Progression of Bills through Parliament
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(5 days, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon
No.
That scrutiny cannot simply be a rubber stamp. If it is conceived of as a rubber stamp, that is a false understanding of what scrutiny entails. The Hansard Society has stated clearly during the previous Session that
“The House of Lords has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block the assisted dying bill.”
That myth needs dispelling.
The second myth that needs to be dispelled is the absurd accusation of the blocking or filibustering the assisted dying Bill by just a small handful of Lords. Amendments were tabled or co-signed by more than 90 peers, and some 140 peers with a range of views on the principle of assisted suicide expressed opposition to the Bill in the Lords, in the form of amendments, speaking in debates or Parliamentary questions. Some have pointed out that hundreds of amendments were tabled by a small number of peers, but it is important to note that dozens of other peers would have tabled the same amendments. It is a total fiction to suggest that opposition came from only a few—there were multiple peers involved.
I will tell hon. Members who those prominent peers were. They were lead signatories on these amendments because of their expertise. They included Baroness Grey-Thompson, who tabled amendments relating to disability—who has better knowledge than that lady? Baroness Finlay, a leading palliative care professor, tabled amendments on medical issues—again, her knowledge is significant. Lord Carlile KC, tabled amendments related to legal concerns. Had they not put their names to those amendments, countless others would have done so. They led on those amendments, and the fact that others did not add their names does not mean that they would not have done so in turn.
It is also important to understand that, having been sent to the Lords by this House, the Bill was scrutinised by three separate Committees: the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and a Lords Select Committee. The Delegated Powers Committee was scathing about the skeletal nature of the Bill’s provisions, which included handing more than 40 sweeping, unspecified and unjustified powers to future Ministers to determine what assisted suicide under the Bill would actually look like.
The final myth, on which the petition partially rests, is that Lords scrutiny of a Bill should be rendered null due to public support for this particular proposal. That is an exceptionally flimsy argument and does not stand up to scrutiny. Putting aside the veracity of claims of 70% public support for the Bill, a recent multi-level regression and post-stratification poll found that, across the country, just 8% of the public would support pushing a non-manifesto commitment into law without approval and full scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. The same poll found only 7% ranked it among their top three priorities for their MPs to focus on.
We should listen to our constituents. I always listen to my constituents, in Strangford. I suggest that others may need to do the same.
John Lamont
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s insight from his many years of experience in this place. We are not a unicameral system. As the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) stated in her powerful speech, Parliament consists of three separate parts: the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Crown. The House of Lords is independent and shares the task of making and shaping laws. The House of Lords Constitution Committee made it clear that it was constitutionally appropriate for the Lords to scrutinise, amend or reject the Bill, and the Hansard Society similarly confirmed that the Lords
“has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block”
legislation of its kind.
Dr Chowns
Does the hon. Member not recognise the fundamental problem that the House of Lords has not had the chance to approve or reject this piece of legislation because it has never come to a vote? The House of Lords has therefore not fulfilled its constitutional responsibility to fully scrutinise the legislation. Would it not be appropriate for this House to send the Bill back to the House of Lords until it does fulfil its constitutional responsibility to complete scrutiny with a vote?
John Lamont
That was because amendments could not be secured to satisfy people's concerns.
This was a private Member’s Bill. In such circumstances, there was no constitutional obligation on the Lords—as I stated earlier in relation to the Salisbury convention—to ensure that it completed its passage through Parliament. Indeed, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of private Member’s Bills do not become law. That is not a constitutional failure; it is a long-standing feature of our parliamentary system.
Similarly, scrutiny should not be confused with obstruction. One reason why many peers believed that further scrutiny was necessary was that significant issues remained unresolved after the Bill left the House of Commons. More than 500 amendments had been tabled during Public Bill Committee, but only a small proportion not supported by the sponsor were accepted. On Report, 88 amendments were deemed in order, but only seven were selected for debate and decision by the House as a whole. That was the wrong approach to take.
The breadth of concerns, underpinned by expert testimony, should have prompted deep reflection on what more needed to be amended. The Cabinet Office’s guide to making legislation is very clear: if a private Member’s Bill is to make it on to the statute books,
“As far as possible, amendments should be made at Committee Stage in the first House.”
It is therefore hardly surprising that many peers concluded that further scrutiny was required. Indeed, several Members indicated during proceedings in the Commons that they expected the Lords to undertake detailed scrutiny and improve the legislation where necessary. The Lords therefore performed precisely the role that many MPs expected it to perform.
