The Public Bill Committee considering the Bill met this afternoon to agree a sittings motion, which sets out the dates and times that the Committee will meet and the witnesses that will give oral evidence to the Committee.

You can watch the debate on Parliamentlive.tv.

The Committee resolved that it shall first take oral evidence from approximately 42 witnesses on Tuesday 28 January, Wednesday 29 January and Thursday 30 January. We will post the witness list and timetable as an update on this page when it is made publicly available.

The Committee will consider the provisions of the Bill clause-by-clause, starting on Tuesday 4 February and Wednesday 5 February. The deadline for tabling amendments for the first of these days is Thursday 30 January.

The Committee will generally sit at 9:25am and then 2:00pm each day. On the sole Thursday sitting, dedicated to public evidence, the Committee will sit from 11:30am and 2:00pm.

The Committee will continue to meet on subsequent Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting until it concludes consideration of the Bill.

Although this was not discussed at the meeting, the Committee will be looking to conclude its proceedings on or before Wednesday 16 April 2025 so that the Bill can have its Report stage at the earliest possible opportunity, on Friday 25 April (on the eighth PMB Friday sitting date, when the order of precedence dictates that Bills that have reached Report stage will be prioritised).

The meeting started with a motion from the sponsor of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater MP, that the Committee sit in private to consider matters relating to the sittings motion. Ms Leadbeater clarified that the Committee would sit in private only to discuss matters relating to the proposed witnesses, and that the Committee would have a chance to propose amendments and debate the motion afterwards. She suggested this was normal both for Public Bill Committees considering Government bills - where discussion of witnesses takes place largely between the Whips and in a programming sub-committee that sits in private - and for select committees. She also argued that it was desirable to consider the merits of individual witnesses, who would not be present to speak on their own behalf, in private. Danny Kruger MP argued that the Committee should reject Ms Leadbeater's motion and instead debate the list of witnesses in public. As well as the importance of the matter, he pointed out that Public Bill Committees for Private Members' Bills (PMBs) usually consider their sittings motions in public. Following an at times heated discussion, the question was put and the Committee resolved to sit in private.

Having discussed the proposed witness list in private for about an hour, the Committee returned to public session to debate the motion formally. In response to what appears to have been discussed in private, Kim Leadbeater moved an amendment to her own motion, to add an extra hour of oral evidence on Thursday 30 January to hear from a representative from the Welsh Senedd and from the charity Mencap. The Committee agreed this change.

Naz Shah MP then moved a series of amendments to add additional witnesses to the evidence list and, in some cases, to substitute them for those listed in Kim Leadbeater's motion. The debate then focused on the merits of these amendments to the witness list. The key points of difference focused on whether:

• a representative of the Royal College of Psychiatrists should be added, or whether the inclusion of the General Medical Council - which regulates psychiatrists - and British Medical Association was sufficient;

• an expert or practitioner from Canada should be added, or whether other countries offered better legislative parallels;

• the names proposed in the amendments were submitted to Kim Leadbeater in advance - Danny Kruger claimed that they had, Kim Leadbeater that they had not;

• three days of evidence was sufficient and whether more days could be provided at a later stage;

• the evidence list was appropriately balanced between supporters and opponents of assisted dying; and

• the purpose of oral evidence was to re-litigate the principle of assisted dying which had been agreed at the earlier Second Reading.

All the amendments proposed by Naz Shah were rejected by the Committee. One of the amendments - about the inclusion of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the evidence list - was pushed to a division. The result was eight votes in favour of including the Royal College and 14 votes against. A majority of the Committee's members were content that the inclusion of the British Medical Council and British Medical Association - who could nominate representatives from the psychiatric medical sector if they wished - was sufficient to address this area of policy concern for the moment. The sittings motion was then agreed without a division.

Interestingly, both Ministers on the Committee - Stephen Kinnock MP and Sarah Sackman MP - participated in the division (voting against the amendment), suggesting a more active role in the Committee's proceedings than the stated position of Government neutrality might imply.

In advance of the first sitting of the Public Bill Committee at 2pm this afternoon, an updated amendment paper has been published. There are now 47 amendments and 1 proposed new clause for consideration by the Committee, with more to follow. The first few motions on the paper, however, deal not with the text of the Bill but with the way the Public Bill Committee will operate - how often and when it will sit, who it will invite to give oral evidence and when, and arrangements for publication of the written evidence that is received.

The Bill's sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP, has tabled a motion "That the Committee do sit in private to consider matters relating to the sittings motion." However, the details of the proposed sittings motion - when the Committee will sit etc - has not been published so we don't yet know her preferred timetable and witness list. Why has it not been published? Because the motion does not have to be tabled in advance - in can be done "without notice" - so will be tabled at the meeting. However, it will have been the subject of private discussion between the members of the Committee, so they will know what Kim Leadbeater intends to propose. It is reported that Leadbeater is concerned that if MPs discuss the relative merits of particular witnesses, and why one should be chosen instead of another, this should not be done in public when the individuals concerned will not be present and will have no opportunity to respond to anything that is said about them.

It is important to stress that this does not mean the future evidence sessions will be in private - those will all be held in public, broadcast live and transcribed for Hansard. What is proposed is that part of today's discussion about when to sit and who to hear from will be in private (see below for a more detailed explanation of this point).

