The Terminally-Ill Adults (end of Life) Bill seems increasingly likely to fail through lack of time, sharing the fate of most Private Members’ Bills. The Bill has been given much more time than PMBs are usually afforded, but it is vastly longer. Since 1999, the average length of a successful PMB has been 4 pages. This Bill runs to 51 pages and is controversial not only in its principles but also in many of its detailed provisions, for example the way that it relies on delegated powers (42 of them).
Faced with the prospect that the Bill may well run out of time, Lord Falconer has accused Peers who are critical of the Bill of ‘filibustering’ by tabling hundreds of unnecessary or unworkable amendments to prevent it from making progress.
Lord Falconer has even argued that, if the Bill runs out of time in the Lords, the House of Commons should use the Parliament Act to force it through the next session of Parliament. Though this is possible in principle, it would be unprecedented and challenging to orchestrate. The procedure has never before been applied to a PMB. Others have gone further and argued that, while it is clearly within the current powers of the Lords to delay or even block a Bill that is not a manifesto Bill or a money Bill, if the Lords do not pass a Bill that has overwhelming public support (as much as 79% is cited) then the House of Lords must be reformed.
These arguments are based on appeal to public opinion but what do the public actually think of the behaviour of the Lords? Do people support the idea of using the Parliament Act to push the Bill through without the approval of the House of Lords?
Some evidence for public opinion on these questions can be found in recent polling by More in Common. Just over half of those asked (52%) stated that they would regard the Bill running out of time as a ‘bad outcome’. In contrast, less than half (44%) expressed the belief that this outcome would be due to the House of Lords deliberately trying to delay the Bill rather than due to the time taken to go through legitimate concerns.This figure is virtually unchanged from 43% in polling in December 2025. This shows that people may be disappointed by a result (as they may be disappointed by another athlete coming fourth in the Olympics) and yet accept that a ‘bad outcome’ does not imply there was something wrong with the process.
A spokesman for More in Common claimed that 83% of people nevertheless support reintroducing the Bill in the next session. However, this interpretation of the survey rests on a mistake, as the question did not ask if people wanted the Bill introduced next session but only asked about the requirements for Bill to be passed if it were reintroduced. On this question, only 46% stated that the Bill, if reintroduced, should have to pass through the House of Commons but not the Lords (i.e. that the Parliament Act should be used).
Thus according to polling by an organisation closely associated with Kim Leadbeater MP, the sponsor of the Bill, only a bare majority would regard the failure of the Bill in the Lords as a ‘bad outcome’, fewer than half would blame this outcome on deliberate obstruction by Peers, and most would not be in favour of use of the Parliament Act in the next session.
The public support for rigorous scrutiny by the House of Lords, even if this leads to a Bill running out of time, conforms with earlier polling by More in Common which showed that support for legalising of assisted dying / assisted suicide is contingent on ensuring adequate safeguards through rigorous scrutiny. Members who are seeking to pass this Bill may feel frustrated by the pace of the process, but there is no evidence that most members of the public resent the time and effort the Upper House has taken to scrutinise this lengthy and contentious Bill. If the Bill fails this will be due to flaws in the Bill not due to flaws in our democratic process.
The majority of the public do not think that the Lords are filibustering on assisted dying
