Assisted dying: what happens now the House of Lords has the bill?

MPs have voted to introduce assisted dying, almost seven months after this bill was first debated in the House of Commons. The proposal – a backbench private member’s bill promoted by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater – would allow terminally ill people in England and Wales to receive assistance to end their lives.

That the bill has completed its House of Commons passage is an important milestone. Its success is perhaps also surprising given that private members’ bills face a precarious route through that chamber. Even a small number of determined opponents is often enough to derail them.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

But that has not materialised in this case. MPs on all sides of the debate deserve credit for enabling the bill to be decided on its merits rather than by procedural subterfuge and political game-playing.

Even so, the bill’s passage into law is not yet assured. It must now go through an equivalent series of legislative stages in the House of Lords. If the Lords makes any changes, these must in turn be agreed to by MPs – potentially setting off a process of compromise known as “ping-pong” – before the bill can enter the statute book.

This has led to speculation around whether the Lords could block the legislation.

Unlikely to block the bill outright

Stereotypes of the Lords as a holdout of social conservatism are now largely out of date. Indeed it is the Lords that has, to a large extent, kept the issue of assisted dying on the political agenda. Prior to Leadbeater’s bill, peers proposed a series of private members’ bills on this topic – including in 2014, 2020, 2021 and 2024. None, however, made it through the chamber.

Despite this recent history, it is difficult to predict exactly how the Lords will respond to this assisted dying bill. As an unelected and largely appointed chamber, the Lords contains many members with expertise directly relevant to the bill, including medical, legal and disability rights. For many peers, the Lords’ central constitutional purpose is to subject proposals to in-depth scrutiny – and they will surely want to do so here.

In principle, it would be possible for the Lords to reject the assisted dying bill outright. The often-cited Salisbury convention, which states that peers should not block any proposal in the governing party’s election manifesto, would clearly not apply to this backbench measure.

Yet such an outcome would appear unlikely. In practice, it is exceptionally rare for any bill to be rejected outright by peers. This is in large part because the chamber recognises that it should be for the elected House of Commons to set the direction of policy, with the Lords playing a supporting scrutiny role.

Whatever the chamber’s balance of opinion on assisted dying – and some peers may well be individually willing to vote it down – the chamber as a whole seems likely to conclude that they would be playing with constitutional fire to reject such a high-profile bill that has been passed on a free vote by MPs.

In-depth scrutiny

What is more difficult to call is whether the bill could run out of time before it has completed its passage. The last time an assisted dying bill made significant progress in the Lords, a decade ago, it became mired in hundreds of amendments and never made it out of committee stage.

Given the gravity of this bill, and the degree of Lords expertise, there is likely to be significant demand to conduct in-depth scrutiny and to make amendments to the legislative text. Unlike in the House of Commons – where only a small number of amendments are selected by the speaker for a decision – in the Lords, every proposed amendment can be moved and spoken to. All of this will require parliamentary time.

It is also theoretically possible that a small number of opponents could deliberately propose large numbers of amendments purely to gum up proceedings. Most of the time, peers act with restraint – and they would probably do so here too, given the high risk of generating backlash against the chamber. But the combination of strong feelings with a “free-vote” conscience issue makes this harder to definitively rule out.

Adding to the unpredictability is that the timetables available remain uncertain. If the Lords makes any changes to the bill these would need to return to MPs for approval before the bill can pass into law. As things stand, the last available Commons sitting Friday – by default there are only 13 each session, when private members’ bills are considered – is July 11. There is now next to no chance of this deadline being met.

A tight timetable

It is possible in principle for the Lords to expedite scrutiny of the bill. But House of Lords procedures recommend observing minimum periods between bill stages. This ensures there is time, for example, to consider the issues raised at one stage before deciding whether to pursue them further at the next.

Departing from these conventions would be politically unthinkable on a bill criticised by many – largely unfairly – for inadequate parliamentary scrutiny.

Yet it is straightforward for ministers to grant additional time in the Commons. Indeed, it would arguably break with recent practice for time to not be provided. In both cases since 2010 where a regular private member’s bill required additional Commons time for Lords amendments – in 2019 and 2023 – this was provided by the then Conservative governments.

This means that the second key deadline is the end of the current parliamentary session, at which point most outstanding legislation automatically falls. Sessions typically last around one year, and some had expected this one to end sometime in the autumn.

But the length of sessions is elastic – within the control of ministers – and it is not unusual for those immediately after a general election to last significantly longer.

Nor does the Lords operate the same system of private members’ bill Fridays as the Commons, though it would be unusual to schedule substantive debates on them earlier in the week. Either way, there would surely be pressure for sufficient parliamentary time to be found.

Ultimately, one of the stories of this bill’s passage to date has been that the constraints of an often-inadequate parliamentary process have not been allowed to prevent MPs from expressing their will. Many in the Lords will recognise the risks of any situation in which they are now seen to stand in its way.

Daniel Gover does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.