Why is the Assisted Dying Bill being rushed through the Lords?

One may hardly be surprised that the battle over life and death in Parliament, focused on Kim Leadbeater’s controversial assisted suicide Bill, has featured Machiavellian manoeuvres inside Westminster’s halls.

As the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister, the cabinet reshuffle, and Nigel Farage’s conference speech dominated the headlines earlier this month, a quiet but significant announcement was slipped out by the government. At 2 pm on 5 September, peers were informed by email that extra time would be given for the assisted suicide Bill’s Second Reading debate in the House of Lords. On the surface, this might look like a practical tidying-up exercise. In reality, it represents a disturbing breach of the government’s own neutrality pledge on one of the most contentious conscience issues of our age.

The Bill, introduced as a Private Members’ Bill, had already attracted unprecedented interest: at one point, over 200 peers requested to speak in the debate. In recognition of this, the government belatedly conceded that a second day was necessary. But the way they handled this decision has raised deep concerns, not least because it sets a dangerous precedent.

Instead of allocating the second day of debate for 24 October – the next agreed sitting Friday – the government took the extraordinary step of changing the parliamentary recess dates, delaying the start of the peers’ break from Thursday 18 September to Friday 19 September to accommodate an extra day for Leadbeater’s Bill. Shuffling recess dates around in this way has typically been reserved for true national emergencies, such as wars, or the sudden collapse of critical industries like British Steel. That such a drastic step has been taken for a mere Private Members’ Bill – irrespective of the subject matter – is rather alarming.

Keir Starmer’s government insists it is neutral on the Bill but its actions are neutrality in name only. In bending parliamentary timetables, the government is, in practice, affording the Bill a privileged status it does not deserve. This is particularly troubling because we are dealing not with routine legislation, but a proposal that would alter the moral and legal fabric of our nation, allowing the deliberate ending of adult human life by the state.

Even more concerning are the implications of this timetable change for the peers who sought to participate in the debate. Many who had hoped to contribute to the Second Reading debate might have assumed that if a second day were to be granted, it would be held on 24 October, previously scheduled as the next Friday reserved for Private Members’ Bills in the Lords. Instead, with just two weeks’ notice, they have been asked to cancel longstanding commitments in order to attend today. To make matters worse, peers must attend both days if they wish to speak at all. This does not facilitate wider participation; it actively restricts it. In effect, the government’s decision will silence voices that had every right to be heard.

If the government can rewrite parliamentary conventions and timetables for a Private Members’ Bill on assisted suicide, what is to stop it from doing the same in future for later stages of this Bill or for other controversial proposals?

Some may claim these interventions merely serve efficiency, ensuring a full debate is held without delay. But efficiency cannot come at the cost of fairness, neutrality, respect for conscience, or longstanding convention. The whole point of granting a free vote to assisted suicide is to ensure the government treats the issue with scrupulous impartiality. This requires No. 10 to stand back, not to interfere in scheduling in ways inconsistent with normal procedure.

Parliamentary conventions exist for a reason. They protect the integrity of our democracy, ensuring that no government, of whatever party, can tilt the playing field to favour a particular outcome. When those conventions are set aside so lightly, especially on matters of life and death, we should be deeply concerned.

The assisted suicide Bill is not just another item of business. It touches on the most profound questions of human dignity, suffering, and the role of the state. Whether one supports or opposes it, surely we can agree that it must be considered under conditions of the utmost fairness and neutrality. In acting as it has, the government risks undermining those principles. The casualties will not only include convention and proper scrutiny; this is a matter of life and death.