However, MPs who are concerned about the Bill, led by Danny Kruger MP, have tabled their own motion detailing their preferred timetable and list of witnesses. Of the 10 other MPs in addition to Danny Kruger who have signed the amendment, only one, Naz Shah, is actually a member of the Public Bill Committee.

They want the Committee:

• to meet every Tuesday and Thursday, with sessions in both the morning and afternoon each day

• to hear from witnesses over four days - on Tuesday 28 January, Thursday 30 January, Tuesday 4 February and Thursday 6 February; and

• to hear from 42 named witnesses across those four days, including representatives from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA, as well as UK based barristers, disability campaigners, ethicists, hospices, human rights bodies, judges, and palliative care specialists.

Why have these MPs tabled their own motion? It could be that there are genuine differences between members on the Committee about the sittings and the witness list and this is designed to flush out the differences in public. Equally, there could be other reasons; it could be that the proposal has not garnered broader support within the Committee - only two members of the Committee have signed the motion - and so publishing it with the supporting names of senior backbenchers like Dame Meg Hillier and Sir Julian Smith is designed to give their position greater weight and generate political and public pressure on the Committee. In short, understanding the 'politics' of this process is critical, but it may not always be clear exactly why proponents or opponents of the bill are signalling something publicly.

There is no exact comparison to draw on because a Public Bill Committee for a Private Members' Bill has never taken public evidence before.

• Private Members' Bills: the sittings motion is usually dealt with in public, but then it is usually not a matter of much debate among the members. Public Bill Committees for most PMBs sit only once and do not take evidence so there is rarely anything to discuss.

• Government Bills: a programming sub-committee of the Public Bill Committee is established to agree sitting times and witness lists and this sits in private and no record of its deliberations is made. In practice, the party Whips will already have reached agreement on the arrangements beforehand. Generally the Whips allocate the witness time available to the Government and Opposition and it is left to each side to decide their own witness list, albeit with some negotiation at the margins. The sub-committee will generally formalise what has been agreed, although amendments can be proposed if the sub-committee members disagree with a particular aspect of what the Whips have proposed. If further changes to the sitting arrangements and witness lists are required the sub-committee can meet again during the course of the PBCs work at the discretion of the Chair. At the first sitting of the PBC, the programme motion agreed by the programming sub-committee is put to the members for agreement. In practice, the MPs can debate it at this stage but given that it has already been agreed between the party Whips, this is a rare occurrence. Once the Committee resolves to accept the programme motion, it will then move to briefly sit in private to discuss its work in advance of hearing from the first witnesses.

• A Private Member's Bill that is adopted by the Government: Occasionally a PMB will fail to make it to the statue book but the Government will agree to take it up as part of its legislative programme. This was the case in the 2017-19 Session with the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill which began as a PMB sponsored by Wera Hobhouse MP to ban 'upskirting', but which was adopted by the Government after another MP blocked its progress at Second Reading. Unusually the Government's version of the Bill had its Second Reading in Committee rather than in the Chamber and therefore, also unusually, no programme motion was moved immediately after, as happens when Government bills are considered on the floor of the House. This meant the Public Bill Committee - like this assisted dying bill - did not have a programming sub-committee. In this instance, the sittings motion and oral evidence list were agreed in public, but without debate or division, at the start of the first sitting. The PBC then resolved to sit in private for several minutes prior to questioning the witnesses.

At the Committee stage of Bills, there are therefore elements of public and private discussion; some of it is a matter of negotiation, and some of it is the product of a deal negotiated by the Whips through what is known as the 'Usual Channels' . Much of it is orchestrated behind the scenes so that differences and divisions do not spill over into public view in the Committee. The public aspect of the consideration of sittings and witness lists usually rubberstamps what has been privately agreed. There appears to be no precedent for discussing, in public view, an extensive list of witnesses about which there may not be a consensus.

Nonetheless, given the public interest in this Bill, it would be preferable and politically advisable to maximise transparency, whilst acknowledging that there must be room for private discussions between members at the start of each Committee session, not least about practical matters such as deciding the direction and ordering of questioning of witnesses or the conveying and discussion of procedural or legal advice.

The text of the money motion, which is set to be debated by MPs on Wednesday 22 January, has appeared on the Commons future business paper for that day. As explained in updates last November and earlier this month, this motion is needed to authorise the financial consequences of the Bill.

The text reads:

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.

This is standard text for a money resolution, as set out in Appendix B of the guidance on financial resolutions published by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC). For similar recent examples, see the money resolutions agreed at the end of the Second Reading debates for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, and Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill during this Session alone.

MPs can propose amendments to the motion, but Erskine May clarifies that because of the convention that only the Government can propose new spending, amendments:

"may reduce in scope but may not extend in respect of the amount of the expenditure, the area of its operation or the objects to which, or conditions under which, it is to be applied."

A recent example of an attempt to amend a money resolution can be found during the passage of the Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19, which proposed extending the number of British citizens outside the UK entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. This was also a Private Member's Bill but one that secured Government support and which similarly required a money resolution to authorise expenditure to cover the financial consequences of the legislation. The Government moved a motion which, like that for the assisted dying bill, authorised "any increase" of expenditure attributable to the Bill. An amendment was tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to replace the text with a motion limiting the authorised spending to "an increase not exceeding £10,000 in any financial year prior to the financial year after the financial year in which a Minister of the Crown lays before the House of Commons a report on the expected increases arising from the Act and any increase thereafter”. This would have limited Government spending on implementing the Bill to £10,000 per year until the Government laid a report before Parliament assessing the expected costs of the policy. The Government called the amendment a "wrecking amendment" that would "starve the Bill of the money that it needs to do its job" and noted that an Impact Assessment had already been published alongside the Bill.

