Political sources claim that senior figures involved in Kim Leadbeater MP’s Assisted Dying Bill are privately discussing the possibility of using the Parliament Acts to force the legislation through the House of Lords in the next session, effectively bypassing the upper chamber’s usual ability to block or amend the bill.
According to individuals familiar with the discussions, former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has been “talking up with Govt bypassing the House of Lords entirely using the Parliament Acts — and has been planning this since the summer.”
One source described the tactic as “something very odd… happening behind the scenes.”
The claim has not been publicly confirmed by the Government, although it comes amid growing tensions over the pace of Lords scrutiny and an unusually high number of amendments.
Early Escalation and Public Hints
Supporters of the Bill are alleged to have sought an early confrontation in Committee. “That’s why their first move, within hours of Committee starting, was to cry foul. They WANTED to escalate,” one source said.
Recent public comments have also been interpreted by critics as signalling preparations for more assertive procedural manoeuvres. Leadbeater told Times Radio, “I’m looking at ways…”
ITV’s Paul Brand reported on X:
“At close of debate, the Lords have only managed to get through one group of amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill today, representing 21 amendments in total.
Meanwhile, 82 new amendments were added in the last week alone.
Lords can’t debate them as fast as they’re being added. At this rate the bill will be talked out by peers, unless something changes.”
According to several peers, some have been told privately, “Accept our bill — or we’ll ram it through unchanged next session using the Parliament Acts and you will not have a further say”.
One critic described the approach as “classic bullying”, adding, “Surely the very threat of using the Parliament Acts screams what a poor bill this is.”
How Realistic Is the Parliament Acts Threat?
Constitutional guidance suggests that using the Parliament Acts, which allow the Commons to bypass the Lords in certain circumstances, is procedurally complex and extremely rare.
Opponents argue the threat is overstated. “The Parliament Acts are not a nuclear button. They’re a safety valve protecting Lords’ right to scrutinise,” one commentator said, pointing to the Wakeham Commission, which stated that because there is no check on Parliament, “the will of Parliament must be the product of careful consideration and debate… not wilfully [exercised].”
To force the Bill through next session under the Parliament Acts, supporters would need to overcome several obstacles, including:
- securing a new sponsor who lands in the top seven places in the Private Members’ Bill ballot,
- winning a fresh Second Reading in the Commons, with MPs no longer able to rely on the assumption that “the Lords will fix it”,
- persuading MPs to back a procedure motion to skip Committee and Report stages,
- defeating any opposition motion that seeks to block use of the Parliament Acts, and
- making room for additional Commons sitting Fridays to process amendments.
The Bill’s Commons Third Reading majority was 23, with 32 abstentions, a margin opponents argue may be impossible to replicate without the benefit of government loyalty or the expectation that peers will amend the Bill.
Unusual Amendment Rules Under the Parliament Acts
If the Bill enters a second session under the Parliament Acts mechanism, MPs can table unlimited “suggested amendments”, which fall outside normal scope restrictions. As one critic noted:
“That’s an uncontrolled situation for the Govt!”
The Lords would then have a statutory duty to consider those amendments. Section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 imposes this requirement, although constitutional experts have noted the difficulty of enforcing such a duty in practice. The OPC’s July 2019 guidance explains that suggested amendments may extend far beyond what the Commons could ordinarily introduce.
This extended procedure could add a further year or more before the legislation could reach the statute book. Critics argue that any commencement date would fall after the next General Election, potentially turning assisted dying into a “toxic election issue”.
Political Risk Calculus
Critics question whether No. 10 or senior Labour figures would endorse such a strategy:
“Does anyone see No 10 or Labour colleagues loving that in addition to another two years of this fight? That they’re going to clap the MP on the back who resurrects this Bill? That they will love Starmer for doing this to them? With no electoral mandate to protect them?”
The Government has made no public suggestion that it intends to use the Parliament Acts, and deploying them for a major and contentious social policy measure would amount to a significant constitutional escalation.
Message to Peers
Opponents of the Bill are urging members of the House of Lords not to be swayed by warnings of procedural force. One message circulating among critics reads:
“Do NOT be intimidated by the sabre rattling.
The Parliament Acts exist to protect serious scrutiny, not to let campaigners bulldoze legitimate concerns from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and dozens of disability groups. Stand firm.”
The Office of Parliamentary Counsel’s 2019 guidance on Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 is being widely shared as procedural context. Former Clerk of the Parliaments Sir David Beamish discussed the matter in detail on a Hansard Society podcast, saying the current tensions reflect the level of concern within Parliament.
As debate continues, both supporters and opponents acknowledge that the fate of the Assisted Dying Bill now depends not only on moral arguments but on an increasingly fraught parliamentary process.
