The Second Reading debate began on Friday, 12 September, when Lord Falconer, as sponsor of the Bill, formally moved the motion: “That the Bill be now read a second time.”

This Second Reading motion must be agreed for the Bill to progress. Once Lord Falconer moved the motion, the Chair formally proposed it as a question to the House, and the debate began.

Because more than 200 Peers originally asked to speak – an unusually high level of interest – the debate was split across two sitting days.

Like all Second Reading debates in the Lords, it took place in accordance with a speakers’ list. Peers indicate their desire to speak, and the Government Whips’ Office, in consultation with parties across the House, then draws up a proposed order of speakers for the debate. At the start of the debate, 180 Peers remained on the list, with 95 scheduled to speak on the first sitting day on 12 September. To keep the timetable on track, the Whips advised backbenchers to limit their remarks to four minutes, aiming to hear from all 95 Peers by approximately 5pm. In the event, the House adjourned at 4:36pm, after the 95th speech.

In addition to hearing from the remaining speakers, the second and final day of the Second Reading debate on Friday 19 September will be when the House makes the decision about whether the Bill should proceed any further. In practice, because a number of amendments have been proposed by Peers, the House will have to make more than one decision.

Peers can amend Second Reading motions in two ways:

• Fatal amendments: These block a Bill entirely, by denying it a Second Reading. Fatal amendments usually change the text of the motion to the effect that “this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading” and sometimes include a reason for doing so (“this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because….”)

• Non-fatal amendments: These allow a Bill to receive a Second Reading, but express concerns about the Bill or request that particular action be taken in relation to it.

A fatal amendment has not been tabled to the assisted dying bill.

However, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean proposed a non-fatal amendment calling for more time to be granted at Committee and Report Stage, and for Government Ministers and officials to provide support to the Bill’s sponsor, Lord Falconer.

The Forsyth amendment proposes to insert the following words at the end of Lord Falconer’s Second Reading motion (“That the Bill be now read a second time”):

“…but that this House calls upon His Majesty’s Government, in the light of the 32nd Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to ensure sufficient time is available for consideration of amending stages of this bill, and to provide full support at ministerial and official level to the peer in charge of the bill for its remaining stages in the House of Lords.”

The amendment refers to the recent report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which warned that parts of the Bill contained scant policy detail, amounting in some areas to “skeleton legislation”. The Hansard Society made similar criticisms in our own recent report, drawing attention to delegated powers of “striking breadth” and to the Bill’s inconsistent approach to parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendments to motions can themselves be amended, to enable the House to vote on the form of words that it most prefers.

Lord Carlile of Berriew moved an amendment to Lord Forsyth’s proposal, aiming to remove the call for ministerial and official support for the Bill. If Lord Carlile’s amendment were agreed to, and Lord Forsyth’s amendment (as amended) were then also carried, the amended Second Reading motion before the House would read as follow:

“That the Bill be now read a second time, but that this House calls upon His Majesty’s Government, in the light of the 32nd Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to ensure sufficient time is available for consideration of amending stages of this bill.”

Once Lord Carlile of Berriew moved his amendment, the Chair proposed the question that his amendment to Lord Forsyth’s amendment be made. The Second Reading debate then formally took place on that question, though in practice this does not effect the content or scope of the debate.

When the debate resumes at 10am, Peers will continue to contribute in the order specified by the final speakers’ list. Accordingly, the next Peer scheduled to speak is Baroness Thornton. The four-minute advisory time limit is expected to remain in place for backbench speeches.

A glance at the list of Peers who are scheduled to speak underlines the remarkable breadth of expertise the Lords brings to scrutiny of the Bill. Notable contributors still to come include:

• Lord (Chris) Patten, former Chancellor of Oxford University, former Governor of Hong Kong, and former Conservative Minister;

• Baroness (Elizabeth) Butler-Sloss, the first female Lord Justice of Appeal;

• Baroness (Thérèse) Coffey, former Deputy Prime Minister;

• Lord (Jonathan) Mance, former Deputy President of the Supreme Court;

• Lord (David) Frost, former Chief Negotiator for Exiting the European Union;

• Baroness (Arlene) Foster, former Democratic Unionist Party leader;

• Lord (Patrick) McLoughlin, former Conservative Party Chairman and Chief Whip and former Chair of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee;

• Lord (Jonathan) Evans of Weardale, former Director General of MI5 and current chair of the Crown Nominations Commission selecting the new Archbishop of Canterbury;

• Lord (George) Carey of Clifton, former Archbishop of Canterbury;

• Baroness (Harriet) Harman, former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party;

• Baroness (Patricia) Scotland, former Commonwealth Secretary-General;

• Baroness (Sheila) Hollins, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and former President of the British Medical Association;

• Baroness (Anne Marie) Rafferty, former President of the Royal College of Nursing;

• Baroness (Ilora) Finlay of Llandaff, Professor of Palliative Care at Cardiff University; and

• The Most. Rev. (Stephen Cottrell), the Lord Archbishop of York

As the debate draws to a close, three Peers will speak for their respective parties and the Government:

• Baroness Pidgeon – Liberal Democrat frontbench spokesperson;

• Lord Wolfson of Tredegar – Conservative Shadow Attorney General; and

• Baroness Merron – Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care.

Finally, any Peer who has moved a motion or amendment has a “right of reply” – a second speech at the end of the debate. These will be delivered in the following order:

• Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who moved the Second Reading motion, will “wind up” the debate, reflecting on some of the key contributions that have been made.

• Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who moved an amendment to the Second Reading motion.

• Lord Carlile of Berriew, who moved an amendment to Lord Forsyth’s amendment.

