Progression of Bills through Parliament

Debate between Lewis Atkinson and Mary Glindon

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England

Debate between Lewis Atkinson and Mary Glindon

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

I absolutely do, and that applies to both the regular forces and, for example, the cadets and reserves, as others have mentioned.

The 6% pay increase last year and the 4.5% increase this year are hugely important to ensuring that serving personnel of all types receive above the national minimum wage, but equally important is action on housing, not only for serving personnel but for their families. We are talking about serving men and women. Historically, of course, personnel in the north-east and across the country were men, but the recruitment of talented, patriotic women into our armed forces is critical.

We should not apologise for saying that for anyone, men or women, serving needs to be compatible with family life. Everyone who is inspired to serve understands that, at moments of conflict and crisis, they must be willing to go wherever our nation needs them to go, without notice and at significant cost to their families. The psychological bargain, as it were, is that in times of peace and for planned activities in the UK—for example training—the more certainty that we can give serving personnel about where they will be, the better. That allows them plan their lives, increases retention and, critically, increases attraction into our armed forces in the first place. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on that.

Finally, at the end of that cycle through from recruitment to retention is aftercare and care for our veterans. The veteran population in Sunderland is fortunate to have a fantastic veterans’ charity, Veterans in Crisis—it was an honour to host the Minister for Veterans and People there recently. Ger Fowler, the founder of the charity, says that people feeling they will be looked after when they leave is another advert for the forces.

[Mary Glindon]

My hon. Friend is giving a marvellous speech. On that subject, will he commend all the veterans’ charities that work across our region and the support provided by volunteers, particularly with mental health and finding homes—all the social issues that affect people who come out of the service back into civvy street? They work tirelessly, and our well-deserving veterans would have many more problems if those charities were not in our communities.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s sentiments. The strength of the veterans’ charities network also speaks to the wisdom of the Government’s approach to veterans. It is about building a network of support for veterans—on top of the fantastic work that our veterans charities do—through Operation Valour and the £50 million that the Government are investing, recognising the strength of community that already exists.

It has been a really good debate this afternoon, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute. I hope that by giving people in our communities the opportunities that they need while strengthening our armed forces, we can make some changes in the coming years to strengthen recruitment under this Government.