The Speaker selects which amendments can be debated, based on factors such as the scope of the bill. He does not typically give reasons for his decisions on the selection of amendments.

He then arranges the selected amendments into groups so that amendments that fall under similar themes can be debated together. The intention of this grouping process is to divide the debate into a series of smaller, more focused debates. The Speaker has, in recent years, typically grouped all Report Stage amendments into a single group for debate, a practice which has applied to both Government and Private Members’ Bills. The decision to create two separate groups for this Bill thus marks a modest but notable departure from that practice.

Debates on each group are formally conducted on the ‘lead amendment’ – the one listed highest on the amendment paper (which is separate from the selection and grouping paper). The debate on a group begins when the lead amendment is moved by its proposer, who – along with other MPs called subsequently to speak – may then address the other amendments within that group during the debate.

For this debate, the themes of the two groups, and their respective lead amendments, are:

• Group 1: obligations, duties and protections for medical practitioners, hospices and care homes; the procedure for receiving assistance under the Act including safeguards and protections; eligibility; and mental capacity (led by New Clause 10); and

• Group 2: approved substances and devices; advertising; inquests; investigations and death certification; guidance and codes of practice; Welsh language; monitoring, consultation and reviews; the Assisted Dying Commissioner; implementation; regulations; extent; and commencement (led by New Clause 13).

Nine further amendments have been tabled since 16 May, all of which would fall into Group 2. The deadline for tabling of amendments is the rise of the House on Tuesday 10 June. The Speaker will then need to decide whether to select any of these amendments for debate on Friday 13 June.

Under the process outlined above, amendments are grouped only for debate, not for decision.

Not all amendments which are selected for debate are guaranteed a vote. To be voted on, an amendment must either be formally “selected for separate decision” by the Speaker or be moved by the Bill’s sponsor – typically a Government minister, but in this case, Kim Leadbeater MP. Among amendments tabled by other MPs, those that have gathered the most supporting signatures on the amendment paper are the most likely to be chosen by the Speaker for a vote.

If an amendment is selected for a decision, it might not be voted on at the end of the debate on the group that contains it. Indeed, there may be a large gap between debate and decision. Why? Because the order in which amendments are voted on is determined not by the debate groupings, but by the amendment paper.

The briefing continues below....

The amendment paper at Report Stage is typically arranged in the following order:

1. new clauses (“NC”) – with new clauses proposed by the sponsor of the Bill placed first, followed by other new clauses in the order in which they have been handed in – and amendments to new clauses;

2. amendments to existing clauses – arranged in the order in which they apply to the Bill; and

3. new schedules, and amendments to new schedules.

4. amendments to schedules

Kim Leadbeater (“KL”) has tabled New Clauses 10 to 15, 20 and 21. These were therefore placed first on the amendment paper, with amendment (a) to NC10 in the name of Rebecca Paul MP nestled between the sponsor’s New Clauses 10 and 11. The start of the amendment paper thus looked like this:

NC10 [KL]; Amendment (a) to NC10 [Paul]; NC11 [KL]; NC12 [KL]; NC13 [KL]; NC14 [KL]; ...

The key rule is this: an amendment can be voted on at the end of the debate on a group only if it appears on the amendment paper earlier than the lead amendment in the subsequent group.

In this case, because the lead amendment in the second group is NC13, the only amendments that could have been voted on at the end of debate on the first group on 16 May were: NC10, NC10(a), NC11, and NC12.

On the first day of Report on 16 May, the Speaker indicated that he was selecting only one amendment for separate decision: NC10(a). But that was the only amendment available to him to select. Any other amendments in Group 1, debated on 16 May, that the Speaker is inclined to select for separate decision, will be put to the House at the end of debate on the second group on 13 June; this would mean a nearly one-month-long gap between debate and decision on those amendments.

On 16 May, the House completed the debate on Group 1, but there was only time for questions to be put to the House in relation to NC10.

There are three sequential decision-making stages involved in putting New Clauses to the House:

1. the question that the New Clause be “read a second time”;

2. the questions on any amendments to the New Clause; and

3. the question that the New Clause (amended or unamended) should be added to the Bill.

The debate on Group 1 on 16 May therefore formally took place on the question that New Clause 10 (NC10) be “read a second time”.

After several hours’ debate, towards the end of the sitting, the House was asked to consider whether it wished to end that debate and move to a decision. Kit Malthouse MP claimed the ‘closure’ and the Speaker agreed to put the question “that the Question be now put” to the House. MPs agreed, on a division, that debate should indeed end so that they could proceed to a decision on New Clause 10.

