Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Kim Leadbeater’s decision to remove a major safeguard from her assisted dying bill risks losing her the support of at least 81 MPs who voted in favour of it in November.
The bill, which would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with a life expectancy of six months or less to seek assistance to end their lives, passed in the Commons by 55 votes – 330 MPs backed the legislation, with 275 voting against.
But in a major change to what was supported by MPs, Ms Leadbeater now wants to remove the stage of a judge approving it in the High Court and replace it with a commission made up of psychiatrists and social workers who would be involved in approvingapplications.
While Ms Leadbeater has denied claims she is watering down safeguards rather than strengthening them, 60 MPs during the second reading debate specifically stated that the High Court judge safeguard was important to them in providing support. Another 20 referenced the need for judicial oversight.
The 61 who specially referenced the safeguard of a High Court judge were: Lee Dillon, Kate Dearden, Joe Powell, Sarah Green, Wera Hobhouse, Danny Chambers, Deirdre Costigan, Sarah Jones, Connor Rand, Charlotte Cane, Joe Morris, Cameron Thomas, John Whitby, Toby Perkins, Joani Reid, Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, Luke Pollard, Bobby Dean, Rachel Hopkins, Natasha Irons, Lewis Atkinson, Helen Morgan, Jake Richards, Peter Kyle, Jess Phillips, Alex Ballinger, Louise Jones, Georgia Gould, Tessa Munt, Cat Eccles, Jon Pearce, Kirsty McNeill, Luke Taylor, Claire Young, Clive Betts, Jayne Kirkham, Mark Sewards, Lizzi Collinge, Jim Dickson, Hilary Benn, Gill German, Freddie van Mierlo, Tom Rutland, Andrew Snowden, Will Stone, Sarah Sackman, Leigh Ingham, Andrew Lewin, Josh Babarinde, Tony Vaughan, Clive Efford, Fabian Hamilton, Gerald Jones, Colum Eastwood, Dan Aldridge, Sarah Russell, Liz Kendall, Rosie Wrighting, Cat Smith, and Sarah Owen
The MPs who specifically referenced the importance of judicial oversight were: Manuela Perteghella, Phil Brickell, Chris Vince, Sharon Hodgson, Lloyd Hatton, Chris Coghlan, Danny Beales, Chris Philp, Steve Race, Kit Malthouse, Tom Hayes, Jeevun Sandher, Pam Cox, Kate Osborne,Warinder Juss, Alex Norris, Ellie Reeves, Paula Barker, Lucy Powell, and Rishi Sunak.
The list excludes Ms Leadbeater herself who hailed the High Court judge safeguard during the debate.
The Independent understands that many of these 80 will now be targeted by opponents of the Bill to see if they are prepared to turn against with a change of heart from just 28 required.
With detailed line by line scrutiny of the Bill beginning today, the Bill committee of 23 MPs the debate has intensified.
A list of another 92 MPs who had said they wanted to see the Bill safeguards strengthened or an opportunity for the debate to take place or abstained are also being targeted by opponents ahead of the crucial third reading vote in April.
Responding to critics of removing the High Court judge safeguard on Radio 4’s Today programme, Ms Leadbeater said: “It wouldn’t be done in private, it would be taking into account patient confidentiality, but there would be public proceedings.
“And, actually, 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.”
But critics including veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott believe the Bill now should be pulled because of the removal of the safeguard.
She said: “Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought-out legislation. Needs to be voted down.”
Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron added: “Lots of MPs voted for the bill at second 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 Tory MP Danny Kruger, who led the opposition at its second reading, said: “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.”
All of them had previously opposed the Bill though.
Sir David Davis, who backed the bill, said he was concerned that a clause within it seemed to say that doctors could suggest an assisted death as a treatment option for their patients.
Armed forces minister Luke Pollard voted for the bill but wrote to Ms Leadbeater calling for further safeguards to be added.
Labour MP for Wrexham Andrew Ranger said that letting the bill pass through to the report and committee stages would allow for amendments and “areas of possible concern to be addressed”. He said that when the bill comes back to the Commons for its third reading, likely in Spring next year, he would then “arrive at a final decision”.
Lib Dem MP for Chelmsford Marie Goldman said that her vote in favour on Friday was “by no means a guarantee of my vote for the bill at third reading”.
Fellow Lib Dem Andrew George MP said he was in principle broadly in favour of assisted dying, but that he had not reached a final decision.
In a letter to constituents, he wrote that he would carry out a study “especially in respect of the robustness of the law and the clinical judgements required to underpin its operation”. He added that, while he was not convinced that the law would put pressure on vulnerable people, he would “keep an open mind”.
