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 the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, the stronger of the two scrutiny options.

Once Lord Falconer moves his motion, 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 in the 2004-05 Session.

Supporters of a select committee argue 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 does not, 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 adopt it. The House will then vote on Lord Falconer’s motion – whether amended or not – committing the Bill.

Baroness Berger initially tabled two motions:

• an amendment to delay the Bill’s Committee Stage until a select committee had reported; and

• an amendment to set the committee’s remit and require it to report by 31 December.

While many Peers may welcome the idea of drawing on select committee evidence to strengthen scrutiny of the Bill, supporters feared the plan’s real aim was to push the Committee Stage into the New Year, risking that the Bill would simply run out of time before the end of the Session in Spring 2026.

Since the opening day of the Second Reading debate on Friday 12 September, Baroness Berger and Lord Falconer have therefore been in talks to find a compromise. In a joint letter to Peers on Wednesday 17 September, they announced that an agreement had been reached.

Baroness Berger’s first motion - delaying Committee stage until a select committee reports – still stands. But just 24 hours before the Second Reading debate resumes, she has withdrawn her second motion and replaced it with a revised version.

• Original wording: "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; that the Committee shall hear evidence only from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers; and that the Committee do report by 31 December."

• New wording: "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; that the Committee shall hear evidence from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers; that the Committee, notwithstanding the usual practice of the House, may report by drawing the attention of the House to the evidence received without making recommendations; and that the Committee do report by Friday 7 November."

The agreement represents a compromise between supporters and opponents of the Bill. Lord Falconer has accepted Baroness Berger's proposal to appoint a select committee and her original amendment to delay Committee Stage until that select committee reports. In return, Baroness Berger has made two significant concessions:

• A shorter deadline: Her original proposal required the select committee to report by 31 December, delaying the Committee Stage, scheduled to begin on 24 October, by more than two months. The revised motion sets a much tighter deadline of 7 November.

• A limited reporting remit: Normally, when a bill is sent to a select committee, the committee gathers evidence and recommends whether the bill should proceed, and if so what amendments it might need. If the committee advises against the bill it cannot proceed any further unless the House votes specifically to allow the Committee Stage to go ahead. If the committee does not recommend against the bill, then it will proceed to Committee of the Whole House. The revised motion breaks with this normal practice of the House. The select committee is not required to recommend changes or pronounce on the assisted dying bill’s future. It may simply publish the evidence it gathers – from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and Ministers – without drawing conclusions.

Three outcomes are possible, listed here in the order we think are most likely to happen:

• Delay Committee Stage until the select committee reports: Peers could agree to all three motions, as Lord Falconer and Baroness Berger are urging. The Bill would be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, but the Committee Stage would not begin until the select committee has presented its evidence to the House by 7 November.

• Run Committee Stage and the select committee in parallel: Peers could back Lord Falconer’s motion to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House and agree to create a select committee, but decline the amendment to delay the Committee Stage. In this case, the Committee Stage would start on 24 October as planned, while the select committee gathers evidence and reports by 7 November.

• Proceed without a select committee: Peers could commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House but reject both of Baroness Berger’s motions, allowing the Committee Stage to go ahead without any select committee or formal evidence-gathering process.

If the Bill is given a Second Reading and the House votes to establish a select committee, Peers will then have to decide how to set up the select committee and how to adjust the timetable for the Bill’s Committee Stage, should the House require that Stage begin only after the select committee reports by 7 November.

• Membership and chair: The Committee of Selection will propose the committee’s members and chair for the House to approve. Unlike the Commons, there is no formal rule on political balance. If there is no formal vote (division) at Second Reading, it will be harder to ensure the committee reflects the full range of opinion in the Lords. Even if there is a division, it may not accurately reveal the split between supporters and opponents, as some opponents may hesitate to block the Bill at that stage.

• Witnesses: The select committee itself will decide which witnesses to call and how many. In the House of Commons, this process drew criticism over which witnesses were (or were not) invited to give evidence.

• Report: Although the committee is not required to recommend changes to the Bill or take a position on its future, it must still agree how to present the evidence, including how it is described or emphasised. Normally the Chair circulates a draft report and members can suggest amendments or even an alternative draft. The report is published only if agreed by a majority of the committee’s members.

• Private deliberations: Key decisions – such as which witnesses to call and how to word the report - are usually taken in private. The detail of those discussions is revealed only when the committee’s minutes are published. In the Commons, the decision to discuss in private which witnesses to call to give evidence, though entirely normal, drew considerable criticism.

Government Whips had earmarked four Fridays – 24 October, 31 October, 21 November, and 12 December – for Committee of the Whole House. Even with the shorter reporting deadline of 7 November, the first two dates cannot be used. One option would be to dedicate two later sitting Fridays – 14 November and 5 December – to the Bill. That would still give it four Fridays this year, without displacing other business and would help avoid further delay.

Committee Stage without delay: The House could appoint a select committee but reject the amendment that postpones Committee Stage. In that case Committee Stage would begin in October as planned, while the select committee takes evidence and reports by 7 November.

Use an existing select committee: Another suggestion, raised before Second Reading, is for an existing Lords select committee – such as the Public Services Committee – to launch its own inquiry and take evidence. However, existing select committees may not reflect the full range of views on assisted dying in the House and any perceived imbalance could undermine wider confidence and trust in the process.