It is also important to recognise that the nature of the concerns that were raised. This was not simply a handful of peers attempting to delay legislation; more than 140 peers expressed opposition to, or serious concerns about, the Bill. Those concerns came from individuals with substantial expertise, including former leaders of the medical profession, senior NHS figures, specialists in psychiatry and palliative care, legal experts and representatives of vulnerable groups. Whether one agreed with their conclusions or not, those concerns deserved careful consideration. That is exactly what parliamentary scrutiny is intended to achieve.
Some supporters of the petition have pointed to opinion polling as evidence that Parliament should ensure legislation progresses. Public opinion is, of course, important, and Members of this House are elected to represent the people who send us here, but our constitutional system has never operated on the basis that polling alone determines whether legislation becomes law. Parliament is a representative democracy, not a system of government by opinion survey. Members of both Houses are expected to exercise judgment, consider evidence, scrutinise proposals and weigh consequences. If legislation were to acquire a special constitutional status simply because it polled well, we would fundamentally alter the balance between public opinion and parliamentary scrutiny. That would be a profound constitutional change, and it should not be undertaken lightly.
John Lamont
I am short on time, so I will not take any more interventions.
I thank again those who signed the petition and all those who have contributed to today’s debate. Although there will undoubtedly remain differences of opinion on the specific legislation that gave rise to this petition, I hope there can be broad agreement on one fundamental point: democratic legitimacy and parliamentary scrutiny are not competing principles—they are complementary principles. Public support and votes in Parliament matter, but scrutiny matters too. The lesson we should draw from this debate is not that scrutiny prevented democracy from working, but that scrutiny is democracy working.
The House of Lords acted within its constitutional role. The concerns of experts were heard, amendments were tested and evidence was examined. Whether one supported or opposed the legislation itself, that is exactly how Parliament is supposed to function. Parliament best serves the public not when it rushes legislation through, but when it takes seriously its duty to examine, improve and—where necessary—challenge legislation before it becomes law. That is how we protect the integrity of our legislative process, preserve public confidence in Parliament, and ultimately make better laws for the people who we are elected to serve.
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.
Dr Chowns
Would the Leader of the House agree that there may be a way to respect both the principle of the primacy of the Commons and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, including full scrutiny in the Lords, by coming to the point of a vote? That would not be the Government taking forward the Bill, but him, in his role as Leader of the House—the role of representing the Commons to the Government—reintroducing this Bill in the Commons so that it could be sent directly to the Lords to complete the process of parliamentary scrutiny: to the point of a vote in the Lords. That would fulfil the fundamental democratic principles that have been argued for on both sides of the debate today.
Sir Alan Campbell
Hang on. As we have already said, we have just been through the private Members’ Bill ballot again. We will have to wait and see. With respect, the hon. Lady does not know whether somebody is going to pick up the Bill and run with it in future.
Sir Alan Campbell
Hang on. I would want to see what happened here. We talk about private Members’ Bills changing the law on matters of profound conscience and social policy, such as, for example, abortion or capital punishment; I was not around at the time, but I doubt that those got through at the first go. I do understand that many people rightly regard this issue as a matter of life and death, but there were many people at the time who regarded abortion or capital punishment as matters of life and death. We have to be slightly patient and see what progress any future private Member’s Bill, if that is the route taken, might make.
Dr Chowns
I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to clarify my point. My point is not about the specific content of the Bill; it is about the constitutional crisis caused its blockage. Is it really okay that the only way out of that is to wait for another private Member’s Bill? Is there a role in ensuring that it comes through the Commons?
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the work of the Susan Vickers Foundation, Rethink Mental Illness and everyone involved in the Hub at Wolverhampton station. Last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, and this year’s theme was action. Charities and community organisations play a huge role in supporting those struggling with mental illness, and I thank everyone involved for their commitment and service.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Earlier this month, I was delighted to at last receive a response from the Department for Work and Pensions to a letter I wrote on 25 November last year, raising a constituent’s case. That is more than a five-month delay; the original acknowledgment said that it aimed to respond within 15 days. Such a delay is unacceptable, and this is by no means an isolated case; I have had multi-month delays in several other cases. What are the Government doing to improve departmental complaint processing times, so that constituents and MPs get a response within a reasonable timeframe?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will know that I am keen for Departments to respond in time and fully to MPs, because that is part of their job. Of course, some Departments will find it more difficult to respond, not just because of the complexity of the issues involved, but because of the number of letters and parliamentary questions that they get. However, I will draw her remarks to the attention of not just that Department but other Departments. We constantly remind them of the need to maintain a standard.
