Progression of Bills through Parliament
Lizzi Collinge Excerpts(2 days, 23 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
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I want to speak about the process of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which was prevented from completing its parliamentary journey by a small number of unelected peers who showed through their actions that they had no respect for the constitutional settlement of this country, no respect for the House of Commons, no respect for their own role as scrutineers and no respect for the British public.
Lizzi Collinge
I am sorry; I will not give way, as I want to finish this speech.
The House of Lords at its best provides detailed scrutiny of legislation, proposing amendments to make it more workable and addressing criticisms of it. But this was not the House of Lords at its best; this was the House of Lords that I remember from my early adulthood: the Lords who kept blocking the equalisation of the age of consent for gay men and who delayed the repeal of section 28. What august company for these modern-day peers to be in! In each of those cases, the primacy of the Commons was asserted, and I really hope that once again the primacy of the Commons and the will of the British people prevail.
Opponents of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will say that the actions of those few peers were the Lords providing the scrutiny that the Commons did not. I say: what utter nonsense. We have already heard that over 1,200 amendments were proposed, including a pregnancy test for all applicants, regardless of their sex or fertility status. Is that scrutiny, or is it filibustering? I think we know the answer.
In the Commons, the Bill had more scrutiny in terms of debate on the Floor and hours in Committee than any Government Bill of recent times. I remember those debates in the Commons; for the most part, they were nuanced, thoughtful and well intentioned. I remind Members that the issue of assisted dying has been debated for over 100 years in this country. I have also sat on multiple Bill Committees, including some of the longer and more contentious ones in this Parliament, and they did not last as long or see as many amendments debated as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill did in the Commons. If a process that went above and beyond the process for any Government Bill is not sufficient to pass a law, what is?
The debate in this place and the subsequent amendments to the Bill addressed matters of substance that were raised because of often understandable concerns. They were supported by many of us who support the right of someone to choose the timing and manner of their own death in principle, but who would not support a Bill that exposed people to the risk of not making that choice freely or that did not have strong guardrails. My conclusion, and the conclusion of the Commons debate, was that this was about how a Bill would operate in practice. What we saw in the Lords was not that. The majority of Lords were first prevented from voting on any aspect of the Bill whatever, and the clogging of the debate with unserious amendments prevented a proper debate on matters of substance.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a dangerous status quo where terminally ill adults, with the means to do so, go abroad to die, often too early. It leaves us with a legal situation where the manner of someone’s death and the intention of the people who were with them are determined after someone is dead and cannot make their views known. It leaves hundreds of terminally ill adults taking their lives every year, often in very upsetting circumstances. Most people will die a perfectly ordinary death, managed well by palliative care, but palliative care cannot help everyone, no matter how good it is. Anyone who says otherwise is unfortunately not telling the truth. That has been demonstrated, unfortunately, by too many difficult deaths and by the pain of too many families who are left behind.
The debate today is about something even bigger than those tragedies; it is about the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom. It is about the reasons why we have decided that those with no democratic mandate should not be able to block the will of the elected Chamber. It is about trust in Parliament—trust that we will act with dignity and respect for the proper way of doing things, and know our constitutional places and the limits placed on our power, which are there for a very good reason. It is about the ability of the Lords to behave in a way that allows us to have flexibility in our constitutional settlement, to move with the times and not to be bound by a single, rigid written document. I see great value in having flexibility in our constitutional mechanisms. However, that relies on individuals and groups of individuals operating with honour—something that, unfortunately, this episode did not demonstrate. I worry that if that is repeated, we risk having to move to a more rigid system to enable the primacy of the Commons.
The British people expect high standards of scrutiny from parliamentarians, in both this place and the other place. In the case of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the House of Commons did its job very well. In the other place, the Lords were prevented from doing their job properly by the actions of a minority. Not only for the memory of Nat—our friend and fellow campaigner—but for every person in this country, that cannot be allowed to stand.
