dying commissioner and expert panels
Disabled people and their supporters gathered outside Parliament in November to demonstrate their opposition to assisted dying
Campaign group Dignity in Dying also demonstrated outside Parliament in support of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Under Ms Leadbeater’s new plans, a review panel would consist of a lawyer – either a current or former judge or a KC – as well as a psychiatrist and social worker
A group of 26 Labour MPs opposed to the Bill expressed their anger this evening at the removal of the High Court-approval clause.
They said in a statement: ‘The scrapping of High Court oversight for the assisted dying regime breaks the promises made by the proponents of the Bill.
‘It fundamentally weakens the protections for the vulnerable and shows just how haphazard this whole process has become.
‘It does not increase judicial safeguards but instead creates an unaccountable quango and to claim otherwise misrepresents what is being proposed.
‘The new panel process can be held in private, won’t have the powers to make witnesses appear before it or take evidence under oath.
‘They will inevitably drain public services of vital frontline staff without any idea of how much this will cost the taxpayer or any assessment of its impact upon the vulnerable.’
But supporters of the Bill insisted the removal of the clause and the move towards expert panels would strengthen the legislation.
LIberal Democrat MP Tom Gordon, a member of the committee, said: ‘Today’s vote is a step in the right direction.
‘Replacing the High Court with a multidisciplinary panel will ensure decisions are made with the right expertise, rather than adding unnecessary legal delays.
‘We must ensure that our assisted dying process remains clear, accessible, and does not create obstacles for those already dying and facing immense suffering.’
A group of 26 Labour MPs opposed to the Bill expressed their anger at the removal of the High Court-approval clause
Claire Macdonald, director of the My Death, My Decision campaign group, said: ‘Removing the High Court approval, to replace it with a dedicated commission and expert panels, is a welcome step forward.
‘We support the move towards a specialist panel that can provide expertise and fairness in assisted dying decisions.
‘Spain is the only country in the world that requires a panel to assess every single assisted death while none require the High Court.
‘Most jurisdictions trust two independent doctors to assess the patient, with no third tier of oversight.
‘We hope MPs on the committee remain dedicated to ensuring the process is safe, without being too complex or burdensome for those in need.’
Ms Leadbeater has insisted the amendments she has put forward will give her Bill ‘additional patient-centred safeguards’.
She said providing a ‘range of expertise’ via the three-member panel ‘is a strength, not a weakness’.
Ms Leadbeater said she had ‘listened carefully’ to evidence on concerns around the pressure on judicial resources if each case was to automatically go to the High Court.
She added she had also heeded calls to involve psychiatrists and social workers in assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion.
Tory MP Danny Kruger, an opponent of the Bill, warned there were 60 MPs who specified the High Court safeguard as a reason for having initially supported the proposed legislation.
The committee’s line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill continues before it returns to the House of Commons – most likely towards the end of April – for further debate and a vote.
