This is Prospect’s rolling coverage of the assisted dying debate. This page will be updated with the latest from our correspondent, Mark Mardell. Read the rest of our coverage here
22nd January
12pm
Start as you mean to go on: very early in the first meeting of the committee on Leadbeater’s bill the chair, veteran MP Sir Roger Gale, felt the need to issue a stern warning. According to the Press Association, he said: “We are going to spend quite a lot of time together and I think it would be helpful if, reflecting the tone of the debate that took place on the floor of the House, we were civil and courteous to each other. And that the debate was conducted throughout not only these proceedings, but right throughout the entire committee stage, with customary candour and decency.”
This followed a spat between Danny Kruger and Kim Leadbeater, the bill’s sponsor, over who should be called to give oral evidence. This rather answers my question yesterday, whether Danny the Wrecker or Kruger the conciliator would be to the fore. Kruger objected to the meeting being held behind closed doors, insisting there is a “clear public interest case that the public should understand” why certain witnesses have been chosen and others have not, adding “and if there are concerns about the witnesses, they should be aired publicly”.
It only got worse when Kruger claimed that the bill was “written by a campaign group”. Leadbeater countered that was “categorically not true” and that she took such a suggestion “quite personally offensively”. Kruger apologised—sort of—and withdrew his comment, but added tartly: “I hope she won’t be offended when points are made that she disagrees with.”
If they do manage to be polite in future, the same may not be true on social media—on Bluesky, Yuan Yi Zhu, assistant professor in international relations at Leiden University, posted: “The Leadbeater assisted suicide committee has just voted 14 to eight against hearing evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Both ministers on the committee voted against. This is shameful. The entire scrutiny process has been discredited before it even began.”
(You may gather that, like a growing number of people, I am a refugee from X. Follow me instead at @markmardell.bsky.social)
Leadbeater’s office tell me this is wrong: “Kim agreed at the committee yesterday to add another session of evidence and has advised all MPs on the committee that she proposes to invite the Royal Colleges of Psychiatry and GPs.”
Anyway, the existing list of witnesses who’ll give evidence over a packed three days is pretty impressive—from Jonathan Sumption to Chris Whitty. You can check it out here yourself.
Let’s hope the committee keep their cool with the great and the good.
21st January
3pm
The vital committee stage of the assisted dying bill begins today with what was expected to be a private, formal discussion of process—when to meet and so on.
It was always clear that Conservative MP Danny Kruger was going to be self-appointed trouble-maker-in-chief for the bill, and he did not disappoint, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I am a bit concerned we haven’t had enough opportunities to get a balanced process here. There have been suggestions about the committee’s composition, the MPs involved, the process, and now the witnesses. So I hope we’re going to have proper compromise from Kim Leadbeater, who’s the sponsor of the bill, who of course decides how this whole process works.”
Kruger is one of the few committee members who is opposed in principle to assisted dying, and he’s objecting to this first meeting being behind closed doors.
“The other problem we've got with the process [and] discussion we’re having today is that it’s going to be held in private. It’s supposed to be a public meeting, but the decision has been to have that in private...”
You can listen to the whole interview here a few minutes from the end (2 hrs 48), including pushback from pro-bill committee member Lewis Atkinson. Kruger listed the main sticking points: “Amendments have been going down from MPs already about how doctors assess a person’s capacity to make this decision without having any undue influence on them or having a mental illness... and how the judge at the end of the process decides there’s been no coercion.”
“A key concern is eligibility—what constitutes a terminal illness? How do we ensure that those genuinely at the end of life are distinguished from individuals who might feel despair after a terrible diagnosis? The broader issue is protecting vulnerable people, particularly those with disabilities, who might feel their lives are less valuable. How do we ensure the bill is limited to the small group of people the public agrees should have this option?”
So the presenter, Jonny Dymond, asked a key question: “Many people respect you for the position you take. I suspect they may be concerned that you are now on this committee and that you could essentially act as a wrecker for the bill. That's not your intention, is that correct?”
Kruger replied: “Absolutely not… I don’t have the opportunity to wreck the bill. Kim Leadbeater has got a majority on the bill. So my job is, like everybody else’s, to try and make sure that if the bill passes, it’s as safe as possible. I do have a lot of concerns. I mean, my objection in principle is that I don’t think it’s possible to devise a law that’s safe. But my job is to try and do the best we can. And certainly, there are a whole number of areas in which we can make the bill better. We can protect vulnerable people more because I’m afraid this bill is not, at the moment, certainly not the safest in the world. And nowhere in the world is a bill safe. But let’s do our best, and my job is to be as constructive as possible and to work, you know, very much in the spirit of what the committee is supposed to do, which is examining the detail. And I hope we have a genuine opportunity to do that.”
I’ll be watching closely to see, over the next few weeks and months, whether Danny the wrecker or Compromising Kruger is to the fore.
4pm
Danny Kruger’s BBC interview—and his behaviour beforehand—has already irritated fellow members of the committee.
There’s a feeling he’s determined to refight old battles, whereas the committee is for detailed scrutiny. It is not the place to go back over arguments about whether the law should be changed.
One of Leadbetter’s key allies points out she has discussed her proposals at every stage, whereas Kruger published his at the last minute without consulting most of the rest of the committee. His proposed witness list removes people who have been selected for their expertise, not as advocates for or against the bill. People such as the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nursing Officer, as well as representatives from big organisations like the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the General Medical Council.
Supporters of the bill feel he’s basically suggesting replacing key medical professionals and organisations with people who are against the whole principle of the bill. The verdict? “Not exactly collegiate.”
