Kim Leadbeater denies watering down safeguards on assisted dying bill
Ms Leadbeater was reacting to a furious backlash to her plans after veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott led calls for the assisted dying legislation to be voted down with the biggest safeguard in the bill set to be removed.
Responding to critics 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."
Instead, psychiatrists and social workers would be involved in approving applications as part of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission, under proposals aimed at beefing up safeguards under the new law.
The commission would be led by a high court judge or senior former judge who would receive all applications and reports from two independent doctors, which would then be referred to a three-member panel chaired by what has been described as a senior legal figure.
Ms Leadbeater said the panel would be 'wholly independent' and would need to be satisfied the decision by the dying person was 'voluntary and not the result of pressure or coercion, and that the person had the capacity to make that decision'.
Reacting last night, a number of MPs warned that the changes meant that promised safeguards in the legislation would not be strong enough. The row came after the Law Society also raised concerns over the lack of strength in the original safeguards even before the bill was amended.
On X last night, Ms Abbott 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.'
In its submission, the Law Society warned the safeguards as originally proposed were not strong enough but had questioned the role of the courts in the original legislation because of an impact on resources.
It warned the need for High Court approval and its impact on court resources must be addressed.
The Law Society said: 'If Parliament deems this step necessary, then the Bill needs to be clear on how the High Court will deal with the applications and increased workload. Lawyers may have a role in providing advice and representation, in which case legal aid should be made available on a non-means-tested basis.'
But it raised concerns about a lack of information required to justify deaths.
It added: 'Currently, medical practitioners do not need to provide reasons for their conclusions in statements after conducting assessments. Parliament should consider requiring more information to be recorded, to help the High Court assess whether the scheme's requirements have been met.
'Regulations, codes of practice and guidance on core issues must be publicly consulted and published before any changes take effect. They should be reviewed regularly to ensure they remain fit for purpose.'
Ms Leadbeater is expected to bring forward amendments for a so-called 'judge plus' system, after hearing concerns during expert evidence sessions last month.
A group of 23 MPs on the bill committee is preparing to undertake line-by-line scrutiny of the proposed legislation from Tuesday, with the process expected to last weeks.
As it stands, the Bill could see terminally ill adults in England and Wales with under six months to live legally allowed to end their lives, subject to approval by two doctors and a High Court judge.
Ms Leadbeater had already argued the High Court approval element makes her proposed legislation the strictest in the world.
Fears around people feeling coerced into an assisted death have been raised before, during and since the debate around a new law.
Among the expert evidence to the committee in January, learning disability charity Mencap warned of the 'extremely risky and dangerous moment' an initial conversation about the option of assisted dying could be.
Ms Leadbeater has already shared her proposal that doctors would be required to set out a range of other options available to a patient if they discuss assisted dying.
On the latest proposed changes, she said: 'Many of those who gave evidence to the committee, either in person or in writing, recommended an enhanced role for professionals such as psychiatrists and social workers.
'I agree that their expertise in assessing that a person is able to make a voluntary decision free from coercion or pressure, in addition to the necessary legal checks, will make the system even more robust.'
Ms Leadbeater said she was also conscious of England's chief medical officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty's evidence about keeping safeguards as simple as possible.
He told MPs what is not wanted is for a person with a life expectancy of six months to be 'stuck in a bureaucratic thicket'.
Ms Leadbeater said the two independent doctors would be required to submit reports to the panel on each person applying to the commission for permission to die.
The panel would then decide whether they needed to make further inquiries, including hearing from the dying person, the doctors or anyone else.
Ms Leadbeater said the commission would report each year on the number and nature of all applications referred to it, and whether they were approved or rejected.