At the end of his speech, Lord Carlile must decide whether to press his amendment to a vote or seek to withdraw it. Withdrawal requires the unanimous consent of the House (meaning no Peer objects). If he does not withdraw, the House will vote on whether to agree that his amendment to Lord Forsyth’s amendment be made.

The House will then consider Lord Forsyth’s amendment. He, too, must decide whether to press his amendment – either as amended by Lord Carlile’s amendment, or in its original, unamended form – to a vote or withdraw it with the unanimous leave (consent) of the House. If not withdrawn, Peers will vote on the question that his amendment (as amended or unamended) be made.

Finally, the House will turn to the Second Reading motion itself. Depending on the outcome of the two preceding amendments, one of three possible questions will then be put to the House:

• If both Lord Carlile’s and Lord Forsyth’s amendments are agreed to: “That the Bill be now read a second time, but that this House calls upon His Majesty’s Government, in the light of the 32nd Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to ensure sufficient time is available for consideration of amending stages of this bill.”

• If Lord Carlile’s amendment is rejected, but Lord Forsyth’s is agreed to: “That the Bill be now read a second time, but that this House calls upon His Majesty’s Government, in the light of the 32nd Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to ensure sufficient time is available for consideration of amending stages of this bill, and to provide full support at ministerial and official level to the peer in charge of the bill for its remaining stages in the House of Lords.”

• If Lord Forsyth’s amendment (whether it is amended by Lord Carlile’s amendment or not) is rejected: “That the Bill be now read a second time”.

Whatever the final text of the question that is put to the House, the procedural effect of voting for or against them will be the same. In each case, if the question is agreed to, the Bill will receive a Second Reading and proceed to the next stage; if the question is not agreed, then the Bill will fall.

If a Peer intends to oppose a Bill at Second Reading, the usual practice is to table a fatal amendment, rather than oppose the Second Reading question outright. This is considered “desirable in the interests of good order”, as it gives the House notice, via the Order Paper, of any intention to oppose the Bill. In this case, however, no fatal amendment has been tabled. Ordinarily, that would suggest that no division is expected. Moreover, several peers have signalled that they may seek to oppose the Bill at Third Reading instead. Taken together, these factors make a division (a formal vote) on Second Reading unlikely, though still possible.

If the Bill is given a Second Reading, Peers will then need to decide what form the Committee Stage proceedings should take.

Committee Stage in the House of Lords usually takes one of two forms:

• Committee of the Whole House: The entire House of Lords meets in the chamber to consider the Bill. Any Peer may take part. Divisions can be held on clauses and amendments.

• Grand Committee: This takes place outside the main chamber, in the Grand Committee room (known as the Moses Room). Any Peer may take part, but no divisions can be held, so decisions to make changes to the Bill must be unanimous.

If the Bill is given a Second Reading, Lord Falconer will move that it be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, the stronger of the two scrutiny options.

However, once that motion is moved, Baroness Berger has given notice that she will move an amendment seeking to delay the Committee Stage until a select committee has first reported on the Bill. Committing a Bill to a select committee is highly unusual; the last known example appears to be the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, introduced in the 2004-05 Session. The principal argument for establishing a select committee is that, unlike Public Bill Committees in the House of Commons, the House of Lords Committee Stage does not involve oral and written evidence. Appointing a select committee would give Peers the opportunity to gather both forms of evidence before scrutinising the Bill clause-by-clause.

Baroness Berger must decide whether to move her amendment. If she chooses not to, another Peer may do so, but only with the unanimous consent of the House. If the amendment is moved, Peers will vote on whether to agree that the amendment be made.

The House will then vote on Lord Falconer’s motion – whether amended or not – that the Bill be committed This question is likely to be agreed without a division.

Once the Bill is committed, Baroness Berger has a second motion on the Order Paper to formally appoint the select committee. The motion sets out some detail about how the select committee she has proposed will operate, namely:

• Remit: “to consider the safeguards and procedures contained in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill”

• Witnesses: “that the Committee shall hear evidence only from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers”

• Timetable: “that the Committee do report by 31 December”

If this motion is agreed as well as Baroness Berger’s earlier amendment, establishing a select committee with a 31 December deadline could delay the Bill’s Committee Stage by more than two months. This motion is amendable, and because it has not yet been moved, Peers may still table amendments to it in advance of Friday’s sitting, if they wish to propose an alternative structure, remit or deadline for the committee.

The relationship between Baroness Berger’s two motions – and the way they are worded – is crucial.

The first motion is explicit: it stipulates only that the Committee Stage cannot begin until a select committee appointed by the House has reported. The second motion would establish such a committee; specifically, it states “that it is desirable that a select committee be appointed to consider the safeguards and procedures contained in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill….” This phrasing suggests that, even if the first motion to delay Committee Stage is defeated, because Peers fear unnecessary delay, the second motion could still be moved and agreed to. That would allow a select committee to be set up to run in parallel with clause-by-clause scrutiny in Committee of the Whole House.

Because the House of Lords typically makes most of its amendments to a Bill at the later Report Stage, many Peers may view this as a reasonable compromise – supporting further detailed scrutiny without inviting accusations of deliberate obstruction. However, Baroness Berger would need to decide whether to move her second motion.

One alternative to establishing a dedicated select committee would be for an existing Lords select committee, for example, the Public Services Committee, to initiate its own inquiry and take evidence. This was proposed by several Peers prior to the Second Reading debate, but the necessary motion(s) to make it happen have not been tabled. An existing committee could take evidence in the intervening two weeks between the House’s return from recess on 13 October and the first scheduled sitting of Committee Stage on 24 October, without delaying the Committee Stage or requiring formal approval from the House or the Government. However, existing select committees may not fairly reflect the balance of opinion on assisted dying in the House. If its members were disproportionately supportive or disproportionately opposed to the Bill, this might undermine wider confidence and trust in the process.