Assisted dying bill ‘will fall’, claim House of Lords critics of legislation

Critics of assisted dying have claimed legislation being debated in the Lords “will fall” – and said a private members’ bill was the “wrong vehicle for a change of this scale and sensitivity”.

In a cross-party letter to MPs, peers opposed to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill said “further problems” with the legislation had been exposed in the House of Lords and warned that “any attempt to force it through Parliament would be to abandon our duty to pass good and safe laws”.

Although the bill passed at third reading in the Commons with a majority of 23, members of the House of Lords have proposed more than a thousand amendments to the legislation – believed to be a record number.

As the legislation is in the form of a private members’ bill, it cannot be carried over into the new session of Parliament following prorogation in May – meaning it is almost certain to fall. Any future attempt to introduce assisted dying would need to begin the parliamentary process from scratch.

‘Campaigners now appear determined to force this bill on to the statute book’

The letter to MPs, seen by LabourList, read: “The bill does not sufficiently guard against coercion or protect the most vulnerable in our society. There remain significant issues around delegated powers, lethal substances, advertising, codes of practice, death investigations, notification requirements, independent advocates and cross-border issues.

“A private members’ bill is the wrong vehicle for a change of this scale and sensitivity. The PMB process is better suited to measures that are limited, technical or broadly uncontroversial, such as the recently passed Rare Cancers Bill. Where a PMB has been used for an issue of conscience in the past, it has been preceded by some type of pre-legislative scrutiny such as a commission.

“It should concern the House of Commons that campaigners now appear determined to force this bill on to the statute book unamended. That suggests they are less interested in making it safe than in getting it through, whatever the cost.”

‘Assisted dying bill is unsafe and unworkable’

Labour peer Luciana Berger, one of the letter’s signatories, said that supporters of assisted dying had “refused to engage with its massive flaws”.

“The bill is unsafe and unworkable. None of the relevant medical Royal Colleges, professional groups, advocacy groups or even the government’s own ministers will say that the legislation is safe. It is a danger to the vulnerable and a huge risk to our NHS.

“Whatever MPs may think of the principle of assisted dying, it is clear that this assisted dying bill is not fit for purpose. No MP could in good conscience force it through and risk the massive damage it will inflict.”

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events.

‘Bill safest and most robust piece of legislation of its kind’

LabourList reached out to Kim Leadbeater, but her her spokesperson said she hadn’t seen the letter. 

However, supporters of the bill described it as the “safest and most robust piece of legislation of its kind anywhere in the world”.

“After giving it an unprecedented level of scrutiny, MPs have judged that the bill should become law. It has been drafted by expert counsel who draft all government bills and ministers have stated that it is both safe and workable.”

‘Small, unelected group attempting to obstruct Parliament’

A spokesperson for campaign group Dignity in Dying hit out at a “small, unrepresentative group of peers… [attempting] to rewrite reality”.

“To claim that concerns have not been addressed is not just wrong, it is wilfully misleading. And the irony is stark: those complaining about the bill not being improved are the very same peers whose behaviour has prevented meaningful scrutiny from concluding or proceeding to report stage, where disagreements on safeguards could be meaningfully resolved.

“A handful of opponents, around one percent of the House, have put their names to roughly 70 percent of amendments and consumed nearly 40 percent of speaking time, crowding out progress and delaying the votes that would enable such amendments to be made. The real issue is not unanswered questions, but a small, unelected group attempting to obstruct Parliament from reaching a decision – and that is fundamentally undemocratic.”

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits… 
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].