The future of a bill to legalise assisted dying has been thrown into doubt as MPs who previously backed it said they were reconsidering after a key safeguard was dropped.
Around a dozen MPs who currently support the legislation have told The Times that they are having second thoughts after its architect said she planned to remove a requirement for a High Court judge to sign off decisions for terminally ill people to be helped to end their lives.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who has put forward the bill, said replacing the High Court with a panel of experts, who could include social workers and psychiatrists, would make the safeguards “even more robust”.
• Has Kim Leadbeater scuppered assisted dying bill by dropping judge?
But critics called the change a “disgrace” that seriously undermined protection for the vulnerable.
The bill passed the House of Commons at second reading last year with a majority of 55. It would take 28 MPs to change their minds for the bill to fall.
Opponents of assisted dying claimed Leadbeater’s decision to remove the High Court from individual decisions could prove a “turning point” in the debate, which has seen mounting disquiet about how the far-reaching legislation is being scrutinised.
They claimed that up to 60 MPs had cited the involvement of a High Court judge as a key safeguard in the run up to the first vote on the legislation.
“For the first time it looks like third reading is now in real jeopardy,” said one senior figure in the campaign against the legislation. “We are talking to a lot of MPs who are now really concerned that the safeguards they were promised are being dismantled.”
However supporters insisted that they had not detected any decline in support and claimed some MPs who previously opposed the bill could now support it because of the new plan.
Among the MPs who have publicly changed their position include the Reform MPs Rupert Lowe and Lee Anderson, who said the bill was becoming “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 (it) at third reading,” Anderson said.
The Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael also said his support was no longer certain, saying he needed to “give it some thought”.
Others said privately that they were concerned by the proposed amendment and had yet to make up their minds how they would vote.
“I was looking for the committee to bring forward additional protections not to water the legislation down,” said one former minister.
“I will look again at the bill when it comes back before the House at third reading but the burden of proof has to be on Kim to show that this new system does not amount to reduction of the safeguards that were in the initial legislation.”
Another senior backbencher, who voted in favour, said a number of MPs had had a “knee jerk” reaction against the change to the approval process.
They said they wanted to see the detail of the proposed change adding it was important to protect against “institutional bias”.
“I don’t think it is fatal but I will be looking very carefully at what they come back with.”
A Liberal Democrat MP who voted in favour at second reading added: “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.
“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.”
Even MPs who remain supportive said the climbdown had been “handled terribly” and would bolster opponents.
The requirement for a High Court judge to approve all assisted dying requests was dropped by Leadbeater after warnings from senior judicial figures that the courts could not cope with the anticipated demand.
An analysis of the original plan’s impact on the judiciary by Sir James Munby, the former head of the family division of the High Court, found that it could require 34,000 hours of judicial involvement each year, significantly higher than the court’s present capacity.
But supporters of the bill said replacing a High Court judge with a committee of experts to rule on individual cases would actually improve scrutiny.
Downing Street did not deny that ministers had been involved in the changes saying that the Government “has a responsibility to make sure any legislation that passes through parliament is effective and enforceable”.
Tony Vaughan KC, a Labour MP, said the change would “hugely strengthen the legal safeguard”.
He argued that the panel would “be broader and more multi-disciplinary than the single judge” and that “tribunals with wider expertise usually reach better decisions”.
Supporters have pointed to other parts of the legal system where a lawyer will sit alongside medical or other professions, such as in social security tribunals, and that a vetting and recruitment structure already exists for those panels.
Another Labour MP said those with experience of assisted dying systems overseas who had come to speak to MPs ahead of the first vote were “bemused” by the requirement to have judicial oversight, and that it had always seemed a “cosmetic element” of the proposals.
However critics questioned whether such committees would be able to compel witnesses to give evidence with penalties for lying and whether such tribunals would take place behind closed doors. Leadbeater has yet to publish her amendment and it is still unclear how the new panels will be selected.
“Approval by the High Court was the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs,” said the Tory MP Danny Kruger.
“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.” He added that it was a “disgrace”.
But Leadbeater insisted there would still be a role for the judiciary and the High Court judge in the process.
But she added her amendment, which has yet to be published, would also take into account the “very clear evidence” that other professionals such as psychiatrists and social workers had an “important role to play in this process”.
Critics of the bill have stepped up their attacks after the change. Anna Dixon, a Labour MP who voted against, 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 members’ bill has, as I feared it would, resulted in fundamental issues being rushed.”
