After the Bill was shown to be irreparably flawed in the last session – during which it used up large amounts of parliamentary time and political energy – the same Bill is now being brought back by Lauren Edwards MP.

If the Bill passes at Second Reading, it would dominate not only the remainder of the parliamentary session but also the rest of the Parliament, given the implementation period would likely carry on until 2031. 

This Bill would put vulnerable people at risk, as outlined by numerous Royal Colleges, institutions that would be responsible for implementing the Bill and groups representing vulnerable people.

Even since Lauren Edwards announced her intention to reintroduce the Bill, the Royal College of Physicians, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder charity, the British Association of Social Workers and the British Geriatrics Society have all reiterated their serious concerns with the Bill.

Of particular concern is the possibility of the Parliament Acts being used to force this Bill into law and hold the House of Lords to ransom. Contrary to the misleading claims of campaign groups that a small number of Peers blocked the previous Bill in the House of Lords, nearly 150 Peers actively opposed the Bill in the Lords, including a former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and President of the British Medical Association, the former Chief Executive of NHS England, a leading Professor of palliative medicine, the former Chief Nursing Officer, Peers living with disabilities, and legal experts, including two former Attorney Generals and the former President of the Family Division of the High Court.

Sir David Beamish, the respected former Clerk of the Parliaments, confirmed that “we haven’t seen anything look like filibustering” after campaigners began to make this claim, while both the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Hansard Society stated at the start of Lords scrutiny that there was no constitutional prerogative for the Lords to pass the Bill and return it to the Commons, since the Bill was not a manifesto commitment at the last General Election.

In its lead article, The Times newspaper said that the use of the Parliament Acts for the assisted suicide Bill would be “unconscionable” and a “constitutional outrage”. The Parliament Acts have never been used for a Private Members’ Bill and it would be deeply irresponsible for MPs to pass the same, dangerous Bill to the House of Lords once again in the hope that Peers could somehow fix it, knowing that the flawed Bill would become law with all its defects if Peers are unable to support the Bill or scrutinise it fully within the time constraints of a Private Members’ Bill.

Introducing assisted suicide is not a public priority at the moment. In a landmark new poll, it came bottom of a list of possible law changes that the public wanted their MPs to focus on in this new session, with just 7% of the public listing it as a priority, and only 8% supporting forcing a non-manifesto Bill into law without the approval of both Houses, as would be the case if the Parliament Acts were invoked (full details on the MRP polling, including constituency level data for every consituency in Great Britain is available here).

We are at a time when MPs need to come together to focus on the core issues facing our country. The last thing Britain needs now is for another divisive battle over a controversial issue that will distract from the public’s priorities. 

MPs should oppose this Bill and instead commit together to investing in better palliative, hospice and social care at the end of life.

Enter your postcode above to use our EasyAction tool to write to your MP and ask them to vote NO to the revived Leadbeater assisted suicide Bill on 11 September 2026.