Dignity in Dying: “This is delay, not defeat – MPs will bring Assisted Dying Bill back”

The campaign to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales is expected to intensify after the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was blocked from coming to a democratic conclusion following prolonged obstruction in the House of Lords.

Ahead of the Bill’s final allotted day of debate in the Lords today, 200 Peers made clear in an open letter to MPs that this should not be viewed as a rejection by the House of Lords, but the result of “deliberate delaying tactics” by a small handful of Peers opposed in principle to reform.

Sarah Wootton, Chief Executive at Dignity in Dying said:

“Today’s outcome is deeply disappointing for dying people and their loved ones, but nobody should mistake delay for defeat.

“The principle of this reform has already been won. MPs voted for change, the public overwhelmingly supports change, and every day this law is delayed more dying people are denied the compassion and choice they want and need.

“MPs from across Parliament are determined to bring this Bill back in the next session and finish what they started. Whether through the ballot or through other legitimate parliamentary routes, this reform will return.”

Opening the debate, Lord Falconer captured the prevailing mood, admitting he was “despondent” that a Bill “so important to so many” had “not failed on its merits but failed as a result of procedural wrangling.” Across the House, peers from differing positions converged on a strikingly similar diagnosis: that the process itself had broken down. Baroness Hayman warned of “a collective failure” that had “damaged the reputation of this House,” while Baroness Harding said bluntly she felt “embarrassed by our role” and questioned whether proceedings had been designed “to make the Bill safer, or… to talk it out.” Even long-standing opponents such as Baroness Butler-Sloss and Lord Carlile lamented the lack of progress, with the latter saying he had hoped for “meaningful votes” on provisions he “disagree[d] profoundly” with, and the Most Rev. Archbishop Mullally acknowledged that the issue would return.

The human stakes were repeatedly brought back to the centre of the debate: Lord Markham read aloud the names of those who had died during this parliamentary session, concluding the current law “does not protect people. It abandons them.” Lord Pannick argued the House had been denied the chance to decide, insisting that “if we had… voted, the overwhelming majority of this House would have supported this Bill.”

Public backing was also driven home, with Baroness Mattinson pointing to “an overwhelming eight out of 10” in favour of reform, reinforcing concerns that the Lords had failed to reflect the will of both the Commons and the country. As peers on all sides acknowledged the Bill’s likely return, the dominant note was one of unfinished business – “this is half-time,” as Lord Mohammed put it – with a clear warning that the consequences of today’s impasse may extend well beyond the legislation itself. 

Attention now turns to the new parliamentary session beginning in May, where MPs are expected to pursue fresh routes to reintroduce the legislation. Potential next steps include:

• A supportive MP securing a high place in the next Private Member’s Bill ballot and bringing back the legislation in substantially the same form.
• If required, reintroduction through alternative parliamentary mechanisms, including a Presentation Bill.

If the same Bill is passed again by the House of Commons, constitutional experts have confirmed that the Parliament Acts provide a legitimate protection against a minority of Peers blocking the reform a second time.

Ahead of the final Committee Stage debate, cross-party MPs joined terminally ill people and bereaved relatives on Parliament Square, voicing a firm commitment to deliver the landmark reform, which passed the House of Commons with strong cross-party support last year.

The Bill was approved by MPs last year after months of scrutiny and remains strongly backed by the public, with polling consistently showing around three-quarters support a change in the law. Fresh research commissioned by Dignity in Dying and released today reveals that 69% believe the debate should continue until Parliament reaches a conclusion, while only 14% believe the House of Lords should be able to prevent the Bill becoming law. 

The Bill has received more than 200 hours of scrutiny and debate across both Houses of Parliament, making it one of the most scrutinised reforms in history.

More than 1,200 amendments were tabled for debate in the House of Lords, effectively blocking the Bill from passing by the end of this parliamentary session. Around three-quarters of these amendments were tabled by just nine Peers (around 1% of Lords) who oppose assisted dying in principle; a tactic described by constitutional experts as a ‘filibuster’, deliberate procedural obstruction.

More than 110,000 people have signed an official parliamentary petition tabled by terminally ill campaigner Sophie Blake in honour of dear friend and fellow campaigner Nathaniel Dye, who died aged 40 earlier this year from terminal bowel cancer. It calls for action to secure the Bill’s passage and is expected to be considered for a Westminster Hall debate in the coming months. Separately, 150 MPs have written to the Prime Minister urging that time be made available for the Bill to return.

*ENDS*

For more information, please contact Tom Steen, Media and Campaigns Officer at tom.steen@dignityindying.org.uk or 07356135578