Progression of Bills through Parliament

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate so capably, as well as the petitioners, who are the reason we are having this debate.

The petition is incredibly simple. It asks to apply the very basic principle that when Bills are supported by MPs and the public, they have time to complete all their parliamentary stages. We have heard a couple of extraordinary arguments against that in this debate—that is a surprise. I no longer have to read, “We won’t hear a credible argument against that principle”, although I think that is still true. It is entirely possible to support the need for a reviewing upper Chamber while believing that, if there is significant popular will in favour of a piece of legislation, and valid evidence in favour of its implementation, the Commons’ view that a Bill should at least be considered should ultimately prevail. Unfortunately, we are here because that principle has not been applied to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Let us quickly remember the Bill was given its Second Reading by 330 votes to 275. It was given its Third Reading by 314 votes to 291. As we have heard, in May 2025, after being told about the specific eligibility criteria and key provisions of the Bill that had passed its Third Reading, 73% of the public backed it. Even its opponents must accept that the Bill was supported by MPs and the public.

When the petition was launched in February, there was hope that it would not be necessary—that the Lords would complete their scrutiny of the Bill and a stronger, improved Bill would come back for debate in the Commons. Unfortunately, that was not to be. As the Government’s response to the petition on 26 February made clear, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 established the primacy of the House of Commons as a cornerstone of democratic process.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Member might clarify something. He stated that the Bill could have come back to be debated in the Commons. A Bill does not come back to the Commons to be debated after it has been to the House of Lords. All the Commons can do is consider Lords amendments. It cannot debate the Bill again. Would he like to correct that?

[Luke Taylor]

We could have considered it, but we never got the chance because it was filibustered—it was spoken out.

As with so much of our unwritten constitution, that principle’s ability to prevail, including for private Members’ Bills that enjoy significant support, relies on the good chaps and chapesses theory of government. Peter Hennessy described that theory as an unwarranted faith that

“those who rise to high office will be ‘good chaps’”

and chapesses who know “the unwritten rules” and want to

“adhere to them, even if doing so might frustrate the attainment of their policy objectives”.

When we examine the amendments and speeches in the Lords, it is clear that, in this instance, that theory has spectacularly failed.

When the Bill fell, 1,280 amendments had been tabled. Seven of the most vocal opponents put forward nearly 700 amendments between them. It is worth looking at a couple of those who are most responsible for blocking the Bill. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff tabled 169 amendments and Baroness Grey-Thompson tabled 131, including amendment 458, which proposed, as we have heard, that every applicant, including men, people over 75 and those who are infertile, must supply a negative pregnancy test.

Lord Carlile of Berriew tabled 72 amendments, as did Baroness Coffey, whose amendment 15 sought to exclude anyone who had left the UK in the previous 12 months, which would have meant anyone who had been on holiday or received a terminally ill prognosis of six months while abroad. Lord Sandhurst tabled 68 amendments, Lord Goodman of Wycombe 59 and Lord Moylan 46, including amendment 236, which would have forbidden the patient’s co-ordinating doctor from ever being employed in any way by the NHS at the same time that the process was being followed.

None of those amendments was about making the Bill better, improving safeguards or refining the Bill. They were meant entirely to frustrate the will of MPs and the will of the public. In the same way that Boris Johnson obliterated the good chaps theory in the Commons, those seven Members of the House of Lords have been most directly responsible for finally obliterating the good chaps theory in the Lords.

As we have heard, constitutional expert Mark D’arcy said that the process was clearly a “filibuster”. We have heard Rod Liddle, who was opposed to the Bill, say that his “side won by cheating”, and that opponents of the Bill had used

“the machinery of government, rather than honest debate, to get it booted out”.

Lord Moylan, who tabled 46 amendments, openly posted on Twitter that,

“Peers are justified in blocking assisted dying bill”.

He also shared an editorial from The Times saying that,

“Peers who want to continue blocking this bill and prevent it from ever becoming law are justified in doing so.”

Clearly, that is a reference to the use of amendments and speeches to block the Bill.

Thus far, I have focused on the process, but it is important to mention the real human costs of those who are faced with one of the most heartbreaking decisions possible at their most vulnerable time. As with so many other private Members’ Bills in our long and proud history, the human story that hides behind the constitutional fray that we have been arguing about can get lost. Once it reaches the statute book, the net gain and the quality of life of those that it affects shine through.

It was the same for the right to an abortion, and for someone’s rights to love and marry who they love. Now, it is the right to the most fundamental exercise of individual will and liberty imaginable. This debate is about hope, choice and taking control of the end of life. That hope and choice has been taken away by a tiny number of unelected legislators who have wilfully tested the good chap theory to destruction. We must take every opportunity to ensure that this is not allowed to go unchecked, that the lessons do not go unlearned and, most crucially, that the alleviation of suffering offered by the Bill is not lost for another generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Thank you, Mr Wishart.

I am sorry if it was not explicit, but implicit in what I said was that I think the Lords need to reflect on what they have done. [Interruption.] Hang on. The stakes are quite high and we need to be careful that the conventions and rules in place are being used properly, so that the trust that we want to see is engendered in our political system. I want to address something else: the constant theme that, despite however many hundreds of Lords there are, there was a cabal—a handful of people—in the House of Lords who somehow managed to hijack this process and stop it all.

[Luke Taylor]

That is exactly what happened.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman says that that is exactly what happened. There have been five private Members’ Bills and one amendment on this matter in the House of Lords. They did not go anywhere. That was not because the person proposing them at the time did not believe that they had merit. That person did not push them because they did not think there was support in the House of Lords.

