The House of Lords has approved extending the consideration period for the Assisted Dying legislation following accusations of attempts to obstruct it. Concerns have arisen among bill supporters that it may not successfully navigate all required parliamentary stages within the allocated timeline. A motion was put forth in the Lords to seek additional time for reviewing the bill, which was unanimously passed after an hour-long debate.
A small group of eight unelected Peers have introduced a majority of the 1,100 amendments causing the delays. Allegations suggest that opponents have engaged in delaying tactics, including setting up a “sweepstake” to predict the least progress possible. Additionally, reports of an email circulating to gather more ideas for amendments have surfaced.
Criticism has been directed at the House of Lords for the perceived stalling of the bill, with accusations of filibustering and undemocratic behavior. The bill has faced challenges in the Lords since June 2025, despite receiving support from MPs in the Commons on two occasions. Campaigners have expressed disappointment over the delays, emphasizing the importance of timely progress on the legislation.
Lord Falconer, the Labour Peer guiding the bill through the House of Lords, cautioned that failure to complete the bill’s stage by the end of the parliamentary session would result in its termination. He stressed the significant public interest and the extensive scrutiny the bill has undergone, highlighting the need for efficient consideration to prevent running out of time.
Baroness Jay of Paddington expressed sadness over the criticism the House of Lords has received for perceived time-wasting. She urged for timely action to ensure the bill returns to the Commons for further deliberation. Meanwhile, some Peers defended the thorough review process, emphasizing the importance of scrutinizing the bill to ensure its quality and effectiveness.
Amid the ongoing debates, individuals impacted by the legislation shared personal stories, underscoring the urgency for compassionate and timely decision-making. Calls for responsible and fair debate resonated among stakeholders, emphasizing the need to prioritize the passage of the bill without unnecessary delays.