Supporters of the assisted dying bill now believe it is "near impossible" for the legislation to pass through the House of Lords before the parliamentary session concludes in May. This stark assessment comes amid intense procedural delays orchestrated by opponents, which have effectively stalled progress and threaten to see the bill automatically fall without a decisive vote.
Frustration Mounts Over Parliamentary Dysfunction
MPs who championed the bill through the Commons have expressed "blind fury" at the apparent inevitability of its failure in the upper chamber. One parliamentarian described the situation as "our system at its absolute most dysfunctional," highlighting growing discontent with the legislative process. The bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales for terminally ill patients with less than six months to live, passed the Commons but now faces formidable obstacles in the Lords.
Procedural Tactics and Accusations of Filibustering
Opponents, including several former Conservative ministers now sitting as peers, have been accused of employing deliberate tactics to run down the clock. Supporters allege that near-identical speeches, unnecessary votes, and a flood of amendments—over 1,000 have been tabled—are being used to consume valuable debating time. One peer critical of the bill's supporters stated, "They show no interest in making progress," while another highlighted the rare but potent power of the Lords to "throw sand in the gears" of legislation through procedural manoeuvres.
Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has voiced her personal frustration, revealing that members of the public frequently thank her for changing the law, only for her to explain that the Lords stage remains unresolved. "Every day a member of the public comes up to me to say thank you for changing the law, and I have to tell them that we still have to pass the Lords," she said on Wednesday.
Defenders of Scrutiny and Calls for Reform
Opponents of the bill firmly reject accusations of "dirty tricks," arguing that the extensive scrutiny is justified due to the legislation's perceived flaws. They point out that it is routine for private members' bills to face significant hurdles in the Lords. Labour MP Florence Eshalomi, who opposed the bill, emphasised that "scrutiny should never be conflated with obstruction," noting the absence of support from royal colleges or professional bodies for the bill's safety provisions.
However, the impasse has reignited debates about the future of the House of Lords. Dr Simon Opher, a Labour MP on the bill committee, condemned the situation as "an absolute disgrace" and a "real threat to our democracy," suggesting it could hasten calls for the abolition of the unelected chamber. Another MP argued for extensive Lords reform, recalling historical precedents where the chamber's resistance to public will prompted change.
Government Engagement and Diminishing Hope
Despite intense discussions with the government to facilitate a vote, supporters now believe that no amount of additional time will prevent opponents from using procedure to delay until the session ends. Multiple extra days of debate have already been added, including extended sitting hours granted last week, yet progress remains glacial. With just four groups of amendments debated out of 72 remaining on a recent Friday, the timeline appears increasingly untenable.
A source close to Leadbeater confirmed she is aware of the frustrations and is meeting MPs across parties to maintain morale, though the outlook remains bleak. As the May deadline looms, the assisted dying bill stands as a poignant example of the tensions between democratic expression, parliamentary scrutiny, and the procedural complexities of the British legislative system.
