At Report Stage, the whole House of Commons debates and votes on amendments and new clauses to the Bill once it has been scrutinised at Committee Stage. The House has already spent two days – Friday 16 May and Friday 13 June – considering the Bill at Report Stage. Through a process known as “grouping”, the proposed new clauses and amendments were split in two, with each group debated on a separate day.

“Grouping” only determines the order in which amendments are debated, not the timing of votes. And an amendment or new clause can only be voted on if the Speaker selects it for separate decision. The procedural rules governing Report Stage (explained in more detail in a previous briefing) meant only a few amendments and new clauses could be decided at the end of 16 May - namely, Kim Leadbeater's New Clauses 10 and 11 and Rebecca Paul's amendment (a) to New Clause 10, the latter of which was rejected. Voting on the majority of amendments and new clauses began at the end of the debate on Group 2 last Friday (13 June).

At the start of proceedings last Friday (13 June), the Speaker announced that, in addition to all of Kim Leadbeater’s proposed changes, he would initially select four new clauses and amendments tabled by other Members for a decision.

Votes, or decisions, do not necessarily involve divisions. When a question is put to the House, and Members are asked to shout Aye and No, a decision can be reached “on the nod” if all the voices support one answer or “on the voices” if the Speaker decides that shouts of Aye or shouts of No are louder. Only if it is not clear from the voices which side is larger or if the Speaker’s determination is challenged is a division called.

Report Stage can only conclude once all the necessary votes are put to the House. For this to have happened last Friday, these votes (and any others the Speaker was inclined to select) would have needed to conclude by 14:30 – the “moment of interruption” on a Friday, after which any amendments can only be agreed if they are unopposed. However, there was only sufficient time for the House to vote on six of Kim Leadbeater’s new clauses and three of the other four proposals initially selected by the Speaker for a decision.

• Kim Leadbeater’s New Clauses 12 to 15, 20, and 21: These introduced new provisions into the Bill, including measures to regulate the substances and devices used in assisted dying, a prohibition on the advertisement of assisted dying, an exemption of assisted deaths from the definition of “unnatural deaths” under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, guidance about the Bill’s operation in Wales, and provisions relating to the Welsh language. These New Clauses were all agreed without a division.

• Amendment (b) to New Clause 14 (Paul Waugh, Labour): To limit the exceptions that could be created to the advertising ban set out in New Clause 14. The House voted against this amendment by 254 votes to 233.

• New Clause 1 (Dame Meg Hillier, Labour): To prohibit any health professional from raising assisted dying with a person unless that person has first raised it. The House voted against this new clause by 256 votes to 230.

• New Clause 2 (Dame Meg Hillier, Labour): To prohibit any health professional from raising assisted dying with a person under the age of 18. The House voted in favour of this new clause by 259 votes to 216.

The House did not reach the vote on the fourth proposal selected by the Speaker – New Clause 16, tabled by Conservative MP Rebecca Paul – before the 14:30 cut off. This New Clause proposes that a person would not be eligible for assisted dying if their wish to end their life was substantially motivated by factors such as not wanting to be a burden, a mental disorder, a disability, financial considerations, a lack of access to care, or suicidal ideation.

Because New Clause 16 was not reached last Friday, and because the Speaker has already selected it for a decision, this New Clause will be put to the House at the start of proceedings on Friday.

The votes that then follow will depend on which further amendments and new clauses the Speaker decides must be put to a vote. In addition to Kim Leadbeater’s new clauses, the Speaker announced four votes last Friday, but he may still specify more; the Speaker may have limited his selection to those four because those were the only ones he expected to be able to call before 14:30.

Any proposals selected for a vote will be put to the House in the order they appear on the amendment paper. Although the House has already agreed all of Kim Leadbeater’s proposed new clauses, 36 of the amendments she has tabled have yet to be decided. These will certainly be put to the House for a decision; the Speaker will usually select amendments from the Member in Charge for a vote, because they are more likely to be changes that the House is willing to make. So far, all of her proposals have been agreed by the House without a division, since they generally reflect concessions that have broad support or insert additional safeguards into the Bill.

The Speaker has also reportedly indicated that he is minded to select four additional amendments tabled by other MPs for a vote.

These include two amendments which Kim Leadbeater has indicated support for in earlier debates – these may also be agreed without a division – namely:

• Amendment 21, tabled by Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson, which would require the Government to publish an assessment of palliative and end of life care within one year of the Act’s passage; and

• Amendment 14, tabled by Labour MP Naz Shah, which seeks to clarify that a person cannot be considered terminally ill solely because they voluntarily stopped eating or drinking.

The other two amendments selected by the Speaker, which are not supported by the Bill's sponsor and are therefore likely to result in a division - include:

• Amendment 24, tabled by Labour MP Daniel Francis, which would disapply the presumption that a person has capacity unless the opposite is established.

• Amendment 12, tabled by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh, which would prevent section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out the purposes of the NHS, from being amended by regulations.

A division takes around 10 to 15 minutes, so each division will take time away from Third Reading. However, in deciding how many amendments to select for a vote, the Speaker will have been focused on whether there is any possibility that the House may wish to agree an amendment, rather than on the time that will be taken up by an extra division.

Once all the votes have been completed, proceedings on Third Reading are expected to begin immediately. The Speaker may make a further statement conveying to MPs how he anticipates handling this final stage. This will likely including an indication of how many MPs have told him they would like to speak, an informal time limit on speeches to guide the length of MPs contributions, and the time at which he may call the frontbench spokespersons towards the end of the debate.

Kim Leadbeater will open the debate by formally moving the motion that the Bill “be now read a third time”. She will then make a speech urging the House to pass the Bill.

The Chair will then invite MPs to contribute to the debate, possibly prioritising the contribution of MPs who have not yet had an opportunity to speak about the Bill during the earlier stages. The debate will conclude with speeches from the two frontbench spokespersons.

Once the Government Minister has concluded their speech, an MP will seek to “claim the closure” – that is, a motion to end the debate and move on to the decision (vote), in the form “that the question be now put” – and the Speaker will then need to decide whether to accept the request. If the “closure” is claimed towards the end of the sitting, probably sometime around 14:00, the Speaker is likely to accept the request. The House would then vote on the “closure”. This may not require a formal division (it might be taken on a voice vote).

If the “closure” is agreed, the debate will end and the House will move straight to a vote on Third Reading. If the “closure” is not agreed, the Third Reading debate will continue.

If the House agrees to give the Bill a Third Reading, it will be sent to the House of Lords. If MPs reject the Bill at Third Reading, its proceedings will come to an end, and it will go no further.

If the vote on Third Reading ends before 14:30, the House will move on to the next Private Member’s Bill on the Order Paper: the Second Reading of Rachael Maskell MP’s Short-term Let Accommodation Bill. If not, proceedings will follow the usual process for Private Members’ Bills after the “moment of interruption”. After 14:30, any Private Members’ Bills listed for Second Reading on the Order Paper can be given it without debate, providing they are unopposed. However, if any MP shouts “Object!”, the Bill’s sponsor must choose a new date for Second Reading. Typically, a Government Whip will object to any PMBs the Government does not support. If there is no objection, a Private Member’s Bill can pass Second Reading without debate and proceed directly to the next stage.