Progression of Bills through Parliament

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

Yes, I agree. I will come on to talk about future consideration of the legislation.

The arguments against the process—that the consideration was somehow flawed—were widely debated before Third Reading, and the Commons reached a conclusion on that. All MPs had to make a judgment, independent of the Whips, on whether they wanted to pass the legislation.

Sophie and Nathaniel were in the Commons Gallery on the day of Third Reading. They, like people across the country, thought a clear decision had been made: that assisted dying reform would become law, with significant safeguards, subject to some further iteration in the Lords, if required, including an extended implementation period of up to five years to allow any other considerations to be worked through. It was the approach of the House of Lords, specifically a small number of peers, that outraged Nathaniel, Sophie and the other petitioners.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It may only have been a small number of peers who tabled amendments, but many others wished to put their names to them. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the will of the House of Lords? I think 170 peers had real concerns about the legislation. The role of the House of Lords is to ensure that those concerns are looked at, and it is fully entitled to do so. On this occasion, it was not able to improve the legislation in the timescale provided. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?

[Lewis Atkinson]

It is always a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman; he is much more experienced in this place than I am. However, over 16 days of debate in the House of Lords, the will of the Lords was not tested once. There were no Divisions. If the will of the peers was so overwhelmingly against the Bill, the Lords could have divided on Second Reading if the House had wished; it chose not to.

The opponents of the Bill in the Lords went out of their way, it is suggested, to avoid Divisions. Some amendments may have passed, but a great number of others would probably have been defeated. With more than 1,200 amendments tabled, and 1% of peers tabling 60% of them, that small number of peers took up more than a third of the total speaking time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

I will finish my point. Fundamentally, the question is whether we can achieve social change in this country through parliamentary means, or not.

I will just go back to how Sophie, the key petitioner, felt. She summed it up in the following way:

“I’m living with incurable cancer and I know how precious time becomes when you’re facing the end of life. Watching Parliament waste that time because of the actions of a tiny number of unelected politicians is heartbreaking”.

It is not that the House of Lords was improving the Bill. It may have been in some cases, but the fact that the House of Lords, in 16 days, did not divide once and decide on one amendment—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I have already given way to the hon. Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I refer hon. Members to the 2019 report produced by the Constitution Committee, “The Legislative Process: The Passage of Bills Through Parliament”, which summarises well the roles each House of Parliament plays. It is instructive when considering this petition. I quote:

“The House of Commons usually addresses the policy and politics of bills, while the House of Lords tends to focus more of its scrutiny on the details and technicalities. This characterisation is not universal, but the complementarity of the broad approach of the two Houses is beneficial to the legislative scrutiny process.”

Similarly, “Erskine May” part 2, chapter 11, paragraph 11.4, concerning the rights and functions of the House of Lords, says:

“The House of Lords, as the unelected Chamber, recognises the primacy of the House of Commons. It does, however, retain substantial powers, particularly over legislation (see Part 4). The House uses its powers to legislate and to scrutinise primary and secondary legislation, to hold the Government to account, to investigate matters of public policy”.

My concern is that the petition emphasises the primacy of the Commons—which I wholly agree with—but neglects the function of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation. Fundamentally, I am deeply troubled by the proposition that any Bill that passes this House, irrespective of its subject matter, should become law regardless of its flaws or the risk it may pose to the vulnerable. This is particularly so in the case of the assisted suicide Bill, which was not a manifesto commitment.

The House of Lords is constitutionally entitled to subject proposals to sustained scrutiny, arguably especially on a morally significant subject such as assisted suicide. The assisted suicide Bill was introduced as a private Member’s Bill, but it did not have the rigorous pre-legislative testing that Government Bills benefit from.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

No.

I understand the desire of those who support the Bill to see it enacted and perhaps even their disappointment and frustration that the Bill fell at the conclusion of the previous Session. However, to consider use of the Parliament Act to force through this specific, uncorrected, flawed version of the Bill would be foolhardy. A law that is bludgeoned on to the statute book is not one in which we could or should have confidence. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to consider this. I have a different opinion from some in this House, but I have a right to express my opinion on behalf of my constituents. I am doing that. The Leader of the House knows that I do it regularly in the House. I respect others and always have done, but I know one thing for certain—in this case, the procedures have been used correctly.