Progression of Bills through Parliament

Debate between Alan Campbell and Daniel Francis

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for chairing the debate earlier.

I thank the petitioners for their hard work and the Petitions Committee for scheduling this debate, and I thank all the Members who have taken part. This has been a well-attended debate and it makes the case, dare I say it, for petitions to be heard in the main Chamber. However, that is another discussion.

Let me say at the outset that I understand the strength of feeling on this issue and appreciate some of the frustration that has come across this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the way in which he introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for reminding me of my duties and responsibilities in this place. I make no apology for saying that those are absolutely what I endeavour to carry out on any issue at any time. I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to listen to the debate and to respond, but given the role I play, I make no apology if I say some unpalatable things. The problem, with an issue of such importance and such division, is that what I have to say will probably end up being unpalatable to both sides, not just one.

There are two interrelated elements to this petition and, subsequently, to this debate: first, the principles surrounding the role of each House and, secondly, the passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I will begin by dealing with the first, which is the primacy of the Commons. The primacy of the elected chamber, the House of Commons, and the way in which it has primacy over the House of Lords, is absolutely fundamental to our constitution. It is reflected in the legislation and the conventions that govern how Parliament works. For instance, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 reduced and then further reduced the ability of the House of Lords to delay legislation against the will of the Commons. Since its passage, the Parliament Act 1949 has limited the ability of the Lords to delay the will of the Commons to just one year, and I can confirm that that applies to all Public Bills, including private Members’ Bills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said.

The Government’s democratic mandate and the primacy of the Commons are also reflected in the Salisbury-Addison convention that the House of Lords should not reject on Second Reading any Government legislation that carries out a manifesto commitment and that such legislation will not be subject to “wrecking amendments” in its passage. However, the key fact is that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was a private Member’s Bill and therefore, unlike the Parliament Act 1949, the Salisbury-Addison convention did not apply.

The will of the Commons is given precedence over the will of the Lords. However, I want to place on record the Government’s view that we greatly value the work of the House of Lords in scrutinising and improving legislation. There have been many occasions where the Members of the other place have drawn on their experience and expertise in their field—whether that is law, science, public service, military matters or indeed medicine—to bring a depth of scrutiny to legislation that sometimes the Commons is unable to.

A great deal of legislation is significantly improved because of the patient, rigorous work done in the Lords, and the Government do not have any plans to further curtail the ability of the Lords to scrutinise legislation passed on by the Commons. It seems to me that it is for the Lords to decide what their rules are, and even if the Government set about trying to change the rules, they do not have a majority in the House of Lords. We need to bear that in mind.

But—it is a very big “but”—there clearly needs to be a balance between how scrutiny takes place and how rules and conventions are respected. History shows that where the House of Lords overrides the expressed will of the elected House and is considered to be preventing legislation from completing its stages, pressure builds to revisit those rules and conventions—that is one of the first and last times I think I will ever have agreed with Tom Brake. [Laughter.]

I want to turn to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I will not rerun the Bill, its progress and who was right or wrong, but it remains an issue of profound ethical and personal importance to many. As is the convention for matters of conscience, the Government maintained a neutral position throughout the passage of the Bill, except to ensure that, should it have passed, they would assist to make it workable. That position has not changed. All MPs and peers, including Government Ministers, will have had their own personal views, and it is right that, as MPs, we had a free vote on the Bill. On two occasions—on Second Reading, by a majority of 55, and on Third Reading, by a majority of 23—the Commons, including myself, supported the legislation.

In the Commons, the Bill received over 500 amendments and, as we have heard, was in Committee for something like 100 hours. Many of those amendments were agreed to. In the Lords, there were more than 1,200 amendments. There are some key differences, of course, in the way the two Houses can deal with those hundreds of amendments, but I suggest that some Members of the Lords who spent their time putting down amendment after amendment and urging that they be debated genuinely believed that the Bill that left the Commons was not of merit and was flawed. They have a right to scrutinise legislation, and they used that right. I heard some of the examples that were given of some of the amendments, which quite frankly ran the risk of making the process rather farcical, but there were many others that were genuine and sincere attempts to make the Bill right.

Behind all this is an issue that is central to private Members’ Bills: the question of time. Unless rules on private Members’ Bills change, any private Member’s Bill—whether in the House of Commons or the House of Lords—can be timed out because it is simply talked out. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, in retrospect, shouldn’t the House of Commons and the Government have made time for this? I remind him that there was time in the House of Commons—the Bill passed there. It was not in the House of Commons that we had the problem; it was in the House of Lords.

However, it is a matter for the Lords themselves, where the Bill had 90 hours and 45 minutes of debate. As a private Member’s Bill both in the Commons and the Lords, it is to a large extent the Bill’s sponsors who decide how that time should be used. As in the Commons stage, that time was allocated and used in such a way in the Lords. It took a very long time in Committee in the House of Commons, and it took quite a long time on Report in the House of Commons. That was time that might otherwise have created some space later in the process, which the Lords might have been able to make better use. However, I suspect that I am being slightly optimistic when I say that.

