The House of Lords has voted to grant additional parliamentary time to the controversial Assisted Dying legislation, following intense criticism that a small group of peers were deliberately stalling the bill with hundreds of amendments.
'Time-Wasting' Threatens Bill's Survival
During an hour-long debate on Thursday, peers unanimously passed a motion stating that "further time should be provided for consideration of the bill." The move came after stark warnings that the upper chamber's reputation was being damaged by procedural delays witnessed by the public. The bill, formally known as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has been stuck in the Lords since June 2025, despite having passed two votes in the elected House of Commons.
Campaigners had grown increasingly concerned that the bill would fail to clear all its parliamentary hurdles before the end of the current session, expected in May. Lord Falconer, the Labour peer steering the bill, delivered a blunt assessment. He revealed that over 1,100 amendments had been tabled, arranged into 84 groups. With only 10 groups debated in 17 hours of committee time, he warned that at the current rate, "the bill will fail through lack of time."
A 'Sweepstake' and a Flood of Amendments
The scale of the delay has been attributed to a cohort of just eight unelected peers, who are responsible for two-thirds of the 1,100 proposed amendments. The campaign group Dignity in Dying claimed there had even been talk of a "sweepstake" among opponents betting on who could stall progress the most. An email was also alleged to have been circulated soliciting ideas for yet more amendments, a tactic critics label as pure filibustering.
Louise Shackleton, whose husband Antony travelled to Dignitas in December 2024 to end his life after a battle with Motor Neurone Disease, condemned the tactics. "This is pure filibustering and is vicious and undemocratic," she told The Mirror. She expressed horror at the alleged sweepstake, asking, "Is this the behaviour of our second chamber?"
Reputation of the Lords at Stake
The debate saw peers confront the damage being done to the institution's standing. Baroness Butler-Sloss warned that "the reputation of this house is at stake," a comment said to have swayed some peers to support the motion for extra time. Baroness Jay of Paddington said she was "sad" the Lords had been "heavily criticised" for time-wasting.
However, not all peers agreed the delays were unjustified. Disabled peer Lord Kevin Shinkwin argued the bill was "poorly drafted" and "unsafe," and that the volume of amendments reflected its quality. "We are simply doing our job without fear or favour as Parliament's Revising Chamber," he stated, adding, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."
For supporters like Louise Shackleton, the Lords' decision to allow more time is a relief, but the urgency remains. "The people who need this choice most don't have the time to wait," she said, recalling the year-long police investigation she faced after accompanying her husband to Dignitas. The bill's fate now hinges on whether the extra time will be used for substantive debate or further obstruction.
