Progression of Bills through Parliament
Lewis Atkinson Excerpts(3 days, 2 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
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 752673 relating to the timely progress of bills through Parliament.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I want to start by being clear about what this petition, and therefore this debate, is about. Although the petition was prompted by the parliamentary consideration of assisted dying, it is not about assisted dying; it is about British parliamentary democracy and how—or, indeed, whether—it can work.
The petition poses what I would suggest is an existential question for us here: does our constitutional settlement allow changes that have been backed by the public and their representatives to pass into law? I desperately want the answer to that question to be yes. That is not because I want a specific piece of legislation to be passed; it is because if, as a country, we cannot resolve different views through Parliament—developing legislative proposals and scrutinising them, but ultimately reaching a decision on them—we are in a very troubling place.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has made an excellent start to his speech. Does he agree that if the other place has the ability to block private Members’ Bills, that totally undermines the concept of such Bills going forward?
Lewis Atkinson
I agree that private Members’ Bills provide an important avenue for democratically elected Members of the Commons to seek important legislative change. For decades, they have been a long-established precedent in how this country introduces social change—whether that is the decriminalisation of homosexuality and abortion, or the abolition of the death penalty. Fundamentally, I do not believe that the unelected Lords should be able to block such key social change, but I will come on to some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised.
Lewis Atkinson
I will introduce the petitioners first, because they ultimately prompted the debate; I will then be happy to take further interventions.
The petition was initially proposed by Nathaniel Dye, a man who felt the urgency for change and looked at his Parliament to deliver it. Nat was a music teacher, and after being diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer in his mid-30s, he campaigned for cancer awareness and support, being recognised with an MBE for his incredible efforts.
Nathaniel knew he was going to die, and he believed that Parliament should engage seriously with the issues that affected him and many others with terminal illness. He campaigned strongly in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) in the last Session. As a member of that Bill Committee, I had the privilege of meeting Nat on a number of occasions. He was a remarkable man.
In his final months, Nat became frustrated—angry, it is fair to say—at how the Lords were dealing with their consideration of the Bill. True to form, he decided to do something about it, starting the petition that we are here to debate today. Nat died in January this year. I pay tribute to him and his family, who have continued to support his efforts following his death. I am grateful to Rebecca Scott, his sister, for meeting me as part of the engagement process for this debate.
After Nathaniel’s death, his friend Sophie Blake became the petition’s sponsor, and it is a pleasure to see her in the Gallery today, as it was to speak with her in preparation for this debate, alongside a campaigner from Dignity in Dying. Sophie has incurable stage 4 secondary breast cancer, first diagnosed in 2020. She is allergic to opioids, which form an important part of the palliative care pain relief toolkit, and unfortunately her family have experienced what she describes as “bad cancer deaths”. She does not want her daughter, Maya—also in the Public Gallery—to run the risk of being left with those memories. She wants the option of an assisted death if she feels that that is required.
The key demand of Nathaniel, Sophie and the 114,000 petitioners is that Bills supported by MPs and the public must be able to complete all stages of the parliamentary process and to become law; and that the unelected House of Lords should be able to scrutinise, yes, but not block legislation backed by the elected Commons. Sophie and Nathaniel were both determined that the voices of terminally ill people should be at the centre of parliamentary consideration of the Bill. They closely monitored its various stages. They were in the Public Gallery of the House of Commons on Second Reading and of Committee Room 11 for some of the 100 hours of Bill Committee proceedings, where we made more than 100 amendments, including 30 proposed by MPs who had opposed the Bill on Second Reading.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In 2009 and 2010, I used to be the Whip in charge of Friday sittings, but even now I would struggle to explain just how things work with some of the Back-Bench Bills, given some of the shenanigans that go on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it destroys our constituents’ faith in parliamentary democracy when they feel that we are all playing games—filibustering and resorting to tactics to talk a Bill out, rather than debating things on their merits and moving to a vote to determine the will of the House?
