Forum menu
There's no such restriction in the Parliament Act.Lords could do is delay it because the Commons would use the Parliament Act to bounce it through anyway.
The problem is that it's not a government bill. Parliament Act is used to push through bills promised in the King's speech.
if the House of Commons want that Bill to become law it can happen.
Anyway, there is no form of bill that a small group of Lords won't place hundreds of fresh objections to. No length of sitting time that results in them allowing the bill to pass. No amendments that could satisfy them. So they'll have to be sidelined and procedure changed to get this through.
It's irrelevant if they raise objections the second time round on an "identical" bill - if its been put through under the parliament act if the lords can't agree ammendments with the Commons it becomes law anyway.
there's a much larger group with fewer ammendments including Lord Falconer who is its sponsor trying to get it voted through! When the guy arguing for the bill is making dozens of ammendments you have to wonder whether the commons committee did a thorough enough job.
Interesting point.
i haven't followed the detail of then english bill but i think many of the amendments from the oro side are to try to head off the spurious objections
Falconer has said it will be back under the parliament act
im still very strongly against a royal commission. its just a way of delaying this for years. Just adopt the scottish bill.
we dont need any more information gathered. we need the lords to be abolished.
im still very strongly against a royal commission. its just a way of delaying this for years. Just adopt the scottish bill.
I'm not sure that if you just anglicised the Scottish bill and put it before the House of Commons it would make it through? (its yet to completely make it through in Scotland!). Some of the bits of the English bill which differ from Scotland (time limit, the quasi-judicial oversight) are there to win over the uncertain.
What you seem to be arguing though is that the currently drafted English bill is not actually the best bit of legislation they could have?
we dont need any more information gathered. we need the lords to be abolished.
Well, if you want anything to happen quickly, abolishing the Lords to achieve it is not going to be the fastest way. Realistically, whatever you replace the Lords with will still have the potential to delay controversial legislation - and should be a way to refine/filter out poorly drafted law. If England wants to make this Law and the bishops or others are being obstructive, make sure the Bill is really well written, and bump it through with the Parliament Act. The first challenge is actually getting the MPs support aligned to the level of public support, which I think comes down to the nuance of the rules, mechanisms and safeguards.
there's a much larger group with fewer ammendments including Lord Falconer who is its sponsor trying to get it voted through! When the guy arguing for the bill is making dozens of ammendments you have to wonder whether the commons committee did a thorough enough job.
Interesting point.
It's something that pops up with every Bill. This Bill is currently on more than 1200 amendments: the previous record during this Parliamentary session was 725 over a Bill that was almost 3x longer
At the time of writing, (November 2025) Peers have tabled 737 amendments to the Bill. For a 51-page Bill this is an unusually large number of amendments. Indeed, it is the largest number of amendments at Committee Stage in the Lords for any Bill this Session. Only three Bills have attracted similar numbers of amendments, and all three were much longer Bills – the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (725 amendments over 137 pages), the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (652 amendments over 180 pages), and the Employment Rights Bill (646 amendments over 299 pages). Moreover, all three of those Bills have now completed their Committee Stages.
Part of the problem is that the Commons is constrained to discussions on amendments that the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, chooses. He also has the power to decide who speaks. If he deems an amendment unworthy of discussion then it falls to the Lords.
The HoL doesn't have a speaker and every amendment can be aired. The Clerks might tut loudly if it's considered "disorderly", but that's it.
Statistically (and practically) some amendments are mischievous, such as Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson insisting ‘that the person has provided a negative pregnancy test’. The principle is sound, but the wording is bound to generate more filibustering around men, people not of reproductive age, etc.
Baroness Coffey would prevent you from saying "goodbye" to relatives overseas by imposing a ban on leaving the country in the previous 12 months. What happens if that persistent tummy upset following a holiday abroad is actually a malignant tumour? Should you have to wait another 12 months?
It is possible that Members opposed to the Bill will resort to procedural tactics to delay progress – a charge that is frequently made by Peers during Committee Stages on Government Bills. The most common ways of doing so are:
tabling large numbers of amendments, including after Committee Stage has started;
objecting to groupings and insisting that amendments be debated individually or in smaller groups;
making long speeches. or speaking more than once on the same issue; and
encouraging a high number of speakers on each group of amendments.In practice, though, it can be hard to distinguish a clear line between deliberate delaying tactics and legitimate, detailed scrutiny.
To summarise:
Yes, amendments in the Lords are inevitable, but a Royal Commission won't necessarily speed legislation through. They're intended to look at systems rather than details, the most recent in 1999 was (ironically) set up to examine A House for the Future, Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords.
They can be limited in their scope and they can take up to five years to reach a conclusion, they also haven't been used during this century.
In practice, though, it can be hard to distinguish a clear line between deliberate delaying tactics and legitimate, detailed scrutiny.
