Progression of Bills through Parliament

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), my colleague on the Petitions Committee, for introducing the debate on behalf of the Committee and the petitioner. I thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the e-petition. Whatever view Members take on the arguments advanced in the petition, the number of signatures demonstrates the strength of feeling on this issue and the importance of Parliament’s engaging seriously with those concerns. I also thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. We have heard thoughtful and strongly held views from across the House, reflecting both the significance of the legislation that prompted the petition and the wider constitutional questions now before us.

It is important to recognise that the petition arose from concerns about the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a private member’s Bill. However, today’s debate ultimately is not about the merits of assisted dying; it is about parliamentary process. Specifically, it is about whether Parliament should change the way that it approaches legislation where a private Member’s Bill has secured support from MPs. The petition argues, in essence, that where a private Member’s Bill has support from MPs and the public, the Government should do everything within their power to ensure that it has sufficient time to complete all its parliamentary stages.

It is sometimes overlooked that that is not simply a request for more parliamentary time. It is effectively a request for a new constitutional principle: that where the concepts underlying a private Member’s Bill have secured sufficient public support and a Commons majority, the Government should take active steps to ensure the Bill’s passage despite significant unresolved issues. That would represent a significant departure from our existing constitutional arrangements, under which scrutiny, amendment and even failure remain possible outcomes of the legislative process. I do not believe that public support, however significant—particularly as measured by polls, rather than at the ballot box—can be a substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament’s role is not simply to facilitate legislation but to examine it, challenge it and improve it before it becomes law.

The petition also raises questions about the role of the House of Lords. It is important that we approach those questions accurately. Some have suggested that the Lords somehow acted improperly by failing to return the Bill Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to the Commons. That assertion is not supported by the constitutional authorities.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I have not participated in the debate because I was not able to be here at the beginning, but I heard many of the speeches. In a number of them, it was suggested that the Bill received unusual levels of consideration. That is simply not so. Many of us have been in this House for a very long time and have seen legislation that has had pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses, and independent reports commissioned on it, long before Second Reading. This Bill had none of that.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point but, as other hon. Members have made clear in this debate, the House of Lords did not vote because that is part of its process of scrutinising. The Lords was performing the role that it is constitutionally required to perform.

The Bill in question was not a Government Bill and not a manifesto commitment. A deliberate choice was made by the Prime Minister to take an approach that did not put the policy, or even the promise of a free vote, before the electorate. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Salisbury-Addison convention reflects the principle that the House of Lords should not frustrate legislation that gives effect to commitments on which the electorate have conferred a democratic mandate. As Viscount Cranborne spelled out at the time,

“it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has so recently expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals which have been definitely put before the electorate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 August 1945; Vol. 137, c. 47.]

[Kit Malthouse]

I am slightly intrigued by my hon. Friend’s approach. In the election, I stood on a personal pledge that I would support assisted dying, having voted for it before, in 2015. In my hon. Friend’s view, what importance should we attach to an absolute majority of the House of Commons? The assisted dying Bill passed with an absolute majority of all eligible Members, not counting Speakers and others, who could vote. What he is essentially saying is that that is just an ordinary part of the process, rather than what it should be in a democracy, which is decisive.

[John Lamont]

The House of Commons expressed its view. The Bill then went to the House of Lords for further consideration. I know from conversations with a number of MP colleagues that they supported the principle of the Bill to allow it to progress, so that the House of Lords could look at it further and in the hope that improvements would be made. I reflect on what happened in the Scottish Parliament, where a similar Bill achieved the support of MSPs at the first stage. After it received further scrutiny and further amendments, it went back to the Scottish Parliament, and it was rejected—[Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[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.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[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.