Lewis Atkinson
I agree entirely. I absolutely respect the fact that others, including opponents of the Bill, reach different judgments on this difficult issue. Ultimately, as I said, in our parliamentary democracy that is for Parliament to resolve, on the balance of judgment of its constituent-elected MPs. That is explainable to our constituents. If something that constituents wish for is decided on by Parliament, that can be explained; what struggles to be explained is when tactics and filibustering are used to not reach a decision at all. I will come on to talk a little about that.
At this stage, it is important to say that I spoke to groups opposed to assisted dying as part of my preparation for the debate—again, not to discuss the substance of assisted dying itself, but, as part of balance, to get their view about the process. It is fair to say that their position includes the assertion that the Lords were justified in not reaching a decision on the Bill because Commons consideration in Committee was flawed. I personally disagree; having sat in Committee for more than 100 hours—way in excess of nearly any other Bill—I might be expected to say that. Those exact same arguments, however, were available to Members before Third Reading.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, we both sat long and hard on that Bill Committee. But if we sent the Bill to the other place in good shape, why did the sponsor there table 77 amendments to it? Is my hon. Friend able to outline why that happened?
Lewis Atkinson
I am not here to speak for the sponsor of anything; I am here to speak for parliamentary democracy. Fundamentally, on Third Reading, MPs clearly backed the Bill. That was the final chance for MPs to have their say. In all those debates, my hon. Friend made his points well and ably, as I made mine, in Committee and beyond. I entirely respect his perspective, but I am bringing us back to the issue of parliamentary democracy.
It is entirely appropriate, and no one is disputing—the petitioners are not disputing—that the Lords should scrutinise and indeed amend legislation passed to them from the Commons; what the petitioners find outrageous, frankly, is the failure to consider it. I will come on to that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
That is the key. Both the sponsor of the Bill in the House of Lords and others tabled amendments that might well, had they returned to the House of Commons, have had the opportunity to improve the Bill. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the denial of that opportunity to improve the Bill is an absolute travesty?
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lewis Atkinson
I will just finish this point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned, Lord Falconer—the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords—made clear that he would sit down and discuss amendments with peers: indeed, he accepted and supported amendments that responded to genuine concerns with the Bill. But there was no opportunity for the Lords to reach a conclusion on amendments, because of the tactics involved.
Mark D’Arcy, a BBC parliamentary correspondent for more than two decades, characterised the Lords’ treatment as this:
“This is a filibuster. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes good in orange sauce, it’s a duck. If they’re going this slowly over this piece of legislation, I’m afraid it’s a filibuster. There is no other way to describe what’s going on here. It may be in order. It may be within the rules of the House, but what’s happening here is that a relatively small number of peers are putting down lots and lots of amendments and debating them very, very slowly.”
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. He will be aware of early-day motion 2709, which I tabled in January. It is about the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation, and the importance of ensuring that they are there purely to scrutinise and provide sober second thought on legislation. It had strong cross-party support. On 12 February, the Leader of the House responded to a question to say that if there were delays,
“I will find time to see how we can progress it. This is a timely warning to their lordships”. —[Official Report, 12 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 957.]
This was a fundamental attempt—a successful attempt—to block the Bill; it was nothing other than that.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with him—as does Rod Liddle, a journalist who did not support changing the law and was an opponent of the Bill. He said:
“The truth, I am ashamed to say, is that in the case of the assisted dying Bill, my side won by cheating…What was not right was for opponents of the Bill, no matter how strongly they felt, to use machinery rather than honest debate to get the Bill booted out.”
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who introduced the assisted dying Bill as a private Member’s Bill, cannot be with us today. Does my hon. Friend agree that the filibustering in the Lords and the inability of the Lords to deal with the assisted dying Bill within reasonable time fetters us as Back Benchers, and has a chilling effect on introducing a range of issues of conscience as private Members’ Bills?
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend is right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). I have heard it said that it was inappropriate for this issue to be brought as a private Member’s Bill, but equally we know that it would have been inappropriate for it to be included in any party’s manifesto. I see opponents of the Bill, as well as proponents of it, nodding in assent. Clearly, both public opinion and parliamentarians’ opinions on this issue are not split across party lines. The Prime Minister was clear in advance of the general election that he favoured a free vote to decide this issue—not on what the outcome of the issue should be—and that a private Member’s Bill was an entirely appropriate mechanism to achieve that.