Additional sources:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774/publications (this is where you can see amendments tabled)
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/12/assisted-dyings-disgraceful-delay
The HoL doesn't have a speaker and every amendment can be aired.
They definitely do have a speaker - (Lord Forsyth) - although they may not have the same powers as the Commons speaker to filter/stifle debate.
Yes, amendments in the Lords are inevitable, but a Royal Commission won't necessarily speed legislation through. They're intended to look at systems rather than details,
The mistake (IMHO) is assuming that without such a commission that anything will happen quickly. As I understand it there’s no reason a Royal Commission can’t be asked to work out details rather than merely concepts. But let’s be clear the difference between the Scottish and English bills is quite significant not tinkering. I don’t know if it actually needs to be a “Royal” commission - the point being an independent, non-partisan body with time and depth of expertise to get to a solution which has momentum behind it rather than a cut n paste of multiple other jurisdictions rules to try and appease objectors from so many angles. It will be about 20 yrs from Margo McDonald first starting the serious political debate to it becoming law (if it does) in Scotland. England is early on a long journey!
I'm not sure that if you just anglicised the Scottish bill and put it before the House of Commons it would make it through? (its yet to completely make it through in Scotland!). Some of the bits of the English bill which differ from Scotland (time limit, the quasi-judicial oversight) are there to win over the uncertain.
What you seem to be arguing though is that the currently drafted English bill is not actually the best bit of legislation they could have?
No its not. Its been amended so much its next to useless. the Scots bill is better - because we have a more nearly properly functioning democracy in Holyrood
What the mess in Westminster shows is how poorly the pseudo democracy there works
They definitely do have a speaker - (Lord Forsyth) - although they may not have the same powers as the Commons speaker to filter/stifle debate.
May not have the same powers? Definitely not,
For example, unlike the Speaker, the Lord Speaker does not call the House to order, determine who is to speak when two individuals rise at the same time, rule on points of order, discipline members who violate the rules of the House, or select amendments to bills—all these functions are performed by the House of Lords as a whole.
No its not. Its been amended so much its next to useless. the Scots bill is better - because we have a more nearly properly functioning democracy in HolyroodArguably the Scots bill is better (if you believe it is) because its the third time of trying and England should have the same democratic right to iterate through different attempts/approaches at finding a solution that carries enough support to make it into law. We wouldn't be happy if England passed a law and told Holyrood, "for gods sake just copy our Bill you don't need to make your own mind up".
or you could say it works by blocking a bill you just described as next to useless!What the mess in Westminster shows is how poorly the pseudo democracy there works
Margo's original bill had a lot going for it, and I think if you had a well-informed conversation with the public about self-administration versus euthanasia, you would see democratic buy-in for not "forcing" people to act whilst they still have the strength to pick up the medication and swallow it! So I'm not sure we can really claim to have a better democracy for sorting out these sort of issues: we've been trying for over a decade and have had to make compromises!
or you could say it works by blocking a bill you just described as next to useless!
its next to useless because its been amended so much and so much ground given to the religious opponents as to make it useless because it will be unusable.
Holyrood has done a very good job on it, Westminster has not because its not a real democracy
democratic buy-in for not "forcing" people to act whilst they still have the strength to pick up the medication and swallow it!
I far prefer self administration even if its limiting.
I'm not sure you understand how ammendments work - which is really odd because you are usually well informed. The vast majority of the Lords ammendments haven't been decided on, and are likely to be rejected if they ever get that far. Even if there was enough time for all the ammendments to be considered and voted on they won't all be successful. What ground has been given to the religious opponents which make it unusable?or you could say it works by blocking a bill you just described as next to useless!
its next to useless because its been amended so much and so much ground given to the religious opponents as to make it useless because it will be unusable.
Holyrood has done a very good job on it, Westminster has not because its not a real democracy
If Holyrood has done such a good job, why didn't the previous two bills proceed there?
The Lords is shit for democracy, but it only just got through the Commons so there's no certainty that with a different 2nd chamber it would get through the Lords either - especially after the butchering of the High Court Judge part. Perhaps part of the reason it got through the commons at all is because some people knew they could show support for the concept but not worry about the technical details because the Lords would do that anyway?
I far prefer self-administration even if its limiting.democratic buy-in for not "forcing" people to act whilst they still have the strength to pick up the medication and swallow it!
It has advantages, particularly as far as legislation goes, but I honestly think if the Bill passes into Law there will be people who are suddenly faced with a very hard choice - take the drug today, or wait and hope they still have the option tomorrow/next week. Don't take it and you might have to endure a pointless, drawn-out death. Actually its just about that point in the "process" that people probably feel they'd be happiest to switch off.