[Daniel Francis]

I have sat on a Committee for a private Member’s Bill that took 45 minutes, and I sat on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, which took 100 hours. With an issue like this, we need to look at how the private Members’ Bill process works. As Committee members, we were expected to receive 242 pieces of written evidence and 159 pieces of written correspondence the day before line-by-line scrutiny commenced. We also had no equality impact assessment, human rights assessment or delegated powers memorandum throughout the entire Committee process. All I would ask is that, for these larger, more contentious Bills, we go away and look at how the private Members’ Bill process works.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly will go away and reflect on that, but as my hon. Friend knows, because he is a very distinguished member of the Modernisation Committee, we are looking at how the House of Commons should best use its time. Part of that discussion will relate to when private Members’ Bills are debated and how long they are debated for. He will know that a number of Commons Committees have looked at this question over a period of time—not least the Procedure Committee, which, if memory serves, is looking at it again.

However, limited time is available for private Members’ Bills. There might be a clear decision at the end of a debate—on a time-limited Second Reading, for example, although that would be novel, given that the aim is often to get to 2.30 pm having talked out a Bill, and sometimes the Government of the day help in that process [Interruption.] They do; that is part of how private Members’ Bills are dealt with. The more I look at the issue, the less I am sure whether they are necessarily fit for purpose.

However, if we were to get to that point, that would not address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about how long the House should take to consider these matters. This House rose to the occasion on Second Reading—recall the great fear that there would be a great row, which would show the House at its worst. The House rose to that occasion, but we had at least five hours of debate on Second Reading, so I worry slightly about what would happen if the process were curtailed.

At the heart of the issue, although I am not commenting on the Bill in this context, is the fact that Members need to reflect on whether a private Member’s Bill is the route for certain legislation, particularly when it concerns a big issue and there is a question of conscience.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Daniel Francis

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Yes, I will arrange that meeting.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Last year, the Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley demolished the much-loved Parkside community centre in Barnehurst. The council has now said it will allow the centre to be rebuilt if a charity funds the rebuilding. I have conducted a survey of local residents, and 89% believe that the council should rebuild it, rather than a charity. Can time be made available for a debate on the importance of community buildings and the level of support available to voluntary groups who run them?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am sorry to hear about the loss of the much-loved Parkside community centre, because these are places that provide valuable services and, as I have said before, are the golden thread that ties communities together. My hon. Friend may wish to attend next week’s Westminster Hall debate on social enterprises and community ownership to hear more from the Minister directly.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Daniel Francis

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I will wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in sending our sincere thoughts to Graham Murray’s family and loved ones. It is truly devastating to lose a loved one due to a road traffic accident. The Government are working hard, through our road safety strategy, to try to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads. I pay tribute and send our best wishes and thanks to Beckenham rugby club for the part it is playing in this situation and the fantastic role it plays in its local community.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

This coming Monday, I will be honoured to join my long-standing friend Tom Jones, who also happens to be my eldest constituent, for his 108th birthday celebration. Tom joined the Labour party under the leadership of Sir Clement Attlee, and has supported our party under every subsequent leader. This year, he will complete 92 continuous years of service with Unite the Union. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Tom a very happy 108th birthday, and thank him for his lifetime of service to our community in the London borough of Bexley?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing Tom Jones the happiest of birthdays. I am sure that he has lived an incredible life, and we wish him well. He was a trade unionist and supporting our party before many Members of this House were born —in fact, before I was born; it is a rare occasion when I can say that. It is really saying something. We genuinely wish him all the very best and a very happy birthday.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Daniel Francis

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Last Sunday, I joined the congregation at St Augustine’s church in Slade Green to celebrate the retirement of Rev. Jim Bennett. Jim has been a long-standing pillar of our community in Bexleyheath and Crayford, having worked for Greenwich and Bexley community hospice for 16 years, starting as a fundraising co-ordinator and eventually becoming its chief executive. Following his retirement from that post, he took on a new career later in life. Following his ordination, he spent over six years as the priest at St Augustine’s church in Slade Green. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Jim for his work in supporting my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford, and wish him all the very best for his retirement?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Rev. Jim Bennett. His work at both Greenwich and Bexley community hospice and St Augustine’s church has greatly contributed to his community. In paying tribute to Rev. Jim Bennett, let us pay tribute to all the churches and churchmen and women across our country, who play such an important part in our local communities. I wish Rev. Jim Bennett a very long and happy retirement.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Daniel Francis

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Competent leadership is really important for local government, and there is a duty to local taxpayers to spend money wisely. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As I said earlier, if there is an Adjournment debate on Kent county council and Reform’s track record to date, I am sure it will be well attended.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. The group has recently received extensive evidence that there is a clear need for independent oversight of wheelchair providers, and for verifiable data from the sector. Many service users are not provided with a wheelchair within a suitable timeframe, and many have little choice but to go private to access equipment. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on wheelchair provision, and the need for sector reform to ensure that wheelchair users are provided with the equipment that they need?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue, and for his work as the chair of the APPG. I welcome the support that NHS England provides to integrated care boards to ensure that services are effective and efficient, but we know of too many cases where people are still waiting too long to get access. My hon. Friend may wish to use the next Health and Social Care questions to raise the issue, but I will make sure that Ministers are aware of the problems that his constituents are experiencing.