I hear some opponents saying, on the one hand, that a private Member’s Bill was never appropriate to do this but, on the other hand, that it would not have been appropriate to include this issue in a manifesto. Therefore, one is left to conclude that those opponents think there is no viable vehicle for social change in this country.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The challenge was that this Bill was launched very fast in the House of Commons, without pre-legislative scrutiny, whereas other private Members’ Bills have often been knocked around for a long while and discussed in detail, so that their flaws were recognised, adjusted and amended at different times. This Bill came very fast and there was a lot that was missing that had never been debated in the Commons, because of the way that the system works—not just for private Members’ Bills but generally. We need to legislate better in this country— I think we would all agree with that—and the Lords were doing their job.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, and I respect her significant experience and expertise in this place. Again, though, I gently say that that very argument was well rehearsed; in fact, I think she made it on Third Reading. And the judgment collectively of MPs was that it did not carry.
Lewis Atkinson
Apologies—my right hon. Friend may not have spoken, but many other Members certainly made that argument, and it was a key argument for voting against the Bill on Third Reading.
We either believe in parliamentary democracy and in the primacy of the House of Commons where each of us independently reaches our judgment—I accept that it is a judgment; I am not an absolutist on this issue—or we do not. We cannot believe in parliamentary democracy when it suits us and not believe in it when it does not suit us.
Nevertheless, I agree with my right hon. Friend on the need to legislate better and I believe that the Hansard Society has put forward some recommendations about how the approach to private Members’ Bills in general could be improved. I absolutely agree that some improvements could be made.
Several hon. Members rose—
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—
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that wherever people stand on assisted dying, the country is reasonably entitled to expect that after 16 days—more than 75 hours—of debate, the House of Lords should have come to a decision on one of the most profound issues that has been debated in this parliamentary Session?
Lewis Atkinson
You want me to make progress, Sir Edward, so I will.
The question then turns to what happens now. What does this mean for assisted dying, yes, but also for the British constitutional settlement? As part of my preparation for this debate, I spoke to Tom Brake, CEO of Unlock Democracy, which campaigns for constitutional reform, including of the House of Lords, to address the democratic deficit. He believes that the case for Lords reform has been significantly strengthened by the behaviour of peers in this episode.
In contrast, the Hansard Society’s director, Dr Ruth Fox, to whom I also spoke in preparation for today, reminded me that the Lords is a self-regulating Chamber. It is not subject to the timetable or expectations of the Commons or anyone else and, she believes, nor should it be. But she is also clear that in the current circumstance the British constitutional settlement provides a clear and appropriate response that the Commons could use to assert its primacy—the Parliament Act 1911. That Act was explicitly designed to be applicable to private Members’ Bills. Indeed, when the Parliament Bill was debated back in the 1910s, an amendment to confine it to Government Bills was defeated. The Parliament Act has been used before on issues of conscience—for example, equalisation of the homosexual age of consent in 2000 or the Hunting Bill in 2004, when the Lords refused to accept the decision of the Commons.
The petitioners believe that it is now necessary to use the Parliament Act for assisted dying legislation also. They point out that if the legislation is reintroduced and passed by the Commons a second time, the Lords will again have a chance to do its job properly—to consider the types of amendments that a number of hon. Members have suggested that they believe the Lords want to see. The Lords may pass amendments for Commons consideration, but under the Parliament Act it would be unable to block progress entirely.
I believe that the Parliament Act gives us a way to answer the question whether parliamentary democracy is still fit to tackle the key issues of our time. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is here and I look forward to his assessment of the situation in response to this debate. I hope that he will specifically touch on the Government’s assessment of whether the Parliament Act would be applicable should the Bill be reintroduced and, crucially, whether the Government would make appropriate time available for necessary procedures to take place to allow its use.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way while making such an important speech on such an important, but also contentious, subject. We know that the Parliament Act has only ever been used seven times and never for a private Member’s Bill, and in recent weeks leading figures have opposed use of the Parliament Act in this way. Does my hon. Friend think that something so contentious that is a private Member’s Bill should override the present constitution?
