By Dr Alexandra Mullock

When the Terminally Ill (End of Life) Adults Bill received its first reading in the House of Commons on 16th October 2024, it marked the start of what many hoped would be a decisive parliamentary journey.

Listen to this article

After the Bill was passed in the Commons in June 2025, it progressed to the House of Lords, but now the bill has run out of time.  Over 1200 amendments tabled (mainly) by a small group of opponents in the House of Lords have stalled the Bill. The claim is that their intention has always been to improve the Bill, however, many examples of amendments – for example, requiring pregnancy tests for all including the elderly – might suggest otherwise.

The crucial question now is whether the House of Lords’ veto signals the end of the road for Kim Leadbeater MP’s Private Member’s Bill. The Commons has already shown there is a democratic appetite for change, which is underpinned by public support for lawful assisted dying, but the question is whether that appetite can be sustained – and translated into action.

There is still a route forward, but it will be challenging. Under the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, a Bill passed twice by the Commons can become law without the consent of the Lords in certain circumstances. It is rarely used and has never been applied to a Private Member’s Bill. The aim of the Parliament Acts is to prevent unelected peers from defeating the democratic will of the elected chamber, and the last time it was used was to prevent peers blocking the fox hunting ban within the Hunting Act 2004.

The Bill cannot simply be brought back.

An MP wishing to support the Bill would first need to secure a place in the Private Members’ Bill ballot in a new session before it could return to Parliament. Given that there was a narrow majority in favour of the Bill, it is highly likely that a supportive MP will win the private members ballot, but they would also need to be drawn high on the list to be sure of securing the opportunity to reintroduce the Bill.

It would then need to pass through the Commons again and be approved by MPs once more before returning to the Lords, where resistance is sure to continue. At this point, however, under the Parliaments Acts, the House of Lords could not stall or block the Bill because it can be progressed for Royal Assent without their approval.

This is the reality of the process. Private Members’ Bills depend on chance and limited parliamentary time. Only a small number of MPs are selected each session and debates are typically held on Fridays, when attendance is lower. Even with support in the Commons, progress may be fragile and easily derailed.

There is an obvious alternative, at least in theory: the government could choose to adopt the legislation and introduce it as a government Bill. But this is extremely unlikely. Assisted dying remains contentious across the political spectrum, and although the prime minister Keir Starmer has indicated his support for the Bill, the Health Minister, Wes Streeting, is opposed.

The stalling of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in the House of Lords raises a wider constitutional question. The House of Lords is unelected, yet it has the power to potentially block or hold up legislation supported by elected MPs. Scrutiny is essential to the process, but the line between scrutiny and obstruction may be a fine one.

If the Bill is passed again by the Commons in the next parliamentary session, opponents in the House of Lords must decide whether they wish to constructively engage in order to help shape the Bill. If they refuse to do so, or if they cannot agree on the tabled amendments in order to pass the Bill, it would become law without their involvement, and they would miss the chance to define the parameters of lawful assisted dying in England and Wales.

The debate is far from over. The bill has not been defeated on principle. It has been overtaken by the limits of parliamentary time set against a small group of opponent peers determined to stop the Bill. The real test is whether MPs who win the private members ballot are willing to reintroduce the Bill, and then whether the elected chamber is again willing to support assisted dying.

Dr Alexandra Mullock is a Senior Lecturer in Medical Law at the University of Manchester.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk

© LBC