Can the House of Lords block the assisted dying bill?

The assisted dying bill returns to the House of Lords today, but what is the process? And can the Lords reject the bill?

PMBs go through the same legislative stages as government bills. However, a key difference in House of Commons procedure for considering them is that, unlike government-initiated bills, they are not subject to a programme order, which sets out the details of the stages and timetable of a bill after second reading. This means there is less certainty about exactly when further stages will take place.

The process so far:

• After being drawn first in the 2024-26 PMB ballot, Kim Leadbeater introduced her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill into the House of Commons on 16 October 2024 when the bill received its first reading.
• The bill received its second reading on 29 November, following a debate which provided the opportunity for MPs to debate the principle of the legislation. Passing this stage was a key hurdle – the bill avoided being ‘talked out’ (filibustered) and MPs voted by 330 to 275 – on an unwhipped vote – for it to continue to be considered by parliament.
• Following second reading, the Commons sent the bill to a Public Bill Committee for more detailed clause by clause scrutiny. The committee sat 29 times over the course of two months.
• The bill returned to the House of Commons for report stage on 16 May. Because Members did not have time on that day to consider both groups of amendments the debate continued on 13 June.
• The bill returned on 20 June for outstanding votes from report stage before it had its third reading – which it passed.
• The bill is currently receiving second reading in the House of Lords which began on 12 September and will continue on 19 September. A record number of Peers have signed up to speak.

The House of Lords process

The bill is now with the House of Lords  with second reading of the bill scheduled over two days (12 and 19 September). The bill will follow similar legislative stages in the Lords,  however there are some key differences some of which will mean a longer timetable than in the Commons. 

A key tension in the Lords on this bill is between having enough evidence to take a view, and not delaying the process unnecessarily. As of Thursday 18 September, an agreement has been reached between Lord Falconer (sponsor of the bill in the Lords) and Baroness Berger (an opponent of the bill) to establish a select committee in the Lords, ahead of ‘committee stage’. The purpose of this is to put more evidence on the record for members to use ahead of committee stage – a Select Committee has the powers to call for evidence. The Select Committee will have to report by 7 November. This will cause a delay, but not a huge one as the Lords is on recess until 13 October so the committee stage could not have taken place before then anyway. Committee stage may then commence as soon as 14 November.

The government recently announced that the parliamentary session would be extended to next Spring – likely April or May ahead of the local elections – which means the bill is not likely, if it follows this process, to fall due to running out of time.

What are the key procedural differences?

• Control of the timetable – In the Commons PMBs are generally restricted to Fridays for consideration (13 are set out at the start of a session but more can be added if the session is extended – likely in this session). The House of Lords is more flexible; business is timetabled by the Government Whips’ Office in consultation with the usual channels/sponsoring peers; they may choose to schedule PMBs on any day, although the government may be unwilling to give up its time.

• Intervals between stages – Peers expect a suitable interval between each bill stage. There is a minimum recommended interval of two weekends between first and second reading, 14 days between second reading and committee stage, another 14 days between committee and report for bills of considerable length, and three clear sitting days between report and third reading. The committee stage will not now begin until the Lords returns from conference recess on 13 October – or after 7 November if the motion to establish a Select Committee is agreed to at second reading.
• Delegated powers scrutiny – The Lords has a Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that reports on every bill before the Lords, including PMBs. The committee assesses whether powers given to ministers in the bill – of which there are now many due to amendments to the bill in the Commons – are appropriate. The committees’ report published on 8 September highlighted significant issues and concerns warning that some clauses give ministers sweeping powers, equivalent to those that Parliament itself can exercise. It stated that “This is a highly inappropriate formulation that gives sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to the Government while removing Parliament’s scrutiny role for provision that should be in primary legislation, and replacing it with the considerably more limited role of scrutinising delegated legislation.”
• The Constitution Committee – examines the constitutional implications of all public bills and reported on 11 September. The report notes that as the Salisbury convention does not apply and that the bill is a PMB dealing with a morally significant subject that close scrutiny is particularly important. It further states that “The House of Lords plays an important role in the legislative process. It is constitutionally appropriate for the House to scrutinise the Bill and, if so minded, vote to amend, or reject it.”
• Amendments – Unlike in the Commons, amendments are not selected by the Lord Speaker – the house debates and decides on every amendment so we may see some amendments not debated in the Commons reintroduced, and the process may take much longer.  Amendments will be provisionally grouped by the Government Whips’ Office but, unlike in the Commons, any peer may de-group their amendments so they are debated separately.