Lewis Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend and regional colleague for her intervention. The Parliament Act was explicitly designed to include provision for private Members’ Bills and it has been used on issues of conscience before. I also question the idea of contention. There is no doubt that assisted dying is a really serious matter, but the view of the British public on it is remarkably stable, which makes the resolution through parliamentary means absolutely clear.
As part of my preparation for this debate, I spoke to Sophie Stowers from the polling and insight company More in Common, whose work on this topic, I stress, has been independent and not funded by campaigns on any side. She told me that polling on the introduction of assisted dying has been remarkably consistent from the time of the Bill’s introduction to now, with support levels among the British public of 60%, compared with opposition in the teens. That finding is consistent with work carried out by others, including the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which ran a citizen’s jury on this topic, exposing all the participants to lengthy discussions on arguments for and against a change in this place.
When I speak to constituents, they still think assisted dying is coming into force because people do not understand—perhaps they cannot understand—how in 2026, elected representatives of their country can vote for something and yet it can still be blocked by a small number of Lords who have no accountability to the public. In its insight work, More in Common reports that people do not understand why the Bill fell, they are puzzled about the suggestion that it ran out of time, and they do not believe that it should be the end of the process. In its polling in January, when it was becoming clear that there was a risk of the Bill running out of time in the Lords, more than four in five citizens said that the assisted dying bill should be introduced again in the Session of Parliament that we are now in.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
In my constituency, I am getting a substantial amount of mail in my inbox from people who are glad that the Bill has been turned away. What they really wanted to see was investment in hospices, and there has been remarkably little to move that forward. I suspect if this Government made a major investment in hospices and the Bill came back in a few years’ time, it would make a big difference.
Lewis Atkinson
I note that the Scottish Parliament democratically came to a judgment on the devolved issue of hospice funding that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The arguments he made were aired extensively before Third Reading and the Commons made its judgment clear.
I will turn to my conclusions, as I know a lot of Members wish to speak. The public expects Parliament to work. More widely than on assisted dying, we can all sense a general public mood of impatience that change cannot be delivered in this country. Many on the Government Benches felt some of that impatience when it took 18 months from our election to pass the Employment Rights Act 2025, partly due to the ponderously slow process of the Lords. We rightly asserted the primacy of the Commons at that stage.
Parliamentary democracy is not a pick-and-mix affair.
Lewis Atkinson
No, I am going to finish now. More in Common reports a shift from frustration to anger among the general public—not on this issue specifically but because it is too difficult to get things done in this country. There is a sense that our institutions are broken and that action is blocked at every turn. That cannot be healthy for anyone, least of all for people who are dying and have a limited number of days left.
For people like Nathaniel and Sophie, parliamentary delay and inaction are not abstract concepts. Delay takes time that they do not have and it prolongs a status quo that MPs clearly voted to change. I would not serve here if I did not believe in British parliamentary democracy. The petitioners believe that we must act to demonstrate that parliamentary democracy remains fit to deal with the issues of the day, including life or death. I pay tribute to them. This issue is not going away, and I look forward to this debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Before I go on to make some other comments, I want to nail a few myths that have been brought up.
There has been some talk of how Government Bill Committees that Members have sat on have been shorter than the private Member’s Bill on assisted dying. That is because Government Bills are timetabled. Guillotines are put in because the usual channels get in touch to limit the debate, and there is always an in-built Government majority on those Committees. It is not unusual for more time to be spent on a Bill that does not have those constraints. It is also worth noting that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee had a majority built in by the sponsor, so there was very little chance of any change in that. A lot of people voted on Second Reading for change and discussion in Committee, but few changes were made—most of the amendments were made by the sponsor. Bills relating to hunting and equal marriage were supported by Government, whereas assisted dying is not explicitly supported by this Labour Government. If they were to support it, I think there would be a major crisis in the party, as that policy was not in the manifesto and was not discussed in any of our normal policy procedures.
