A requirement for a High Court judge to approve assisted dying cases has been scrapped, prompting criticism from opponents.
MPs on the parliamentary committee scrutinising the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill last night voted to remove a clause that had been used to reassure those uncertain about the legislation to approve it at second reading.
When introduced to parliament last year, the bill proposed terminally ill adults in England and Wales who had less than six months to live should be legally allowed to end their lives, subject to approval by two doctors and a High Court judge.
Politics latest: PM vows to ‘reshape the state’
But on Wednesday, MPs on the scrutiny committee voted 15 to seven in favour of removing the court-approval clause.
Instead, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the bill, has proposed to establish a voluntary assisted dying commissioner.
Follow our channel and never miss an update
It will comprise a judge or former judge to oversee assisted dying cases, along with expert panels featuring a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker, and will be voted on at a later stage.
Labour WhatsApps: ‘If you’ve got racist thoughts then you shouldn’t be an MP!’
MP who proposed assisted dying bill defends changing who gives final approval
Doctors should be able to opt out of recommending assisted dying, MPs told
She said such a change would give her bill “additional patient-centred safeguards” by providing a “range of expertise” via the three-member panel, arguing it was “is a strength, not a weakness”.
Opponents of assisted dying disagreed, and said removing the High Court judge requirement “fundamentally weakens protections for the vulnerable and shows just how haphazard this whole process has become”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
In a statement issued after the vote, 26 Labour MPs who previously voted against the bill issued a statement which said: “It does not increase judicial safeguards but instead creates an unaccountable quango and to claim otherwise misrepresents what is being proposed.”
They raised concerns that the new panel process could be held in private, would not have the power 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,” they added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Jack Abbott, the Labour MP for Ipswich who voted against the bill last November, said he was supportive of the panel idea.
Read more:
Assisted dying cost ‘could be tens of thousands of pounds’ per person
Assisted dying: What is in the legislation?
“I think it’s important that it’s robust,” he told the committee. We’re including social care workers and psychiatrists alongside legal professionals.”
Andrew Copson, the chief executive of Humanists UK, also welcomed the amendment as “good news”.
“The High Court proposal was unworkable in the demands it placed on the state and provided no meaningful additional safety,” he said.
“This new proposal will routinely bring in relevant expertise while solving those workability problems.”
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, when there will be further debate and a vote.
