Jun 24, 2026 · 1 hr 1 min · 9 segments
The last year has seen much discussion of how policymakers should approach changing the law in unusually difficult policy areas. In particular, failed attempts to legalise ‘assisted dying’ at…
Charlie FaulknerGuest
Jane SuiterGuest
Ruth FoxGuest
Tom FlemingHost
And I really am delighted to be here in a Constitution Unit webinar because the Constitution Unit has contributed so much to the development of the Constitution of this country right back in my own experience from 1997 when Labour first came to power in those days.
Could I talk a little bit about the story of the assisted dying bill on this occasion? I've been involved over a long period of time, since approximately 2007, in trying to change the law in relation to assisted dying.
After the 2024 election, Kim Leadbeater came top in the private member's bill in The Commons prior to 2024, the Commons had not shown that much interest in assisted dying as an issue.
The last time that they had looked at it in any detail was in 2015, when there'd been a private members bill introduced by a Labour backbencher, which was defeated two thirds to one third.
So when Kim came top, she adopted assisted dying as her topic and she introduced a bill.
There was an incredibly impressive second reading debate in the Commons in which every issue was looked at very, very well.
Interesting enough, because it was a new Parliament where there had just been a general election in which there were very, very substantial numbers of new MPs, I don't know what the precise number was, but maybe A third to a half of the members of parliament were new on that occasion.
Many of them found it a real burden because there was no whip to indicate what to do, but they took it seriously and it was passed by 33 votes at the second reading.
After the second reading, there was a long committee stage in which various amendments were made, sometimes against the wishes of the sponsor.
There was then a third reading at which the Commons agreed the bill in its amended form, i.e. amended from how it was first introduced, for 23 votes.
It then went to the Lords and it had 16 days of hearing in the laws by which it was being debated.
And the reason why it got no further was because in the Lords, every amendment has to be debated.
There were 1200 amendments put down and the process of dealing with the amendments at committee stage was incredibly slow.
I've not, in my experience, seen ever so many as that put down in any bill of that size.
And the way it's got through is that the Conservatives and the Labour whips cooperate to ensure it happens.
There was no cooperation of any sort in relation to this bill because it wasn't a party political bill.
And when the King's speech occurred for the second session of the Parliament after the 2024 election, it fell through lack of time.
And I really am delighted to be here in a Constitution Unit webinar because the Constitution Unit has contributed so much to the development of the Constitution of this country right back in my own experience from 1997 when Labour first came to power in those days.
Could I talk a little bit about the story of the assisted dying bill on this occasion? I've been involved over a long period of time, since approximately 2007, in trying to change the law in relation to assisted dying.
After the 2024 election, Kim Leadbeater came top in the private member's bill in The Commons prior to 2024, the Commons had not shown that much interest in assisted dying as an issue.
The last time that they had looked at it in any detail was in 2015, when there'd been a private members bill introduced by a Labour backbencher, which was defeated two thirds to one third.
So when Kim came top, she adopted assisted dying as her topic and she introduced a bill.
There was an incredibly impressive second reading debate in the Commons in which every issue was looked at very, very well.
Interesting enough, because it was a new Parliament where there had just been a general election in which there were very, very substantial numbers of new MPs, I don't know what the precise number was, but maybe A third to a half of the members of parliament were new on that occasion.
Many of them found it a real burden because there was no whip to indicate what to do, but they took it seriously and it was passed by 33 votes at the second reading.
After the second reading, there was a long committee stage in which various amendments were made, sometimes against the wishes of the sponsor.
There was then a third reading at which the Commons agreed the bill in its amended form, i.e. amended from how it was first introduced, for 23 votes.
It then went to the Lords and it had 16 days of hearing in the laws by which it was being debated.
And the reason why it got no further was because in the Lords, every amendment has to be debated.
There were 1200 amendments put down and the process of dealing with the amendments at committee stage was incredibly slow.
I've not, in my experience, seen ever so many as that put down in any bill of that size.
And the way it's got through is that the Conservatives and the Labour whips cooperate to ensure it happens.
There was no cooperation of any sort in relation to this bill because it wasn't a party political bill.
And when the King's speech occurred for the second session of the Parliament after the 2024 election, it fell through lack of time.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.