Will the assisted dying bill ever make it onto the statute book?

The assisted dying bill, potentially one of the most momentous pieces of social legislation in decades, is itself on life support. Its progress through the House of Lords has become so slow that there is a significant chance that it will simply run out of time to be made law in this parliamentary session, which ends in May – the effective deadline for the Lords is 24 April.

At that point it could effectively be lost for the remainder of this parliament, ie for some years ahead. However, the bill’s supporters are not going gently into that good night, and they think it could soon be resurrected...

As a private member’s bill that is controversial and has attracted a good deal of resistance, it is highly vulnerable to being talked out – becoming victim to a filibuster – unless the government backs it with virtually unlimited time (which a government with a “neutral”, indeed divided, attitude won’t do). So the bill’s sponsors, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and Labour peer Charlie Falconer, say that they will use the Parliament Act to override the wishes of the Lords, and effectively force the bill through.

In principle, the elected Commons’ wishes always have primacy in the end over those of the unelected Lords, but there’s a balance such that the Lords cannot simply be ignored. If the volume of their amendments and/or filibustering opposition threatens to kill a bill, as now, then the Parliament Act can be invoked to force the issue.

That would mean that in the next session of parliament, which starts in June, either the government could give time for a vote (while retaining formal neutrality) or a backbench MP could reintroduce the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the form it took when it was last approved by the Commons.

The key thing is that the speaker should rule that the “new” bill is “the same” as the old one. If so, and if the Commons approves it again, then the Lords’ opinions are irrelevant and it will become law. Thus, Leadbeater and Falconer are telling the Lords that they will lose the chance to improve the bill if they persist in subjecting it to so many changes, arguments and lengthy debates.

It’s rare, but it has been done before.

They say the bill is full of holes and unworkable. Nikki da Costa, a parliamentary expert, argues: “This bill is dangerous for the vulnerable and people will be failed. So, you’ve got a situation where Lord Falconer wants the Lords, as a scrutinising chamber, to stop doing the work and just wave it through.”

Falconer says that the Lords should just get on and change it because “it can be improved”.

Not by any means. Given that the bill only passed the Commons with relatively small majorities, with some MPs expecting it to be suitably refined by the Lords, a second Commons vote in favour cannot be taken for granted. The second reading in the Commons in November 2024 passed by 330 votes to 275, and the third reading last June was even tighter – 314 votes to 291.

Neither side seems to be in the mood for one, but there’s still time for that. Some say the government could intervene and suggest a Royal Commission, with a view to legislation eventually being introduced by the government in the usual way – but even that might encounter the same sort of trouble. Falconer says it “will continue to demand parliamentary action until it is resolved”. The end is not nigh for this debate.