I'm not even sure it actually makes the safeguards that much better. I do understand that many Doctors were not keen and that creates a fundamental issue, but when part of your argument is that there is nothing to debate - just copy what other countries do - some other countries do offer genuine euthenasia so I think there is scope to ask why we wouldn't. Perhaps there is scope for future improvement, but I'm not sure there is an easy path to that.
I am going to have to walk away from this. My head is burst. Poly you have a PM
I far prefer self administration even if its limiting.
Even if that means people wishing to pass away have to do so earlier than they want to? As my sister in law did before she lost use of the right arm.
dickyboy
its all about compromises and limitations. Yes self administered is limiting to the person themselves as in that situation. However self administration reduces pressure on medical staff. Mind you the Netherlands a very conservative country has physician assisted deaths with few issues - and they use "intolerable suffering ( I paraphrase) rather than "terminal illness" for the qualifying condition which is a much wider scope.
I am not against physician assisted in principle
Parliament has made a first step to reforming the HoL by removing hereditary peers, completing a move begun by Labour under Tony Blair.
It isn't straight forward, some will be made life peers instead, but it's a start on their manifesto pledge.
LONDON, March 11 (Reuters) - Britain's parliament has approved legislation to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords, ending a centuries-old system of aristocratic seats in the upper chamber that the government says should not be secured by birth.
But the bishops would still be there I think?
the bams are trying to talk it out at holyrood. vile bunch
they know they have last the argument but thrir god says to oppose it
MSPs vote against legalising assisted dying in Scotland
— The i Paper (@theipaper) March 17, 2026
T.CO the bams are trying to talk it out at holyrood. vile bunch
Didnt need to filibuster, unlike in HoL, as it got voted down at the final stage.
I assume they are going to be pouring equal money into hospice care etc as they did into this campaign, right?
Well at least the numbers voting for it have increased each time. It’ll happen at some point I’m sure.
That ^ is disappointing. I agree with some of the concerns that opponents raised particularly regarding coercion but I also agree with Liam McArthur that these decisions about how someone ends their life are still being taken just not in the open but behind closed doors and off the record
IMHO they buggered it up by late but significant amendments. The issues around the competence of the Scottish Parliament were a gift to the anti crowd because by making that amendment the various medical bodies bailed on it and so any MSP with doubts had the perfect excuse.
The need to find a way to come up with an approach which is so clean, well thought through and robust to counter arguments that it doesn’t get rewritten at the 11th hour. That’s not a criticism of Liam McArthur - without people like him championing it to where it is, this would still be a taboo.
However our politicians need to work out how they are going to get this issue the public actually feel strongly about through parliament. Given there is an election looming there seems no better time to make my feelings known to party leaders and candidates.
the bams are trying to talk it out at holyrood. vile bunch
Not every person against assisted dying is a religious nutter. But you know this already, I'd imagine it makes it easier to ignore anti arguments though.
the bams are trying to talk it out at holyrood. vile bunch
Not every person against assisted dying is a religious nutter. But you know this already, I'd imagine it makes it easier to ignore anti arguments though.
No but they are the loudest and they dissemble and outright lie. there is no anti argument that has any logic or reality to it that I have seen. Not one. All are either faith based but disguised or are folk being fooled by the lies of the religious bams
Apart from the labour vote in Holyrood its a very clear split between those professing faith and those that do not. There are a few secular against it but the vast majority of those opposed are religious
I know the religious affiliation of most of the antis at holyrood bar the suprising labour votes against
I am more than a little puzzled by the labour vote in Holyrood. 3 for 17 against. This is in stark contrast to all other parties. It certainly looks like a party political decision.
SNP voted mainly for despite Swinney and Sturgeon voting against. Labou 3 to 17 against. Its the highest anti % of any party including the tories
Anyone got any explanation other than playing political games?
Edit: I am too angry and upset to debate this further now - but I am interested in folks views on the labour vote
Edit: I am too angry and upset to debate this further now - but I am interested in folks views on the labour vote
I know how much this means to you tj and this isn't meant as a dig, but Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party 6 for 22 against is a fair % too.
Is it as simple as opposing SNP at every opportunity?
Both Findlay and Sarwar voted against but I'm sure that whipping-in, despite the free votes, would have leaked.
Is it as simple as opposing SNP at every opportunity?
It wasn't even a SNP bill.
Of course the question of parliamentary competency (and the associated protection for objecting medical professionals) would be resolved in an independent Scotland.
I would expect that from the tories. I expect them to be reactionary. They also have more members of professed faith that I know of.
its not even an SNP bill - its a lib dem private members bill but it certainly looks like party political games to me.
Yeah, I don't think this is party politics, but it is a poor decision. I think MEPs should now be the ones to attend the bedside of people they have denied this right, and explain to them personally why they must endure what they must endure.
Most of the antis its pure religious affiliation - bar the labour anti vote which is not
However our politicians need to work out how they are going to get this issue the public actually feel strongly about through parliament.
