This week, we reflect on a landmark moment in UK parliamentary history: the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons, moving one step closer to legalising assisted dying in England and Wales. We are joined once again by former House of Commons Clerk Paul Evans to examine how this Private Member’s Bill navigated the political and procedural obstacles in its path and to explore what lies ahead in the House of Lords.
Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
We start with the numbers: 605 MPs took part in the Third Reading vote, an exceptionally high turnout for a Private Member’s Bill, signalling the seriousness of the issue. With a majority of 23, the Bill now advances to the House of Lords, but not without questions over the opposition’s next moves and whether the unelected chamber will respect the will of the Commons, or obstruct the Bill’s path?
This historic moment wasn’t achieved by debate alone. It was the product of a quiet but coordinated effort to protect parliamentary time and avoid the procedural ambushes that often beset Private Members’ Bills. Other backbench sponsors of Private Members Bills temporarily stood aside to give the assisted dying bill a clear route through, critics refrained from procedural sabotage, and the Speaker and his deputies helped shape a timetable, ensuring MPs knew when decisions would be made.
Now the focus turns to the Lords, where the Bill may face its toughest challenges yet. Will Peers accept that the principle of assisted dying has been established by the elected House, and limit themselves to scrutiny and amendment of the details? Or could opponents attempt to delay or even derail the Bill entirely? We explore the possible scenarios and the constitutional, political, and procedural stakes in each case.
We also look at how the extensive scrutiny of the assisted dying Bill contrasts sharply with the swift and limited debate on abortion decriminalisation earlier this week – an issue settled via a backbench amendment to the Police and Crime Bill that was debated for just 45 minutes.
Finally, we consider what this might mean for the bigger picture. If this Bill is indeed the most far-reaching social reform since the 1967 Abortion Act, might it be the harbinger of a new wave of legislation promoting further social change?
Paul Evans CBE
Paul worked as a Clerk in the House of Commons for nearly forty years, retiring in 2019 as Clerk of Committees responsible for the House’s select committees. He was made a CBE in 2019 for services to Parliament. During his career in the House of Commons he held a number of posts including Clerk of the Journals and Principal Clerk of the Table Office. He is a member of the Hansard Society and is a former Chair of the Study of Parliament Group . He has published a number of works on Parliament including the Dods Handbook of House of Commons Procedure.
Hansard Society
Parliament
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bill documents
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.
Intro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org uk/PM.
Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.
Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy, and welcome to the latest in our special series of podcasts following the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Bill that would enable assisted dying in England and Wales. And Ruth, the big news today is that the Bill has now cleared its final stage in the House of Commons. Its Third Reading. It won by a slightly reduced majority, but it won all the same.
Ruth Fox: Yeah, so we had 314 MPs voted for the Bill and 291 against, so it came through with a majority, as you say, a bit a bit of a reduced majority, [00:01:00] 23, compared to that Second Reading vote, uh, back last year, which was 55. Interestingly, same number of MPs voting: 605 plus four tellers for the vote. That is a very big turnout. I mean, we've set that in context with 650 MPs in the House. So where were the other 45? Well, there were some ministers abroad, David Lammy, for example, away, dealing with the Iranian situation. Take out the Speakers, the Deputy Speakers, the MPs who chair the Public Bill Committee stages, who don't vote at Third Reading.
Mark D'Arcy: The Sinn Feiners who, don't take their seats. The SNP who wouldn't vote on an England only, or England or Wales only issue. And actually you've got almost the theoretical maximum number of MPs who could have voted in this division, voting in this division, including such luminaries, of course, as the Prime Minister himself, Sir Keir Starmer
Ruth Fox: Suggestions that he might not be able to because of the international situation, but he was there in the voting lobbies. We understand
Mark D'Arcy: He took time out from stopping the slide to World War III.
Ruth Fox: [00:02:00] So it will now go to the House of Lords for, for further consideration. But it does mean that it will go into law, I suspect, I think it may struggle to get through quickly in the House of Lords. I think it'll be an extended process, but given that there is a solid majority for it in the Commons, I think that it'll go through the House of Lords. The question is how much it will be amended and how much time it will take up being sent back to the Commons.
For them to, to be asked to think again about some of the, the detail of the Bill perhaps. But if it gets through the House of Lords, then it will be probably the most significant piece of social legislation of my lifetime.
Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.
In order to incur expenditure the Government needs to obtain approval from Parliament for its departmental spending plans. The annual Estimates cycle is the means by which the House of Commons controls the Government’s plans for the spending of money raised through taxation.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
Our evidence on the status and rights of independent MPs has been published by the House of Commons Procedure Committee. Our submission summarises the direct and indirect references to political parties in the Standing Orders and whether they might apply to groupings of independent MPs, analyses whether small parties and independent groupings face disadvantages, particularly in relation to committee membership, and considers whether parliamentary publications should distinguish between the many different kinds of independent MP.
In response to the Modernisation Committee's call for views on 17 October 2024, we submitted evidence outlining key areas we believe the Committee should prioritise. Our submission recommended a focus on: strengthening legislative scrutiny, with particular emphasis on reforming the delegated legislation system; enhancing financial scrutiny, especially in relation to the Budget and the Estimates; addressing strategic gaps in parliamentary scrutiny; making more effective use of parliamentary time; and reviewing the Standing Orders, language and rituals of the House of Commons.
