Assisted Dying Campaigners Seek Extended Time for Bill Review

Campaigners advocating for assisted dying legislation are urging the House of Lords to extend its session hours to ensure thorough examination of the proposed bill. Concerns are mounting among supporters that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill may not complete its parliamentary journey in the time remaining. A motion has been submitted to the Lords requesting additional time for peers to consider the bill.

One potential solution involves extending the traditional Friday debates, although this has sparked controversy among some Jewish peers. The Shabbat ceremony begins at sunset on Fridays, leading to objections from members like Lord Shinkwin, who has expressed that late sessions would be “a feeble fig leaf for discrimination against me” due to his travel constraints. If the House of Lords approves the motion, negotiations would commence on how much extra time could be allocated for the bill’s review.

Opponents of the bill have indicated they are unlikely to agree to any extension. More than 1,000 amendments have been proposed by members of the House of Lords, which experts suggest is an unprecedented number for legislation introduced by a backbench MP. Supporters contend that these amendments represent a deliberate effort to stall the bill, arguing that unelected peers should respect the decision made by the House of Commons, which passed the bill in 2023.

Critics argue that the proposed legislation lacks adequate protections for vulnerable individuals and requires significant revisions before it can be enacted. The bill must navigate all parliamentary stages before the next King’s Speech, anticipated in early May 2024. If it does not pass through all required hurdles by then, it will fail.

Despite the challenges, advocates of the bill believe that the Parliament Acts could facilitate its return if necessary. This legislation allows a bill to become law without the approval of the House of Lords if it is rejected in two consecutive parliamentary sessions. However, this approach would depend on government support or the selection of a new, identical bill by an MP in a forthcoming ballot.

Kim Leadbeater, the backbench MP who introduced the bill, emphasized the urgency of resolving this matter, stating, “The time has come for Parliament to decide its view. It is far better for that to be now than we have to go through it all again.”

The motion presented by Lord Charlie Falconer, a key supporter of the bill, argues that more time is essential for the House to complete its scrutiny and return the bill to the Commons in a timely manner. While supporters believe that the motion will apply pressure on peers to expedite their discussions, many, including the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, remain steadfastly opposed to the legislation.

As the legislative process unfolds, the debate surrounding assisted dying continues to intensify, reflecting deep divisions within Parliament and society at large. The coming weeks will be critical in determining the future of this contentious bill.