Taxpayers could face a bill approaching £2m for the House of Lords’ prolonged debate on the assisted dying bill, according to new analysis, as peers prepare for another day of scrutiny in Parliament.
Members of the upper chamber are due to meet again on Friday for what will be the seventh day of debate on the proposed legislation. Analysis by the Press Association suggests that, if current attendance levels continue and a similar proportion of peers claim the maximum daily allowance, the cost for peers alone could reach £1.95m across the 16 days allocated so far.
Peers can claim a tax-free daily allowance of £371 for attending the House of Lords, or a reduced rate of £185. The figures do not include additional operational costs such as security or staffing required for sittings to take place.
Data released by the House of Lords shows that £270,807 has already been paid out to peers for two days of debate in September during the bill’s second reading.
The length and intensity of the debate has sparked criticism from supporters of the legislation, who accuse some peers of deliberately time-wasting and trying to “talk it out” so that it runs out of time. Opponents, however, argue the bill represents a profound legal and ethical change and requires extensive scrutiny.
Campaign group My Death, My Decision, which backs assisted dying, said terminally ill people would believe the overall cost would be worth “every penny”, but criticised what it described as a “disproportionate” number of amendments, now exceeding 1,000.
By contrast, disability rights organisation Not Dead Yet UK said the extra sittings were necessary to ensure the legislation was properly examined.
In December, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was granted an additional 10 days at committee stage amid concerns that peers would not have enough time to debate the volume of proposed amendments. Supporters claimed opponents were attempting to slow the bill’s progress, while critics argued the draft legislation was not fit for purpose.
A source close to peers opposing the bill said it was in “such a poor state that it needs an extraordinary amount of time for the Lords to do their job of scrutinising these new laws properly”.
The bill would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with less than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. Approval would be required from two doctors and a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist.
Press Association analysis of the six days debated so far suggests around £733,967 could be claimed by peers, an average of £122,327 per sitting. If attendance patterns continue for the remaining committee stage days, the overall cost could reach £1,957,245.
The issue was raised following a written question from Conservative peer Lord Farmer to the House of Lords’ senior deputy speaker.
A spokesperson for Not Dead Yet UK said the projected cost underlined the importance of scrutiny. “This Bill proposes one of the most profound changes to law, medicine and society in generations,” he said. “Careful, line-by-line scrutiny is not an optional extra – it is Parliament doing its job.”
Nathan Stilwell, campaign manager for My Death, My Decision, said, “For terminally ill people, if that cost results in a safe, compassionate choice at the end of life, many will say it’s worth every penny.”
“However, we should be honest about what is driving up costs, a small number of peers have tabled a disproportionate volume of amendments, and debate has proceeded at a glacial pace.”
Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said the controversy added to calls for reform of the upper chamber. “People will rightly be uncomfortable at the spectacle of completely unelected and unaccountable politicians making decisions that potentially impact every person in this country,” he said.
He added that Keir Starmer had previously described the unelected House of Lords as “indefensible”, saying the episode reinforced the need to turn it into a democratic chamber.
