Progression of Bills through Parliament

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate so capably, as well as the petitioners, who are the reason we are having this debate.

The petition is incredibly simple. It asks to apply the very basic principle that when Bills are supported by MPs and the public, they have time to complete all their parliamentary stages. We have heard a couple of extraordinary arguments against that in this debate—that is a surprise. I no longer have to read, “We won’t hear a credible argument against that principle”, although I think that is still true. It is entirely possible to support the need for a reviewing upper Chamber while believing that, if there is significant popular will in favour of a piece of legislation, and valid evidence in favour of its implementation, the Commons’ view that a Bill should at least be considered should ultimately prevail. Unfortunately, we are here because that principle has not been applied to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Let us quickly remember the Bill was given its Second Reading by 330 votes to 275. It was given its Third Reading by 314 votes to 291. As we have heard, in May 2025, after being told about the specific eligibility criteria and key provisions of the Bill that had passed its Third Reading, 73% of the public backed it. Even its opponents must accept that the Bill was supported by MPs and the public.

When the petition was launched in February, there was hope that it would not be necessary—that the Lords would complete their scrutiny of the Bill and a stronger, improved Bill would come back for debate in the Commons. Unfortunately, that was not to be. As the Government’s response to the petition on 26 February made clear, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 established the primacy of the House of Commons as a cornerstone of democratic process.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Member might clarify something. He stated that the Bill could have come back to be debated in the Commons. A Bill does not come back to the Commons to be debated after it has been to the House of Lords. All the Commons can do is consider Lords amendments. It cannot debate the Bill again. Would he like to correct that?

[Luke Taylor]

We could have considered it, but we never got the chance because it was filibustered—it was spoken out.

As with so much of our unwritten constitution, that principle’s ability to prevail, including for private Members’ Bills that enjoy significant support, relies on the good chaps and chapesses theory of government. Peter Hennessy described that theory as an unwarranted faith that

“those who rise to high office will be ‘good chaps’”

and chapesses who know “the unwritten rules” and want to

“adhere to them, even if doing so might frustrate the attainment of their policy objectives”.

When we examine the amendments and speeches in the Lords, it is clear that, in this instance, that theory has spectacularly failed.

When the Bill fell, 1,280 amendments had been tabled. Seven of the most vocal opponents put forward nearly 700 amendments between them. It is worth looking at a couple of those who are most responsible for blocking the Bill. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff tabled 169 amendments and Baroness Grey-Thompson tabled 131, including amendment 458, which proposed, as we have heard, that every applicant, including men, people over 75 and those who are infertile, must supply a negative pregnancy test.

Lord Carlile of Berriew tabled 72 amendments, as did Baroness Coffey, whose amendment 15 sought to exclude anyone who had left the UK in the previous 12 months, which would have meant anyone who had been on holiday or received a terminally ill prognosis of six months while abroad. Lord Sandhurst tabled 68 amendments, Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59 and Lord Moylan 46, including amendment 236, which would have forbidden the patient’s co-ordinating doctor from ever being employed in any way by the NHS at the same time that the process was being followed.

None of those amendments was about making the Bill better, improving safeguards or refining the Bill. They were meant entirely to frustrate the will of MPs and the will of the public. In the same way that Boris Johnson obliterated the good chaps theory in the Commons, those seven Members of the House of Lords have been most directly responsible for finally obliterating the good chaps theory in the Lords.

As we have heard, constitutional expert Mark D’arcy said that the process was clearly a “filibuster”. We have heard Rod Liddle, who was opposed to the Bill, say that his “side won by cheating”, and that opponents of the Bill had used

“the machinery of government, rather than honest debate, to get it booted out”.

Lord Moylan, who tabled 46 amendments, openly posted on Twitter that,

“Peers are justified in blocking assisted dying bill”.

He also shared an editorial from The Times saying that,

“Peers who want to continue blocking this bill and prevent it from ever becoming law are justified in doing so.”

Clearly, that is a reference to the use of amendments and speeches to block the Bill.

Thus far, I have focused on the process, but it is important to mention the real human costs of those who are faced with one of the most heartbreaking decisions possible at their most vulnerable time. As with so many other private Members’ Bills in our long and proud history, the human story that hides behind the constitutional fray that we have been arguing about can get lost. Once it reaches the statute book, the net gain and the quality of life of those that it affects shine through.