Can the House of Lords ‘block’ the bill?

Yes technically, the House of Lords could reject the bill at second or third reading or insist on amendments during consideration of amendments (ping-pong) meaning the bill runs out of time (or reaches double insistence). In practice this is very unlikely – some have suggested it would be a ‘constitutional crisis’ others merely that it would be an uncomfortable position for the Lords to put itself in. However, the Bishop of London has said they will lay a motion to defeat the bill at third reading if nobody else does which is something to watch for.

The Lords primarily sees itself as a revising chamber, the precent on government bills is that it goes through ping-pong a maximum of three times before the Lords allow it to go through. The Salisbury Convention – that the Lords do not block government manifesto bills – does not apply here. And it is unlikely for the bill to be ‘filibustered’ or ‘talked out’ because the session has been extended so there is more time for the Lords take the bill through its stages, even if extra days are added, and to get the bill back to the Commons. 

However, because assisted dying was not in the Labour manifesto, is a morally significant topic, and has been put to the electorate, peers may feel freer to amend the bill significantly. The Constitution Committee has stated that in this context “It is constitutionally appropriate for the House to scrutinise the Bill and, if so minded, vote to amend, or reject it.”.

The Commons deliberately avoided procedural tactics to block the bill. It is therefore unlikely the Lords would use procedural manoeuvres to kill it. Instead, they are more likely to subject the bill to heavy amendment and send it back to the Commons in a revised form – including by addressing the delegated legislation issues.

The Parliament Acts allows the Commons, in some circumstances to override a decision by the Lords to reject the bill, after a delay of up to one year. However as this is a PMB, and given the timing of this session, the bill would need to be adopted by the government or far more actively supported so as to extend the session or make more time for the bill to get through the rest of its stages in time. 

What are the next steps?

If the bill passes second reading on 19 September, Lord Falconer will move a motion to commit the bill to a committee of the whole house. Following the compromise agreed with Lord Falconer, Baroness Berger is then expected to move a motion appointing a select committee to hear evidence on the bill. Under the terms of the motion, this committee must report before the bill commences its committee stage. The committee will be instructed to report by 7 November.

Committee stage may then commence as soon as 14 November. At committee, the House must agree each clause of the bill and may propose amendments. The length of committee stage depends on the number of amendments – which is potentially very large, given the 2014 bill had over 200 – and how often peers choose to speak (there is no restriction on speaking more than once to each question in committee).

Peers do not usually push amendments to a vote at committee stage; instead, they probe the sponsor/government’s position and decide what to bring back at Report stage. The GWO originally proposed 4 days for committee stage and it may still be possible (though unlikely) to finish before Christmas. 

After committee comes report stage – another opportunity for amendment. This is where the votes will take place. As a rule of thumb, the House expects to be given half as much time again on Report as they were given for committee (i.e. 3 days Report for a 6 day committee). Unlike in the Commons – where it has become the practice to group all amendments into one or two large groups and therefore votes come right at the end of the debate – divisions in the Lords occur throughout the day, allowing for more focused debate.

After report comes third reading, which (unlike in the Commons) must be taken on a separate day. Unlike in the Commons, amendments may be tabled at 3R to tidy up the bill and reflect any commitments given by the sponsor at previous stages. Immediately after third reading, the House will vote on the question ‘that this bill do now pass’. This is where, if they choose, peers may decide to vote down the bill.

Ping pong then follows; several rounds may be required until any dispute over the final form of the bill is resolved. Once all the amendments have been dealt with, the bill will be sent for Royal Assent. At this stage, the King formally signifies his assent to the bill and it becomes an Act.  

As currently drafted, the Act’s main provisions would not come into effect immediately but either four years after Royal Assent or earlier if determined by the Health Secretary.

During this period, further policy development would be needed. This is because a number of decisions required for operationalisation of the Act would be delegated to the secretary of state, including the power to determine the required qualifications for coordinating doctors, the forms of identification patients would have to provide, the substances that could be used to bring about death, the records that would have to be kept by doctors and the codes of practice that would govern the assisted dying process. 

READ MORE: Labour Party Conference 2025: Full LabourList events programme, revealed

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook.

Share your thoughts. Contribute on this story or tell your own by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

• SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
• SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
• DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
• PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
• ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].