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the case that my hon. Friend raises. The Government are committed to helping working people balance their jobs with their personal lives, including by managing their health conditions. I will ensure that the relevant Minister is made aware of this concerning case, but my hon. Friend may also want to take an opportunity to make those points during the debate on the King’s Speech, as this is an important part of ensuring that people can fully contribute to the economy, and to the economic growth that the country is looking for.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is clear that the tired old first-past-the-post voting system is utterly unfit for purpose. This winner-takes-all system means that a party can secure a huge majority of seats on a minority of votes, which poses a major democratic risk. It is long past time we had proportional representation is this country, so that every vote is represented equally and seats match votes. Will the Government finally take the opportunity to legislate for proportional representation in the Representation of the People Bill, which is set to return to this House, so we can have a fair voting system in which every voter’s voice is heard and given equal weight?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is the second time this morning that proportional representation has been raised, and it is a good illustration of how, when the Lib Dems and Greens agree on an issue, they are invariably wrong. It will be possible for the hon. Lady’s party to raise and vote on the issue during the debate on the King’s Speech, and as she points out, there are Bills being considered that will allow her to raise the matter as well. However, I fear that when the House gives its verdict, it will not be the result that she is looking for.
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand, and to a large extent share, the frustration of my hon. Friend and many Members across the House, because the position of this House on the Bill was made very clear. The Government’s position has not changed: it is not a Government Bill, and the Lords have every right to scrutinise. But I again ask them to do so responsibly, because this House made its position very clear.
I hope that progress can be made. Once that has happened, I will find time in this place, if necessary, to debate those amendments, because the will of the House was very clear. Perhaps after that has been decided and the Bill has been dealt with—whatever the outcome—we need to reflect on some of the procedures that get us into this situation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The 2024 Labour general election manifesto promised
“Immediate reform of the House of Lords”,
noted that
“reform is long over-due and essential”,
and said,
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber”.
Given the Mandelson scandal and the unacceptable spectacle of a tiny number of unelected peers blocking the will of the majority of elected Members in this House, may we have an urgent debate in this Session and in Government time on how the Government will bring forward and realise their promises of fundamental Lords reform so that we can begin to rebuild trust in our country’s democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to wider reform of the House of Lords and the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is the first step in that process. We remain committed to that. However, I gently say to the hon. Lady that, to some extent, this is more complex than many people think. There are many priorities for this Government, not least tackling the cost of living and the terrible situation that we found our public services in when we came into office. To spend a great deal of time, at this juncture, talking about House of Lords reform is timely, costly and an extraordinarily difficult thing to achieve—I know that from experience. That does not mean that the Government will not address what we promised in our manifesto and bring about House of Lords reform at some point in the future.
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. Our thoughts are with Naomi and many others who find themselves in that terrible situation. We have introduced measures to tackle stalking. We are currently undertaking a review of stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and our violence against women and girls strategy will also cover online and offline stalking. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with a Minister to look into this further, I am sure that he will be successful in getting one.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The UK is coming under intense scrutiny at COP30 for saying one thing in public but doing the opposite in private, by apparently blocking progress on the Belém action mechanism to secure fossil-free jobs, workers’ rights, communities and our planet, despite the Prime Minister saying in his statement to COP
“that the UK is all in”
on embracing opportunities. Can we please have an urgent debate on how a shift in the backroom position of the UK could unlock negotiations, rebuild trust and align the Government’s actions with their public commitments?
Sir Alan Campbell
There is absolutely no difference between what the Government are committed to and have said publicly, and what we are saying in private. Of course, some issues require a great deal of diplomacy. The Prime Minister himself went to COP30 with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. When the Secretary of State returns, I would expect one of them to make a statement on COP30, so the hon. Lady will be able to put those points to them directly.
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
What a wonderful story. I know that raising that issue in business questions helped the hon. Gentleman to secure that funding and that sponsorship, so that Lucas could go to the US Open and compete. What fantastic news that he won his quarter-final and will now be in the semi-finals. I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Lawn Tennis Association, easyJet and all those who have made it possible.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action has caused a growing legal, political and policing crisis. A judicial review has been granted. The police are struggling to deal with the sheer volume of people being arrested, and the UK’s reputation has been seriously harmed. Does the Leader of the House recognise that this rushed proscription, and the cynical decision to bundle it together with two other clearly terrorist organisations, is bad politics and bad process? We should have a chance to revisit the decision, learn from this debacle and seriously consider the important human rights implications.
