.png)
5 hours ago
2
MPs have suggested they feel misled by a major change planned to the assisted dying bill by its sponsor Kim Leadbeater, saying it could lose significant support.
One of the bill’s leading opponents, the Conservative MP Danny Kruger, said he believed the bill had the potential to lose its Commons majority over the change, that would see the removal of signoff by a high court judge and its replacement with an expert panel.
Another MP who voted in favour of the bill said the change had the potential to cause significant support to drop away. “If changes like this are happening, I don’t think it will pass. I gave it a second reading as I thought it would be strengthened and it sounds like it is going in the wrong direction.”
On Tuesday, Leadbeater said the bill would still have the strongest safeguards of any country in the world and the panel, with a senior lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker, would have more expertise to spot potential abuse.
Opponents of the bill circulated a list of 80 MPs who had directly cited the judicial safeguards as a key reason to support it. The bill passed its first Commons hurdle in November with a majority of 55.
But several MPs said they believed the bill had materially changed since they cast their votes, with one describing it as “pulling the rug from under us.”
Another said they were concerned that having a decision made by social workers or lawyers was a very different method to a decision by a judge, as they did not necessarily have to be neutral on the issue.
At least one MP is understood to be preparing to announce they will switch their vote at the final Commons stage, which is expected to take place on 25 April.
A group of eight Labour MPs opposed to the bill, including Antonia Bance, Jess Asato and James Frith, said in a statement that the process had become “chaotic” and the bill had changed “significantly from what was presented to parliament at second reading.”
“Supporters of the bill insisted that [High Court scrutiny] was a key part of the protections for vulnerable and marginalised people,” they said. “Yet despite repeated assurances until just days ago the proponents of the bill have changed their argument - and fundamentally changed the bill.”
The Labour MP Anna Dixon, one of those who proposed an amendment to slow down the bill’s progress in November, said: “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 member’s bill has, as I feared it would, resulted in fundamental issues being rushed over.”
The former home secretary, James Cleverly, who voted against the bill, said the government should now scrap the private member’s bill and give it government time.
“It’s clearly got support from Keir Starmer,” he told LBC.
“It should be taken over as a government bill and given the proper scrutiny in detail that it deserves. I’m not convinced that this is the right way forward. But if this does end up on the legislation books, if this does become law, it is absolutely key that the best quality legislation is passed, not just something that gets rattled through.”
On Thursday, the full amendment is expected to be tabled for the committee of MPs who are scrutinising the bill. However, a vote is not expected to take place until after parliament’s February recess.
Amendments tabled by Leadbeater are also likely to be amended by MPs who are sceptical of the change. More than 350 amendments have already been submitted by MPs.
One senior MP working with those in favour of the bill said they believed there was enough time to win many MPs over to the change. “A lot of people are not living and breathing this – they need to have it explained beyond the headline – in the end I don’t think we will lose a lot of people,” they said.
Speaking to the BBC, Leadbeater defended making the change at this stage in the process, saying it was in response to evidence heard from witnesses.
But Kruger said it was a key safeguard that had convinced MPs to vote in favour of the bill initially. “I don’t think it would have passed the House of Commons if this new system [was in place].”
MPs on the committee – which includes Leadbeater and Kruger – began the formal scrutiny of the original bill on Tuesday, when MPs clashed over an amendment which would use stronger criteria to assess mental capacity of a patient.
