Introduction
On 14 June 2026, Lauren Roberts MP announced that she would use her position (second) in the Private Members Ballot to re-introduce the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It appears from her announcement that she intends to bring back the Bill introduced by Kim Leadbeater MP (which I will refer to here as the “Leadbeater Bill” for speed).
Together with my Complex Life and Death Decisions colleagues I do not take a position on whether Parliament should legislate, but do take a strong position that any legislation should be good law, both internally and as part of the wider web of the law. Together with my CLADD colleagues Professor Gareth Owen and Professor Katherine Sleeman, I have prepared a briefing in June 2026 to set out the problems with the Leadbeater Bill and an alternative way forward for Parliament.
The majority of the resources on this page relate to the Leadbeater Bill; that Bill did not progress beyond the House of Lords in April 2026. It is not entirely clear whether Lauren Roberts MP intends to introduce the Bill as introduced initially by Ms Leadbeater, or the version that left the Commons and was introduced into the House of Lords – I anticipate that it will be the latter, in which case it will look like the version to be found here.
Background and context
The background to the Leadbeater Bill was set out in this Research Briefing from the House of Commons Library. A wider review of the area can be found in the February 2024 report of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee’s inquiry into Assisted Dying / Assisted Suicide (the Select Committee recognising that there is not a consensus as to the name). The British Medical Association has extensive resources on similar legislation around the world. The Nuffield Trust published (29 August 2025) research showing how legislation has been implemented in different jurisdictions to outline the steps that would be required and the implications for health and social care.
The Leadbeater Bill’s progress
This page details the Leadbeater Bill’s progress through Parliament. The Hansard Society had a useful ‘rolling news‘ page on it (including an interview with Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, who drafted the Bill).
Unusually for a Private Members’ Bill, the Bill was scrutinised by a Public Bill Committee. The written evidence submitted (including from me) can be found here. Transcripts of the oral evidence sessions held between 28 January and 30 January can be found here. The House of Lords Library has published a report which includes a clause by clause explanation of the Bill as introduced in the Lords, explains changes made to it at report stage in the House of Commons and summarises the Commons third reading debate. To see what amendments were made to the Bill, and by whom, at the Public Bill Committee, you can also look at this (unofficial) version of the Bill I prepared following the Committee stage (note, at the point of preparing it, it was unclear precisely where some of the new clauses were going to be located; not all my guesses were correct).
An impact assessment, an equality impact assessment and a human rights memorandum were published by the Government, and updated to reflect the Bill as it entered the Lords. It should perhaps be noted that the impact assessment was not conducted “to ensure that it was workable, effective and enforceable” as suggested in the statement from Lauren Roberts MP on 14 June 2026. Such an impact assessment would be produced for Government legislation; as part of its standing responsibility (a so-called “duty to the statute book”) to ensure that legislation passed is workable, effective and enforceable, the Government sought to mirror this approach for Ms Leadbeater’s Bill even though it was a Private Member’s Bill (and the impact assessment makes clear at numerous points the difficult of completing one without all aspects of the policy being fully developed). However: (a) the Government was not, itself, asserting at that stage that the Bill was workable, effective and enforceable; and (b) the debates in the House of Lords identified numerous concerns about workability, effectiveness and enforceability with the Bill as it stood, some (but not all) of which Lord Falconer sought to meet by proposing amendments. It is not at present clear how those 77 amendments could be reproduced in any Bill to be passed by the House of Commons if the Parliament Act procedure is to be used to compel the House of Lords to accept that Bill (as that procedure can only be used in relation to the same, identical, Bill passed twice by the House of Commons).
The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published a report (8 September 2025) criticising the significant use of delegated powers (i.e. secondary legislation) in the Bill, and recommending a considerable number of changes to ensure appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny of the powers being created. It published a second report in March 2026 addressing amendments proposed by Lord Falconer, the Bill’s sponsor in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Constitution Committee published a report (11 September 2025) criticising the use of delegated powers and suggesting that it is “constitutionally appropriate” for the House of Lords to scrutinise the assisted dying bill “and, if so minded, vote to amend or reject it.”
The House of Lords convened a Select Committee to consider the Bill, which heard from witnesses in late October / early November 2025. The transcripts of the oral evidence given by witnesses can be found here; their written evidence can be found here. My oral evidence to the Committee can be found here, and my written evidence here (with a supplementary note here).
The Bill itself
Together with Professor Gareth Owen and Professor Katherine Sleeman, I have prepared a briefing (June 2026) on why the Leadbeater Bill – and, by extension, the Bill likely to be proposed by Lauren Edwards MP – is not good law and a way forward for Parliament in September 2026 when any new Bill is introduced. We have, separately, prepared more detailed briefings on eligibility, capacity, eating disorders, the preliminary discussion, multi-disciplinary consideration, and the Panel, as well as a briefing explaining the difference (in clinical and legal terms) between refusing treatment and assisted dying.