Lucy Powell
There is an extremely high bar for proscribing any organisation, and that decision was not taken lightly. It was taken on very strong advice about the activities of Palestine Action. Those activities were increasingly severe and, with increasing frequency, incredibly damaging. That is not to say that people cannot peacefully protest in support of Palestine or in support of many other organisations that support the Palestinian cause. As I said earlier, I strongly support recognition of Palestine and support the Palestinian cause, but that is not to say that we should support organisations that seek to cause real problems in this country.
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member is absolutely right that nothing is more frustrating and—quite honestly—upsetting for our constituents than having dodgy works done at home and having no recourse and accountability to those who did them. I will ensure that the Minister takes a look at the issues she has raised. Trading standards and ensuring that we have quality TrustMark schemes across the country are important to this Government, and we will keep the House updated.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
This week, an important report was published on the topic of climate change—not the one by the formerly high-profile politician whose consultancy has done work for major fossil fuel producers such as Saudi Arabia, but the one published by the Committee on Climate Change yesterday on adaptation. That report pointed out that this country’s approach to adaptation is not working and needs urgent strengthening, and that we are woefully unprepared for the reality of the impacts of climate change, which are already with us and will get worse, especially if the flat-earthers who seek to deny it and to change policy direction get their way. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement recognising the urgency of adaptation and committing in the spending review to the funding needed to make the country resilient to the heat stress and flooding that will inevitably follow if we do not tackle the reality of the climate crisis?
Lucy Powell
I agree with the hon. Lady. The Climate Change Committee report is important and looks back, for the most part, at recent years and the previous Government’s record on these matters, which was not good enough. We absolutely need to go further and faster, which is what this Government are doing, to ensure that we have those adaptations, make the transition to become a clean energy superpower, and develop the severe weather and flood resilience that our communities need to cope with the impacts of climate change, which are coming anyway despite our best efforts to get to net zero by 2050.
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the RSPB in Geltsdale and Howgill Beck, which sounds fantastic. I am actually a member of the RSPB, in part because my son is a bit of a keen twitcher, and I am sure he will be nagging me to pay a visit to her constituency and see that fantastic project.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Last night I attended the meeting for worship at Westminster Quaker meeting house. Last Thursday, that place of worship was forcefully raided by 20 police officers, equipped with tasers, and they arrested six women and charged them in relation to planning a peaceful protest. That raises important questions about the criminalisation of public protest, and indeed religious freedom. May we have a debate in Government time about the need to repeal those elements of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023 that have such a repressive effect on the right to peaceful protest, which is a cornerstone of British democracy?
Lucy Powell
I am sure the hon. Lady would not expect me to comment on that particular case, as that is an operational matter for the police, but she is right to say that the right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and one that we hold dear. We also have to balance the right to protest with protecting the right of the law-abiding majority to go about their daily lives, free from disruption, and that is the comment I will make in that regard.
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Diane for all her tireless work in raising awareness of ovarian cancer, and I thank everyone involved in the work of Target Ovarian Cancer. I will certainly try to pop by his event next week. We are committed to improving diagnosis and treatment for all cancer patients, and we will be publishing a new national cancer plan shortly. I will ensure he and the whole House are kept updated.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In business questions last week I raised with the Leader of the House my concern at the last-minute cancellation of the cross-party talks on social care. Despite her very sympathetic response, I still have not received any communication from the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House think that she might be able to expedite the restarting of those crucially important talks to tackle the crisis in social care, so that I do not need to ask the same question at business questions next week?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady should keep on at me when we do not live up to what we say at the Dispatch Box. I have raised the issue with the Department of Health and Social Care and I will continue to do that for her. I am sorry it has been another week and she has not heard. The Secretary of State will be here shortly to give a statement on a related matter—not quite the same matter—so she may want to raise it with him. I thought that he might already have been in his place for her question. I will ensure she gets a quick response.
Business of the House
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend highlights how important it is to give people independence and mobility so they can go about their lives and work as well. He will be aware that the Motability Foundation is an independent charity, but the Government continue to work with it to ensure that its policies are open and inclusive, as they should be.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
As the Green party representative on the cross-party commission on social care, I was deeply disappointed at the cancellation, with only a day�s notice, of last week�s planned initial talks. Since social care is in crisis, surely it should be a matter of urgency to get these talks rescheduled, but I have as yet had no response to my request for a new date. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to urgently prioritise setting a new date for the talks as soon as possible?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely will do so, because these talks are essential. We are determined to take forward cross-party talks on the future of social care, which is so important.