Assisted Dying Bill has had “more scrutiny than any government bill”
With Kim Leadbeater’s Bill returning to the House of Commons again in the coming weeks, media interest in the issue has uncovered some important perspectives from Sir David Natzler, former Clerk of the House of Commons in an interview on Times Radio, and from the Hansard Society’s Ruth Fox in an interview by Mark Mardell for Prospect. So what did they conclude? Here are a few highlights.
Private Members’ Bills – a history of social change
Kim Leadbeater’s Bill follows in the footsteps of other major social changes that have come about through private members’ bills. The legalisation of abortion, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, and the abolition of the death penalty: all of these were changed as a result of private members’ legislation. More recently, it was a private member’s bill that established implied consent for organ donation: another bioethical issue that was determined to be more appropriately dealt with by Parliament than as a Government initiative.
Governments have a history of preferring these important social debates to be undertaken outside of party politics, and all of the major parties prior to the 2024 General Election recognised that assisted dying would be brought forward as a private member’s bill in this Parliament. And as experts have recently explained, the process for debating private members’ bills is no different to those for government bills – indeed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is getting more scrutiny than almost any other government bill would.
Rigorous scrutiny
The assisted dying bill has undergone rigorous scrutiny—nearly 97 hours of debate, which is more than many government bills, and approaching the time spent on the Hunting Act – the touchstone for extensive debate on legislation:
“Even if you total both [Hunting Act] bills, the hours in the Commons were 109. The assisted dying bill, at the minute, is on 97 hours—and it hasn’t finished report stage or had third reading yet.” – Ruth Fox
Sir David also provided much needed clarity on reports by the Times that just two amendments were considered and that ‘MPs ran out of time’ for debate when the Bill was debated at its first day of Report. Although only two amendments were voted on that day (others are to be considered on 13th June) many more were the subject of debate:
“…a whole group of about 60 amendments were debated. Many were spoken to by those who proposed them and those who opposed them…So it’s simply, if I may say, inaccurate, as the Times said, that only two were quite considered by MPs” – Sir David Natzler
Innovative legislative transparency
MP Kim Leadbeater achieved a historic first by incorporating public evidence into a private member’s bill, bringing unprecedented transparency and accountability to the process. This marks a significant evolution in how socially complex legislation is debated in the UK.
Despite some attempts to criticise the Bill’s process and claim it wasn’t given the same amount of time or scrutiny as a government Bill, Ruth Fox makes it clear this is not the case:
“No, I think that’s rubbish,” Fox said. She noted that the bill’s report stage took about five hours last week—double the time given to the border security bill the week before.
Indeed, Ruth goes on to be clear that Kim Leadbeater has gone above and beyond the normal process for a Private Members’ BIll to ensure additional scrutiny:
“She’s done several important things. One: she got public evidence for a private member’s bill—that’s never been done before. It wasn’t done on the [1967] Abortion Act…”Ruth Fox
The time for debate and scrutiny during the Bill’s Committee stage was also highlighted by David Natzler, who favourably compared the assisted dying Bill to a government bill in terms of the time they are allotted:
“We’ve had 29 committee sittings. That is more than any government bill that I can ever recall. There were six oral evidence sessions. On a government bill, you’re lucky to get three.”
Sir David Natzler
Demonstrated parliamentary support
During report stage votes, MP support for the bill held firm, indicating that the bill enjoys substantive backing. Confirming genuine parliamentary momentum behind legalising assisted dying.
“What I took from report stage… was that once those votes started going through, the numbers held up pretty well for Leadbeater’s side. There wasn’t much slippage.”– Ruth Fox
Commitment to legal workability
This is a critical point that some have missed; the bill, if passed, must be legally and technically workable. The government has been clear that it would not permit unviable legislation to proceed to Royal Assent. This underlines that while the debate may continue over ethical and policy considerations, the proposed law is sound in its structure and content.
Although Ruth Fox made these points in her interview, they are not news to anyone following the debate closely as a number of Ministers have made that point it the past, including the Health Secretary:
“I really welcome the constructive approach that Kim Leadbeater has taken through this process, working closely with ministers, my department, the Ministry of Justice, to make sure that the bill that she wants to see in law is workable in practice.”
Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP
Meaningful second-chamber oversight still to come
The House of Lords is expected to bring high-quality scrutiny to the bill. With specialist expertise amongst its membership, and additional committees engaging in the process, there’s a robust safeguard phase ahead, ensuring that the final legislation is refined, balanced, and workable.
“If the Lords pay as much attention to this bill as the Commons has—and I think they will—we’ll see a different kind of scrutiny. It’s less partisan. Whipping is lighter. They spend more time, and they have genuine expertise across a wide range of areas.”
“There’s a delegated powers committee and a constitution committee. Both will report on the bill.”– Ruth Fox
In conclusion, what we are seeing with Kim Leadbeater’s Bill is Parliament at its best, not splitting along party lines but being genuinely cross party. Yes the assisted dying debate can be emotionally challenging and complex, but the legislative process has been serious, innovative, and sustained—laying strong groundwork for careful reform which is genuinely cross party.