Esther Rantzen attacks peers and 'religious lobbyists' as assisted dying bill falters — why efforts have been thwarted

The Commons-backed effort to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people with less than six months to live is on the verge of collapse, and esther rantzen has accused peers of "blatant sabotage" while also blaming "religious lobbyists" as the bill falters. The failure to clear the House of Lords before the parliamentary session ends in May leaves campaigners weighing rare, high-stakes parliamentary options and planning a further fight next session.

Why the assisted dying bill has stalled

The bill, proposed by backbench MP Kim Leadbeater and supported by a Commons majority, is struggling in the House of Lords. A small number of opponents in the Lords have tabled so many amendments that there is not enough time for a final vote; there are less than six days left for debate before the session ends in May. The legislation did not have government sponsorship, though No 10 permitted a free vote of MPs and the Commons did not whip the vote.

Esther Rantzen: accusations, 'blatant sabotage' and 'religious lobbyists'

Dame Esther Rantzen has publicly accused some peers of "blatant sabotage" and has blamed "religious lobbyists" as the assisted dying bill falters. She spoke to a broadcaster on Thursday; what she said there is unclear in the provided context. Supporters describe the Lords' tactics as frustrating a mandate passed by the elected chamber, while opponents argue the Commons did not provide sufficient scrutiny.

Parliamentary mechanics: why time is running out

The Labour whip in the House of Lords, Roy Kennedy, told a parliamentary committee that the government would not allocate more time to the bill because there are a limited number of sitting Fridays left. The government could have extended the parliamentary session to give more time, but doing so would have been an extraordinary step. With the clock ticking, campaigners and MPs are assessing procedural options for the next session.

The 'nuclear option': invoking the 1911 Parliament Act

Backers of the bill, including Kim Leadbeater and Charles Falconer, have taken advice on using an archaic parliamentary procedure to force the measure through next session. The tactic described by some supporters as the "nuclear option" would involve invoking the 1911 Parliament Act — as revised in 1949 — to override repeated Lords blockages. If used for a private member's bill, it would reportedly be the first time that Act has been applied in that context.

• The revised Parliament Act has been used only a handful of times historically.
• Past examples of its use include laws that decriminalised homosexuality and banned foxhunting.
• To trigger the Act's override mechanism, the bill must be reintroduced and passed again in the new session in exactly the same form as the Commons originally passed it.

Paths forward: ballots, government time and political calculation

There are two routes identified for invoking the Parliament Act mechanism next session: a supporter can adopt the measure at the next private member's bill ballot, or the government can give the bill time to return to the Commons. MPs who back the bill are expected to try again with another backbench bill in the new session if the Lords block the current text.

Supporters argue it is undemocratic for peers to frustrate a Commons majority, stressing the principle that the elected chamber should have primacy. Opponents counter that Lords are fulfilling their role by scrutinising legislation, and that the bill lacks government sponsorship and electoral mandate as part of a party manifesto — factors that have emboldened peers to press amendments.

With fewer than six days of debate left in the current session, the immediate outcome looks bleak for the bill. Campaigners are preparing for a renewed effort next session and have signalled readiness to test constitutional boundaries; the legal and procedural advice they cite underpins a possible, unprecedented push to force peers to accept the Commons' version unamended.