John Cooper
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this Bill has huge difficulties, and its popularity does not capture those. The Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords will not seek to prevent the Government from implementing manifesto pledges simply does not apply. In this case, it has not been breached. The Government made repeated declarations that they were neutral on the Bill—that it was a private Member’s Bill—and so the convention does not arise. We cannot let the emotional baggage of the assisted dying Bill override proper parliamentary procedure.
John Cooper
I will finish.
Of course, the legislation approving abortion in this country came through the private Member’s Bill route, but that was backed by the then Labour Government, who appointed a medical advisory committee that also supported its passage. That was a gold standard, against which this Bill is mere base metal. It fell—and fallen it should remain.
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
No.
The point is that the Lords had a discussion about what to do in those circumstances, for which there was no policy. Such things are important to nail down and resolve, yet that issue is still not resolved.
There is public support in principle for the Bill but that is not carte blanche. There is massive concern about the detail, but I do not have time to go into all of it. We know that most of the royal colleges are concerned about the Bill. It is important to remember that we are legislators: we make law that must be deliverable and unambiguous. The Commons is not simply a debating Chamber. Members debate, and this Chamber is a debating Chamber—we are not voting on law in this debate—but it is important that we legislate for the real world.
There is a role for a revising Chamber, because, frankly, we do not do that well in the Commons. We often have very little scrutiny, alongside in-built Government majorities. In recent times, perhaps because of the nature of a large majority, business has run short in the Chamber. We are unable to make changes in secondary legislation because of the in-built Government majority on delegated legislation Committees. The assisted dying Bill had an awful lot of Henry VIII powers: 42 delegated powers for any future Government—who may be mad, bad or dangerous, and of any existing party or one yet to be thought of—to make these decisions. That is what we would be giving away if the Bill were to pass. That is why we have a revising Chamber to discuss such matters. As I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, there was no real pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and little time for MPs to engage with it. The Bill Committee sat for a long time but it had an in-built majority.
It is important that we discuss how we legislate, but let us not demonise the House of Lords. We in the Commons need to do a better job. That is not just about standing up and reading out pre-prepared speeches; it is also engaging and having discussions. In my 21 years in this House, I have had the privilege of engaging on issues with people with whom I disagree. Sometimes we find points of agreement, but we challenge each other in the House on such issues. We are not doing that well enough in this place. We need the Lords to do it.
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.
Tom Tugendhat
I will not be giving way again. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central is instead saying that the role of democracy is to behave like the private interest group of a small cabal. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the role of democracy is to measure, to weigh and to take matters slowly. If, on a matter of life and death, that is not the case, when are we supposed to be measured and take time?
Before people say that we had a long time in Committee, they should never forget that we start working on Government Bills years before—not weeks, not months, but years. Any of us who have introduced a Bill in this place know exactly what I mean. A Bill starts as an idea. It takes two years, normally, before it even gets to the Leader of the House and his various Bill committees, where we test, adjust and play with the Bill with the different Ministers, and the write-round process. The argument that that period of expertise, from Government, civil servants, lawyers, medical experts and all the others, can be replaced with a brief hearing in Committee is, I am afraid, simply not true.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member may think it is long, but she really has no idea of time if that is her perception. The reality is that Government Bills take time because they have to be got right. This Bill is wrong. The only thing that stopped it was the Lords. If the hon. Member for Sunderland Central wants to abolish the Lords, that is fine, but if he could make that argument, I think we would all be a lot happier.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the way he opened this debate, recognising, as we all do, the different perspectives that are held. I also thank the petitioners.
When I first wrote to my constituents about the reasons why I voted against the Bill, I said that the debate was not one in which there were two sides, but rather multiple perspectives. Members and our constituents may have one view about the principle of assisted dying and another about the specific Bill that was put before us. Eighteen months on, they may have another view about whether Members in the other place were within their rights to scrutinise it as robustly as they did.