It is important to correct what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) kept saying in his opening speech about there being no votes or opportunities to divide in the Lords. That is because Committee stage in the Lords is not an amending stage and there is no opportunity to vote—the votes happen at a later time. That is just the way that the House of Lords works, and it is really important not to criticise the Lords for following their normal procedures. There was not anything special or different in their approach to the Bill.
Dame Meg Hillier
I need to make progress, but I will give way in a moment.
Most of the Lords speeches on the Bill were very short. Filibustering, which many hon. Members in this Chamber will have done or seen, is when Members stand up to speak for prolonged periods. Sometimes the Whips ask Members to do so, perhaps because someone is off site and they need to prolong a debate—those things happen. Yet most of the speeches in the Lords were around five minutes or less.
The pregnancy amendment, which has been discussed, was often ridiculed, but when the Bill went to the Lords, there had been no discussion in the House of Commons about what would happen if someone who was pregnant wanted an assisted death. In some jurisdictions, such a person must have a termination before they can have an assisted death, while in others, they must have given birth.
Dame Meg Hillier
I have very little time left and I need to make a couple of other points. [Interruption.] Well, we have had strict instructions on time. I will, as I said at the beginning of my speech, take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central in a moment.
The Bill that was introduced did not benefit from Government drafting, from policy development or from the whole weight of the machinery of Government and Whitehall, which includes interaction between Departments, such as on how money is spent.
Lewis Atkinson
Like others, I sat with officials from the Department of Health and Social Care after Second Reading, so there absolutely was DHSC involvement, including in many of the amendments that Lord Falconer introduced. Going back to the principle of parliamentary democracy, I respect the point that my hon. Friend makes, but all the issues she has highlighted were aired before Third Reading. She says that we are not a debating Chamber but a decision Chamber, so why—
Lewis Atkinson
We reached a decision. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it should be respected?
Dame Meg Hillier
The whole point of the process is that we have a revising Chamber. If the Bill were to be reintroduced under the Parliament Act, we would be in dangerous territory. We are mischaracterising the Lords. We need to be careful about that, and very careful about using a parliamentary mechanism such as the Parliament Act to set a precedent for any mad, bad or dangerous Government to take things that were never in their manifesto and ram them through Parliament via a private Member’s Bill. That may appeal to many people in this Chamber in relation to the assisted dying Bill, but we must also look at the long-term precedent. In considering how we legislate in this place, let us not demonise the Lords for doing their job in the current system.
Tom Tugendhat
I will not be giving way on that. If the hon. Member for Sunderland Central does not like that position, or the way in which the Lords run their business, that, again, is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, but then he is asking for very fundamental constitutional reform. Again, that is completely okay, but to do it on the basis of a petition of 140,000 names strikes me as a somewhat ambitious reading of the settled will of the British people. We have somewhere between 60 million and 70 million people—I am not quite sure where the figure sits today—and 140,000 does not sit very high against that number; it sits pretty low, frankly.
Lewis Atkinson
I think the right hon. Member is rather mischaracterising what I said. As I said, and as the Hansard Society says, I think there is a clear constitutional response within our existing settlement. It is not about fundamental Lords reform, though I may be in favour of that; it is about use of the Parliament Act. Does he agree that, if the Commons agrees to this again, using the Parliament Act is entirely appropriate?
Tom Tugendhat
On the contrary, I think what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, although he may not think he is arguing it, and he is perfectly entitled to ignore what he is arguing—it happens all the time in this place, it is absolutely standard, for Members on our Benches to make one argument and mean another—[Laughter.] Members on all of our Benches. Come on! Let’s not have the hypocrisy; we all know it is true.
It is absolutely true that we hear, on every side of the House, people making one argument and meaning another all the time. Today, the hon. Gentleman is making the argument for constitutional reform, but he actually means he is in favour of assisted dying. Again, that is a completely acceptable position, but it is not frank; it is not being straight with the House and it is not being straight with people.