If an amendment is tabled to the money resolution for the assisted dying bill, it is uncertain whether the Speaker would select it for consideration. Typically, the Speaker prioritises amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, as was the case with the Overseas Electors Bill. However, the assisted dying bill is being approached differently, with both frontbenches treating it neutrally and allowing a free vote on this matter of personal conscience. In deciding whether to select an amendment, the Speaker would need to weigh factors such as the number of signatories backing the amendment, the degree to which they reflect the MPs who voted 'No' at the Bill's Second Reading last November, and the breadth of cross-party support for the amendment.

The Public Bill Committee set up to consider the Bill is scheduled to meet for the first time on Tuesday 21 January to consider the ‘sittings motion’. This motion is likely to set out:

• the dates and times when the Committee will meet;

• at which meetings the Committee will hear oral evidence; and

• from whom the Committee will take oral evidence.

For Government bills, such a motion is normally agreed in private by a ‘programming sub-committee’, made up of a selection of members from the Public Bill Committee. The motion will usually have been agreed in advance between the Government and Opposition Whips.

However, programming sub-committees only meet when a bill is subject to a ‘programme order’, which Private Members’ Bills like the ‘Assisted Dying Bill’ are not. Erskine May clarifies that “[in] the case of bills which are not subject to a programme order, where it seems likely that the consideration of a bill will not be concluded at a single sitting, it is usual for the committee, before entering on the consideration of the bill, to determine, by resolution, on what days in each week it will sit and at what hour it will meet for the purpose of considering the bill.” This may be altered at later sittings of the Committee. The Committee might also amend the order in which the Bill is to be considered through an ‘order of consideration motion’. Such a motion can be moved at any stage. The meeting is currently listed as public on Parliament’s What’s On page, though meetings of programming sub-committees usually take place in private.

In the last few days, six further amendments have been tabled by Liberal Democrat MP Daisy Cooper, who voted Aye at Second Reading.

• Amendments 2 and 3: These amendments would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the training, qualifications and experience that the (the 'coordinating doctor') must have, and upgrading the procedure for those regulations to the affirmative scrutiny procedure. At present, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to make such regulations, subject to the negative scrutiny procedure.

• Amendments 4 and 5: These amendments would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the training, qualifications and experience that the (the 'independent doctor') must have, and upgrading the procedure for those regulations to the affirmative scrutiny procedure. At present, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to make such regulations, subject to the negative scrutiny procedure.

• Amendment 6: This amendment would require the assessing doctor to refer a person being assessed for a mental capacity assessment by a psychiatrist if the assessing doctor has doubts as to the person's capacity. At present, the Bill provides only that the doctor "may" refer the person if they have doubts about the person's capacity.

• Amendment 7: This amendment would require the Registrar General for England and Wales to at least once a year, prepare and lay before Parliament a statistical analysis of the number of people who had been assessed by a medical practitioner as not eligible for assisted dying. At present, the Bill only requires a statistical analysis of assisted deaths provided in accordance with the Act.

The Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell MP, announced at today's Business Questions that the Government will table the money motion for the Bill on Wednesday 22 January. If agreed, the motion will become a resolution of the House.

Standing Orders require that any new expenditure resulting from a bill must be authorised by a resolution of the House ('money resolution'). In order for the Public Bill Committee to consider any clauses in the Bill that have spending implications, a money resolution must therefore be agreed in advance. (See the news update for 12 November 2024 which explains the procedural background to this issue and what clauses in the Bill have financial implications.)

The Leader of the House stressed today that the Government's tabling of the resolution did not mean it was agreeing to fund the measures:

"In order for a Bill Committee to consider any clauses that could have spending implications, the Government must first table a money resolution. That is not the Government agreeing to fund the measures in a Bill; it is purely to enable the Bill to be debated in Committee. In the case of this Bill, this relates to one small component that is yet to be debated and agreed. Without the motion being agreed to, that debate could not happen and that component could not remain in the Bill. The Government have taken the view that that would act against our commitment to remain neutral on the Bill. The House should debate and decide on these matters for itself. I hope that, as with Second Reading, colleagues will focus on the substance and not the processes of this sensitive private Member’s Bill."

In practice, however, by tabling the money resolution the Government is accepting the principle that if the Bill makes it to the statute book it will make provision for all the costs that follow.

The motion can be debated by MPs for up to 45 minutes. Erskine May clarifies that the debate "must be confined to the terms of the resolution itself and must not be extended to the related bill". However, the debate will give MPs an opportunity to ask the Minister about the expected financial impact of the Bill's provisions on both the NHS and the justice system, whether a formal Impact Assessment has been conducted, and whether that Impact Assessment will be published and if so when. It is not clear which Minister will appear at the despatch box on behalf of the Government, though it is typically a Minister from the responsible Department, so in this case it is likely to be either a Health or Justice Minister.

The Liberal Democrat MP, Paul Kohler, led a debate today on the state of hospice and palliative care following an application to the Backbench Business Committee for time in the House of Commons Chamber to discuss an issue that was an important theme in the Second Reading debate on the bill in November 2024.

