More than 100 Labour MPs have demanded Keir Starmer steps in to stop the House of Lords from blocking assisted dying laws.
They have complained about peers in Parliament’s upper chamber using ‘procedural tactics’ to block the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Only half of the 1,200 amendments up for consideration have been debated after 11 days of scrutiny of the legislation in the Lords.
It has led to fears among supporters of the Bill that approval will not be granted by both peers and MPs before the end of the current session of Parliament.
If that happens, the Bill – introduced to Parliament as a Private Members’ Bill – could fall, which has prompted demands for the intervention of the Prime Minister.
In total, more than 150 MPs have signed a private letter to Sir Keir – including parliamentarians from the Tories, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, and Reform UK – urging him to take action.
They have asked him to commit to find time for Parliament to ‘come to a decision’ on assisted dying in the next session.
But critics of the Bill have said the legislation is ‘not fit for purpose’ and ‘needs to fail’.
More than 100 Labour MPs have demanded Keir Starmer steps in to stop the House of Lords from blocking assisted dying laws.
They have complained about peers in Parliament’s upper chamber using ‘procedural tactics’ to block the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
If passed, the Bill will allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
After passing its initial stages in the Commons, the Bill has been slow to progress through the Lords as changes – such as potentially stronger assessments for young people seeking an assisted death and further safeguards to prevent so-called ‘death tourism’ – have been debated.
Opponents of the Bill have been accused of trying to ‘talk out’ the Bill as it makes its way through the Lords.
The joint letter to the PM, co-ordinated by Labour MP Peter Prinsley, said: ‘A small number of peers have been using procedural tactics to block the Bill in the House of Lords and it now appears very likely that they will prevent it returning to the Commons before the end of this session.
‘While we fully respect the Government’s neutrality on the principle of assisted dying, we are confident that you would agree with us that we cannot be neutral on the fundamental democratic principle that it is for the elected House of Commons to decide on this matter.’
The letter added: ‘Our constituents, in every part of the country, strongly support a change in the law and it is clear to us that the issue must be resolved sooner rather than later.
‘Our ask is simple. That, whether or not the Bill returns through the private members’ bill ballot after the King’s Speech, time will be found for Parliament to come to a decision in the next session.
‘It would remain a conscience issue for MPs, the Government’s neutrality would be maintained, and it need not take up time reserved for Government business.’
Lord Falconer, a Labour former minister and the Bill’s sponsor through the House of Lords, has said the upper chamber is in danger of being seen as an ‘irrelevant talking shop’ if it does not make progress on the Bill.
He has also insisted the Bill would not be at the ‘end of the road’ should Parliament run out of time to conclude debate on it this session, and has vowed to use a rare parliamentary procedure to override peers.
But Labour MP Karl Turner, who initially backed the Bill but then later withdrew his support, said the legislation ‘isn’t fit for purpose’, adding: ‘That’s the truth. And that’s why it needs to fail.’
Fellow Labour MP Ashley Dalton, who recently stepped down as a Government minister while she continues to receive treatment for breast cancer, said: ‘The assisted dying debate has been called Parliament at its best; it’s the opposite.
‘It’s for Parliament to make good law. It’s not about broad principles; it’s about detail.
‘With most amendments to improve the Bill rejected it remains flawed and unable to protect the vulnerable.’