It was the same for the right to an abortion, and for someone’s rights to love and marry who they love. Now, it is the right to the most fundamental exercise of individual will and liberty imaginable. This debate is about hope, choice and taking control of the end of life. That hope and choice has been taken away by a tiny number of unelected legislators who have wilfully tested the good chap theory to destruction. We must take every opportunity to ensure that this is not allowed to go unchecked, that the lessons do not go unlearned and, most crucially, that the alleviation of suffering offered by the Bill is not lost for another generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the petitioners for giving us the opportunity to have this debate.

I know that we are all mindful of the sincere and strongly held views that led to the submission of the petition. The previous Session’s debates on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were, in both Houses, consistently heartfelt and moving, with people on both sides of the argument often speaking from real, difficult experience. The debates also provided many people outside Parliament with a chance to talk—in many cases, for the first time—about the reality of death and dying, and what compassionate and respectful care should look like as people move towards the end of their lives.

As some hon. Members will know, I have actual, first-hand experience of being given a terminal diagnosis. I have stage 4, incurable breast cancer myself, so this is not an abstract debate for me either. Like all of us, I am going to die. However, my diagnosis means that I know what is most likely to kill me, and without the intervention of medical science, it would be killing me a damn sight sooner than it currently is. That does not necessarily give me any more wisdom, but it perhaps gives me a certain clarity on the issue of end-of-life care.

One thing that I am very pleased has emerged from the debate is that the state of palliative care is now firmly at the heart of the political agenda. Whatever our different views on the Bill, I hope that the passion of both sides will serve as a clear, united call for better, more accessible care for everyone. I do not think there is similar consensus on the proposal we are debating today. Proper parliamentary scrutiny of the laws before us is one of the most important safeguards—perhaps the most important safeguard—in our constitution.

Our democracy is not a matter of ensuring that legislation reaches the statute book as quickly as possible. That was not why we or our colleagues in the other place were given the privilege of serving in Parliament. It is not why every single one of us takes so much care over our decisions, speeches and the causes we champion, or why we sit late into the night to ensure that every voice is heard. As time-consuming and as uncomfortable as it can sometimes be, our legislative process was deliberately designed to allow opportunities for challenge, scrutiny and improvement. They are a feature, not a bug.

The petition argues that if MPs vote for a Bill and opinion polls suggest public support for its principle, the Government should use their powers to ensure that the Bill progresses. I disagree. Parliament’s role is to pass the best possible legislation, not to vote on a principle and let the detail work itself out later. Sometimes our work begins with campaigning but, ultimately, we are legislators dealing with detail and specifics. MPs, peers and Ministers share a responsibility to uphold the integrity of Parliament not as a matter of dry academic principle, but because bad legislation has truly terrible consequences.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ashley Dalton]

I will not; there is not enough time.

Once we begin asking Governments to override democratic protocols or decide that the revising Chamber’s scrutiny should be optional, we create a precedent. Constitutional principles must apply consistently. We have our constitutional arrangements because it is our responsibility to consider not only the outcomes we want today, but the outcomes we might not want tomorrow.

The petition is specifically about the role of the House of Lords. In my time as a Minister, it was a great honour to work alongside Members from the red Benches as well as the green. Peers are our colleagues, not our enemies or rivals. The Lords, as an institution, has made a vast contribution to the work and reputation of our Parliament. There is no doubt whatsoever about the primacy of the elected House, which is why peers do not vote against legislation that secured a mandate from the public because it was in a Government’s manifesto. In fact, they rarely vote against legislation at all—as we have heard, they did not vote against the Bill. Still, however, the House of Commons is not sovereign—our Parliament is. Our Parliament is a trinity of the Commons, the Lords and the Crown, and each has a distinct and critical role to play.

We cannot believe that a piece of legislation is serious and important, but also demand a weaker and worse process for passing it. I am also cautious about relying too heavily on opinion polls as a justification for altering parliamentary processes. Public opinion matters enormously, of course, but polls can be crude instruments. Governing involves more than simply measuring public sentiment at a particular moment in time. If supporters of a Bill are confident in its merits, they should welcome scrutiny. Good legislation survives challenge. Strong arguments withstand examination. Many laws emerge better because difficult questions were asked during their passage through Parliament, including by the experts in the revising Chamber.

Ultimately, this debate is not about whether one supports or opposes a particular Bill; it is about what kind of parliamentary system we want. Do we want a Parliament that carefully examines legislation, especially that dealing with matters of profound social change, or do we want one in which surface popularity becomes a reason to accelerate the legislative process and reduce opportunities for scrutiny? I believe that we do not.

