News

Assisted dying bill - special series #17: Peers give the Bill a Second Reading, but progress is paused for committee evidence - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 107

20 Sep 2025
©
©

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has cleared another key hurdle: it was given a Second Reading in the House of Lords without a formal vote. But Peers have agreed to set up a special select committee to hear evidence from Ministers, professional bodies and legal experts before the Bill goes any further. That decision pushes the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny back to mid-November and could shape the Bill’s prospects in unexpected ways. In this episode we explore the procedural twists and political manoeuvring behind that decision.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

To help unpick what happened and what it all means, we are joined this week by Dr Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London and an authority on Private Members’ Bills, and Matthew England from the Hansard Society, whose briefings on the Bill have tracked everything from procedure to delegated powers.

The debate at Second Reading showcased powerful speeches and some striking personal interventions. Beyond the moral arguments, Peers zeroed in on the Bill’s constitutional and procedural implications – especially the sweeping delegated powers that drew sharp criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lord Falconer, the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords, signalled his support for amendments to the Bill to address some of the Committee’s concerns.

The Government’s role also came under the spotlight. Some peers bristled at the cancellation of the Lords’ recess to complete the Second Reading debate, and critics accused ministers of tilting the timetable to favour the Bill. We consider whether those claims really hold up.

The biggest twist, though, was the compromise deal negotiated between Lord Falconer and Baroness Berger to establish a temporary select committee. It will gather evidence from ministers, the medical and legal professions and the hospice sector, and publish its findings by 7 November, far earlier than originally proposed.

Crucially, the committee will not be required to recommend whether the Bill should proceed or be amended, but the evidence it collects will frame the clause-by-clause scrutiny that is now expected to begin in mid-November, with four sittings scheduled before Christmas. The committee’s membership and witness list are still to be decided, but the stage is set for a short, sharp inquiry whose findings could shape the next—and most testing—phase of this landmark legislation.

©Queen Mary University of London

Dr Daniel Gover

Dr Daniel Gover

Daniel Gover is a senior lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London. His research focuses on the UK Parliament and constitution, particularly the legislative process and Private Members' Bills. Prior to taking up a position as a lecturer, Daniel worked at the Constitution Unit at UCL and in 2017 co-authored a book with Professor Meg Russell on Parliament's influence over legislation, Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law. He also worked at Queen Mary's Mile End Institute, researching the 'English Votes for English Laws' procedure in the House of Commons.

©

Matthew England

Matthew England

Matthew is a Researcher at the Hansard Society whose work focuses on delegated legislation and parliamentary procedure. Matthew has produced several briefings for the Society on the assisted dying bill and the relevant Private Member’s Bill process in the Commons and the Lords, analysing the parliamentary stages that the Bill will need to pass through to become law. Before joining the Hansard Society, Matthew worked in the office of a Member of Parliament, focusing on scrutiny of legislation.

Dr Daniel Gover

Hansard Society

House of Lords

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, and this is the latest in our series of special mini pods following the detailed progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Bill to allow assisted dying in England and Wales.

The headline this week, the Bill has cleared its Second Reading in the Lords, and as we expected it passed without a formal division. But there's been a twist in the story. Peers have agreed to create a special select committee to take evidence from ministers and professional bodies on the Bill's implications.

Because of that move the next stage, the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny and amendment of the Bill, has been pushed back to November after the special select [00:01:00] committee has reported. So what does all of this mean for the Bill's journey through the House of Lords?

Now, regular listeners will know that, uh, I'm usually joined by my partner in parliamentary podcasting, Mark D'Arcy, but not today. Mark's off. He's soaking up the sun in the south of France. Lucky him!

We weren't actually planning to hit record this week because it was a quiet parliamentary week with both Houses rising for the party conference recess.

But the House of Lords had other ideas. Peers canceled recess today to complete the Second Reading of the assisted dying Bill. And as we've had a special series exploring this Bill, we couldn't really let it pass without getting back into the studio.

So I'm here and, uh, happily for me and for you listeners, I'm not flying solo.