As Paul Kohler noted in opening the debate:

"When this House debated the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill last November, the crisis in hospice funding and concerns over the provision of palliative care were a constant refrain in the subtext of many of the speeches from supporters and opponents of the Bill. As someone who entered the Chamber that morning undecided as to how I would vote, I became increasingly convinced throughout the five hours of powerful argument and testimony that no matter what the House decided, the time had come to address hospice funding for the provision of palliative care head on, for death is as much a part of life as living." House of Commons, Hansard, 13 January 2025, Col. 85

You can read the Hansard transcript or watch a recording of the debate (from 19:00:07).

The Speaker has chosen five senior backbenchers - Peter Dowd, Clive Efford, Sir Roger Gale, Carolyn Harris and Esther McVey - to chair sittings of the forthcoming Public Bill Committee (PBC):

• two of the MPs - Peter Dowd and Clive Efford - supported the Bill at Second Reading;

• two of the MPs - Sir Roger Gale and Esther McVey - opposed the Bill at Second Reading;

• one of the MPs - Carolyn Harris - did not vote on the Bill at Second Reading.

The chairs of PBCs are expected to uphold neutrality in their role, akin to the impartiality required of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. By convention, chairs of PBCs do not take part in any future deliberations and votes on the bill after the Committee stage ends, which in practice means they should not take part in the debates or vote at Report and Third Reading.

Typically only one MP is appointed to chair the Public Bill Committee stage of Private Members' Bills as these are usually short, relatively uncontroversial bills and most will require only one PBC sitting. It is not unusual for multiple MPs - usually two or four - to be appointed to chair PBCs for Government bills, particularly if it is a long and complex bill that will require more than one sitting per week over a period of many weeks.

It is rare but not unprecedented to appoint five MPs to chair a PBC. For example, in the 2018-19 Session the Speaker appointed six chairs to preside over Committee sittings for the Government's Fisheries Bill: two chairs were initially appointed in November 2018, then a further two in early December 2018 and another two later that month. However, in practice, only four of the six MPs were ever needed to chair a Committee sitting. In 1999-2000, six MPs were appointed to chair the Standing Committee (as legislative committees were known before they were reformed and renamed Public Bill Committees) for the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. But again, in practice, only five of the MPs ever took the chair in the Committee (h/t @Ringwiss).

The Labour MP for Ashford, Sojan Joseph, who will serve on the assisted dying bill's Public Bill Committee, has tabled the first amendment. His proposed change would require that the independent doctor referred to in relation to clause 8 of the Bill is a registered psychiatrist.

The Public Bill Committee has issued a call for written evidence from anyone who has "relevant expertise" in relation to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The Committee notes that:

"The sooner you send in your submission, the more time the Committee will have to take it into account during its consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill and of any amendments tabled to the Bill."

The Committee advises that submissions should "address matters contained within the Bill and concentrate on issues where you have expertise and on factual information of which you would like the Committee to be aware. Your submission could most usefully:

• highlight or discuss views on or concerns with the existing provisions of the Bill;

• suggest amendments to the Bill, with supporting explanation; and

• (when amendments are published) support or oppose amendments tabled to the Bill by MPs with supporting explanation."

Guidance on the format and length of the submission, what will happen to it when you have submitted it, as well as where to send it is all set out in the Committee's call for evidence. Do not send evidence direct to Kim Leadbeater MP herself - that will not be treated as evidence to the Committee.

The Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC, wrote on 29 November 2024 to the Attorney General, Lord Hermer KC, about the work required of the Government in relation to the Bill prior to Second Reading, as set out in the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation, and particularly questions about the Bill's compatibility with provisions in the ECHR.

Lord Hermer responded on 12 December 2024, stating that:

"in light of the nature of this Bill, both the Government and the Opposition have chosen to remain neutral. The Prime Minister set aside collective responsibility. As a result, the provisions of the Guide to Making Legislation, which concern the collective agreement process, do not apply to the Bill."

The exchange of correspondence can be accessed via Lord Wolfson's social media post on 13 December 2024.

Others, including the Hansard Society, have concerns about this interpretation of the Guide to Making Legislation and the adoption of a position of neutrality in relation to Private Members' Bills. (See for example the entry for 18/11/24 below.) The Guide states explicitly that if the Government is to remain neutral on a PMB it needs "collective agreement from the PBL Committee and the appropriate policy committee." It also states that "A neutral stance must therefore be collectively agreed by ministers in the same way as supporting a private member’s bill, with a handling letter and accompanying documentation: a PBL Committee memorandum, bill print and explanatory notes (where possible), impact assessment, legal issues memorandum and delegated powers memorandum."

Lord Hermer also cited Erskine May in relation to the Law Officers convention, namely that:

"By long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, the fact of, and substance of advice from, the law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside government. This convention is referred to in paragraph [5.14] of the Ministerial Code. The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. I am therefore unable to substantively respond to the points which you raise."

The House of Commons has appointed 23 MPs to serve on the Public Bill Committee for the assisted dying bill, following formal nomination by the Committee of Selection and on the recommendation of the Bill's sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP. The size of the Committee exceeds the usual range: recent practice has been for between 16 and 20 MPs to serve on PBCs.

• Two ministers will sit on the Committee (Health Minister Stephen Kinnock and Justice Minister Sarah Sackman). Both supported the Bill at Second Reading.

• The other 21 members, including Kim Leadbeater MP, are not Ministers.

