Assisted dying Bill runs out of time but supporters vow fight is not over

Assisted dying will not become law in England and Wales after proposed legislation branded “hopelessly flawed” by opponents ran out of time amid claims of a “denial of democracy” from supporters.

Those backing a change in the law have pledged “we will not give up” and “we will be back”.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which had been making its way through Parliament for the past year and a half, fell on Friday with peers in the House of Lords speaking passionately on both sides of the argument.

While the Bill had successfully passed two votes in the House of Commons, albeit with a narrower majority on the second occasion, it did not face a vote in the Lords.

It instead ran out of time, with Lord Charlie Falconer – who had steered it through the upper chamber – saying he felt “despondent” that a piece of legislation which he said was “so important to so many, has not failed on its merits, but failed as a result of procedural wrangling”.

The Bill had proposed allowing adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death subject to the approval of two doctors and an expert panel.

More than 1,200 amendments to the Bill had been suggested in the Lords, with more than 800 of those tabled or sponsored by seven peers.

Lord Falconer described the process of the Bill as “horrible”, saying it had not failed to finish its journey through the Lords due to a lack of time, but rather “because a small minority were not willing to co-operate, as we normally do, to ensure that there can be proportionate debate”.

Tory former cabinet minister Lord Baker of Dorking accused opponents of the Bill of a “prolonged filibuster”, branding the situation a “denial of democracy”.

Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who had spoken out against the Bill, said it had failed because “there are too many gaps in it” adding that she felt there was “a lot of misunderstanding about what people might get” under a law change.

Those opposed to the Bill have branded it “unsafe and unworkable” and “bad law”, citing their concerns around potential coercion of vulnerable people and a lack of safeguards for those with disabilities.

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, a former commissioner at Britain’s rights watchdog the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said disabled people had contacted her to say this “particular Bill frightens them, and they want me to explain to your Lordships why it is dangerous for them”.

The crossbench peer, who has spinal muscular atrophy, and addressed the chamber remotely, said disabled people “fear unequal access to care shaping their choices, they fear subtle coercion that cannot be easily detected”.

Conservative former deputy prime minister Baroness Therese Coffey said she feared “that many peers and many MPs are putting choice for some ahead of concern on coercion for others”.

Lord Falconer said many terminally ill people and their relatives “who have shown such courage and forbearance” have been “utterly bewildered by the way we (peers) have behaved”.

Supporters have vowed to try to bring the Bill back in Parliament’s next session, with its sponsor in the Commons Kim Leadbeater – who watched proceedings from the gallery on Friday – saying she will again enter her name in the ballot of private members’ bills.

As the draft legislation fell, Ms Leadbeater stood and held her hand to her mouth, shaking her head.

Speaking to reporters afterwards, she said there “will absolutely be appetite within the Commons to bring the legalisation back from lots of MPs”.

While stating she was “trying to stay positive”, she added there was “a real sense of sadness and sorrow today”.

Lord Falconer told those gathered in the Lords committee room following the debate: “Today is the day the Bill died.”

Campaigners have said they could use the Parliament Act to get the Bill through if it was selected in the next ballot.

That Act, a rarely used piece of legislation, allows for Bills that have been backed by the Commons in two successive sessions but rejected by peers to pass into law without Lords approval.

Lord Falconer told peers: “It is clear that the issue will not go away, nor should it, until it is resolved. Parliament can and must come to a decision. It is now for the other place to decide what we do next.”

Dame Sarah Mullally, the top bishop in the Church of England and a former chief nurse, said if the Bill comes back “we need to do our work differently”.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who sits in the Lords and has spoken out against the Bill, said: “There is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the biggest societal shifts that we are seeing or will see. Therefore, as we have done, we need to take our role seriously.”

The Government remained neutral on the issue and MPs voted according to their consciences rather than along party lines, but one Conservative peer said he had been told by some Labour MPs they “felt intimidated” into voting in favour of it.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch voted against.

Former Tory treasurer Lord Farmer told the Lords: “I’ve spoken to a number of Labour MPs since, and what was not known, possibly, is that there was considerable pressure from Number 10 (to) pass the Bill.”

He said it was “known that the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer supported it”, and suggested Bill supporters were “standing at the entrance to the lobbies taking note of who was going through”.

He added: “I’m just passing on what Labour MPs have said to me, that they felt intimidated.”

When the point was put to Ms Leadbeater, she said: “I really do not know where that has come from and I do not understand or recognise it at all.”

Asked by reporters on Friday if the PM was disappointed to see the Bill fall, a Number 10 spokesperson said: “He’s spoken about the importance of the Government being neutral on the issue, therefore, explained why he hasn’t spoken on it.

“As a result, it’s a matter for MPs, it’s a matter for parliamentarians, and that remains the case.”

Ms Badenoch has said the Bill should not be brought back in the next parliamentary session, describing it as “hopelessly flawed”.

Speaking to broadcasters on a visit to Swindon, she suggested the Government had “used a private members’ Bill to push through its agenda” and said there were “all sorts of problems” with the legislation.

She said “It’s something that Keir Starmer wants to see. He said he made a promise to Esther Rantzen. I think he should focus on the rest of the country.”

Dame Esther Rantzen, a leading voice in the campaign to legalise assisted dying, has accused peers opposed to the Bill of “condemning generations of terminally ill patients to die in agony”.

The broadcaster and Childline founder, who is terminally ill, said she is “bitterly disappointed” that some of those sitting in the House of Lords “have conspired to sabotage our democracy”.

Cancer sufferer Sophie Blake told reporters at the Lords post-debate press conference: “We will not give up. Terminally ill adults deserve dignity, compassion and choice, and together we will keep fighting until that right and that peace is finally granted. And we will be back.”

Meanwhile, charities working in palliative and end-of-life care have warned Health Secretary Wes Streeting that momentum sparked by the national conversation on death must not be “wasted”.

Mr Streeting, who voted against the Bill in the Commons, is being urged by the specialist palliative care and hospice organisations to use this “critical moment” to bring about the improvement they say is much needed for dying people.

Gordon Macdonald from the Care Not Killing campaign group which is opposed to a change in the law, said :”The House of Lords scrutiny exposed this Bill as ‘skeleton legislation’ riddled with gaping holes. It is now clear that this Bill was both unsafe and unworkable.”