MP defends removal of scrutiny by high court judge, as critics say change is ‘rushed and badly thought out’. Kim Leadbeater has said her assisted dying bill for England and Wales will still have the strongest safeguards in the world despite the removal of a requirement for scrutiny from a high court judge. Opponents derided the change as “rushed and badly thought out”. The Labour MP’s decision to replace signoff by a court with an expert panel including a lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker caused significant alarm among MPs who had voted for the bill on the basis that a high court judge would oversee each case.
But as the bill’s committee prepared to begin scrutinising it before the final vote in the Commons, Leadbeater announced in the Guardian she was changing the system because of expert evidence that suggested it was not the right process. Leadbeater said the amendment would relieve the court system – as advised by expert witnesses – and add extra protection against people being coerced to end their lives.
The Conservative MP Danny Kruger, a leading opponent of the bill who sits on the parliamentary committee scrutinising the legislation, said it was a worrying change. “Why, if this is the plan, why isn’t this the plan that was put to MPs when the whole House of Commons voted it through?” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. He added: “At that point, it was made very strongly that the principal safeguard for the bill, where people could have confidence that it was going to be safe for vulnerable people, was that there would be a high court judge approving the application. That’s now been removed.
“This new system … doesn’t involve a judge, it involves a panel of people, all of whom presumably are committed to the principle of assisted dying, not an impartial figure like the judge.”. Some Labour MPs tweeted their concerns. Diane Abbott, who also voted against the bill, said: “Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought out legislation. Needs to be voted down.”.
Florence Eshalomi tweeted: “The key safeguard that was used to persuade MPs who raised valid questions about the bill has now been dropped. To say this is worrying is an understatement. Can they explain why lawyers, psychiatrists & social workers won’t be overwhelmed? Just a farce.”. The Conservative MP Neil O’Brien tweeted: “This safeguard was promised again and again. Gone before the Bill is even law. Very concerning.”.
Asked by the Today programme if the proposed new process meant it would now take place in private, Leadbeater replied: “It wouldn’t be done in private. It would be taking into account patient confidentiality but there would be public proceedings. “I think it’s really difficult to suggest that by having three experts involved in this extra layer of scrutiny that is somehow a change for the worse.”.
Leadbeater said the panel of experts would not be selected based on whether they supported assisted dying. “There would be a very strict recruitment procedure for people to sit on these panels, and they would not be there in a personal capacity. They would be there in a professional capacity to do their job,” she added. She defended making the change at this stage in the process, saying it was in response to evidence heard from witnesses. A pair of judges who gave evidence, Nicholas Mostyn and Jonathan Sumption, said they believed the high court process was not suitable for this kind of decision.
