Assisted Dying Bill TORCHES UK Taxpayers

Union Jack flag with Big Ben in background.

Britain is on course to spend almost £2 million debating whether the state should help you die, before it decides whether it will help you live the way you want in your final months.

Story Snapshot

House of Lords debates on the Assisted Dying Bill may cost taxpayers about £1.95 million in peers’ allowances alone.
Supporters call it money well spent for a “safe, compassionate choice”; opponents say the scale reflects a profound, risky change in law and medicine.
The Bill has already gone further than any previous UK assisted dying proposal, but time‑burning tactics could still kill it.
Behind the £2 million row sits a much bigger financial and moral ledger for the NHS, care homes, and end‑of‑life care.

Taxpayers’ £2 Million Question: Scrutiny or Slow-Motion Filibuster?

Press Association analysis for The Independent calculates that if current attendance patterns hold across 16 allocated sitting days, peers’ tax‑free allowances for the Assisted Dying Bill could total about £1.95 million. That figure comes from the Lords’ own rates: £371 full allowance, £185 reduced, plus the fact that attendance has been high whenever assisted dying appears on the agenda. Two September Second Reading days alone generated £270,807 in allowances, before staff, security, or estate costs enter the equation.

The money becomes politically explosive because it sits on top of a slow, grinding timetable. By the time of the Independent story, peers had already spent six days on the Bill, with about £733,967 claimed in allowances across those sittings, averaging roughly £122,327 per day. Supporters complain that a small group of opponents have tabled a thicket of amendments and are “talking it out”; opponents reply that the Bill is so consequential and badly drafted it demands “extraordinary” line‑by‑line scrutiny.

How the Assisted Dying Bill Reached This Expensive Crossroads

Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill aims to allow mentally competent adults with a terminal diagnosis and a life expectancy of six months or less to request assisted dying in England and Wales. Applicants must be over 18, residents for at least 12 months, registered with a GP, and assessed by two doctors, with additional independent scrutiny in some models. The Bill emerged in November 2024 as a Private Member’s Bill and became the main Westminster vehicle for reform.

The Lords has long been the graveyard for assisted dying legislation, yet this Bill has already broken precedent. After the sprawling Second Reading and extended Committee sessions, it went on to pass Third Reading in June 2025, progressing further than any previous proposal. That advance has energised campaigners such as Dignity in Dying and Humanists UK, who now fear that procedural time‑wasting, rather than open votes, could still sink the Bill before the spring 2026 deadline.

Values Clash: Personal Autonomy, Vulnerable Lives, and the NHS Ledger

Pro‑reform group My Death, My Decision argues that if the £2 million Lords bill delivers a tightly regulated, compassionate option for dying people, the cost is “worth every penny.” Their case leans on autonomy and relief of suffering: terminally ill adults, already facing death, should decide how and when they go. From a conservative common‑sense standpoint, that resonates with respect for individual responsibility, provided the law genuinely protects those who are not freely choosing.

Opponents such as Not Dead Yet UK and many faith‑based voices counter that the same figure underlines the gravity of what Parliament is considering: a permanent shift in how the state relates to disabled, elderly and terminally ill citizens. They warn that once the law accepts some lives as eligible for state‑sanctioned ending, financial and cultural pressures could quietly steer vulnerable people toward death. That concern aligns with a conservative instinct to guard against mission creep and to treat life as inherently worthy of protection, especially when people cannot easily speak for themselves.

The Quiet Numbers Behind the Moral Drama: Costs, Savings, and Care Homes

The Hansard Society’s briefing, drawing on the government’s impact assessment, shows that the £2 million Lords tab is small next to the long‑term financial implications. Implementing assisted dying would require a public information campaign, likely costing £550,000–£850,000 at launch and £50,000 annually thereafter. Training for NHS staff is estimated at £1.23–£11.5 million in the first year and up to £1.53–£9.71 million by Year 10, depending on uptake and scope.

Running the system would also mean a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner, review panels and related machinery. Estimates suggest £10.9–£13.6 million per year for the commissioner and panel processes, with review panels themselves costing around £2,000 per sitting day and totalling £900,000–£3.6 million annually over a decade. Against that, the Impact Assessment projects NHS “savings” from care not delivered because assisted dying shortens some illnesses, ranging from £919,000–£10.3 million in Year 1 to £5.84–£59.6 million in Year 10.

What Happens Next If Time Runs Out—or Reform Succeeds

Humanists UK warns that, despite clearing the Lords in June 2025, the Bill remains “in jeopardy” because a small circle of peers continue using amendments and lengthy contributions to run down the clock. As a Private Member’s Bill, it must still secure Commons time and complete all stages by spring 2026, or it falls. That reality hands significant power to government whips and business managers, who can effectively choose whether this multi‑million‑pound scrutiny leads anywhere at all.

Care homes and hospices watch closely from the sidelines. Sector analysis suggests they face training demands, reputational dilemmas and uncertainty about conscience‑based opt‑outs if the Bill passes. Some experts even warn, speculatively, that future hospice funding might end up informally tied to willingness to participate, which would offend basic conservative principles of pluralism and free association. Whether or not that scenario comes to pass, the choice now before Parliament is stark: continue spending to debate, or decide—and then own the consequences, moral and financial, either way.