Assisted Dying Bill Triggers £2 Million Showdown

A caregiver holding the hands of an elderly patient in a hospital bed

As British peers wrangle over a sweeping assisted dying law, taxpayers are staring at a nearly £2 million tab for debate time alone in an unelected chamber already mired in questions about cost, power, and accountability.

Story Highlights

House of Lords debate on the Assisted Dying Bill is projected to cost almost £2 million in peers’ allowances.
Supporters cry filibuster, opponents insist slow progress is necessary scrutiny on life-and-death law.
Only tiny clusters of amendments are being reached on each marathon sitting day, despite extra time.
The clash exposes deeper concerns over elitism, taxpayer waste, and pressure on the most vulnerable.

Taxpayers Face a £2 Million Bill for Lords Time

Press Association number‑crunchers, reported by multiple outlets, estimate that up to sixteen sitting days on the Assisted Dying Bill could drive peers’ tax‑free daily allowances to about £1.95 million, before counting wider security and running costs. That projection is grounded in official House of Lords figures for attendance and claims at second reading and the first six committee days, where many peers collected the maximum £371, while others took a reduced £185 allowance.

Earlier stages already gave taxpayers a taste of the bill. Two second‑reading days in September alone generated roughly £270,807 in allowances, with daily totals around £141,709 and £129,098 as peers packed the red benches. As committee hearings dragged on, six further days were estimated at about £733,967, averaging over £122,000 per sitting. With up to sixteen days earmarked, critics warn that soaring costs for an unelected revising chamber risk undermining public trust in the entire process.

Filibuster Accusations Versus Demands for Line‑by‑Line Scrutiny

Behind the headline numbers sits an ugly procedural fight. Supporters of assisted dying say a small group of determined opponents is deliberately slowing progress by tabling a disproportionate number of amendments and then talking at length, choking the timetable so the bill quietly dies when parliamentary time runs out. Humanists UK highlighted that on at least one extended day, peers managed to get through only two amendment groups, despite the Lords previously voting to allocate extra hours.

Campaign group My Death, My Decision argues that terminally ill people would see the nearly £2 million price tag as worth every penny if it delivers a tightly‑regulated, “compassionate” option at the end of life. Their campaign manager blames “glacial” progress on procedural games, warning that wasted time is not just a budget line but a delay for patients seeking clarity. For them, cost becomes a weapon against what they see as obstruction by a minority determined to keep the law off the statute book.

Opponents Warn of Pressure on the Vulnerable and Demand Caution

On the other side, disabled people’s organisation Not Dead Yet UK insists the figure proves how serious the stakes are, not that peers are misbehaving. They describe the Assisted Dying Bill as one of the most profound changes to law, medicine, and society in generations, arguing that exhaustive, line‑by‑line scrutiny is Parliament doing its job. For these critics, rushing such a measure through would be far costlier in moral terms than any short‑term hit to the allowances budget.

The bill itself would allow mentally competent adults with a terminal diagnosis and an expected life span of six months or less to access assisted dying under a multi‑stage process. Supporters frame this as respecting autonomy; opponents fear it will subtly shift expectations on disabled, elderly, and chronically ill people who already feel like a burden. International examples in places like Oregon, California, Canada, and New Zealand are cited by both sides, some stressing safeguards, others pointing to expanding eligibility and rising numbers over time.

Unelected Lords, Institutional Costs, and Calls for Reform

The debate is colliding with a long‑running British argument that will sound familiar to American readers tired of unaccountable bureaucracies: what happens when an unelected elite racks up big bills while steering fundamental policy? The House of Lords has long been criticised for its size, lifetime appointments, and generous tax‑free allowances. Electoral reform campaigners say this latest episode, with nearly £2 million tied to one controversial bill, bolsters the case for transforming the Lords into some form of democratic chamber.

Behind the scenes, official impact assessments talk about training costs for doctors, regulators, and care‑home staff if the bill passes, alongside potential savings from reduced end‑of‑life treatment. Care‑home providers are being warned they will need new policies, staff training, and clear positions on whether they participate or opt out. Yet those technical details are being overshadowed by public anger over allowances, filibuster claims, and the sense that ordinary taxpayers are footing the bill while an unelected body decides who may be helped to die.