All I ask on this is that, when we look down at the questions that have been raised and when we hear, for example, the voices of the disability groups, the various different medical groups and all the royal colleges, all of which rejected this Bill, and we say to them, “Look, we really must legislate at speed because there is a pressing need to do so,”—the hon. Member is really making the Mark Zuckerberg argument. He is making the “move fast and break things” argument.
Tom Tugendhat
I will not be giving way again. That is a perfectly acceptable argument for those who can afford to fail, but the problem is that the hon. Member is not dealing with the investment of a few people, which may or may not start a business or software company that fails or succeeds; he is playing with the lives of thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people.
Liam Conlon
It was a shame that it was timed out, but the amendments that were accepted through the scrutiny process were important and demonstrated the inadequacies of the Bill as it stood and the need for the process to continue.
It remains the case that no disability organisation or charity supported the Bill and none was confident that the safeguards would have adequately protected vulnerable people from being coerced or socially pressured into choosing a premature death.
From speaking to constituents, I know the importance of palliative care. I welcome the Government’s announcement last week and the extensive consultation with hospices into the future of palliative care. It is vital that the commitments we have made on palliative care are in no way derailed. I remain as concerned as ever that that would be the inevitable result of introducing assisted dying into our NHS without it being fully costed.
A number of issues were raised throughout the Committee process, and against that background, it would have been surprising if the Lords had not asked questions or tabled amendments. As all Members know, that is how answers are secured from the Bill’s sponsors and the Government, especially when the consequences of getting legislation wrong would be unimaginably devastating.
I will finish on the question raised by some Members, including from my own party, on what comes next and whether the Bill should be reintroduced. Two years ago, the British people elected a Labour Government because they wanted change. After years of economic stagnation, failing public services and declining trust in politics, they voted for a Government focused on raising living standards, rebuilding the NHS, delivering safer streets, expanding opportunity and driving economic growth. That is the promise on which I and others sought a mandate, and it is a promise that we must unite around and deliver.
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend is making a considered speech, but he did point out that part of the issue is declining trust in politics. Whatever our individual views on this matter, does he not see that for the House of Commons—the elected Chamber—to reach a conclusion that is then blocked by the Lords risks further significantly undermining trust in politics and democratic institutions in this country?
Liam Conlon
It is fair to say that the point I made in response to an intervention earlier stands: there were amendments being tabled and accepted that demonstrated the inadequacies in the Bill, and that process should have been allowed to continue. I am supportive of reform to the House of Lords, but not of cutting short the scrutiny of a Bill that has such significant consequences on the matter of life and death.
Lewis Atkinson
All that remains is for me to thank Members for their many contributions today and the spirit in which they were made—the same spirit in which we participated in the Second and Third Reading debates. Those, including the contributions from opponents of the Bill, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, improved the Bill.
I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch when she said that we are not here as a debating Chamber, but as legislators. To be clear, the petitioners do not believe that the Lords or anyone should unquestionably take up what has been done, but they do question how social change is possible in a democratic society, which is what we profess to be in our constitutional settlement. As the Leader of the House ably set out, that constitutional settlement has been evolving over time, including through the Parliament Act.
The Hansard Society is absolutely clear that the Lords were within their rights to do as they did under the current constitutional settlement. It is also clear that the Bill therefore passes back to the Commons, should it be reintroduced, and that the Parliament Act would be an entirely appropriate means to do that. Let me be clear, because there has been some suggestion that that would force the Bill through without amendment. Should the Bill be reintroduced, there would again be opportunity for the Lords to consider and pass amendments to it. But there would not be an opportunity for the Lords to not reach a conclusion.
I am far from being a constitutional radical. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge did a good job of painting me as some radical saying that I wanted to abolish the Lords. Maybe his AI suggested that I wanted to do those things because he certainly did not listen to my speech. Perhaps we can have a cuppa to discuss it.
The petitioners want to see that change is possible within our constitutional settlement. These are issues of life and death; they are not abstract concepts for the petitioners. I again thank Nathaniel and Sophie for their work in introducing the petition and thank everyone who signed it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 752673 relating to the timely progress of bills through Parliament.
