A fresh attempt to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales is now underway, and this time the MP behind it is threatening to use rarely triggered powers to force the law through the House of Lords. Lauren Edwards, the Labour MP for Rochester and Strood, has announced she will bring an identical version of the bill that was narrowly passed by the Commons last year but ran out of time in the Upper House. The move sets up a constitutional clash that could reshape how end-of-life legislation is made.
The proposed law is called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Under its terms, people aged 18 or over who are expected to die within six months would be allowed to receive help to end their own life, subject to a series of safeguards. The bill was originally introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and passed the House of Commons with a comfortable majority. But in the House of Lords, an unprecedented number of suggested amendments delayed its progress until it ran out of parliamentary time in April. Edwards said she was "really disappointed and quite frustrated" by that outcome.
“Explains the new assisted dying bill, its safeguards, and how the Parliament Act could force it into law.”
By bringing exactly the same legislation, Edwards is invoking the Parliament Act 1911, a law that allows the Commons to override the Lords in limited circumstances. The Act has been used only seven times in the past century. Normally, a bill must be agreed by both Houses in identical form before it can become law. But the Parliament Act provides a workaround: if the Commons passes an identical bill in two consecutive parliamentary sessions, and the Lords does not pass it before the end of the second session, the bill can receive royal assent without the Lords' approval. The current session is expected to last around a year, so peers have until then to pass the bill, with or without amendments approved by the Commons. If they do not, Edwards could force through the unamended version.
Edwards has described her approach as "playing by the rules" and said she is asking the House of Lords to "finish the job". She has signalled she is open to changes, calling many peers' proposals "sensible amendments". Lord Carlile of Berriew, a crossbench peer, said the bill in its current form is not "robust" but that he and others are willing to work with Edwards "in a constructive spirit".
Opponents of the bill have warned that using the Parliament Act would risk creating a law that major medical and disability organisations have serious concerns about. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, as well as a range of disability charities and hospices, have previously raised objections. Critics argue the bill has substantial flaws that could leave vulnerable people feeling pressured to end their lives early.
Q: What is the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? It is a proposed law that would allow terminally ill adults over 18 who are expected to die within six months to request and receive medical assistance to end their own life. The bill includes safeguards such as a requirement for two independent doctors to confirm the diagnosis and assess that the person has made a voluntary, informed decision.
Q: How can the Parliament Act be used to pass the bill? If the House of Commons passes an identical bill in two consecutive sessions and the House of Lords does not pass it before the end of the second session, the Commons can use the Parliament Act to send the bill for royal assent without the Lords' agreement. This power has been used only seven times in the last century.
Q: What are the main arguments for and against assisted dying? Supporters say it gives terminally ill people the choice to die with dignity and avoid prolonged suffering, with strict safeguards to prevent abuse. Opponents argue it risks putting pressure on the elderly, disabled, and vulnerable to end their lives, and that the safeguards may not be strong enough to prevent coercion or mistakes.
Edwards's bill is now back in the Commons. Peers have roughly a year to consider it. If they fail to pass it, Edwards could trigger the Parliament Act for only the eighth time in a century. The outcome will have profound implications for end-of-life care in England and Wales, and for the balance of power between the two Houses of Parliament.