Assisted Dying Bill Supporters Eye Fox Hunting Ban Strategy to Overcome Lords Block
Supporters of the assisted dying legislation are preparing to deploy parliamentary tactics previously used to pass the fox hunting ban, as they seek to overcome House of Lords opposition and bring the bill back to parliament this summer.
Current Status and Parliamentary Hurdles
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, proposed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, faces almost certain failure when the current parliamentary session concludes ahead of the King's Speech on May 13. The legislation has become stalled in the House of Lords after passing through the Commons, creating a significant obstacle for supporters who believe the bill has strong public backing.
The bill would grant adults over 18 who are terminally ill and within their final six months of life the legal right to request medical assistance to end their suffering. This legislation applies specifically to England and Wales, following recent rejections of similar measures in Scotland and successful implementations in Jersey and the Isle of Man.
The Parliamentary Strategy
Key supporters including Labour peer Charlie Falconer and Labour MP Dr Simon Opher have revealed to Capital Post that approximately 200 MPs stand ready to reintroduce the legislation should they secure favorable positions in the upcoming private members' bill ballot scheduled for May 21.
"The strategy is to come high up in the private members bill ballot," explained Lord Falconer, who has been guiding the bill through the Lords. "Government ministers aren't allowed to put in for the ballot – between 400 and 500 backbench MPs usually enter. If 500 do, a supporter has a 92% chance of coming in the top five places needed to have a realistic chance of progressing."
Dr Opher elaborated on the tactical approach: "The idea is we all support that person to take Kim Leadbeater's bill through again. As it is a private members' bill, the whole committee could be supporters of the legislation, so the committee stage would only last a few hours."
Bypassing the House of Lords
The crucial element of the strategy involves utilizing the Parliament Act, a procedural mechanism that allows legislation passed twice by the House of Commons in consecutive sessions to become law despite Lords opposition. This approach has been employed only twice this century – first to ban fox hunting and later to equalize the age of consent for same-sex relationships.
Dr Opher emphasized the urgency of this approach: "Because peers had taken so long to debate the bill, they had lost the chance to make changes. Their main role is to amend bills to make them better – because of their blocking tactics, they've got rid of that option."
More than 100 MPs recently wrote to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer urging him to prevent Lords obstruction and facilitate the bill's return to the Commons. Similar letters from supportive MPs across party lines have reinforced this position.
Political Divisions and Alternative Plans
Opposition to the bill remains significant, with Labour MP Adam Jogee arguing that "the public didn't want to see a flawed bill become law." He pointed to recent polling indicating that 77% of respondents believed legislation lacking full scrutiny should not proceed.
Should the ballot strategy prove unsuccessful, supporters have prepared a contingency plan involving presentation bills – another form of backbench legislation that typically receives minimal parliamentary time. Supporters would attempt to persuade the government to allocate additional time to protect the authority of the elected Commons over the unelected Lords.
Government ministers have reportedly rejected adopting the bill as official government legislation due to concerns about creating divisions within the Labour Party over this contentious issue.
Confidence Among Supporters
Despite the challenges, key supporters express considerable optimism about the bill's prospects. Lord Falconer estimates the chances of the bill becoming law at "significantly more than 50%," while Dr Opher places the probability at an even more confident 90%.
"There's very little appetite for a long, drawn-out debate," Lord Falconer noted. "There would be appetite for one day of decisive votes."
Dr Opher further argued that even some previously opposed MPs might now support the legislation, viewing Lords obstruction as "undemocratic" and contrary to the will of the elected chamber.
