‘Labour members back assisted dying bill, Parliament must now ensure it passes’

For me and my fellow MPs, assisted dying is one of the most difficult issues we will ever consider. Whilst I respect colleagues who have reached a different conclusion after serious thought, I believe that terminally ill, mentally competent adults should have the option of a safe and legal assisted death, with robust safeguards set by Parliament.

That is why I supported Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It is also why I believe the Bill, filibustered and blocked by a small number of peers, should be brought back.

Polling for LabourList found that 56% of Labour members said they backed both the principle of assisted dying and the specific proposal brought forward by Kim. I’m not at all surprised by this support. At the heart of this debate are core Labour values: dignity, equality, autonomy, solidarity, and protection for the vulnerable.

Let’s not forget how extensive Kim’s Bill is. To access an assisted death, a terminally ill person would need to:

1. Make a witnessed, written declaration
2. Have an assessment by a doctor with specific training
3. Wait seven days
4. Have a second assessment by an independent doctor with specific training
5. Wait 14 days
6. Be approved by a panel consisting of a lawyer, psychiatrist, and social worker

Only if approved would the terminally ill person be prescribed the medication, which would need to be self-administered. One of the doctors who assessed them would need to stay with them until they died. 

READ MORE: More than half of Labour members backed assisted dying bill, poll reveals

This is a very tightly drawn bill. The waiting periods are some of the longest in the world, and the eligibility criteria are some of the narrowest in the world. 

This Bill matters both to Labour members and voters, and also resonates beyond the party. That should give Labour colleagues pause. Parliament, and by extension the Government, is at its best when it listens carefully to people’s lived experience and responds with courage, compassion, and fairness. The current law is deaf to these voices.

The status quo leaves some people to die in pain and fear, even with excellent care, and without any control over the end of their lives. It places families in the position of watching suffering they cannot ease. And it creates inequality: those who can afford to travel abroad have options that others do not. For vulnerable people, the absence of a regulated system is itself a risk. An unmonitored, informal reality offers less protection than a clear legal framework with medical oversight. 

How can we say that the CPS investigating grieving family members after a death has happened is safer than a carefully regulated system, where the wishes of the dying person are thoroughly tested before the death occurs? The status quo also doesn’t safeguard the hundreds of terminally ill people who try to take their own lives every year, usually alone and often in terrible ways.

The status quo on assisted dying is also out of step with well-tested and accepted medical ethics. A person may freely choose to die through withdrawal of treatment or nutrition, usually after a brief check on mental capacity. I find it cruel that a dying person may choose to starve themselves to have control over their death but can’t access quicker and more humane medical assistance to die well. 

The House of Commons has already done extensive work scrutinising the Bill. MPs debated the Bill at length, amended it, and voted in favour. The elected House made a decision, and that decision gave many terminally ill people and their families hope of choice and compassion at the very end.

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. 

In the House of Lords, however, the Bill has been prevented from reaching a democratic conclusion. That undermines the authority of the Commons and takes choice away from the terminally ill. The Lords have a legitimate role in revising legislation, but not in blocking it indefinitely through procedure.

Analysis from Humanists UK found that the Lords Committee stage debate exceeded the word count of War and Peace. Over 75 hours of debate, totalling 607,077 words, produced only three minor changes. A record of nearly 1,300 amendments were tabled, with seven of the most vocal opponents responsible for more than half of them.

Some amendments were serious. Others went well beyond scrutiny into obstruction. Proposals included requiring pregnancy tests for all applicants, including men; banning applicants from taking holidays for a year; and mandating an impractical number of GP visits. This was not a proportionate revision but an attempt to time out the Bill.

Labour colleagues should consider what democratic responsibility requires here. Parliament cannot claim to have fully considered an issue, allow the Commons to vote for change, and then accept that the outcome can be nullified without even a vote in the upper chamber. That risks further erosion of public trust and an increase in cynicism. 

And what do we say to constituents? How do we tell them that on issues like assisted dying, we don’t have the power to make changes? That in fact the power rests with unelected Lords, Baronesses and Bishops?

The Parliament Act exists for precisely this kind of deadlock. If Kim’s Bill is reintroduced and voted through in the Commons in exactly the same form, the Parliament Act applies. It is not a tool to be invoked, it is simply legislation that applies in these circumstances so that the decision of the elected House can take effect. 

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.

The Bill passing does not stop other actions being taken by Parliament to improve the lot of dying people. It won’t diminish the importance of high-quality palliative care. We should continue to invest in hospices, as we have done with capital investment, including £380,000 for my local hospice. We should continue to strengthen NHS provision, and ensure that everyone has access to the best possible support at the end of life. But this is not a binary choice between care and control. In many countries, assisted dying operates alongside strong palliative care systems. People should not have to choose between them.

Nor is inaction neutral. As Parliament delays, terminally ill people continue to face stark choices. Some attempt to end their lives alone. Some endure suffering they find intolerable. Since the first reading of the Bill in the House of Lords on 23 June 2025, 43 UK citizens have died at the Swiss assisted dying centre Dignitas. That is the consequence of the current law. Parliament should now act to change it.

• • 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].