Parliament’s debate over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has reached a fever pitch, with mounting frustration on all sides as the clock ticks toward the end of the current session in spring 2026. The bill, which seeks to legalize assisted dying in England and Wales, has ignited a fierce struggle both inside and outside Westminster, with accusations of stalling tactics, deep ethical divisions, and impassioned pleas from those most affected.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who introduced the bill, voiced her growing concern on November 21, 2025, warning that if the current pace continues, "Parliament would still be debating assisted dying legislation in 2029." According to BBC and PA Media, Leadbeater accused some peers in the House of Lords of using procedural maneuvers to delay or even derail the bill, despite its historic approval by MPs in June 2025.
The legislative process has been anything but smooth. After passing through the House of Commons, the bill was sent to the House of Lords for in-depth scrutiny. Yet, progress has been painstakingly slow. Over four days of committee stage debates, peers have managed to discuss fewer than 30 out of more than 1,000 proposed amendments. On November 21 alone, the Lords spent four hours and 44 minutes dissecting just 21 amendments, most of them centered on safeguards to prevent coercion or undue influence in assisted dying cases. The week before, nearly five hours were devoted to only seven amendments.
Leadbeater expressed respect for the expertise and experience that the Lords bring to the table, emphasizing that "most peers have been engaging in good faith." Yet she did not mince words about her disappointment: "I do worry that some of the processes and procedures that can be used are being used to frustrate the bill, and that is deeply disappointing and upsetting." She added, "If we do this, it will take us until 2029 to debate the Bill, which clearly we don’t have that much time." The Spen Valley MP also criticized the role of unelected bishops and hereditary peers, stating it "feels slightly undemocratic" for 23 unelected members to be making decisions on legislation supported by both the elected chamber and a vast majority of the public.
The slow pace has not gone unnoticed by those outside Parliament. Dame Esther Rantzen, the celebrated broadcaster and founder of Childline who is herself terminally ill with cancer, recorded a heartfelt message urging peers not to "sabotage democracy." In her words: "Give us all the choice that you would want yourself. And then we can die in dignity, pain-free, and leave our families and our loved ones with happy memories. That’s all we ask." Her plea resonated with many campaigners and families following the debate closely.
Yet not everyone sees the Lords’ approach as obstructionist. Baroness Therese Coffey, a Conservative peer who has tabled more than 60 amendments, insisted she would not be "bullied" into silence. She defended her actions as part of the legitimate parliamentary process to raise "concerns." Former High Court judge Baroness Butler-Sloss echoed this sentiment, stating, "There are many of us who don’t like the Bill, but there is a real probability the Bill will pass. And if the Bill passes, we want it better than it is at the moment. Consequently, we are not wasting time." According to BBC, Lord Goodman, another Conservative peer, criticized the bill for lacking "necessary detail" on implementation, arguing that professional groups had called for more scrutiny and amendments to ensure vulnerable people are protected and to prevent undue burdens on the NHS.
Lord Falconer, who is shepherding the bill through the Lords, was less charitable, accusing peers of "parliamentary shenanigans" designed to talk out the bill. "The Lords will damage its own reputation. And, most importantly of all, we will have let down all those terminally ill people and their loved ones who are depending on Parliament to give them hope that we can remove the injustice and cruelty inherent in the current law," he said, as reported by PA Media.
The government, for its part, has tried to maintain a neutral stance. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer reiterated that the government is "neutral on the passage of the Bill," calling it "a matter of conscience, and there are different and respected views across Parliament." He emphasized that it is up to Parliament to decide on any changes, and that the government’s responsibility is to ensure any law is "workable, effective and, of course, enforceable." However, ministers have ruled out allocating government debating time for further discussion in the Lords, though they are open to alternatives such as additional sittings on Fridays or extending hours Monday through Thursday, as suggested by the Hansard Society think tank.
The current situation is complicated by the fact that the bill was introduced by a backbench MP rather than the government, making it especially vulnerable to running out of time. Only two more days have been allocated for the committee stage, though this could be extended by those in charge of parliamentary scheduling. Liberal Democrat Lord Goddard of Stockport warned that if the bill runs out of time, "it would be peers’ fault." Meanwhile, critics like former DUP leader Baron Dodds of Duncairn argued that the bill needed further changes to ensure "all the necessary safeguards" were in place, and suggested that the Commons could have addressed some of these issues earlier.
The debate is not just procedural; it is deeply personal and political. The legalisation of assisted dying was not included in any major party manifestos before the 2024 general election, and parties have agreed to treat it as a matter of conscience, meaning MPs are not whipped to vote one way or another. This has contributed to the passionate, sometimes fractious, nature of the debate, with each side accusing the other of either endangering the vulnerable or denying dignity to the dying.
The history of assisted dying legislation in the UK is marked by setbacks and false starts. A similar bill failed in the Lords in 2014, but unlike the current draft, it had not already been approved by MPs. This time, supporters argue, the democratic mandate is clear and should be respected. As Leadbeater put it, "Now is the time to update the law. The Lords have to respect that, and we have to respect democracy."
With spring 2026 looming, the fate of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill hangs in the balance. The coming weeks will test not just the patience of Parliament but the resolve of a nation wrestling with some of the most profound questions about life, death, and the right to choose.