• The House then agreed, without a division, that New Clause 10 be “read a second time”.

• Then the House rejected, on a division, Rebecca Paul’s amendment (a) to New Clause 10.

However, by the end of the division on NC10(a), the clock had ticked past 14:30. On a Friday, this is the time known as “the moment of interruption" – questions can only be agreed after this time if they are unopposed. So, when the Speaker put the third question – that NC10 should be added unamended to the Bill – a single shout of “No” was sufficient to delay the vote on that question.

First, the Speaker will put the outstanding question, deferred from 16 May, that New Clause 10 be added to the Bill. This may be agreed without a formal division (it may be taken on a voice vote).

Second, any amendments or new clauses that fall before New Clause 13 on the amendment paper will be put to the House. This is only New Clause 11 and New Clause 12 from Kim Leadbeater. These may also be agreed without a division, since they are safeguards that the Bill’s sponsor has agreed to introduce.

Third, Kim Leadbeater will move New Clause 13 formally, and a debate will then take place on the amendments in Group 2.

Fourth, sometime well before 14:30, a Member will need to claim the closure – that is, to seek to end the debate so that the House can move from discussion to decision. This may require a division, as it did on 16 May. The Speaker need not accept the request for the closure at the first time of asking. He must judge whether there has been sufficient time for debate. Two factors are pertinent in relation to the time at which the closure is claimed and when it is granted:

• first, more time will be needed for decisions (divisions) on 13 June than on 16 May, as MPs will need to make a decision on both the outstanding amendments selected for decision from Group 1 and any selected for decision from Group 2; and

• second, some of the Group 2 amendments that will be debated on 13 June cover more technical content than matters of policy principle (compared with Group 1) and therefore may require less time for discussion.

Fifth, the questions on any amendments or new clauses selected for separate decision by the Speaker in both Group 1 and Group 2 will be put to the House, in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. Those amendments which have attracted the highest number of supporting signatures are likely to be among those chosen by the Speaker.

If the votes on all the amendments selected by the Speaker for a decision are completed before 14:30, then if there is any remaining time before the “moment of interruption” one of two things could happen:

• The Bill’s Third Reading could begin, though it is not expected to conclude. It would likely only last a few minutes before being interrupted at 14:30, at which point Kim Leadbeater would need to name a future day for Third Reading to continue, which is expected to be the next sitting Friday for Private Members’ Bills, on Friday 20 June. A Member could seek to move a closure motion in advance of 14:30, to enable Third Reading to be put to the House on 13 June, but the Speaker is unlikely to allow it if he believes the matter has not been adequately debated.

• Kim Leadbeater could choose not to move Third Reading, due to the limited remaining time, and may instead name Friday 20 June for Third Reading to begin. The remaining time on 13 June would then be filled by debate on the Second Reading of the other Private Members’ Bills – ballot bills and presentation bills – listed on the Order Paper, beginning with the Access to Telecommunications Networks Bill sponsored by Helen Morgan MP.

If the votes on all the amendments selected by the Speaker for a decision are not completed before 14:30 on Friday 13 June, then a third day of Report Stage consideration will be required. This would likely be the next sitting Friday for Private Members' Bills scheduled for 20 June. Assuming that only a short period of time would be needed to complete the votes on that day, it is likely that Third Reading would follow immediately afterwards.

There is a small but notable risk with this approach. Under parliamentary rules, new Report Stages have precedence on the Order Paper over adjourned Report Stages. This means that the sponsors of any Private Members’ Bills that clear Committee Stage before 20 June can claim that date for their Report Stage. If they do, the debate on their bill would take place first – potentially giving opponents of the assisted dying bill an opportunity to talk at length to try and run down the clock to delay further debate and any votes on the assisted dying bill taking place.

That said, the sponsors of the two PMBs that have completed their Committee Stages so far – the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill – have both chosen Friday 4 July for their Report Stages, avoiding a clash with the assisted dying bill. Two other bills - the Licensing Hours Extension Bill and the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill - are likely to complete Committee Stage before 20 June, so their sponsors could choose that date for Report Stage. However, both sponsors voted in favour of the assisted dying bill at Second Reading, making it unlikely they would choose to stand in the way of its progress.

This is an updated version of the entry on the assisted dying bill in this week's Parliament Matters Bulletin which was published on Sunday 8 June. The Bulletin provides a weekly look ahead at what's coming up in both Houses of Parliament. Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered straight to your inbox every Sunday at noon.