• The party composition of the committee is:

  • 15 Labour (65.2% [of the committee] vs. 63.2% [of all MPs])

  • 4 Conservatives (17.4% vs. 18.6%)

  • 3 Liberal Democrats (13.0% vs. 11.1%)

  • 1 Plaid Cymru (4.3% vs. 0.6%)

• Fourteen members (60.9%) of the Committee voted for the Bill at Second Reading (including the two ministers). This is a higher share proportionately than the number of all MPs who voted for the Bill at Second Reading (54.5%).

• Five of the 14 MPs who voted to give the Bill a Second Reading are sponsors or co-sponsors of the Bill; another was a teller for the 'Ayes'.

• Nine out of the 23 members gave a speech at Second Reading. Eight of the 14 MPs on the Committee who supported the Bill spoke at Second Reading; only one (Danny Kruger) of the 9 MPs on the Committee who voted against the Bill spoke in the Second Reading debate.

• Thirteen of the 23 PBC members were first elected in 2024. This is 56.5% of the Committee, slightly more than the 51.5% of the House as a whole.

It is not clear what role the two Ministers will take in the proceedings of the Committee. They may choose to only participate in debates and votes about which the Government has a collective position - specifically, concerns about the drafting and 'workability' of the Bill - while remaining neutral otherwise. Ministers would therefore participate in the proceedings in only two circumstances: (i) to support amendments designed to make the Bill technically and legally operable; and (ii) to oppose amendments that would not render the Bill either technically or legally inoperable. This would mean that on amendments where the Government is neutral, the balance on the Committee would more closely reflect the balance at Second Reading.

MPs formally debated the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill for the first time today in the House of Commons Chamber.

MPs voted by 330 to 275 votes to give the Bill a Second Reading, enabling it to proceed to the next scrutiny stage (Public Bill Committee).

At the start of the proceedings the Speaker made a short statement outlining how he planned to manage the day's business. He explained that 160 MPs had indicated that they wished to speak. Consequently, while it is not customary to impose a speech limit during debates on Private Members’ Bills, he asked MPs to restrict themselves to about eight minutes once the first two speeches in support of and opposition to the Bill were complete. He also said that the reasoned amendment in the name of Dr Ben Spencer had not been selected. This decision is at the discretion of the Speaker and conventionally he does not explain why he has not selected an amendment.

At the conclusion of the debate the Parliamentary-Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Davies-Jones MP, responded on behalf of the Government. She spoke as the Minister responsible for criminal law in relation to assisted dying or assisted suicide in England and Wales as set out in the Suicide Act 1961. She declined to express a personal view out of respect for the principle of a free vote and for her colleagues in Government who did not have an opportunity to express their views in the House. She said:

"The Government are of the view that any change to the law in this area is an issue of conscience for individual parliamentarians. It is rightly, in our view, a matter for Parliament rather than the Government to decide. Accordingly, the Government Benches will have a free vote should the views of the House be tested today. If the will of Parliament is that the law in this area should change, the Government will of course respect their duty to the statute book and ensure that any Bill is effective and its provisions can be enforced."

Labour's Uma Kumaran has withdrawn her name from the list of MPs supporting the reasoned amendment that sets out why Members should vote against giving the Bill a Second Reading. However, according to the Order Paper for tomorrow's debate, four new MPs have added their names in support of the amendment: Graham Stuart (Conservative), Jack Abbott (Labour), David Reed (Conservative), and Dr Andrew Murrison (Conservative).

Unlike committees for Government bills, Public Bill Committees (PBCs) for Private Members' Bills have no power to accept oral or written evidence submissions. This would require a resolution of the House of Commons. Kim Leadbeater MP has therefore tabled a motion - which has been published on the Order Paper for tomorrow - to enable the PBC to take evidence. In procedural terms this is expressed as giving the Committee "the power to send for persons, papers and records". If the Bill secures enough support to proceed beyond Second Reading the motion will be moved by Kim Leadbeater, immediately after confirmation of the result of the Second Reading vote.

Amendments cannot be proposed to the text of a Bill itself at Second Reading. However, opponents may table a 'reasoned amendment' explaining the reasons why they are voting against the Bill. Procedurally this is achieved by amending the Second Reading motion “that the Bill be now read a second time”. Such amendments usually take the form “That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the [Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill] because…”, followed by the reasons for opposing the Bill.

Seven MPs from the three largest parties - Dr Ben Spencer (Conservative), Anna Dixon (Labour), Munira Wilson (LibDem), Polly Billington (Labour), Josh Fenton-Glynn (Labour), Uma Kumaran (Labour), and John Lamont (Conservative) - have now signed a reasoned amendment to the Bill, setting out the reasons why they plan to vote against it:

"That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because the House’s procedures for the consideration of Private Members’ Bills do not allow for sufficient debate on and scrutiny of a Bill on a matter of this importance; recognises the importance of having a fully-informed debate and vote on assisted dying, which should be subsequent to an independent review of and public consultation on the existing law and proposals for change; and considers that the review and consultation should be informed by an independent assessment of the provision of palliative care for adults who are terminally ill."

Reasoned amendments must relate to the Bill itself but must not be concerned with detailed provisions that could be resolved through amendments at a later stage. As with other amendments, it is for the Chair to decide whether to select a reasoned amendment. Just because one has been tabled does not mean it will be selected. Erskine May states that only one reasoned amendment can be moved at Second Reading and the Chair must therefore decide which one, if any, will be selected for debate if multiple such amendments are proposed.

