Assisted dying bill fails as time runs out in House of Lords

MPs approved a bill which would have legalised assisted dying in England and Wales. After a passionate and thoughtful debate, 314 MPs backed the bill – 291 voted against. The decision was compared to some of the biggest votes on matters of conscience; the Abortion Act, legalising homosexuality and allowing gay marriage. Campaigners outside Parliament, who had wanted the choice to end their own lives, were emotional and delighted. Beside them in Westminster, opponents of the bill were disappointed. But they insisted the debate was not over. Fast forward to today. After months of debate in the House of Lords, there will be no moment where Parliament makes its final decision in an historic vote. Instead, time has simply run out. It had become increasingly clear as time went on that the Lords would not pass the bill in time. To some, that will be a democratic outrage. Supporters of assisted dying are extremely frustrated at the way this process has played out in the Lords. The Lords does not work like the Commons – so they were all due to be discussed. There simply wasn't the time to debate or vote on all the changes being suggested. For backers of the bill, that is a sign that a small number of peers were able to frustrate the process – and effectively kibosh the will of MPs in the democratic elected part of Parliament. But that isn't everyone's view. Others argue it is the job of the Lords to find problems with legislation – and try to solve them. It might be frustrating to some – they argue - but it is how Parliament is supposed to work. They also point out that some MPs who backed the bill proceeding didn't do so uncritically – they wanted to see more scrutiny and changes. Without them, they may not have backed the bill in a final vote in the Commons. This is a Private Members' Bill – which was brought forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. It can't simply be brought back in the next session of Parliament, like a government bill. Every year, there is a ballot of MPs – with whoever wins getting the chance to suggest new legislation and priority for it to be debated on Fridays. If another MP was so minded, they could bring back the exact same bill in the next Parliament. It's possible the Parliament Act could be used, meaning peers could not block the bill a second time. But experts at the Hansard Society say this would take an "unusual combination of circumstances". Would Parliament be comfortable using this rare process? And would MPs be comfortable with a piece of legislation they couldn't change again? Perhaps a bigger question – do MPs actually want to focus their attentions on something else? Some have suggested Parliament should be focusing on the cost of living and defence – instead of another debate on this complicated and often divisive issue.