The future of the assisted suicide Bill is believed to be in “jeopardy” after Kim Leadbeater removed a 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.
Bait and switch – from flagship High Court judge safeguard to “death panel”
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.
Vulnerable people will be worse off
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.
A British Association of Social Workers’ survey in 2023 found “adequacy of staffing levels” and “workload demand” amongst the greatest challenges faced by social workers. Only last month, the Royal College of Psychiatrists revealed that 1.6 million people are waiting for mental health care, where early treatment is often essential.
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.
MPs not persuaded
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”.
“I find the way that the process has been handled to be bullying, unfair and reckless”
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.
Safeguard mentioned “countless times” removed
In the build-up to the vote in November, Leadbeater boasted her Bill has “the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world”, highlighting the High Court judge safeguard as evidence for this.
The Independent reported that, during the Second Reading debate, 60 MPs identified the High Court judge safeguard as an important reason for their support, with a further 20 pointing to the necessity of “judicial oversight”.
One Lib Dem MP who voted for the Bill in November said the safeguard was identified “countless times”, saying “One of the most important things to me when I voted for the bill was the inclusion of a High Court judge and during the debate, that was used countless times to allay our concerns”.
He added “I need to look my constituents in the eye and tell them that the safeguards are still there, and now I’m not sure I’m there”.
Future of Leadbeater Bill “in real jeopardy”
Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael, a former minister who voted for the Bill, commented that he was no longer sure about voting in favour at Third Reading, and he would need to “give it some thought”. Another former minister, Sir David Davis, also said he would study the revised proposals before coming to a decision.
MPs who oppose the Bill have condemned the move as “a disgrace” and are calling for the Bill to be voted down. Writing on X (formerly Twitter), Conservative MP Danny Kruger posted “Approval by the High Court – the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs – has been dropped. Instead, we have a panel, NOT including a judge, of people committed to the process, sitting in private, without hearing arguments from the other side. A disgrace”.
Former Home Secretary James Cleverly complained that the Bill has been “watered down”, posting “The protections that were promised in the assisted dying bill are being watered down even before this becomes law. This bill is being rushed, it is not properly thought through, none of concerns raised at second reading have been addressed”.
Liberal Democrat MP, Tim Farron, also posted “Lots of MPs voted for the bill at 2nd reading in the expectation that there would be stronger safeguards added at committee stage… and yet we now see that even the weak safeguards that existed, are being dropped”. And Mother of the House, Diane Abbott, said the Bill’s safeguards are “collapsing”, adding “Rushed, badly thought out legislation. Needs to be voted down”.
“The process feels chaotic”
Labour MP Anna Dixon added her own criticisms – both to Leadbeater’s “U-turn” and the “rushed” process, saying “If the proponents of the bill can U-turn on something as fundamental as the role of the High Court, it seriously calls into question whether the rest of the bill is fit for purpose. Attempting to change the law on assisted dying through a private members’ bill has, as I feared it would, resulted in fundamental issues being rushed”.
Reacting to the news, a group of ten Labour MPs slammed the “chaotic” way the process has been handled, stating “Every MP voted at second reading with a promise of High Court scrutiny of each application for assisted dying. 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”.
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “A number of MPs who voted for the assisted suicide Bill are beginning to see how Leadbeater’s safeguards are actually an utter fiction and not worth the paper they are written on”.
“We really need legislation which helps people live, rather than providing a one-way ticket to the grave. It’s time for all MPs to stand against this dangerous Bill, and vote it down at Third Reading”.