It is clear that everybody who engaged in the process has been motivated by a desire to reduce suffering. That was the driving force behind every vote, speech and amendment in both Houses during the time the Bill was before us, and the petition we are now discussing is no exception to that. The primacy of the House of Commons as the elected House is not in doubt, and it is right that there are robust constitutional conventions in place to protect it. But that does not mean that the work of the revising Chamber should be dismissed as illegitimate. To view its role as being little more than a rubber-stamping exercise would be to fail to recognise the value of challenge in our democracy.
The overwhelming public interest is not in Parliament doing its work as quickly as possible or without disagreement; it is in ensuring there is strong and workable legislation. The scrutiny of the Bill in both Houses was important and highlighted a number of significant concerns that have still not been resolved.
Lizzi Collinge
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about the need for challenge, debate and quality in this place and the other place. Does he agree that it is a shame that the Lords did not have an opportunity to express their view on the Bill because we never got to the end of business?
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.
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.
Business of the House
Lizzi Collinge Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that this is no ordinary Bill. That is why we are taking this important step to ensure that it has proper time and continued engagement. As for the Prime Minister, he cares deeply about these matters—as the right hon. Gentleman said, he took part in earlier deliberations on these matters—and it is his firm view, too, that it is important that we get it right. That is why we are making the decision that the best time for the next stage is Monday, given the other discussions that have been had since, rather than risking rushing it tomorrow.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I have a particular interest in the accountability of public services due to the shocking treatment of some of my constituents by NHS trusts. I was pleased to sit on the Bill Committee, which was on the whole collegiate and comprehensive. I welcome the statement from the Leader of the House that we will be getting the Bill right, but will he assure me that there will be minimal impact on its implementation, notwithstanding that it must go to the other place?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I am happy to do that. I accept that, thankfully, there has been a collegiate approach on these matters, and I hope that will continue, even if the debates will be on a different day. I confirm that there is no great change to the plan other than the date on which we consider the Bill, which instead of tomorrow will be Monday.
Business of the House
Lizzi Collinge Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being such a regular attendee of business questions. I can confirm that it was because of his representations in these sessions that I got the idea of having a VJ Day debate before we break up for the recess. As he says, the VE Day debate was very oversubscribed, so I hope that in the upcoming debate we can look at the very specific lessons of VJ Day too.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important matter. I join him in congratulating Cam Norrie and all the British players on their progression at Wimbledon. The online abuse that they and many others in public life have suffered is unacceptable, it is disgraceful and it needs to stop. The Online Safety Act 2023 is an important first step, but we need to go further. The big tech platforms need to step up and put an end to this kind of abuse on social media, where it flourishes, because it is not acceptable and it needs to end.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The crisis at Morecambe football club continues. Due to the owner’s failure to sell, staff are unpaid, the bar is unstocked and two primary school leavers’ dos have been cancelled. The community has rallied round, as it always does in Morecambe, and the parties will go ahead, but may we have a debate in Government time on corporate fiscal and social responsibility and what powers should be available when business owners let communities down like this?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear that the situation at Morecambe football club continues. It sounds like it is getting worse, but I am pleased that the community has rallied round to make sure that some of those leavers’ dos can go ahead. My hon. Friend is right to continue to raise these issues in the House. This is one of the reasons that we introduced the Football Governance Bill, which passed its remaining stages in the House earlier this week. We want to put fans and communities right back at the heart of football and our important local clubs, such as Morecambe FC. I know that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is keen to continue to work with my hon. Friend to resolve the issues at Morecambe.
Business of the House
Lizzi Collinge Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important issue. As he says, the situation in Gaza—the suffering, the killing, the lack of aid and support—is totally intolerable and unacceptable, and needs to be brought to an end. That is what this Government have focused on doing in all their efforts in the middle east. We once again hold some hope of that ceasefire happening. He raises an important point about children who need hospital care and treatment. I will gladly arrange for a Minister to meet him and a delegation of others to talk about how the UK Government can play our part.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
We all know that Morecambe and Lunesdale is the most beautiful constituency in the country, and the village of Dent is particularly beautiful. Unfortunately, 40% of homes there are now second homes or short-term holiday lets. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of short-term lets on rural housing availability, and on how regulatory reform might help?
Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
Lizzi Collinge Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I will speak to the motion and specifically to the amendment in my name on the Order Paper.
As the Leader of the House has said, successive Administrations, in collaboration with the House, have supported across this Chamber the development of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. It was initiated in 2017 under the then Conservative Government, and it has always been developed on a collaborative and cross-party basis.
In that context, it is surprising, disappointing and a pity that the Government should table a motion on the business of the House when it has not been agreed in that collaborative and cross-party way. Indeed, they are whipping their own Members; that is highly unusual for a motion on the business of the House. Our position has always been that these matters should be worked through together, through the usual channels and with other senior bodies of the House in a spirit of consensus. In that spirit, I will not press the amendment in my name to a vote.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am very concerned that the amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers would fly in the face of the body’s independence, so I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will not be pushing it to a vote. Will he confirm whether his party supports an independent process and the ICGS? If his party were in government, would it make changes to the scheme or even scrap it?
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the question. Of course, it is a Conservative body in the first instance, developed on a cross-party basis. As far as I am aware, there is no desire in my party to make it anything other than a continuously independent body to suppress and prevent the abuses that occurred before it was brought into being—abuses with which we are all familiar.
In many ways, the ICGS has not been without its problems—it is in the nature of the House’s deliberations and the secrecy and privacy associated with these things that we do not always hear about those problems—but broadly speaking, it has been successful. That means, however, that in the context of the point of conflict between my side of the House and those on the Leader of the House’s side, there is no problem that the motion as drafted seeks to address and cure. Let me explain in more detail.
The motion frames the issue as supposedly not one of policy, but of procedure. As it sets out, the assurance board has many members. It is not simply composed of parliamentarians; it includes the Clerk Assistants of both Houses, Members of both Houses—but on a nominated basis, rather than elected—the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, a lay member of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and members of the human resources teams of both Houses. The proposal before us is that this body should be able to set rules for Members of this House without the House itself having any say in the matter, so this is not about the nature of the board; it is about the question of what say the House has over rules that are being set for everyone affected by the ICGS, but for Members of this House in particular.
It is nonsense to suggest that laying a motion before the House, as we have suggested, would be difficult or need to involve any delay. Our position is extremely simple: there should be a motion before the House to approve or disapprove any decision taken by the assurance board. Such motions can be laid before the House in a very short period of time—literally in a day or two, and perhaps even overnight in some circumstances. There can be no proper suggestion of a delay in the implementation of decisions made by the assurance board, and therefore no reason—at least in my judgment and that of my colleagues—why this should not be a matter for the House to decide.
Business of the House
Lizzi Collinge Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
For the hon. Lady’s 90-years-young constituents such issues are incredibly vital and important. We must ensure that the transition to digital is completely inclusive, and that those who rely on landline and analogue systems are also supported, especially when they live in a rural community such as the one she describes. I am sure BT will have heard her question, and if not I will ensure that it has and that it gets a proper service back to those constituents who need it.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My original question was answered in the clear reply from the Leader of the House to the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), but do not worry—I brought a back-up.
Thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have £50 million of investment for Eden Project Morecambe, and yesterday I spoke to Ministers about the importance of renewing our high streets. May we have a debate on how we ensure that local businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises thrive in the context of large new attractions such as Eden Project Morecambe?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that refreshing question—normally as politicians we like to repeat questions that have come from others, so she has definitely got a gold star for that. As someone who spent many childhood holidays in Morecambe, I am very familiar with it, and I am delighted that the Eden Project, other programmes, and the money that the Government have brought in will revitalise that gorgeous seaside town. I am sure she will be able to raise such issues in forthcoming questions on many occasions.