No date has been given yet for the Bill to return to the Commons for further debate by all MPs at the report stage, but it is likely to be towards the end of April.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Tim Davie shouldn't quit over Glastonbury
There probably never has been a time when a governing party much liked its MPs. If you are on a mission, as governments imagine they are, you are always impatient when your own side raises objections. But it is only recently that governments have seemed positively affronted by the idea that their MPs should have a say. This was encapsulated by Sir Keir Starmer when he dismissed Labour's backbench revolt over welfare cuts as 'noises off'. Off what, exactly? Legislators have the sole right to legislate and that includes the right to refuse legislation. Those, like Rachael Maskell, who parade their consciences may be tiresome, but there is no way of governing this country except through parliament (though people like Lord Hermer are striving mightily to alter this). Prime ministers are oddly blind to the ultimate consequence, which is that their MPs get rid of them. Sir Keir's blindness led to his capitulation on Monday night, turning his gigantic majority into his potentially fatal problem. It is always confusing for the BBC to decide what to ban, cut or edit. In 1972, in the wake of Bloody Sunday, it banned Paul McCartney's rather tame song 'Give Ireland back to the Irish' ('Great Britain, you are tremendous/And nobody knows like me/ But really, what are you doin'/ In the land across the sea?') but allowed John Lennon's 'Sunday Bloody Sunday' which attacked 'You Anglo pigs and Scotties/ Sent to colonise the North', complained about 'the concentration camps' (unspecified) in Northern Ireland and regretted that although 'the cries of 13 martyrs filled the free Derry air', 'not a soldier boy was bleeding/ When they nailed the coffin lids'. If you do not have your own moral compass, you will be guided only by levels of public outrage and will find these hard to predict. In the case of Bob Vylan, the story is about management of coverage, not endorsement, of dreadful views. It does not exhibit the monstrous anti-Israel bias daily apparent in BBC documentaries, news reports, BBC Verify, BBC Arabic, Jeremy Bowen etc. It is more a lack of due diligence. I doubt the resignation of Tim Davie would produce visible improvement. He is actually the first D-G even to admit and pursue the anti-Semitism problem. More shocking is the way the Glastonbury crowd (and therefore, unthinkingly, the BBC) rolls with this type of thing. If – unimaginable, I know – an extreme-right popstar had appeared and announced that he hated 'Zionists' and that Israeli soldiers should die, he would have been howled down. But the left has so normalised Islamist extremism that the overwhelmingly white, middle-class establishment audience has no sense of its weirdness. In a passage not widely reported, Bob Vylan announced to the Glastoholics, 'We are not pacifist punks here. We are the violent punks.' Some of them cheered. Was that a tattoo of a guillotine that I saw on his right arm? Does Glastonbury have to suffer the fate of the Manchester Arena before they understand? Ex-prime ministers are sparing in their public interventions. So far as I can see, Rishi Sunak had made only one Commons speech (as opposed to asking questions) since leaving office – on Rachel Reeves's first Budget. Last week, however, he made his second, in Westminster Hall. It began: 'I last spoke on this subject in this very place back in 2016. A lot has changed in the last nine years – notably, ten chief secretaries to the Treasury, seven chancellors and, indeed, five prime ministers – but one thing that has not changed is my view on grouse shooting.' From that good start, Mr Sunak went on to argue that the sport 'is a part of our local social fabric, and… one of the world's great conservation success stories'. He criticised the tendency of 'some conservationists… to act as though farmers and gamekeepers are somehow trespassing on Britain's landscape, but without their hands repairing our dry-stone walls or their dairy cows keeping the fields lush, the rural beauty of our countryside would soon fade. Heather moorland… is rarer than rainforest, and 75 per cent of it is found right here in Britain. It is a national treasure.' The fanatic Chris Packham, who was attending the debate, was seen to hold his head in his hands as he listened. I hope this oration marks the start of Mr Sunak's comeback. Charm is easy to recognise but notoriously hard to describe. Sandy Gall, who has just died aged 97, had it. When he and the tipsy Reggie Bosanquet co-presented ITN News in the 1970s, charm was visible nightly on the nation's screens. It had something to do with being at ease, a lack of self-importance and the sense that the pair were often repressing laughter. Sandy retained these qualities in many dangerous situations covering wars for more than half a century, and into old age. In 2010, when he was 82, we accompanied him to Afghanistan. It was supposed to be a holiday, plus a visit to the charity which he had established to give prosthetic limbs to children injured by the war when he first covered Afghanistan, hidden in Russian-occupied territory, in the 1980s. Sandy's two rules for later journeys there were that he should never have security – it just makes one a target, he said – and that he should always carry a bottle of whisky, which was illegal. It being high summer, he had advised us not to bring waterproofs, but when we flew in a light aircraft to see Bamiyan and the mountainside which held the colossal Buddhas smashed in their niches by the Taliban, we found the place flooded. The airport was on a plateau. Our hotel was visible below, surrounded by water. Undismayed, Sandy ordered ten donkeys to carry us through the inundation and breakfast to eat until these could be found. By the time we had finished the breakfast, the waters had sufficiently receded for the donkeys to be laid off. He was a dear man, neither broken by the horrors of war, nor puffed up by his courage in the face of them – a true reporter.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Farage is the pacesetter of British politics