Very aware I exist in my own little bubble but I don't personally know anyone opposed to assisted dying (or to my knowledge at least). To me, this Scottish Parliament vote simply isn't representative of the wider population's view.
Even with a defeat it's been useful in raising the profile of assisted dying - even eldest mini a11y's school class was debating it yesterday.
but it is a poor decision.
If the public's views on this are to be believed (81% in favour) and there's no reason to not believe it, then this is hardly democracy in action.
As an aside: Talking with my Aunt this last week (a palliative care Dr in Canada) 1 in 20 deaths is now MAID. She's on the fence about it herself, but many of her colleagues are coming down against it, and she feels that's only increasing. She reports (anecdotally) that it's easier to get MAID than it is to get a 'script of Oxycontin
80ish% of the population in favour. 75% of the disabled, a majority in every scots constituency. a majority of medical staff.
TJ - I think you are looking for conspiracies where there probably are none. At the last vote they were 7/15 so only 4 labour MPs actually switched view. They aren’t names I recognise - and without spending hours searching I don’t know why. You can be sure though that every MSP who voted for at the last stage has had constituents telling them why it was a mistake. My own MSPs all gave very non-commital answers on their plans at various stages including one who said I have voted for at the first stage but have serious reservations and am minded to vote against at the next stage unless they are addressed. That’s a real politicians approach - a foot in both camps!
I don’t have a detailed analysis of the religious views of the MSPs but I’m not sure you are right to assume that labour MSPs are less likely to be religious. But, as I’ve said before, I think it’s probably a mistake to think that everyone with reservations is religious or being influenced by religious groups - that’s an easy way to dismiss things we find irrational but taking time to listen to people, especially people who flipped (so clearly weren’t opposed to the entire concept but had concerns about the realities) is clearly what it will take to find a workable solution. Telling those people they’ve been duped isn’t listening to them, and certainly isn’t formulating solutions with them.
I expected that the competence of the parliament muddle and the professional medical bodies objection that resulted from that must have been a significant factor for some. How that became an 11th hour panic I don’t know, nor have I followed enough to understand why the amendment was to remove the protections rather than add a clause saying could only become law if Westminster add these protections, or even make it a criminal offence to treat someone less favourably for refusing to participate (I think that would have been competent - it’s only employment law we can’t legislate for).
the coercion concern is clearly the biggest problem to overcome and I don’t see an easy way to convince people who have legitimate concerns about people sub consciously feeling “obliged” to end things - although I think it works both ways, I’ve seen people who went on miserable life extending but not saving treatments to give family members the feeling that the end was not yet.
is it that private members bills are just a bit less thought through, well founded and negotiated with stakeholders or is all legislation this poorly supported but bounced through with the whip?
However our politicians need to work out how they are going to get this issue the public actually feel strongly about through parliament.
Very aware I exist in my own little bubble but I don't personally know anyone opposed to assisted dying (or to my knowledge at least). To me, this Scottish Parliament vote simply isn't representative of the wider population's view.
Even with a defeat it's been useful in raising the profile of assisted dying - even eldest mini a11y's school class was debating it yesterday.
I think support for the concept is easy to find, probably even within the Scottish parliament. The harder part is agreeing a set of rules which those who have to approve legislation can agree are robust and appropriate.
the coercion concern is clearly the biggest problem to overcome and I don’t see an easy way to convince people who have legitimate concerns about people sub consciously feeling “obliged” to end things
My own direct experience is people choosing to "end things" much earlier, while they didn't need help and couldn't be stopped. Did they feel, sub consciously, "obliged" to do so to spare their partners and the rest of us? I don't know, but I think most of us would have rather they felt they could have stayed around a bit longer.
The coercion arguement is completely bogus. Its one of the inventions of the religious antis. they tried numerous false objections and that one gained traction. there has never been a case of coercion ever worldwide
nor have I followed enough to understand why the amendment was to remove the protections rather than add a clause saying could only become law if Westminster add these protections,
My understanding is thats exactly what was done. that clause was added I think. Certainly an attempt was made to do so
TJ - I think you are looking for conspiracies where there probably are none.
Possibly but the pattern looks very odd
thanks for your thoughts
RIGHTTOLIFE.ORG.UK I don't know, but I think most of us would have rather they felt they could have stayed around a bit longer.
Thats the only coercion I have ever seen - to continue with futile treatment or delay an assisted death or to refuse a DNACPR. I have seen hundreds of folk die
there has never been a case of coercion ever worldwide
That you are aware of. You cannot know whether it's true.
It's these sorts of things, where you state as facts when all you have is "To everyone's knowledge so far" that mark you out as just as entrenched as the people you claim to see as 'vile'.
Scotroutes - its all about the questions asked and that has clear cherry picking of the data to get the results they want.