A UNION leader and chair of Disability Labour urged Sir Keir Starmer to oppose the assisted dying Bill today.

TSSA general secretary Maryam Eslamdoust and Disability Labour’s Kathy Bole wrote to the Prime Minister after an amendment to the proposed legislation increased fears the process will be sent behind closed doors.

Ms Eslamdoust shared her letter after Labour MP Kim Leadbeater proposed replacing a High Court judge’s oversight of the process with an expert panel.

She wrote: “Kim Leadbetter’s advocacy on this issue appears to overlook the grave consequences it could have for the NHS, as well as for milllions of disabled and long-term sick individuals, including those with a mental illness but deemed as having capacity.

“The potential for coercion, systemic pressures, and unintended harm cannot be ignored.

“We strongly urge you to reconsider [your] position and withdraw support for this legislation, which carries severe and far-reaching risks.

“Furthermore, we question whether Ms Leadbeater’s approach aligns with the values of the Labour Party in protecting the most vulnerable in society.”

Disabled People Against Cuts founder Linda Burnip added: “Removing this safeguard makes it seem as if the slippery slope which we’ve seen so clearly happen  in Canada has already started,” and that Ms Leadbeater seems “determined to ram through this legislation at breakneck speed with or without adequate safeguarding.”

The MP defended her proposals as MPs began scrutinising the proposed legislation line by line today.

She said the so-called “judge plus” system was a result of hearing concerns during expert evidence sessions last month, and would see psychiatrists and social workers involved in approving assisted dying applications.

She had previously said the High Court approval element made her legislation the strictest in the world.

But yesterday at a meeting of the 23-strong group of MPs scrutinising the legislation, she was asked to acknowledge that more than 60 MPs had said they backed the legislation at its second reading due to the safeguards provided by the High Court.

She said: “The role of the judiciary… will remain with the proposed amendment that I put forward but what it will also do is take account of the very clear evidence we received from oral evidence sessions from psychiatrists, from social workers, from other professsionals who feel they have an important role to play in this process.”