The sponsor of the Assisted Suicide bill waited until most MPs had left parliament to launch a cynical move to remove essential safeguards. Now even MPs who were previously in favour of the euthanasia law are calling the latest planned safety review arrangements "death panels".
The future of the entire Assisted sAicide Bill is now in “jeopardy” after Kim Leadbeater removed the major safeguard, prompting a number of MPs who had originally supported the Bill to indicate they are having second thoughts about voting for the Bill at Third Reading.
Late on Thursday evening – after MPs had returned to their constituencies for the February recess – Kim Leadbeater tabled a series of amendments to remove the requirement for a High Court judge to approve assisted suicide applications. The flagship High Court safeguard will instead be replaced by a panel, dubbed the ‘death panels’, and will include a more junior legal figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist.
Whereas a sitting High Court judge would have been guided by strict impartiality rules, the “legal figure” on the panel need not be a judge or even a retired judge.
The “legal figure” on the panel has no powers in line with a High Court judge, the social work sector – and social workers in particular – are already overstretched, and waiting times for mental health referrals are in dire straits, with some people waiting for two years or more.
Following the announcement of this proposed change, the Independent reported that “at least 81 MPs who voted in favour of” the Bill at Second Reading could now change their minds.
Reform’s Lee Anderson, who was the first MP to publicly announce he would be changing his vote, told The Independent how the Bill was, in his view, being “forced through”. He said “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”.
Rupert Lowe from Reform 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”.
Labour MP Paul Foster, another who voted for the Bill, registered his own concerns about the removal of the safeguard, referring to it as a “game changer”, which meant he was now reconsidering his support for the Bill.