The Assisted Dying Bill: Rushed And Lacking Scrutiny, Or Unfairly Criticised?
Kim Leadbeater at a press conference on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, April 2025 (Credit: PA Images / Alamy Stock Photo)
6 min read
Has the assisted dying bill been rushed as critics say? Would the unusually complex Private Members’ Bill have been any better-off as a government bill? The Hansard Society’s Ruth Fox and Matthew England explore
A charge frequently levelled against the assisted dying bill is that it has been rushed through Parliament. Critics argue that a proposal with such profound ethical implications deserved the policy development and procedural weight of a government bill rather than a Private Members’ Bill (PMB). But how fair is this claim?
To date, the bill has received nearly 98 hours of parliamentary scrutiny, with Report Stage and Third Reading yet to be completed. If it proceeds to the House of Lords, it could conceivably receive up to 200 total hours of consideration, placing it among the most heavily scrutinised bills in recent times.
Much of the “rushed” narrative hinges on two distinct phases: the preparation of the bill; and its parliamentary journey.
Kim Leadbeater MP, who introduced the bill after topping the PMB ballot on 5 September 2024, had just 85 days to formulate the policy framework and instruct the drafter before the Second Reading on 29 November.
The 38-page bill was formally published just 18 days before its first debate. This gap prompted criticism but exceeds the recommended minimum interval for government legislation of two weekends between publication and debate. Indeed, it compared favourably with government practice: in the last parliament, the median gap was only 14 days. In this session, MPs had just 13 days to consider the 317-page Crime and Policing Bill, and 11 days for the Border Security Bill and Employment Rights Bill.
However, 67 days to draft legislation on assisted dying is undeniably tight. While there were prior legislative models to draw from, the timescale limited the depth of policy design. The result is a bill that leaves significant operational detail to ministers by conferring 34 powers to make delegated (or secondary) legislation. This raises important questions about democratic oversight, but sadly reflects the practical constraints of developing a complex policy framework at one remove from the machinery of government on a short timetable.
Once the bill was introduced, its consideration by Parliament has been more extensive than that of most government bills, and certainly any PMBs in recent times. Second Reading lasted four hours and 38 minutes – longer than the average three hours afforded to government bills in the last parliament. The Public Bill Committee had 29 sittings, more than for any other piece of legislation this session. In comparison, the expansive Crime and Policing Bill, eight times longer by page count, had only 13 sittings. And the committee logged 88 hours in total, three times the combined time spent on all 49 PMBs that became law in the previous parliament.
On Report, the bill is expected to receive at least two full days of debate. That puts it in rare company: only two government bills this session – Employment Rights, and Children’s Wellbeing and Schools; both significantly longer bills – have had two days at Report.
Criticism has particularly been made of the Committee Stage. Notably, the assisted dying bill broke new ground as the first PMB ever to take oral evidence from witnesses. The committee heard from 50 witnesses, more than any other bill committee since oral evidence was introduced in 2006. However, the witness list did lean in favour of the bill, whereas for a government bill the witness list would have been more evenly divided. Questions have also been raised about the committee’s composition with supporters of the bill modestly over-represented compared to the Second Reading result. But none of the votes in committee were close enough for the composition to be decisive.
Some critics point to the limited number of amendments accepted from opponents. But in the world of legislative process, this is far from unusual. That the committee agreed 41 amendments tabled by MPs other than the sponsor (32 of them from MPs who voted against the bill at Second Reading), of which two were against the sponsor’s wishes, actually makes the assisted dying bill a rarity. Almost all non-government amendments to government bills – often thousands per session – fail. During scrutiny of the 1967 Abortion Bill, another PMB, the only amendments accepted were those backed by its sponsor, David Steel. Rejected amendments are also not without value. If the assisted dying bill reaches the House of Lords, we may see some of them reappear in refined form.
Still, the argument that this should have been a government bill remains compelling. A government-led approach could have offered formal consultation, comprehensive policy development, pre-legislative scrutiny and the symbolic weight of state endorsement. Yet this route is not without its own difficulties. Assisted dying cuts across party lines, making it a difficult subject to include in a party manifesto or for a minister to lead through Parliament. Historically, many major reforms involving matters of conscience – such as abortion and the abolition of capital punishment – were enacted as PMBs.
Originally 43 clauses – now increased to 55 – it dwarfs the seven clauses of the Abortion Act
But this PMB is arguably more complex than any previous one. Originally 43 clauses – now increased to 55 – it dwarfs the seven clauses of the Abortion Act. It establishes a new public body (the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission), amends the Suicide Act, creates nine new criminal offences, and may require changes to the founding principles of the NHS. It also legislates across England and Wales, despite the Senedd’s recent vote against assisted dying. These are not the usual hallmarks of a PMB.
A government bill is not a guarantee of better preparation. They are often criticised by parliamentary committees for poor policy development, inadequate consultation, the inclusion of extensive delegated powers, and poorly executed impact assessments, despite the full resources of Whitehall behind them. The Employment Rights Bill was a skeleton bill on presentation to Parliament and doubled in length to 300 pages during its passage through the Commons, as the government amended it mid-air. Few bills are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and the experience of the Online Safety Bill is proof that this is not a panacea.
When Report Stage proceedings on the assisted dying bill resume on 13 June, MPs will first vote on leftover new clauses from the first day in May. Other leftover amendments may be voted on at the end of the day. While this split between debate and decision is standard procedure, it has been another source of much confusion. It is still unclear whether Third Reading will happen at the end of the debate on 13 June or be pushed to 20 June. If the bill reaches the Lords, it is meant to return to the Commons by mid-July on the final Friday for PMBs this session. But it is not realistic to expect the Lords to scrutinise the bill in less than a month, so more time will likely be needed in the autumn, yet ministers have not confirmed this.
If procedural lessons are to be drawn from this experience with the assisted dying bill, it is not that this bill has been unusually rushed, but that our legislative process – whether for government bills or PMBs – is no longer fit for purpose. The Hansard Society and others have proposed changes for many years. Reform is long overdue, and the Modernisation Committee should make it a priority.
