Constitutionally Not Content – In Conversation with Baron Forbes of Newcastle, on the Assisted Dying Bill and the state of the House of Lords

In a near-empty café, somewhere within the maze of rooms in the Palace of Westminster, I met up with Lord Nicholas Forbes of Newcastle. Lord Forbes is one of the newest members of the Lords, having only been granted the peerage in December 2025. A new face in a very old institution.

The House of Lords raises many eyebrows amongst the British public and political class. Viewed by many as arcane and outdated, the unelected upper chamber of the UK parliament has drawn fierce criticism towards its place in a modern, democratic British system.

Defenders of the Lords would say it’s a necessary part of the UK’s system as the main line of scrutiny for policy decisions made in the Commons. As Baron Forbes describes: “This is what the House of Lords does best: look at the fine detail, work through it, and try to ensure that as many different perspectives as possible are taken into full account”.

However, in the last few months, one bill has challenged the Lord’s credibility, unlike any that have come before it.

A Bill Assisted to Die in the Lords

The Terminally Ill Adults Bill, also known as the Assisted Dying Bill, is attempting to legalise euthanasia in England and Wales, under strict circumstances. It passed through the House of Commons last June. Polling shows the introduction of assisted dying is very popular amongst the British public, at around 79%, in a 2025 finding.

The Bill was introduced by Labour backbench MP Kim Leadbeater, not the government. This makes it a ‘Private-Members Bill’, meaning, according to Parliamentary conventions, it can face more scrutiny than a government-proposed bill.

Baron Forbes made clear early on to me his position of support for the bill. However, he acknowledged the need for the standard practice of Lords' scrutiny, especially regarding this bill: “I do want to have a look at the safeguards, and I do understand the concerns that some people working in the health service have about how they would staff the requirements of the bill. “

The amount of scrutiny the bill is facing is nothing short of unprecedented from the upper chamber. “It does look to me as though there was a level of scrutiny beyond the usual level of scrutiny on this bit of legislation. And my strong suspicion is that there’s a small handful of peers who are trying to talk out this debate in terms of parliamentary time”, Forbes told me.

More than 1,200 amendments to the Bill have been tabled in the Lords, a suspected record high for a private members' bill. The excessive number of amendments and the limited amount of debating time given within a parliamentary setting have meant that there has been no vote in the Lords, and the bill will almost certainly fail.

From a Failed Bill to a Constitutional Question

The failure of the bill to pass the Lords poses a stringent question about the British constitution. “I think it’s problematic in terms of the relationship between the House of Commons and House of Lords. The Commons has voted with quite a substantial majority to pass this bill.” Despite being referred to as the upper chamber, the Lords' role is expected to be, as Baron Forbes, “to refine [bills], not to stop them.”

There is no legal procedure to stop the Lords from blocking legislation from the democratically elected House of Commons, only a process that Baron Forbes outlines called self-regulation. “Self-regulation means that there's a level of mutual accountability for how proceedings work.” Baron Forbes added: “that means that every single member of the House of Lords is still buoyed by that and understands it and regulates themselves as well as participates in the regulation of others. And that's where I think the current system is starting to fray around the edges”.

The delaying of the Assisted Dying bill by a select few peers is, according to Forbes, testing self-regulation “to destruction.” The Assisted Dying bill shows how a select minority of peers could hold up the parliamentary process to the point that the legislation collapses. Forbes says he understands why people are concerned. “I think that’s bad overall for the way we piece legislation in this country”.

I asked if he believed the Lords needed reform. He told me he would want to see changes implemented: “There are a lot of changes I’d like to suggest making to the House of Lords. I find it odd that we have no speaker in control of the debates. We have nobody to control the times that people speak for. Some people are allowed to make very lengthy contributions on the same subject matter, on amendment, after amendment.”

He reiterated that he, and the majority of the House of Lords members, uphold the principles of self-regulation. But with only his second month into the role, he’s realised the danger that some rebellious Lords could pose to the chamber’s integrity and democratic functionality. “If that [self-regulation] isn’t taken seriously, and if people allow their absolute determination to prevent this bill from passing, it gets in the way of the House functioning effectively, then I think we’re likely to lose a very important part of our democratic system.”

However, Baron Forbes denied the idea that this poses a constitutional crisis: “It’s difficult to argue that the Lords is collectively and as a whole institution, causing a constitutional problem. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't some problems with the behaviour of some of its members.”

Where the Lords go from here is unclear. The current Labour government has signalled their desire to reform the Lords since coming to power. Kim Leadbeater said the Lord’s decision was the chamber effectively ‘signing its own death warrant’. Baron Forbes said Leadbeater was being ‘a bit melodramatic’. He believes the chamber is still necessary, just with some changes. Though the Lords have gone against the Commons and public opinion. Just like the Assisted Dying Bill, the Lord themselves will come under greater scrutiny.