For the past year, Nigel Farage has served as the great pace setter of British politics. Reform UK has shot to the top of the polls, as Labour and the Tories languish behind. On immigration, the economy and much else, it is his five-man band that sets the tune. It is the inverse of Norman Lamont's jibe about 'being in office but not in power'. From his new base on the 24th floor of Millbank Tower, Farage enjoys a commanding view of Westminster. The office, an explosion of teal decor, has a large press briefing room, which aides liken to the one in the White House. At a desk adorned with a porcelain Union Jack bulldog, Farage plots his next steps. He sees his role as 'a little bit more [like] the general – not in the front lines so much, but a little bit behind the lines, sort of trying to take some strategic oversight as to what the rest of the party's doing'. Election planning is to be handled by former Ukip leader Paul Nuttall, the party's new vice chairman. A six-week summer offensive will begin on 21 July. Such machinations matter because of their impact on the government. Keir Starmer says publicly that the next general election will be fought between his party and Reform. Under his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, Labour is trying to pitch itself to patriotic, immigration-sceptic 'hero voters'. Yet many on Starmer's benches want him to switch to a more soft-left approach. Farage, who has never met McSweeney, says that 'probably politically, what he's advocating is right – but the Labour party can't swallow it'. He cites a surge in support for the Greens, arguing that there is a 'drag to the left that is going on in British politics' which only pulls 'the kind of undecideds on the Labour benches in one direction'. Reform's success often confounds opponents who try to place the party on a traditional left-right axis. Yet some within Reform think of it more like a business, hungry for market share, wherever available. Rather than ponder deep philosophical questions, or muse about how to interpret its political heritage, Reform pivots from lifting the two-child benefit cap one month to introducing a 'Britannia card' for the super-rich the next. Farage himself prefers to talk in post-ideological terms: 'I would like to think that people would look at me and look at us and say we're realistic and pragmatic. I think the benefits stuff that we said surprised a few people, but, you know, we're not finished on that. There's a lot more to come out on that agenda over time.' The debate in April over nationalising steel exemplified this approach. While the shadow cabinet were split over questions about state interventionism, Reform simply pledged nationalisation. For long-established political parties, history can be a bulwark, but it also brings baggage. Like any general, Farage likes having a free hand to respond to events nimbly. Critics jibe that this leaves Reform rudderless, constantly scrambling to board the next bandwagon. Allies argue that, in a world where a social media post by Donald Trump can blow up the markets, there is much merit in this approach. For them, the fact that much of Reform HQ has little Westminster hinterland beyond Farage is not a weakness but a positive. The staff are 'quite normal people', says one aide. Talks around strategy often reference sport, not politics. Wrestling is a shared love in the office and WWE-style razzmatazz has become a hallmark of the party's election rallies. Next May's regional elections represent the ultimate Wrestlemania for Reform. If Reform wins 30 seats in the new 96-strong Senedd, will Plaid Cymru and Labour cut a deal to keep them out? Six new mayoralties are also up for grabs and Reform is after local celebrities in the mould of Hull boxer Luke Campbell to stand as candidates. 'Essex is a slam dunk,' says one insider. There have even been talks about the prospect of attracting DUP grandees ahead of the Northern Ireland elections in 2027. The two main parties, though, will not go down without a fight. Some within Labour are putting their faith in the New Media Unit. This 28-strong, £1.3 million innovation sits in the Cabinet Office. It aims to help McSweeney 'take back control' of communications by targeting government messages at millions of voters online. The insights gleaned here could prove crucial to Labour strategists, as they try to reach key voters ahead of the 2029 general election. Labour's backbencher revolt over welfare, meanwhile, gave the Tories some reason to cheer this week. Conservative MPs allowed themselves an 'evening of fun' with Gyles Brandreth on Tuesday at the Albert pub in Victoria. Rishi Sunak, now a humble backbencher, enlivened things by debating with the compere about which of the many recent Tory chancellors was truly the 'shortest-serving'. At CCHQ there were several encouraging signs too. First, Mark McInnes, the former boss of the Scottish Conservatives, was named as the new Tory chief executive. Then longtime donor Lord Bamford, whom some speculated was about to switch to backing Farage, gave Kemi Badenoch £150,000. Both men are indicative of the arms race in personnel on the right of British politics, as the Tories and Reform battle it out for talent and donations. At present, there are plenty in the world of media and politics happy to keep a foot in both parties' camps. As the wine flows this summer, there will be much talk about the future of the right. Many Tories hope that Farage has peaked too early. 'This parliament is a marathon not a sprint,' says one MP. 'There are still four years left to go.' Such comments will not bother Farage, of course. He and his team believe they are exactly where they need to be: leading the pack, on course for both office and power come 2029.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
