The requirement for a High Court judge to approve assisted dying applications has been dropped by the committee considering the bill.

The clause had been heralded by the bill’s supporters as a safeguard that made it the strictest such legislation in the world.

But the Ministry of Justice and senior judges raised concerns about the impact on the courts.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who is bringing the bill, suggested replacing the role of High Court judges with a three-person panel featuring a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker to review applications.

The committee is expected to insert those details at a later stage.

After the bill committee voted 15 to seven in favour of dropping the High Court judge’s role, Leadbeater said the change would make the law “even more robust”.

“And it is much safer than the current ban on assisted dying, which leaves terminally ill people and their families without any such protections at all,” she said.

“I have been encouraged that in the course of this debate there have been positive responses to the proposal for a commissioner and a multi-disciplinary panel from colleagues across the committee, regardless of how they voted at [its] second reading.

“That tells me that whatever our views on the Bill itself, there is a shared commitment to getting protections for terminally ill adults right. That means we are doing our job.”

However a group of 26 of her fellow Labour MPs warned that scrapping the High Court’s oversight “breaks the promises made by proponents of the bill, fundamentally weakens the protections for the vulnerable and shows just how haphazard this whole process has become”.

In a statement, the group – made up of MPs who voted against the bill at second reading – said: “It does not increase judicial safeguards but instead creates an unaccountable quango and to claim otherwise misrepresents what is being proposed.”