The Chair will announce at the start of proceedings on the Second Reading debate on the Bill on Friday 29 November whether a reasoned amendment has been selected. Having clarified the selection (or lack thereof), the Chair will then call on the proposer of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater MP, to move the motion “that the Bill be now read a second time”. She will then give her speech. When she concludes her remarks, the Chair will stand and propose the main question: “the Question is that the Bill be now read a second time”. If the Chair selects this reasoned amendment (or another such amendment should one be tabled) it is likely (though not required) that the Chair will call on one of the Members supporting the reasoned amendment. That Member will say something to the effect that "I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper" and will then make a speech in favour of the amendment (setting out their reasons for opposing the bill).

At the end of that Member's speech, the Chair will once again stand and say something to the effect that: “The original question was that the Bill be now read a second time. An amendment having been moved, the Question now is that the amendment be made.”

The debate that follows will then formally proceed on that question (“that the amendment be made”) rather than the question in Kim Leadbeater’s motion (“that the Bill be now read a second time”.) In practice, this is unlikely to have much effect on the actual contributions MPs make during the debate. At the end, however, MPs voting “Aye” on this question will be those opposed to the Bill, and those voting “No” will be supporting the Bill. If the House agrees to the reasoned amendment, then the Bill is defeated, and no further votes take place.

If the House rejects the reasoned amendment, the House proceeds “forthwith” (immediately and without further debate) to a vote on the main question (Kim Leadbeater’s motion “that the Bill be now read a second time”). If it garners majority support, the Bill will proceed to Committee stage.

In a post for the Constitution Unit at University College London, Daniel Gover responds to growing concerns that there will be insufficient scrutiny of the Bill if it passed its Second Reading. He proposes four measures that Parliament could adopt to address the concerns, namely:

• adopt an informal speech limit for Members in the Second Reading debate or endorse formal speech limits to avoid any lack of clarity;

• give the Public Bill Committee the power to take public evidence;

• provide extra time for debate (more than the usual single day) at Report Stage in the House of Commons; and

• guarantee time for consideration of any amendments made to the Bill in the House of Lords, so that the Bill does not fall for a lack of time.

A detailed briefing on the Bill has been published by the House of Commons Library. The Library produces briefings on bills before Second Reading and after Committee Stage (so in advance of the Report Stage debate in the Chamber). Its briefings are politically impartial, provide a wealth of factual information, and set out the range of opinions that surround a Bill. MPs are the primary audience for the briefings but they are also very useful for anyone outside Parliament. The briefing provides an overview of the current legal position, the debates about the appropriateness of the Private Member's Bill process and the position of key campaigners and stakeholders, as well as an analysis of the key clauses in the Bill.

In a post on The Conversation, Daniel Gover explores criticism of the assisted dying bill relating not to policy but to the procedure by which it has been introduced. As a Private Member's Bill, it is not subject to the same policy and parliamentary processes as a Government bill.

Daniel Gover is a Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London. His research interests include the legislative process and Private Members' Bills.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Daniel Greenberg, is investigating the recent former chair (2021-24) of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Dying Well, Danny Kruger MP, for an alleged breach of the rules for APPGs in relation to "the registration of an interest". The Commissioner is also looking at allegations relating to the "Production and publication of an income and expenditure statement by the APPG on Dying Well". No further information is available and it is not known when the inquiry is likely to conclude.

The longest-serving members of the House of Commons - Labour MP Diane Abbott and Conservative MP Edward Leigh - have written a joint article in The Guardian, setting out their concerns about both the process of the Bill and what they think is likely to happen in practice once the Bill is implemented.

On the use of the Private Members' Bill process, they say:

"Regarding the process, we have seen our fair share of bills over the years: some good, some bad. Whatever the merits of a bill, laws are always better if there is proper scrutiny and plenty of expert advice has been sought. This is particularly the case with private members’ bills, which often do not enjoy the independent scrutiny that government lawyers can offer."

They note that the current House of Commons is particularly inexperienced at dealing with legislation given the high churn in membership brought about by the recent general election.

"Parliament will have sat for just 12 weeks by the time MPs vote on what is, quite literally, a matter of life and death; many MPs are still relatively unfamiliar with normal parliamentary procedure, let alone for private members’ bills, of which this will be the first in this parliament. There is more than a suspicion that the pressure groups behind this proposed change have sought to take advantage of an inexperienced new parliament. Either way, the flawed process has been lamentable and wholly unacceptable for a matter of such importance."

The Guardian is reporting that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was drafted for Kim Leadbeater by Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, who recently retired after almost a decade as First Parliamentary Counsel, the Government’s most senior legislative drafter. Drafting a Private Member’s Bill on instruction from the MP sponsoring the Bill will be a different exercise to drafting a Government Bill on instruction from departmental lawyers attached to the Government Legal Department. And drafting a bill in semi-retired private practice may also be more challenging without access to the wealth of drafting resources available in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Nonetheless, that such an experienced and senior legislative drafter has crafted the Bill should assuage concerns about its legal and technical qualities.

In a post for the Institute for Government, Hannah White and Jill Rutter argue that having promised Esther Rantzen that he would allow Parliament to vote on assisted dying, Sir Keir Starmer may have inadvertently set back her cause by approaching the issue through a Private Members' Bill. The post notes that the legislation would have benefited from greater consideration at the preparation stage, and that the Government has not laid the groundwork to enable MPs and the public to make an informed decision about assisted dying. They highlight how a policy review could have explored international experience and looked at the practicalities of implementation, including the implications for the NHS and safeguards to address concerns about coercion.