Business of the House

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Ashley Dalton—welcome to the Back Benches.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am delighted to take up this place. People in West Lancashire are concerned about the potential relocation of the children’s accident and emergency department at Ormskirk following the joint integrated care board committee’s “Shaping Care Together” consultation. Folk, and I, want a co-located children and adult’s A&E in Ormskirk. What can my constituents do to ensure that their voice is listened to in the process?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for her commitment and contribution to the Government. I am sorry that she has left government, but I wish her well in every sense. Her work on the national cancer plan will save lives and transform care—and not every Minister can say that their work has had a lasting effect. I know that she will continue to be a powerful voice on behalf of her constituents. I reassure her that the final business case on A&E services in West Lancashire will take into account the results of the local consultation.

Business of the House

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point. Dementia is an awful affliction, and the number of people with dementia will only grow and spread in the coming years. The Government are prioritising social care to ensure that social care workers have the training, pay and status they need to do the job, but I will certainly look into the issues he raises.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Complaints from my constituents in West Lancashire about Northern Rail are prolific. Last month, Northern Rail told me that issues such as freezing carriages, trains cancelled at the last minute and non-existent Sunday services would be resolved by the new working days agreement. I learned yesterday that that negotiation has failed, leaving passengers back at square one. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the state of Northern Rail and the impact on passengers across West Lancashire, Lancashire and the whole of the north of England?

[Lucy Powell]

I know from my own constituency experience that the people of the north have been let down over many years of under-investment and mismanagement by Northern, and its current performance is unacceptable. That is why we have a plan to take the franchises back into public ownership, so that we can improve reliability and ensure that people can get the trains that they need.

Business of the House

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for affording the whole House the opportunity to send the message to all the hostage families that they are still very much in our thoughts. Of those women and girls still kept hostage, the youngest is 19 and the oldest is 70. We can only imagine the horrors they are facing. This week the UN published its report on the sexual violence suffered by Israeli women and girls on 7 October. It looked at over 5,000 photographs and over 50 hours of footage of those attacks, and it concluded that there was evidence at the Nova music festival of rape, gang rape and murder. It is the most appalling situation, and I am glad that the UN now has that evidence on record and has produced that report. We cannot let these poor women and girls suffer what they must be suffering a moment longer. We must bring them home, and I am sure that is the sentiment of everyone in the House.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Constituents in West Lancashire have this week been deeply concerned about the threatened closure of our dial-a-ride service. Yesterday, I learned that, unlike Conservative-led Lancashire County Council, Labour-led West Lancashire Borough Council has managed to find some additional funds for this year, and dial-a-ride has announced that it will be able to continue for the next financial year. Could we please have a debate about the impact of over a decade of cuts to local government on the valuable community and voluntary sector, which all our constituents rely on?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The voluntary and community sector is thriving, and 13 million Brits volunteer every single month. The services that the hon. Lady talks about are incredibly important. Different councils will be doing different things. Some have dial-a-ride services, and others have tokens for taxis, depending on whether they are urban or rural. This issue is incredibly important, and the hon. Lady will know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has put an enormous focus on supporting the community and voluntary sector through new initiatives such as the national citizenship programme. However, I will ensure that the relevant Department has heard her concerns.

Business of the House

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has said it very well. I hope that all Members of this House have got that message. With regard to intimidation, as I say, it is not just about what is directed against us; it is about what is directed against members of our family, and perhaps most appallingly, against hon. Members’ children. There have been many instances of that. We will ensure that individuals who make such threats face the full force of the law. While others reflect on what has happened, particularly in the last 24 hours, those who are, while not committing a crime, encouraging and giving licence to people on social media ought to reflect on their behaviour as well.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I have been in this place for about a year, and have spent almost all of it trying to get some progress on agricultural flooding and water management boards. The issue is of grave concern to my constituents in rural West Lancashire. A statutory instrument was expected on water management boards last summer. We have not seen hide nor hair of it. In answer to a written question, the Secretary of State said that it will come after a consultation, but that has not been scheduled. Can the Leader of the House advise me of how this relatively simple instrument can be expedited so that my constituents can move forward on this pressing matter?

Business of the House

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I shall certainly ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has heard his suggestion and, given that the next oral questions have not yet been given a date, ask the Department to respond to him.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Given that there is a debate later today on HS2 compensation, and that Skelmersdale in my constituency has repeatedly been denied any support for a train station—infamously, it still has none—will the Leader of the House share her thoughts on the Department for Transport’s Network North advert that boasted of rerouting £235 million of HS2 funds from the north to fix potholes in London?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am not sure I have seen that Government advertisement, so I cannot comment on it. However, if that is a matter of concern to the hon. Lady’s constituents with regard to HS2 compensation, I encourage her to attend the debate this afternoon.