Joining me is Dr. Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London, and a seasoned expert in Private Members' Bills. And from the Hansard Society team, [00:02:00] Matthew England, whose analysis and insights you'll know if you've read our briefings on the assisted dying Bill, covering everything from procedure to delegated powers.

This isn't their debut. They've both been on the pod before, so it's a pleasure to say "welcome back Daniel and Matthew".

Daniel Gover: Well, thank you for having me back.

Ruth Fox: Great to have you and, uh, welcome Matthew.

Matthew England: Thank you. It's good to be back.

Ruth Fox: Great. Well, we have a lot to cover, so, I thought we should start perhaps with the debate itself.

We've had two days of debate now, and Daniel, what, what speech has stood out to you in, in the debate this week?

Daniel Gover: Well, quite a lot of the, uh, things that were said in the debate were quite similar, I think to, uh, to what was said last week in the first day of Second Reading, and in fact, that was commented on by some of the Peers in the debate. One that really stood out to me though was a speech by Lord Carey of Clifton, George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, and if you didn't know much about his thinking on this issue, you would probably expect [00:03:00] him to be a, an opponent of the Bill. But in fact, he's a supporter and, an outspoken supporter of the Bill and really put this question to the Bishop's bench, to his former colleagues, uh, bishops in the Church of England.

Did they really want to be seen to stand in the way of this Bill? And indeed, did the Lords itself want to, uh, be seen to stand in the way of this Bill? And what might that say about the legitimacy of the Bishops in the Lords and indeed of the, the Chamber itself?

Subscribe to Parliament Matters

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.

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 13-16 April 2026

Ministerial Statements are expected on developments during the recess, particularly in the Middle East and on Russian submarine activity. The English Devolution Bill completes its final Lords stages, while legislative “ping-pong” continues on the Pension Schemes, Victims and Courts, Crime and Policing, and Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bills. MPs scrutinising the Courts and Tribunals Bill will examine proposals to restrict jury trials. In the Lords, two bills – on the Grenfell Tower Memorial and ministerial salaries – will be fast-tracked through all stages in a single day. MPs will debate SEND reform, statutory menstrual leave, children’s safeguarding, and accessibility in the House of Commons. The Lords will consider changes to Immigration Rules and access rights for departing hereditary peers. Chloe Mawson becomes the first woman to serve as Clerk of the Parliaments. And the Treasury Committee will hold an appointment hearing with the new chief executive of the Prudential Regulatory Authority.

12 Apr 2026
Read more

News / Will key Government bills pass by the end of the parliamentary Session? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 138

With the King’s Speech set for 13 May, attention turns to the end of the current parliamentary Session and the frantic “wash-up” period before prorogation, likely in late April. We assess which Bills can still make it through in the remaining sitting days. With major Lords amendments on issues including revenge porn, social media access for under-16s, court transcripts and AI safety, Ministers face intense pressure and possible concessions. We also examine the political stakes around the Chagos Islands Bill and the stalled Hillsborough Law. The episode also answers listener questions on parliamentary procedure and reform, before exploring the sharp rise in Written Parliamentary Questions and what it means for effective scrutiny in Westminster. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

27 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137

Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers over Immigration Rules. We also discuss the Crime and Policing Bill, where amendments on AI and abortion highlight the challenges posed by rushed law-making and executive overreach. And we look ahead to the next phase of the assisted dying debate, as supporters in the House of Commons prepare for a renewed legislative push in the next parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

20 Mar 2026
Read more

Submissions / Written Parliamentary Questions - Our evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee

The use of Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) is rising sharply. Since July 2024, MPs have tabled questions at unprecedented levels. By late 2025 MPs were tabling over 600 per sitting day, more than double the long-term average. WPQs are a cornerstone of parliamentary scrutiny, helping MPs obtain information, challenge government policy and put issues on the public record. But this surge raises important questions about how Parliament balances transparency and accountability with the practical limits of the system. The House of Commons Procedure Committee is now examining the issue and has just published our submission containing our latest data and analysis.

06 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

13 Mar 2026
Read more