6 hours ago
2
Key events Show key events only Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Respect Trump’s mandate and handle disputes ‘directly and privately’, says Mandelson
Britain must respect Donald Trump’s “strong and clear mandate for change”, Peter Mandelson has said, but Keir Starmer’s government could “always make our views known privately and directly” to the US president.
Leadbeater says proposed expert panels dealing with assisted dying applications would not sit in private
In his Today programme interview Danny Kruger, an opponent of the assisted dying bill, claimed that getting rid of the requirement for a judge to approve assisted dying applications at a court hearing, and replacing that with scrutiny by an expert panel (see 9.29am), would make the process private. He said:
Crucially, [the expert panel] won’t be sitting under the normal procedures of a court. I presume they won’t be sitting in public. They won’t be hearing evidence from both sides, hearing arguments from both sides. It will be an approval process rather than a judicial process.
But, in her own interview on the Today programme, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who has introduced the private member’s bill, said that the expert panel process would be public. She said:
It wouldn’t be done in private. It would take into account patient confidentiality, but they would be public proceedings.
And 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. It’s absolutely a change for the better.
As Jessica Elgot reports, in interviews this morning Leadbeater also insisted that the bill would have the strongest safeguards in the world for an assisted dying law.
Some of the MPs who opposed the assisted dying bill at second reading have been echoing Danny Kruger (see 9.29am) in saying the amendment to the bill announced today removes a key safeguarding. They are saying either that the bill should now be dropped, or that the government should step in to ensure that MPs get more time to debate it on the floor of the house.
This is from Diane Abbott (Lab), the mother of the house
Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought out legislation. Needs to be voted down.
These are from James Cleverly (Con), the former foreign secretary
The protections that were promised in the assisted dying bill are being watered down even before this becomes law.
This bill is being rushed, it is not properly thought through, none of concerns raised at second reading have been addressed.
This should be dropped as a Private Members Bill, given government time (as it’s clear that Starmer supports this) and debated properly to ensure that if it becomes law it is in good shape.
This is from Florence Eshalomi (Lab)
The key safeguard that was used to persuade MPs who raised valid questions about the bill has now been dropped. To say this is worrying is an understatement.
Can they explain why lawyers, psychiatrists & social workers won’t be overwhelmed? Just a farce.
This is from Alec Shelbrooke (Con)
Even before it has become law, promised safeguards in assisted dying legislation are being dropped. Had @Keir_Starmer agreed to my request for proper debate in government time, MPs would have been able to properly scrutinise this bill. Instead, it’s being rushed through.
In the Commons MPs on the assisted dying bill’s public bill committee have just started their line-by-line scrutiny of the bill. The committee has already held several meetings, but those were devoted to taking evidence from witnesses.
You can watch the committee proceedings here.
And here is the Commons paper setting out the amendments to the bill that have been tabled.
Assisted dying bill has lost Commons majority now high court signoff abandoned, leading critic claims
Good morning. In parliament MPs and peers don’t simply vote yes or no on proposed legislation. They debate it at length, over weeks and months, and consider amendments line by line. This process is at the heart of parliamentary democracy, and it happens like this so that bills, in theory, can be improved before they reach the statute book.
There is a good example of this today. The terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is perhaps the most consequential bill going through this session of parliament and the Labour MP who has sponsored it, Kim Leadbeater, has announced a significant change. As Jessica Elgot reports, she wants to scrap the requirement for an assisted dying application to be approved by a high court judge, because the judiciary said this process would be too time-consuming and would clog up the courts. Instead an expert panel, with a legal chair, would vet the assisted dying applications already approved by two doctors.
Leadbeater has written an article for the Guardian explaining her reasoning here.
In the article Leadbeater claims the change will make her bill “even more robust”. And she is calling it “Judge Plus” implying it involves a safeguard that goes beyond the original one, sign-off by a judge. (She is using this term because a judge would chair the commission that appoints the expert panels. But the panels actually taking the final decisions would not be led by judges, and so arguably that is more spin than accurate labelling.)
In interviews this morning Leadbeater argued that the tabling of the amendment showed the parliamentary process operating exactly as it is meant to. She told the Today programme:
I would say this is exactly what the process is designed to do, and the purpose of having such a comprehensive bill committee procedure hearing from over 50 witnesses. What’s the point of having witnesses if we don’t listen to them, and we don’t listen to the expertise that they provide?
But, whatever it says in the textbooks about democratic theory, in practice governments are normally very reluctant to start tinkering with the wording of legislation once a bill has started its progression through parliament. That is because any amendment is seen by opponents as a sign of weakness. And that is exactly what has happened now with the assisted dying bill.
Danny Kruger, the MP who is leading opposition to the bill (he is a Conservative, but it is free vote, conscience legislation, and so party labels are not particularly relevant), posted this on social media last night.
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
And on the Today programme he suggested that this amendment meant that, when MPs voted to back the bill by 330 votes to 275 at second reading, they were doing so on a false premise.
I have to ask why, if this is the plan, why this isn’t the plan that was put to MPs when the whole House of Commons voted it through at second reading. At that point the point was made very strongly that the principal safeguard for the bill, the way people could have confidence that it was going to be safe for vulnerable people, was that there would be a high court judge approving the application.
That’s now being removed. I don’t think it would have passed the House of Commons if this new system – which doesn’t involve a judge, it is involves a panel of people all of whom, presumably, are assisted to the principle of assisted dying, not an impartial figure like a judge would be – [was in place].
Kruger was implying the Commons majority for the bill will now have gone.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.25am: MPs on the public bill committee for the assisted dying bill begin their line by line scrutiny of the bill.
9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes the latest data on wellbeing.
Morning: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
11.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
2.30pm: Sue Gray, Starmer’s former chief of staff, takes her seat in the Lords.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