Business of the House
Lewis Atkinson Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend describes how strong his local community is; people there are coming together to make sure that looked-after children get the support that they need. That is certainly the hope and intention of this Government. I thank everybody involved in those efforts, and I wish them a happy Easter. When we return, I will certainly give consideration to my hon. Friend’s request.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Sunderland is a happier place than Mar-a-Lago at the moment. Perhaps that is why the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is visiting today, having called on the UK to do all we can to support the US and Israel’s war on Iran. But I am here to stand up for Sunderland, not for Donald Trump, so can I impress on the Leader of the House that my constituents do not want to be drawn into a war that is not our own, and that they are concerned about rising petrol prices? Will he make ample time after the recess for these views to continue to be heard, and will he ensure that the Government continue to make decisions solely in the British national interest?
Sir Alan Campbell
What a contrast—from celebrations after the local derby last Sunday, to the approaching dark cloud of the arrival of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I thank my hon. Friend for raising concerns on behalf of his community. We are responding to the crisis in the middle east with the calm, level-headed leadership that the situation demands. We are entirely focused on our national interests. That is in stark contrast to Reform, which does not know, from one day to the next, what the national interest actually looks like. I know that the good people of Sunderland have a strong sense of community, and the good sense to reject policies of division.
Business of the House
Lewis Atkinson Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that important matter to the House. I know from experience, as I am sure others do, just how important fire services and coverage are for our constituents. As he points out, it is a devolved matter and, as I have said before, this Government have provided the Scottish Government with the biggest funding settlement since devolution began, which they should be taking into account. I hope that those responsible in the Scottish Government have heard the hon. Gentleman’s contribution today because, first and foremost, they should be listening to residents.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Roker park is loved by our community, and there is loads going on there—from bowls and model boating to a miniature railway. Recently, I met some of the volunteers who keep the park so vibrant, along with Councillor David Newey, who has attracted investment for the restoration of the bandstand and the installation of new play equipment before the summer. Will the Leader of the House pop down the coast from his constituency and join me for a coffee at Ruhe in the park? Will he also consider a debate on the contribution made across the country by groups such as the Friends of Roker Park?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is a very tempting offer. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the fantastic work being done by volunteers and Councillor David Newey at Roker park. Their work is vital, and he has played a fantastic role in revitalising his community—he is a great example of a good councillor. As I have said before, volunteers are the golden thread that runs through our communities and holds them together. I praise volunteers and councillors for the work they do, and I also praise my hon. Friend for the work he does in his constituency, because he is a great advocate for them.
Business of the House
Lewis Atkinson Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Our creative industries offer huge opportunities for economic growth, and the Crown Works film studio in Sunderland will be a box office smash for jobs across the north-east. Last year, the Chancellor premiered investment to prepare the site, adding Government support to that of our Labour council and elected Mayor. That release was critically acclaimed, but people are crying out for a sequel. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be time in the Budget debate to discuss growing the creative industries in the north-east? As a political A-lister, will he help me to ensure that we roll out the red carpet for further investment in Crown Works?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion our creative industries. As well he knows, we have a proud record in this country. Many iconic films are filmed here, including in our region and in my beautiful constituency. As he alludes to, there will be four days of debate on the Budget, which should be ample time for him to raise those thoughts.
Business of the House
Lewis Atkinson Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating New College Lanarkshire on all its achievements, and on its 160th anniversary. He is absolutely right. This UK Government have boosted funding to further education. Now that the Scottish Government have the Barnett consequentials for that, they really have no excuse.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The volunteers of the Southwick Village Green Preservation Society have for six years worked with pride and love to improve the green in my constituency. Thanks to their efforts, it not only looks beautiful but celebrates the proud history of Southwick, including the contribution of Suddickers to shipbuilding, and in world wars. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking them for what they do, and consider a debate on the contribution that such voluntary groups make?
Lucy Powell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved in improving the Southwick village green, and thank all volunteers in all our constituencies for what they do.