Probing the Bill
Those who want to think more about the issues to which the Bill gives may find useful the following:
- This recording of a seminar held at KCL in October 2024 at the point when it was announced that Kim Leadbeater would bring forward legislation. The survey we spoke to there can be found here.
- This explainer I recorded in February 2025 around myths about capacity that emerged during the Bill Committee in the House of Commons;
- A recording of a video in November 2025 I did going into more detail about capacity, decisions to end one’s own life and the TIA Bill
- This recording of a webinar held on 2 April 2025 by 39 Essex Chambers together with the CLADD with an update on the Bill and emerging flashpoints
- This podcast episode from the 1 Crown Office Row-hosted Law Pod UK in which Rosalind English and I reflect on the Bill so far. Part 2, in which the Canadian experience is discussed with Dr Mona Gupta and I is here.
- A blog that I did for the Socio-Legal Studies Association as part of its series on assisted dying (which I recommend more broadly) on the interaction between the TIA Bill and suicide prevention.
The views of relevant professional bodies
A number of bodies representing key professionals or organisations who will be directly involved in the implementation of any legislation set out their views in relation either to the Leadbeater Bill specifically, or assisted dying / assisted suicide more broadly. I have missed anything, or missed off a body, please do email me at alex.ruckkeene@39essex.com.
The impact assessment published on 2 May 2025 contained (at page 103) a useful breakdown of which professional bodies had adopted what views – and, importantly – the percentages in any consultation exercises underpinning those views.
The view of the British Medical Association can be found here, and its wider work on what it calls physician assisted dying here. The written evidence they submitted to the Bill Committee can be found here, the oral evidence given by Dr Andrew Green on the BMA’s behalf can be found here here.
The General Medical Council’s views can be found in the oral evidence given by Mark Swindells to the Bill Committee on the GMC’s behalf, to be found here.
The view of the Royal College of Physicians can be found here (updated on 9 May 2025). An updated joint statement with the Royal College of Psychiatrists can be found here. The RCP published a further statement on 18 June 2026 in response to the news that a further Bill is to be introduced.
The view of the Royal College of GPs can be found here. The written evidence they submitted to the Bill Committee can be found here, and the oral evidence given on their behalf by Dr Michael Mulholland can be found here.
The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges submitted written evidence to the Bill Committee to be found here.
The view of the Association of Palliative Medicine can be found here. The written evidence they submitted to the Bill Committee can be found here, and the oral evidence given on their behalf by Dr Sarah Cox is to be found here.
The view of the Royal College of Psychiatrists can be found here (updated 13 May 2025). The written evidence they submitted to the Bill Committee can be found here, and the oral evidence given on their behalf by Dr Annabel Price can be found here. A joint statement with the Royal College of Physicians can be found here.
The view of the Royal College of Pathologists can be found here.
The view of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society can be found here. The written evidence they submitted to the Bill Committee can be found here.
The view of Hospice UK can be found here. The written evidence they submitted to the Bill Committee can be found here, and the oral evidence given on their behalf by Sam Royston is to be found here.
The view of the British Geriatric Society can be found here. The written evidence they submitted to the Bill Committee can be found here.
The judiciary will have a key role under the Bill, but there is as yet no public statement from (for instance) the Lady Chief Justice.
The Chief Medical Officers will have an important role; they have provided this advice (alongside NHSE) for doctors in relation to debates around the Bill. Professor Sir Chris Whitty gave oral evidence to the Bill Committee to be found here.
Solicitors are not mentioned in the Bill, but will have important roles (not least in advising people about and potentially representing people before the Tribunal). The views of the Law Society of England & Wales can be found here.
Coroners would have a (limited) role, but the Chief Coroner for England & Wales did not made a public statement.
The Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency may well have an important role in terms of approval of the substances to be used, but did not make a public statement.
Whilst nurses are not mentioned in the Bill, the views of the Royal College of Nursing can be found here; Professor Nicola Ranger gave oral evidence on behalf of the College, to be found here (along with the evidence of Duncan Burton, Chief Nursing Officer for England, NHS England).
Whilst social workers are not included in the Bill, the view of the British Association of Social Workers can be found here (updated 8 September) and their written evidence to the Bill Committee here), and the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers here; Glyn Berry gave oral evidence to the Committee on behalf of the Association, to be found here. The Association also published a response to the impact assessment published by the DHSC.
Finally, the Children’s Commissioner published on 7 May 2025 a report on children’s views on assisted dying, noting that children had not been consulted on it at any stage.
Human rights considerations
A human rights memorandum prepared by the Department of Health and Social Care can be found here.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission set out its view here. The Commission did not submit written evidence to the Committee, but the Commission’s then-Chair, Baroness Falkner, gave evidence which can be found here.
The British Institute of Human Rights set out its view here.
Liberty set out its view here.
Disclaimer
For the avoidance of any doubt, any views I have set out on this page, or on pages linked to it which express views on the Leadbeater Bill, or any Bill introduced by Ms Roberts, are mine alone, and do not represent the views of organisations I am affiliated with or working with an ongoing basis.
