What might be the Future of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill following its demise in the House of Lords?

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been described by many as one of the most significant shifts in the legal landscape of England and Wales in our generation. Whether this claim overstates the matter is open to debate. What is not in dispute, however, is that the Bill raises profound questions about the relationship between the state and those it governs. Unsurprisingly, its existence, proposals, and suggested amendments have generated extensive discussion and controversy. In this blog series, leading voices in the field of assisted dying reflect on the Bill, what it means for the state to sanction the deliberate and knowing ending of an individual’s life, and how we might tread a path forward.

Alexandra Mullock, University of Manchester & Richard B. Gibson, Aston University

Keywords: Legislative Process, Filibustering, House of Lords, Parliament Acts

As a Private Members’ Bill, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (TIA Bill) failed on Friday, April 24^th, 2026,  with the conclusion of the final day of committee. When this happens, another constitutional first will be attached to the Bill, as it will be the first recorded instance of filibuster tactics, whether deliberate or incidental, being used in the HoL to block a Private Members’ Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons (HoC). There is no parliamentary authority on filibustering, and it is not an official term. Rather, it is recognised as ‘talking out’ a bill during the legislative process, causing the Bill to run out of time. Adding amendments may be seen as a form of filibustering, but the distinction between filibustering tactical amendments and constructive amendments rests on whether the intent is to stop/block the Bill or to genuinely improve and scrutinise it.

Seven members of the HoL have tabled the vast majority of the 1200+ amendments, and since this group is known to oppose assisted dying, we might reasonably assume that, rather than primarily intending to improve the Bill, their aim was to stop it. Baroness Finlay, who was responsible for almost 200 amendments—including amendment 16, which would ban anyone who has been deprived of their liberty (or is awaiting such an assessment) under the Mental Capacity Act from accessing assisted dying—has been one of the leading voices speaking out against assisted dying (AD) for many years. Similarly, Baroness Grey-Thompson (responsible for the pregnancy test amendment) is a well-known opponent. They have been joined by others, including—fresh to the HoL—Baroness Coffey, who was briefly the Deputy Prime Minister in the Truss government. One of Baroness Coffey’s amendments, specifically 246A, seeks to require the terminally Ill person to appear in a court which is open to the public to request assisted death.

Now, we should note here that those who might be characterised as opponents to the bill would, or indeed have, pushed back on the claim (perhaps characterisation) of a concerted effort to filibuster the Bill. Indeed, Lord Harper has done this very thing in a recent episode of Parliament Matters. They have claimed that they are simply doing their job of scrutinising the bill and trying to shape it into the most positive form of future legislation possible.

Following the failure of the Bill in the HoL, what are the chances of the TIA Bill being salvaged? Since it is extremely unlikely to be adopted as a government Bill, the only chance is if it is reintroduced to the HoC as a Private Members’ Bill and then manoeuvred through the HoL using the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. This seldom-used constitutional process aims to assert the democratic supremacy of the HoC by allowing Bills to become law after they are rejected or run out of time in the HoL, provided the Bill is passed by the HoC twice.

The first step, therefore, depends on whether an MP who has won the Private Members’ Bill ballot is willing to present the TIA Bill to the chamber. This is determined by a lottery-style ballot, which MPs may enter. The typical number of MPs entering is not known, as the data is not published. Government ministers are not able to enter the ballot, so from 650 MPs, approximately 530 may enter, and presumably a high proportion will do so as it is an important opportunity to support a law that is meaningful for that MP. 20 MPs will win the ballet, so if we assume that several hundred MPs will enter the ballet, the chances of winning are small. If all permitted MPs enter, the chances are roughly 1 in 26. However, given that the Bill was previously passed in HoC by a small majority, it will almost certainly be the case that several MPs who win the ballot will have voted in favour of lawful assisted dying in June 2025. Whether they would be willing to reintroduce the TIA Bill is another matter, given that to do so would be a far more significant step than simply voting in favour of assisted dying, and/or they may prefer to introduce an alternative Bill that they regard as more important. A second issue is whether any willing MP has been drawn sufficiently high on the list, because if not, the time (on a Friday) for Private Members’ Bills in the HoC might run out before they get their turn. Supporters of the Bill have suggested that the chances of success are as high as 92%; however, MPs who are strongly opposed to the Bill will presumably also be keen to enter the ballot to reduce the chances of a pro-assisted-dying MP reintroducing it, so it is essentially a free-for-all.

There are only seven examples of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 being used, and, as far as we can see, this has never happened for a Private Members’ Bill. The closest was with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which started life as a Private Members’ Bill, before being taken up by the government. According to a parliamentary report on the use of the Acts, though, there is no constitutional convention preventing this. A previous example of this process was seen when the Labour government used the Parliament Acts to force the Hunting Act 2004 through after the HoL rejected a total ban on fox hunting.

The 1911 Parliament Act required a third affirmation in the HoC before it could progress to Royal Assent, but the 1949 Act reduced this to two, with certain requirements as to the length of time needed before the Bill could be sent to the HoL in the second session. If the TIA Bill is introduced and again passes in the HoC, it would then progress to the HoL for a second time. Presumably, it would again be vetoed by the aforementioned peers, but at that point, the Bill could be sent for Royal Assent without amendment or approval from the HoL. With this prospect in mind, opponents of the Bill in the HoL might decide that, rather than pointlessly obstructing it, it would be better to constructively amend the Bill and allow it to pass. If this transpired, the HoL might succeed in amending the Bill to make it more restrictively ‘safe’, but if the HoL ultimately fails to amend the Bill and it becomes law, opponents in the HoL may regret missing the opportunity to influence the safeguards for lawful AD in England and Wales.

Of course, it may be the case that, given the uncertainty with the reintroduction of the TIA Bill to the HoC,  no attempt is made, or such an attempt might ultimately fail to secure a second majority in the HoC. The politics and public perception of a reintroduction might be too unpalatable for MPs to accept. The question then would be whether assisted dying would ever make its way onto the statute books, and if so, when?

We cannot provide any firm answers here. What we can do, however, is note the history that led to the TIA Bill’s introduction to the HoC. And if we take the long view—from the 1936 Voluntary Euthanasia (Legislation) Bill, to Lord Raglan's Voluntary Euthanasia Bill in 1969, through the various iterations of Lord Joffe’s Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill in the 2000s, to the 2014/2015 Assisted Dying Bill by Lord Falconer, and many more—we see that the idea of assisted dying is a persistent one, so it seems inevitable that another assisted dying Bill will return to parliament. The TIA Bill is simply the latest formulation. Does this mean that persistence will eventually pay off? It could very well be that, regardless of how many times the prospect of assisted dying is put forward, it simply cannot make it over the legislative hump. Or it might be that persistence may win out at the end of the day. Unfortunately, we have no crystal ball, but as our closest neighbouring jurisdictions, including some UK Crown Dependencies and France, choose to cross this Rubicon, the pressure to allow AD will only grow.