Progression of Bills through Parliament

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on supporting this debate and pay my own tribute to Nat Dye and Sophie Blake, the sponsors of the petition. Over the last 10 years or so of campaigning on this issue and talking extensively about it, I have always been amazed at the number of dying people who give their final days, weeks and months to this campaign, determined that no one else should go through what they are going through. I watched with horror as peers tabled their 1,200th amendment, knowing that the clock for Nat, and indeed for Sophie, was ticking very loudly in their ears.

I am a Conservative, as I hope everybody knows, so I have a natural tendency to support our institutions and to understand the value of tradition. Hitherto, I had bought into the argument that the Lords was an eccentric but essential part of our democracy, that it brought an aspect to our legislative process that other countries lacked, and that the expertise it injected into our laws was valuable enough for us to tolerate its status within the constitution. However, the passage of the assisted dying Bill shocked me in a number of ways, to the extent that it has tugged in a profound way on a piece of wool in the constitutional jumper, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) said.

The Bill’s passage shocked me in three ways. I sat in on a lot of the debates and I watched even more on television. One of the things that really shocked me was the pretence at scrutiny. I am surprised that the Chair of the Treasury Committee and others have collaborated in the pretence that somehow a filibuster was not taking place. There were the repetitive speeches and endless amendments. We know that opponents were going around the House of Lords encouraging peers to table amendments to spread the air of suspicion. It was not just the odd one: there was the mandatory appearance in court and the increase in the number of doctors to five, alongside the pregnancy test and the travel ban. There were endless amendments that were specious and often openly cruel.

The second thing that really shocked me about the process was the disconnection of Members of the House of Lords from the wider population, and indeed from the number of our fellow citizens who find themselves in extremis and seeking relief from their pain. It was clear from what I am afraid was the casual cruelty in many of the speeches and amendments that those Members had just not sat down and talked with people, or spent time to understand the awful circumstances that so many of our citizens find themselves in.

The third thing that really shocked me—I profess to being ashamed at my ignorance; I had not realised this—was that the House of Lords has no rules. There is no orderly way in which it can be described as an orderly House; they basically make it up as they go along. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) said, we have operated on a rather gendered “good chap” model of trusting that they would do their job. However, it seems to me that the gentlemen’s agreement has run very short of gentlemen.

I saw the same thing again and again, Friday after Friday—let us not forget: in the demand for this scrutiny, the number of Fridays was increased very significantly, so that the Lords could do the job. A small cadre of peers were determined to block the Bill by any means—or by cheating, as Rod Liddle said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge, and he is my friend, says that the House of Lords came to a position, but the point is that it was prevented from doing so. I would have accepted it if the House of Lords had voted against the Bill, and if Parliament had come to a decision and finished the task that it had been set by the British people. However, it did not. A small number of peers, some of whom had been specifically rejected by the electorate just a few weeks earlier, decided to block the Bill for God knows what reason.

I have three questions for the Leader of the House, who I am very pleased to see here. One of his duties, alongside liaising between the Government and the House of Commons, is the defence of this House, particularly our rights as Back Benchers to consider the question of mandate and conscience. First, if the Bill is reintroduced, will time be given for it to complete all its stages in this House during this Session? Secondly, can he confirm that the Parliament Act will remain the settled safety net that it has been in the past? That safety net exists not to force a result but to ensure that a question asked of the House of Lords has to be answered, rather than just being refused.

Thirdly, given that this wool has been tugged, will the Government commit to some public examination, such as through a royal commission, of our constitutional settlement? It has become clear that this issue, which seems to some people like a small abuse of the rules, is actually a domino undermining trust in our entire parliamentary structure. It has called into question whether a bicameral system with an unelected Chamber filled with appointees, pretty much all of whom are subject to the patronage of one Prime Minister or another, is really appropriate for our democracy.

--- 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.

--- 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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the point that the Leader of the House is making. However, if the House of Commons is determined that even a private Member’s Bill should go through, even in the face of a Government-attempted filibuster, does he agree that it has tools at its disposal to allow it to do so? As he will remember, even in the assisted dying debate, we had to move that the Question now be put. If the House of Commons, in convocation, has the majority to override the Government, it can do so, even in those circumstances. What we have found is that in the Lords that is not the case.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

That is the case in the Commons. I am trying to recall Second Reading, but I assume that is what happened. If there is a majority in favour of a Bill and a motion to bring the debate to an end, that motion will succeed—it does not matter what the Government of the day say. I was talking about other Bills that the Government might dispute, rather than distinctly private Members’ Bills where there is a matter of conscience and a free vote.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire is drawing out the contrast, and there is a wider debate about how the House of Lords conducts its business. As I have said before, at the end of the day if the House of Lords to carry out independent scrutiny, it is not for the Government of the day to set those rules. It might be for them to look at an issue in the context of the Parliament Act, for example, but it is not for them to set the day-to-day rules. Unless the Government had a majority in the House of Lords, they would not be able to do that.