Where are we now? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’s progress through Parliament

On 12 and 19 September, the second reading debate for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill took place in the House of Lords. It is the most debated Bill in the Lords in Parliament’s history to date. Whilst some of the most difficult issues raised have been resolved, many have not.

Nonetheless, the Bill passed its second reading.  

Next in the procedure, a select committee will gather written and oral evidence from various individuals and organisations with an interest or expertise in the Bill. The committee has been set to produce their report by 7 November, to be debated during four sittings between 14 November 2025 and 12 December 2025. 

Regulation and oversight of medical practitioners

One of the most hotly contested issues has been whether there should be judicial oversight of the procedure. The Bill, as currently drafted, proposes a review panel (psychiatrist, social worker, legal expert) instead of High Court approval, as was originally drafted. 

As we noted in our June 2025 update on this Bill’s progress through Parliament, the intended role for the High Court was subject to much criticism before the second reading in the House of Commons. Following this, the committee amended the role of judicial oversight, substituting in a new regulatory role for a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission, part of that role being the convening of a review panel.

Many in the Lords, however, argued the panel presents a weaker version of the original safeguard. In part, because the legal member is only one member of the panel, there is concern that their opinion could be disregarded, as decisions are made by a majority vote. Similarly to criticisms of the High Court’s original function, questions were asked of how the Commission will source members of the panels, as there could be a high number of applications to review each year, but each of the constituent professions are understaffed.

As is often the case in the public regulation of professions, the proposed legislation seeks a balance of two common considerations: resource constraints and ensuring safeguards are robust. Whilst this amendment in the Commons added weight to the resource constraints end of the scale, many of those in the Lords have argued that this was inappropriate. Whether the scales are appropriately balanced depends on how the evidence will be presented to the select committee, and how that committee and then the Lords will scrutinise that evidence, which are both still to be seen.

Remaining legislative procedure

For a short Bill, there have been a huge number of proposed amendments. 137 amendments to the Bill have already been proposed since the second reading; each of these will be considered at the committee stage once the select committee has published its report. Whilst the Bill passed the second reading with relative ease, the Bill remains in a precarious position. A major risk for proponents is that, if the wording of the Bill cannot be agreed upon by both Houses before the end of the parliamentary session (likely to be Spring 2026), the Bill will lapse. Given there are a number of amendments to be considered, this could be likely. 

If the Bill lapses, the entire procedure would restart. There is no guarantee that the Bill would again be selected from a range of other private members’ bills (the first stage of many). This is an issue common to many private members’ bill which, because of their nature, often face higher scrutiny than a government bill which would be accompanied by important background policy work, such as a Green Paper and a White Paper. It is for this reason that the Committee is charged with producing their report by 7 November to leave enough time for committee stage consideration, a third reading debate, and the two Houses to go back and forth agreeing all of the Bill’s wording (so called legislative “ping pong”). There is some speculation that the Government will extend the parliamentary session such that the Bill can be properly scrutinised. However, given the Government has remained neutral to date on the merits of the Bill, there would need to be significant political pressure before it does so.

If you have further questions on the above, here is a summary of the services Stone King offer on this topic: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – Our legal services 

Alternatively, contact Melanie Carter, Head of Public and Regulatory Law.