Progression of Bills through Parliament

Debate between Alan Campbell and Andrew George

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Campbell]

This is cold comfort to people who want to see the Bill pass, and pass soon, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that this has all been part of that process. I do not want to play with hypothetical situations, but let us imagine that this legislation was taken forward. I have no evidence to suggest this will happen, other than the fact that it could, but if one of the MPs near the top of this year’s private Members’ Bills ballot decided to pick up the assisted dying Bill and run with it, there would be lessons to be learned. There would be lessons about how we use time, and about how wide the scope of the Bill should be because of the amendments that would be tabled. There would be a lesson about how the Lords should deal with the situation, even though it would be deeply uncomfortable for them.

I gently say to the proponents and opponents of the Bill that, if someone picks it up and runs with it, and prays in aid the Parliament Act—as I have said, our view is that it falls within the scope of that Act—there would be rules around that, too. Lessons need to be learned on top of what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge is getting at, which is about how we take public opinion with us and build consensus, which, as we have heard, takes time.

[Andrew George]

The Leader of the House said earlier that he felt that a private Member’s Bill was not necessarily the most suitable vehicle for legislation of this nature and gravity; as someone who has come out fairly high in this year’s ballot, I am interested in his remarks in that regard.

Leaving that aside, does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that, even if a private Member’s Bill is not the most suitable vehicle, it is now incumbent on the Government to find the time and the means through which the legislation can now be delivered, given that the Bill has the overwhelming support of the House of Commons?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

No, I do not, although who is to say whether in future the Government—or a Government—will decide to make the issue part of their manifesto, bring it forward and deal with it differently in that way? It is rather unfair for the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) to expect this Government to pick up this Bill—or his Bill, if he picked it up and it failed. The hon. Gentleman has been through this before: he had a private Member’s Bill, which had quite a lot of public support. It got through its Second Reading and to Committee, and he got through clause 1. The reason why it did not get any further was that the Government of whom he was part—the coalition Government—stopped it. I have to say, in this well-tempered debate, that it is a bit rich for him to talk about Governments picking up Bills and running with them when he knows full well that it is much more complicated than that.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Andrew George

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My hon. Friend is a true champion in her tireless efforts to support the local community and to praise them for coming together in support of Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses, which makes great cheese. Following such devastating events, we realise the true need for resilience in our local communities. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a debate on how we can promote not just resilience but a true sense of community across our country.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

As an Oliver Cromwell enthusiast, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the purpose and function of the other place? I am sure that he will have studied very closely the wording of early-day motion 2709, which addresses the role of the House of Lords.

[That this House believes that the use of filibuster tactics in the House of Lords to frustrate the majority will of the democratically elected House of Commons is unacceptable, including where the elected Commons has given its majority support to a Private Members’ Bill; further believes that the case for the outright abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement would be strengthened if such tactics were used; acknowledges that, although the House of Lords often provides a helpful role through scrutinising and suggesting constructive revisions to bills, it should not have the power to block them, nor to use its procedures to the same effect; and calls on the Government to take legislative steps to ensure that Private Members' Bills backed by a majority in the elected House can never be defeated by undemocratic means in the House of Lords.]

The Leader of the House will be aware that some Members of the other place have abused the privilege and procedures of that House in order to frustrate and block a private Member’s Bill that has the strong support of this House, thereby advancing the case for their abolition and replacement. Will he ensure that the House of Lords is there purely to scrutinise and revise legislation, and not to block and frustrate this House, which is the primary and democratic Chamber?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

As I have said from this Dispatch Box before, the House of Lords needs to be very much aware and should respect the fact that this House has not just once, but twice supported the assisted dying Bill: on Second Reading and Third Reading. The other place should certainly bear that in mind. I do not happen to be of the view that the Lords’ scrutiny is not important, but the way they go about it is important. If there is a warning behind what the hon. Gentleman says, it might be “be careful what you wish for”; if the Lords go down the route described by the hon. Gentleman, they may open up a wider debate about that House that they would need to take seriously. I commend him and others for continuing to raise these matters. As I have said, the Bill in question is not a Government Bill, but if it comes back, I will find time to see how can progress it. This is a timely warning to their lordships that they need to get on with it.