In a post on his Public Law for Everyone blog, Professor Mark Elliott, exploring the constitutional and procedural implications of the Bill and the Government's adoption of a 'neutral' position, concludes that:

“At present, the formal status of the Government’s avowedly neutral position is unclear, not least thanks to the unwillingness of Ministers to adhere to the dubious diktat issued by the Cabinet Secretary following the suspension of collective responsibility. Similar uncertainty arises in relation to the extent to which the Government is prepared to fulfil the constitutional expectations that arise in the event of such neutrality. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the Government will rapidly clarify whether the Cabinet Secretary’s position stands, whether it remains the case that Ministers are required, in effect, to be silent, and, if so, how that squares with the Government’s own expectations, set out in its Guide to Making Legislation, that it will facilitate informed consideration of the Bill by publishing, among other things, an impact assessment. Whatever one’s views on the merits of the assisted dying Bill, a matter of such importance deserves to be dealt with in a manner that is procedurally and constitutionally beyond reproach; legislation as consequential as this surely demands nothing less.”

Professor Elliott is Professor of Public Law at Cambridge University and a former Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. His blogpost cites the Hansard Society's research a number of times.

At Business Questions today the Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell MP, set out the Government's position in relation to the Bill and addressed the question of how much time would be available to MPs to scrutinise it. She said:

“I know that people care deeply about this issue, and there are strongly held views on both sides. As such, it is a matter for Members to consider personally and freely. I know from the last debate on this issue held in the House that it can be the best of moments for Parliament, with considered, thoughtful and respectful debate. It is not a Government Bill. Similar issues such as legalising abortion and homosexuality have come about via private Member’s Bills in the past, and I believe that is the appropriate way to consider matters of conscience, with a free vote and a neutral Government position. As the Bill will be the first item of business on 29 November, it is highly likely that the debate on Second Reading will last for the full five hours. That is comparable to proceedings on any other Bill—perhaps longer—and I am sure the House would want that to be the case. Should the House agree to its Second Reading, the Bill would then be considered in Committee, probably for several weeks. The whole House will also have further opportunities to debate and vote on those matters on Report and again on Third Reading, which will not be until April at the earliest. The Government have a duty to ensure that any Bill that passes through Parliament is effective and can be enforced. That is why if any Bill is to be supported by the House, we would expect to work with the promoting Member to ensure that it is workable. This is a matter for the House to decide, and the Government will implement the will of the House, whatever it so chooses. I hope that will help Members when considering these issues.”

At Prime Minister’s Questions this afternoon, Conservative MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke asked the Prime Minister to commit, “to two days - 16 hours - of protected Government time for the Bill on the Floor of the House, so that we can examine and debate the Bill on Report, which is when much of what we are concerned about can be brought up? Otherwise, people like me may decline it a Second Reading, through fear that we may not be able to debate the issues in full.”

The Prime Minister's response did not address the issue of providing more time to debate the Bill. He said:

“I know that there are strongly held views on both sides of the debate across the House. That is why there will be a free vote. Every Member needs to decide for themselves how they will vote. I do think that there is sufficient time allocated to it, but it is an important issue.”

If a Bill receives a Second Reading, a money resolution is needed to provide parliamentary approval for the financial consequences of the legislation. It authorises public spending or charges on the public purse that have not been previously approved by an existing Act of Parliament. Without this resolution, clauses in the Bill that create financial obligations cannot proceed.

Clauses in a bill which create such obligations (charges on public expenditure) are italicised. As Erskine May explains, this marks the fact that “they do not unconditionally form part of the Bill”. A Public Bill Committee cannot consider those parts of the Bill – the italicised words, and the clauses governed by them – if they have not been authorised by a money resolution. In the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, clause 32 is italicised concerning the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure assistance is available as part of the health service in England and Wales. On the Future Business paper for 29 November, a note has therefore been added to the entry for the Bill confirming that:

“A money resolution is required for this Bill to be proceeded with in Committee.”

Only a Government Minister - not Kim Leadbeater, the MP sponsoring the Bill - can table the money motion (which becomes a resolution when agreed to by the House). This restriction arises from the ‘financial initiative of the Crown’, a constitutional principle dating back to 1713. It gives the Crown – the Government of the day – exclusive authority to request or recommend expenditure to the House of Commons. To table a money motion, the Government must therefore assess how much money will be required and have some idea about where the funding will come from, although it is not required to set this out in the motion itself. The progress of the Bill will therefore depend on the Government’s willingness to facilitate a money resolution if the Bill receives a Second Reading. A money motion is usually moved in the week following the Second Reading and the motion is debatable for up to 45 minutes.

Kim Leadbeater MP has published her Private Members' Bill to legalise assisted dying. At 32 pages the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is unusually long for a Private Members Bill. It comprises 43 clauses and six schedules of legislative text. Explanatory Notes have also been published alongside the Bill to assist readers in understanding what each clause of the Bill will mean in practice, as well as providing historical context to the policy background and information about how the Bill will affect other legislation in related policy areas. MPs will decide whether to give the Bill a Second Reading on Friday 29 November 2024.

