Assisted Dying Bill Returns: What Happens Next?

Last Wednesday, Labour MP Lauren Edwards officially (re)introduced the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to Parliament. 

Originally introduced by Kim Leadbeater in the last session of Parliament and narrowly voted through by the Commons in June 2025, the Bill fell in contemptuous circumstances in the House of Lords, with its supporters accusing opponents of attempting to “filibuster” the Bill by debating it until there was no more Parliamentary time remaining. In total, 1,227 amendments were proposed for the Bill. Even with the Government allowing extra time for the Bill to be debated, by the conclusion of the final Committee session in April 2026, not even half of these amendments had been debated. In other words, it never got close. 

But now, the Bill has a second chance at life. Leadbeater had previously said that the Bill would be reintroduced and, following her second-place finish in this session’s Private Members’ Ballot, Edwards has reintroduced the Bill as it was written following its successful Third Reading in the Commons last year. So, why has it been brought back? What does the Bill’s reintroduction mean for its chances of passing? What obstacles will it still face? And what approach might a potential Andy Burnham Government take? 

Why has the Bill been brought back?

Despite falling in the previous session, supporters of the Bill have made clear they believe it can be passed whether opponents like it or not. 

Lauren Edwards came second in this session’s Private Members’ Bill Ballot, guaranteeing parliamentary time for any Bill of her choosing. If nothing else, the Bill should receive a Second Reading in the House of Commons. 

If it can be passed through the Commons, the barrier will once again be progression in the Lords. This is where the Parliament Act comes into play. Should the Bill fail to be passed by the Lords, be it because the Bill is voted down or it runs out of time, the Commons can choose to invoke the Parliament Act, allowing its passage without approval from the Lords. 

This threat of the Parliament Act being utilised has provided the latest avenue for the debate on the purpose of the House of Lords. Supporters of the Bill have said that since the elected House of Commons have approved the measure, the unelected House of Lords should not be able to prevent its passage. Opponents have argued that the Salisbury Convention, which prevents the Lords from blocking any legislation that is part of an elected government’s manifesto, doesn’t apply to Private Members’ Bills. 

Will the Commons pass the Bill for a second time? 

The ability to use the Parliament Act still doesn’t guarantee that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament. In the Commons, the margin for error is narrow, with just 12 MPs needing to change their minds for the Bill to be voted down. Several MPs who voted in favour of the Bill at Third Reading have indicated that they would not approve of the Bill being forced through with the Parliament Act. At the time of writing, it is impossible to say how many will object to the Bill passing this way. Some might also have voted for the original Bill, knowing further scrutiny would take place in the Lords. If the Bill remains unchanged, will it still carry as much support? 

Also of note is that, unlike in 2024, assisted dying won’t quite be top of the agenda. Lauren Edwards finished second in the Private Members’ Bill ballot, whereas Kim Leadbeater finished first, giving her the priority for the limited time available to discuss PMBs. The Bill’s second incarnation is due to next be debated on 11th September. Daniel Gover, a Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London has noted that the three MPs whose PMBs are set to be debated before Edwards’ all voted against the Bill last year. 

For opponents of the Bill, this means that there could be a strong incentive to make sure their Bills make it past their Second Reading, to limit the time available for Edwards’ Bill. For supporters, the aim could be to talk out each of these Second Reading debates instead, so that their allotted time elapses before a vote can take place. Parliamentary procedure means that if a Second Reading ends before a vote on its passage can take place, a bill’s chances of passing effectively end. 

The composition of Parliament has also changed since last June, when the Bill passed its Third Reading. Four MPs have left the Commons this year: Andrew Gwynne, the former health minister, who voted against the Bill’s final version, and Josh Simons who voted in favour. Neither Stephen Flynn nor Stephen Gethins voted, as the SNP abstained due to the Bill not applying to Scotland. 

