Esther Rantzen says peers’ tactics put assisted dying bill at risk — next steps could invoke the Parliament Act

Why this matters now: As the parliamentary session nears its end and fewer than six days remain for debate, the assisted dying measure that passed the Commons looks likely to fail in the Lords — a situation that has pushed backers toward an extraordinary constitutional route. esther rantzen has publicly accused opponents of deliberate obstruction, and campaigners are now weighing whether to force the issue in the next session.

Esther Rantzen and campaigners press a rare procedural option that would change how the standoff is resolved

Supporters, including the bill’s backers, have sought legal and constitutional advice about using the 1911 Parliament Act to override repeated obstruction in the Lords. They describe that move as a high-stakes “nuclear option” and say it would be the first time the 1911 Act is invoked for a private member’s bill. If pursued, the Commons would need to reintroduce and pass the identical text in the new session to trigger the override mechanism; backers say they have extensive advice that they can force peers to vote on the bill unamended in the next session.

How the bill reached this point and the procedural bottlenecks now blocking it

The assisted dying proposal, aimed at allowing assisted dying for terminally ill people with less than six months to live, was put forward by a backbench MP, Kim Leadbeater, and secured a majority in the House of Commons. It did not have government sponsorship, but the government allowed a free vote so MPs were not whipped.

When the measure moved to the House of Lords, a small number of opponents introduced a large number of amendments. Those tactics have used up available debate time so that the bill cannot be voted on before the current parliamentary session ends in May. With fewer than six days left for debate, the Labour whip in the Lords, Roy Kennedy, has told a parliamentary committee that the government will not give the bill additional time because of a limited number of sitting Fridays left in the session. Extending the session to make room for the bill would be an extraordinary move, and the government has not taken that step.

Reactions in play, including claims of sabotage and the emergence of ‘religious lobbyists’ as a cited factor

• Some supporters view the Lords’ tactics as undermining the primacy of the Commons; they call the obstruction undemocratic and contrary to parliamentary spirit.
• Opponents in the Lords say the Commons did not sufficiently scrutinise the legislation and that delaying tactics are part of holding the bill to account.
• Dame Esther Rantzen has accused some peers of "blatant sabotage" and has blamed religious lobbyists as the bill falters.

Here’s the part that matters: if the bill cannot clear the Lords before the session ends, MPs will have to restart the process in the next session — and that restart is the hinge for any attempt to use the Parliament Act.

Practical routes forward and historical context that frames the gravity of the choice

There are two formally noted ways to press the Parliament Act path: a supporter could adopt the mechanism at the next private member’s bill ballot, or the government could give the bill time to return to the Commons. After the session ends, the bill must be reintroduced and passed again in the new session, and must be exactly the same version as previously approved by the Commons to qualify for the override route.

It is notable that the revised Parliament Act of 1949 has been used only a handful of times since then to enact laws without Lords’ consent, including landmark measures that changed settled policy. That historical rarity underlines why some backers describe the planned tactic as extraordinary.

• Key takeaways: supporters are preparing a constitutional route; opponents argue the Commons skipped thorough scrutiny; timing — fewer than six days left for debate before the session ends in May — is decisive; the government declined to extend the session, and the Lords’ limited sitting Fridays were cited as the reason for no extra time.

The real question now is whether MPs will retry the measure as a private member’s bill and attempt the Parliament Act path, or whether political pressure will produce a different compromise in the next session. A brief rewind: the bill passed the Commons but has stalled in the Lords; the backers named in the context are Kim Leadbeater and Charles Falconer, and the Lords’ Labour whip referenced is Roy Kennedy.

It’s easy to overlook, but invoking a century-old override for a private member’s bill would set a notable constitutional precedent and is treated as a last resort by those proposing it. In a related broadcast interview noted in the available material, the record of what was said after a certain point is unclear in the provided context.

The material above contains the distinct facts available in the briefings provided; details may evolve as the parliamentary calendar and legal advice develop.