My idea for a new grooming gang inquiry
It's disorienting but satisfying that Labour now accepts that Asian grooming gangs exist. Some of my left-identified friends are even beginning to share the outrage – over Qari Abdul Rauf, for instance, one of the nastiest of the Rochdale rapists, who still lives in Rochdale a decade after the first steps to deport him were taken. Rauf simply ripped up his Pakistani passport and couldn't then be shifted. He's cost the taxpayer nearly £300,000 in legal fees, but still has enough dosh to throw regular house parties and, it was reported this week, to start building a second home back in Pakistan. Pimping out children pays. It's nice that the left and right share the impotent anger. But as there's nothing for the moment to be done about the Raufs, why don't we channel that rage into trying to make sure the same thing isn't happening again? It was girls in care who were mostly targeted by grooming gangs. They were far from home and desperate for affection. Easy prey. And honestly, nothing much has changed. The system that took abused children and served them up to Pakistani predators is still functioning in the same way. More and more damaged children enter the system every year and there's a drastic shortage of places to house them. Councils are desperate, so for want of local homes the kids are dumped in distant, unfamiliar places; in institutions that are often unregulated or simply ignored by Ofsted. Look them up yourself on the Ofsted site: not yet inspected; pending inspection. Happy hunting, paedos. 'Looked-after' children, they're called. The joke's in the name, because these kids are often sent many miles, sometimes hundreds of miles, from any extended family, grandparents, aunts or uncles who might do some looking-after. Here's a little taste of the madness for you. Children taken into care stay in their existing schools. This seems fair and decent – they need some continuity and stability. But because the homes they're put in are so far away, they have to travel – sometimes for hours – by cab to get to class and back again. Councils, already cash-strapped, are bankrupting themselves paying for cabs for kids. The money wasted is staggering. In my neck of the woods, the north-east, Newcastle council's taxi bill last year for children in care was around £1.2 million. That was a 35 per cent jump from 2023, so Lord only knows what this year's bill will be. All over the country, children are rising at dawn to ensure they arrive at school on time. No clubs, no playdates afterwards, because it's back in the car again. And – no disrespect to cab drivers in general – who is driving those taxis? Who's incentivised to drive them? Four men in the Rochdale gang were taxi drivers; some members of the Oxford grooming gang too. The Oxford Pakistani gang, who targeted very young girls in care, specialised in what the girls called 'torture sex' and made £600 an hour selling torture rape services to other Pakistani men in the Cowley region. They relied on the taxis to ferry the often comatose children about. When people bring up the predicament of kids in care, they often insist the problem is under-funding. But the bleak absurdity of the care homes scandal is that they're a product of too much money as well as too little. A private provider can demand an astonishing amount to look after each child – sometimes as much as £25,000 a month, depending on the child's 'needs'. This is guaranteed money, so of course private providers have risen like carp. The majority of care homes for children are now privately run and it's money for old rope: much less public oversight and the children can hardly complain or choose a different provider. A private care home answers primarily to shareholders, which is why the homes are clustered in parts of the country with cheap property and cheap staff. What does it matter to a private care-home provider if the children are commuting for pointless hours? It's the council that foots the taxi bill. An interesting case in point is the private company that dominates the sector, CareTech, founded by two brothers, Haroon and Farouq Sheikh, of Pakistani origin. CareTech Holdings is one of the biggest providers of children's homes in the UK, often under the auspices of its wholly owned subsidiary Cambian Group, and the Sheikhs do very well for themselves. In 2021, the Times reported Farouq Sheikh's total remuneration package was £833,000. Haroon's was even tastier: £971,000. In the same year, Cambian posted pre-tax profits of £24.45 million. Also interesting is how unreliably this financial success translates into decent childcare. Ofsted's reports from the same year showed it had judged nine of Cambian's 173 children's homes 'inadequate' in two months, and inadequate in Ofsted-speak really doesn't mean inadequate; it means catastrophic. While there were no actual allegations of abuse at the home, children there, at potentially high risk of sexual exploitation, had allegedly gone missing without staff seeming to think it a problem. Girls had seemingly told staff they had met unknown adult males and had sex in exchange for cash without triggering any alarm. I accept that this isn't the Sheikh brothers' fault. They can't visit every one of Care-Tech's homes, and safeguarding guidance has been put in place on how to spot and address signs of possible abuse. But Farouq Sheikh has been a significant donor to the Labour party, in particular to Sadiq Khan, whose mayoral campaign he supported. In 2020 he was awarded an OBE for services to specialist care, after which he humbly said: 'As a family we will continue to play our part in helping local and global communities.' I have an idea about that. Given his experience and his connection with government, Pakistan and the care-home industry, wouldn't it be a grand idea if Farouq Sheikh OBE led the UK's Pakistani community in a grooming gangs inquiry of its own? That really might play a part in helping local communities, and the vulnerable children to whom they owe their fortune.