The election of Conservative Douglas Lumsden in Aberdeen South has given an advantage to supporters of the Bill in this regard. Unlike the SNP, Scottish Conservative MPs voted on the Bill’s first iteration through Parliament, and Lumsden recently voted in support of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, which was ultimately voted down in the Scottish Parliament. 

As an SNP MP, Lara Bird will not vote on the legislation, while the Green Party’s Hannah Spencer has not made her stance on the issue clear. 

Andy Burnham is the obvious new addition to Parliament since last June, but his influence on the potential passing of the Bill will be discussed below.

The timeline for all of this is unclear. For the Bill to pass under the Parliament Act, it must be essentially identical to the one approved last June. As such, it is unclear when Committee and Report Stage debates will be scheduled, especially if the Bill’s sponsor will not accommodate any changes. Bill timetables are usually set out following Second Reading, so this will be the moment when a timeline will be set out. When the Government pressed through the Hunting Act in 2004, every stage from Second to Third Reading was completed in a single day. However, this expedited process seems unlikely, if not impossible, for a Private Members’ Bill. 

Can the Bill be changed?

Yes - but not before it reaches the Lords. 

To trigger the Parliament Act, MPs must pass the same Bill in the House of Commons two sessions in a row, meaning the Bill MPs vote on must be the same as the Bill they passed last year. However, once the Bill leaves the Commons, plenty of avenues for it to be amended open up. 

First, the Lords still consider the Bill in the same way they would any other. As with all bills in Parliament, it must go through its First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage, and Third Reading in both the Commons and the Lords to pass. If this is completed, the Lords will return the Bill to the Commons, who must agree on the changes, at which point Parliamentary “ping-pong” will take place. Both houses must agree on a final version for a Bill to be passed this way. If the Commons were to reject the Lords’ amendments, then they could still pass the Bill in its original form by using the Parliament Act.

The nature of debate in the Lords is likely to be different should it make it that far. The Parliament Act will cast a shadow over each debate, and it will likely force those who want changes made to the Bill to gather support for a handful of amendments rather than the mass submission we saw in the last session. Opponents to the Bill, whether it be on principle or in practice, will be all too aware that running down the clock will not be an option. 

Can the Commons do anything to change it? 

Yes, and this is where the highly speculated imminent arrival of Andy Burnham as Prime Minister could become crucial. 

Burnham has expressed his support for assisted dying in principle, however he has also suggested that the measure should not be introduced until palliative care is improved. This suggestion of opposition could affect the Bill in a number of ways. 

The simplest consequence is that Burnham could vote against the Bill. Having taken the seat from supporter Josh Simons, it isn’t out of the question that his opposition is the difference in a tight contest. 

More substantially, the House of Commons are able to make what are known as suggested amendments. As Matthew England from the Hansard Society explains, when the Commons deliver a bill to the Lords, they can send with it proposals for amendments that the Lords can add. This provides a workaround for the Commons to make changes to a bill while still working within the parameters of the Parliament Act. 

The catch is that these suggested amendments need specific time to be debated, and in the House of Commons, time is a limited resource controlled by the Government. The question is then whether Andy Burnham would be willing to expend his political capital to facilitate such amendments. Sir Keir Starmer, fresh off his 2024 election win, was able to take a passive approach to the original Bill both because of his strong majority and the fact that the Bill was top of the Private Members’ Bill ballot, giving it priority for time. Burnham, however, would need to actively intervene to assist the Bill’s passing. Whether this is a step he is willing to take while simultaneously trying to coalesce PLP support around his premiership is unclear. 

Burnham could, in theory, renege on Sir Keir Starmer’s conscience-based approach and whip his party against the Bill. Without a doubt, utilising the Parliament Act would be controversial, and may provide an unnecessary distraction to his efforts to rebuild Labour’s reputation with voters after a difficult two years in the polls. The reported opposition of Louise Haigh, a key figure around Burnham, to the Act’s use could also be key to his thinking. 

Regardless, assisted dying could prove to be a key initial test of Burnham’s authority over his party.