In a blogpost for the Constitution Unit, former Clerk of the House Sir David Natzler argues that the Government must ensure that the Bill is not lost purely because of a lack of parliamentary time rather than an assessment of its merits. He suggests there are four things the Government ought to do in advance of Second Reading:

• co-operate with other parties to ensure there is a vote at Second Reading and the Bill is not talked out;

• clarify whether the Government intends to run a public consultation or set up a review if Second Reading is agreed;

• offer and openly acknowledge the assistance of Parliamentary Counsel in reviewing the text of the Bill; and

• make clear that the Government will bring forward a motion to allow for the submission of written evidence to the Public Bill Committee.

In the entry for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on the House of Commons 'Future Business' paper there is now a note referring MPs and other readers to the Health and Social Care Committee's report titled 'Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide' (published on 29 February 2024) and the Government's response (published on 9 May 2024).

The inquiry was undertaken in the previous 2023-24 Session "to serve as a basis for discussion and debate in future Parliaments." The Committee did not propose how the debate about assisted dying should be resolved, but brought together "a comprehensive and up-to-date body of evidence relating to this difficult, sensitive, and yet, crucial subject" that could be "a significant and useful resource for future Parliamentarians." The Committee states that it received over 68,000 responses to its online form, and over 380 pieces of written evidence. The report covers:

• the current legislative position and the state of public opinion on the issue of assisted dying;

• trends and research from those jurisdictions where assisted dying/assisted suicide is legal;

• the experience of healthcare professionals, including in those jurisdictions where assisted dying/suicide is legal;

• the care provided to people managing long-term, sometimes terminal conditions and the role that palliative and end-of-life care plays.

The 20 MPs who were successful in this year’s Private Members’ Bill (PMB) ballot presented their Bills for First Reading in the House of Commons today. After presenting their bill, the MPs picked a Friday sitting date for its Second Reading. PMBs presented for First Reading must have a short title (the name) and a long title (a ore formal description of what the bill covers and seeks to do). Political slogans are not permitted in short or long titles and only well-known abbreviations are allowed (such as 'NHS'). If the bill encompasses a number of minor matters then the phrase 'and for connected purposes' is permitted in the long title. A full legislative text of a PMB is only required if the bill secures a Second Reading. The provisions set out in the text must stay within the scope of the short and long titles. A list of up to 11 supporters (who must not be ministers) can be supplied. A supporters' list is not necessary but can be a good indicator of cross-party interest and can usefully highlight the support of prominent and influential MPs.

Kim Leadbeater MP, who came top of the ballot, had already indicated that she intended to bring forward a Bill to legalise assisted dying. When presenting the Bill she confirmed that its title will be the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Having come top of the PMB ballot she had first choice of the 13 sitting Friday dates for the Second Reading of her bill and as expected she chose the first PMB sitting Friday - 29 November 2024 - for its Second Reading debate.

The following MPs are listed as supporters of the Bill: Kit Malthouse (Cons), Christine Jardine (Lib Dem), Jake Richards (Labour), Siân Berry (Green), Rachel Hopkins (Labour), Peter Bedford (Cons), Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour), Sarah Green (Lib Dem), Dr Jeevun Sandher (Labour), Ruth Cadbury (Labour) and Paula Barker (Labour).

In each parliamentary Session, Private Members’ Bills are given precedence over government business in the House of Commons on 13 Fridays. The Government proposes the dates in a motion that must be approved by the House each Session. The dates for this Session have been approved today.

The first seven of these Fridays are allocated for Second Reading debates, while the remaining six give priority to subsequent stages after Committee (Report, Third Reading, and consideration of Lords amendments). A special order of precedence applies, determined by the order in which notice of a stage is given as outlined in the table below.

At Prime Minister's Questions today, senior Conservative backbencher Sir David Davis MP, asked Sir Keir Starmer if he would "commit to giving extra time - Government time - to the bill to ensure that we get this right first time?" He argued that the time constraints on PMBs make it more difficult to get the legislation right first time and noted that in 1967 the Government provided time to allow David Steel's Abortion Bill to proceed.

The Prime Minister deflected the question. He responded that it was a "really important issue" and that he understood that there were strongly held views across the House. He added:

"I do agree with him that it is important that we ensure that any change to the law—if there is to be one—is effective. If this House gives the Bill a Second Reading, it will of course then go to Committee as usual, which will allow that more detailed scrutiny, but we do need the discussion more broadly on this important issue."

The Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, has written to all members of the Cabinet as follows:

“Dear all, Kim Leadbeater MP has said that she will seek to introduce a Private Members’ Bill to enable assisted dying. As is long-standing convention for such issues of conscience, the Prime Minister has decided to set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill and any others covering the same subject matter. That means that ministers can vote, or not, however they wish. The Government will therefore remain neutral on the passage of the Bill and on the matter of assisted dying. At the despatch box, ministers should reiterate that this is a question for Parliament, on which the official Government position is to remain neutral. Outside of Parliament, all ministers should take the same approach in all forms of media, including social media. Though ministers need not resile from previously stated views when directly asked about them, they should exercise discretion and should not take part in the public debate. This is an exceptional arrangement, which applies only to the question of whether, and how, Parliament should legislate on the issue of assisted dying. Collective responsibility applies as usual across the rest of Government business.”

At 9am in Committee Room 8 in the House of Commons the Senior Deputy Speaker, the Chair of Ways and Means, Nusrat Ghani MP, presided over the Private Members' Bill ballot. It is expected that one of the 20 MPs who are successful in the ballot will bring forward a bill to legalise assisted dying.