Simply Too Flawed To Be Fixed

Will the new Scottish Parliament and the new Senedd hold firm against assisted suicide? Meanwhile, the mighty David Alton, Lord Alton of Liverpool writes:

After narrowly passing its Third Reading in the House of Commons, at the end of the last parliamentary session, the assisted suicide Bill fell in the House of Lords. This came after Peers debated the Bill for sixteen days. In truth, however much time was given to it, the Bill was simply too flawed to be fixed.

The Bill’s demise came hard on the heels of a vote in the Scottish Parliament to reject similar legislation.

Yet, despite myriad deficiencies and the dangers inherent in such legislation, a controversial campaign is now underway to force the same Westminster Bill into law in the new parliamentary session by using the Parliament Acts to bludgeon it through the legislative process, effectively bypassing House of Lords approval and vital scrutiny.

Only seven Bills have ever reached the statute book through use of the Parliament Acts, which have never been used for a Private Members’ Bill.

Of course, unlike a Government Bill, with its pre-legislative, consultative, and draft phases, as well as protracted policy development and honing, the assisted suicide Bill, as a Private Members’ Bill, entered Parliament relatively untested, something borne out by the torrid time the Bill has had to date.

The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 are intended to be used only as a last resort when there is a deadlock between the two Houses over essential government priorities.

They have been used for significant issues, such as Irish Home Rule and the prosecution of individuals for war crimes during the Second World War. Utilising them now, in contrast, for a controversial and divisive Private Members’ Bill would set a troubling precedent. If you don’t get the answer you are seeking for your pet project, simply ride roughshod over the established constitutional and procedural settlement to obtain your desired outcome.

Many Private Members’ Bills do not pass due to the limited time available in each Parliamentary session. I have personally experienced this with a bill that never lost a single vote, but ran out of time.

This occurrence is neither unusual nor constitutionally irregular — indeed, only a small percentage of Private Members’ Bills ever become law. Analysis now shows that, in the case of the assisted suicide Bill, almost 80 Peers tabled or signed amendments raising concerns with the Bill, with the number rising to about 140 Peers when Peers who spoke against the Bill in the Chamber are added to the number — one of the highest levels of opposition for a Bill in the Lords, even without it reaching Report Stage.

Consider, too, that initial support among the general public plummets when they are made aware of the inherent risks of assisted suicide: a More In Common poll published in February 2026 found that only 28 per cent of the public “strongly support” legalising assisted suicide, down from 32 per cent in late 2024, and 54 per cent oppose bypassing the House of Lords to force the Bill through under the Parliament Acts, with only 46 per cent supporting such a move.

This shows that opposition to this particular Bill is far greater than campaigners in favour of the Bill claim, and demonstrates that many voters across all parties reject the idea of sidestepping scrutiny.

It is particularly striking that the House of Lords has been one of the few places where the voices of people with disabilities have been heard outlining their fears about this Bill. The interventions of peers with disabilities — such as Lord Shinkwin, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, and Baroness Grey-Thompson, who advocate on behalf of disabled individuals — had a profound effect.

As Baroness Grey-Thompson told the House, there is not a single organisation of or for disabled people that supports this Bill. And they are right not to do so — even the Government’s own Equality Impact Assessment, despite its shortcomings, concedes that “disabled people may feel subtle pressure [to end their lives] due to attitudinal barriers or a lack of alternative appropriate services and support”.

Opposition to this Bill from the Lords has also come from the upper echelons of the medical establishment, including a former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and President of the British Medical Association, a former Chief Nursing Officer and a former Chief Executive of NHS England, all of whom oppose it. Many opponents cite the negative and incremental impact of comparable legislation in other jurisdictions.

Particularly powerful contributions against the Bill have also come from Peers who received an incorrect terminal prognosis, such as Lord Polak, who was given six months to live 37 years ago. If this Bill were eventually to pass, it would mean that vulnerable people who are given incorrect terminal prognoses could end their lives despite not being close to death.

Historically, assisted suicide has been treated as a matter of conscience and subject to a free vote in Parliament. What message is sent by deploying the Parliament Acts in this context?

If we accept that the Parliament Acts should be used to override the Lords in this matter of conscience — concerning life and death — then why not for other issues?

This is not flippant.

Too often, we view the legislation before us through a narrow lens, mindful of the Government currently in power. This is dangerously short-sighted. Reflect for a moment on how a future Government — with different priorities — might utilise this dangerous constitutional precedent once it is set.

Weaponising the Parliament Acts on such a divisive issue may deliver “victory” for campaigners, but at what cost? It would be foolhardy, petulant and dangerous — both for the vulnerable people who will inevitably die as a result of the legislation, and for the state of our politics.

The assisted suicide Bill would remain unsuitable and fundamentally flawed regardless of whether proponents seek to ram it through under the Parliament Acts. Lawmakers must consider whether that cost is justified. Since the price is the lives of the vulnerable and the forfeit of trust in British parliamentary democracy, in this case, the cost is too great, whatever one’s view on the underlying issue.

How much better it would be if they used their time and energy to campaign for comprehensive palliative care throughout the UK — and tackled the scandalous hospice funding crisis. The priority should be assisting and caring for the living, not assisting suicide.