Assisted Dying Bill Nears Deadline After Prolonged Debate
A proposed law to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales is set to run out of time on Friday, nearly 17 months after the House of Commons initially voted in favour of it.
The bill has encountered delays in the House of Lords following the Commons' support for allowing terminally ill adults, expected to die within six months, to seek medical assistance to end their lives under specific safeguards.
Both supporters and opponents acknowledge that the bill will not complete all necessary stages to become law during the current parliamentary session, with no further debate time scheduled beyond Friday.
However, there remains a possibility that the proposals could be reintroduced in the next parliamentary session, which is due to commence on 13 May.
Supporters Urge Commons to Decide Future of Bill
Several peers who back the bill have signed a letter addressed to MPs, urging the elected chamber to determine the bill's future. They emphasise that Parliament "must come to a decision on choice at the end of life as soon as possible."
These supporters have accused opponents in the Lords of employing "delaying tactics," while critics argue the bill lacks sufficient safeguards and that debates in the upper chamber have "exposed further problems."
Opponents have also written to MPs, alleging that proponents of the bill have "stonewalled or rejected nearly every attempt to amend or improve" the legislation.
More than 1,200 amendments were tabled in the House of Lords, believed to be a record number for a bill introduced by a backbencher.
Legislative Progress and Parliamentary Votes
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was supported in principle by MPs on 29 November 2024 with a majority of 55 and subsequently cleared the Commons on 20 June last year with a majority of 23.
In the Lords, the bill has yet to complete all its stages. Friday marks the 14th and final day of committee, which allows for detailed line-by-line assessment of the legislation and consideration of amendments.
Reactions from Key Figures
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the bill in the Commons, expressed mixed emotions regarding the bill’s likely failure in the Lords.
"I was a mixture of feeling extremely disappointed and upset and also quite angry that the legislation would fall in the Lords," she told the BBC.
Leadbeater shared that she has been in contact with terminally ill individuals and their families, noting a "real sense of feeling let down by our democratic system after we had the hope of the bill getting through the elected chamber, that now the unelected chamber have sadly prevented this bill from becoming law."
She indicated that MPs are prepared to reintroduce the bill in the next session if successful in the private members' bill ballot, which guarantees debating time on Fridays.
Leadbeater expressed hope that the bill would again pass the Commons and that agreement could be reached with peers on amendments.
She also acknowledged the potential use of the Parliament Acts to prevent the bill from failing again.
Under this rarely used legislation, if an identical bill passes the Commons a second time, the Lords cannot block its progression, and it would become law at the end of that second session without peers' approval.
The Parliament Acts were last invoked in 2004 to enact a ban on fox hunting.
Leadbeater said: "We don't want to get to that stage, we want this to go through the normal legislative process."
Opposition and Scrutiny in the House of Lords
Baroness Grey-Thompson, an opponent of the bill, stated that peers have been scrutinising the legislation thoroughly and dismissed criticism regarding the number of amendments as a "red herring."
She told the BBC: "When it fails the biggest reason is because it's a poorly written bill. It was written in haste and there are so many gaps in it that a number of peers are really uncomfortable with this particular bill, even though they may be in favour of the principle."
Baroness Grey-Thompson clarified that she is "not against the principle," but emphasised the necessity for adequate safeguards, which she believes are currently insufficient.
She added: "But if we're going to do this, we have to have safeguards and I really don't think there are anywhere near enough safeguards in it."
Next Steps and Possible Discussions
Labour peer Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the bill's sponsor in the Lords, has proposed allowing peers to discuss the issue more generally on Friday rather than continuing to progress through the extensive amendment paper.