We can pick whichever side we want on this issue. We have talked all afternoon about how the issue was never tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) explained why it was never tested. Members can say, “Oh, it was never tested. We do not know.” If I wanted to, I could argue that it was never tested and we do not know either. We do not know whether there was a majority in the House of Lords for the Bill. Let us just be careful before we go out chasing those arguments.

I will conclude because I want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central some time. Business managers made it clear that had the Bill returned from the Lords before the end of the Session, the Government would have sought to provide time to consider changes. As I have already said, the Lords play an important role in scrutinising legislation, but it is clear that people do not view the Commons and the Lords as being in isolation from each other. The actions of each House directly impact on the perceptions of this place more broadly. It is about what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central described as a question of trust. I am sure that Members of both Houses will wish to reflect on that and ensure that the actions of one House do not detrimentally affect the other.

I am sure that this debate will continue. I welcome that because at its heart is a Bill of profound importance to many of us, whatever side we sit on. It is also a debate of profound importance when it comes to the relationship between the elected House and the upper House. I am sure the debate will continue.

Business of the House

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I rise only to pass on the frustrations from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from my residents that the important legislation planned for Wednesday will now be delayed, and that the incredibly important improvements to rail services that our residents are calling out for will be further delayed. Parkinson’s law suggests that work expands to fill the space available for its completion. May I suggest Mandelson’s law—that, when he is appointed to a Government, his scandals will expand to fill the time available for their discussion? Does the Leader of the House agree that this scandal will be the defining legacy of the Starmer premiership, and that it shows clearly how the change and service agenda promised after the scandal and sleaze of the last Tory Government were as much empty words as the suggestion that proper process was followed in Mandelson’s appointment?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I will not respond to those empty words. I expect to announce the rescheduling of the remaining stages of the Railways Bill in my statement on Thursday, and I anticipate that the House will be able to consider those stages of the Bill during next week’s business.

Business of the House

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. She is doing an excellent job advocating for her constituents in this appalling case. The Secretary of State for Education will be appointing an expert panel to inform new guidance for the sector on the use of digital devices and CCTV in relation to safeguarding and to consider whether the use of CCTV should be mandatory. The Department will welcome Member engagement in that review.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Residents in Sutton and Cheam are seeing the very real impact of the cost of living crisis. It may sound like a cliché, but they are seeing the impact on their energy bills, their rent and particularly their food and grocery prices. Staples such as eggs, milk and butter have increased exponentially, as has the price of treats like chocolate—it is now 45p for a Freddo bar, which shows the scale of the crisis more than anything. Will the Government schedule a debate to discuss how we can tangibly bring about solutions to the cost of living crisis, including consideration of measures such as negotiating a bespoke customs union deal? I am sure the Leader of the House will tell me that is not in the Government’s mandate, but it is definitely in mine, having stood on a Liberal Democrat manifesto to push that matter if elected.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Tackling the cost of living is a priority for this Government. It is not just a matter of picking out one particular aspect; it is about ensuring that every Department has a role to play in reducing the cost of living for our constituents, and that they get on and do that. As well as Freddos, the hon. Gentleman mentioned energy bills; I remind him that we have reduced energy bills by £150 for every household, including his constituents. The Government’s position on a deal with the EU is very clear; the Minister for the Cabinet Office spelt it out earlier today. There will be ample opportunity going forward to discuss the merits of that deal.

Business of the House

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly do not feel like a spring chicken any more, that’s for sure.

I am really pleased to hear that Bedworth is receiving £20 million from the Government’s plan for neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a really important scheme to make sure that our town centres and village centres get the regeneration support they so desperately need.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I, too, add my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House and his family. His father—from defending our country to improving our children’s happiness and increasing our cultural awareness—had an incredible life, and one of which I am sure he can be proud.

The Government’s new Crime and Policing Bill promises significant reforms to policing in this country. However, it is concerning that no money motion was passed for the Bill, especially when the need to strengthen community policing to ensure the successful implementation of these reforms is urgent. Will the Leader of the House commit to moving a money motion that specifically allocates funding for community policing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It may be helpful if I point out that policing measures, as criminal justice matters, do not require a money resolution, as I have just been advised by the Clerk. I am not sure if that is of assistance either to the hon. Member or to the Leader of the House. I call Luke Taylor if he wants to complete his question.

[Luke Taylor]

It seems you may have pre-empted the end of my question, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would very much appreciate some clarification.

[Lucy Powell]

I am happy to answer the question anyway, because the hon. Member raises a really important matter. This is a big Bill, with lots of good and important measures in it. It is one of my favourite Bills, not least because it will give the police the powers to seize quad bikes and off-road vehicles, which is very popular in business questions, as well as many other popular measures. However, he is absolutely right that, unless we have the police officers on the street to operationalise these powers, our constituents will not feel the benefit. I can assure him that these measures are fully costed, and we are committed to 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers alongside them.

Business of the House

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I may well get off the train on my way home at some stage and visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that supporting and enhancing the circular economy is a key priority for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Departmental questions are next month, but I will make sure my hon. Friend gets a good reply.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Can Government time be given for a debate on how to strengthen the Environment Agency’s powers to ensure that operators of energy-from-waste facilities are forced to address exceedances and reduce overall emissions, and to look at the possibility of mandating carbon capture, usage and storage technology to mitigate the emissions produced from burning waste? I point to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as regards my role as a councillor in Sutton, as this challenge comes around often when we are looking to hold the operators to account.

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, which I know has had some attention recently. I have one of those waste facilities in my constituency, so I am well aware of the impact on and some of the challenges for the local community. I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s question, but he may want to raise it in DEFRA questions on 14 November.

Business of the House

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

One of my constituents is the sibling of a victim of the infected blood scandal, and he has asked me to raise the issue of access to the compensation scheme for the siblings of victims, as well as the lack of punitive damages in the proposed scheme and the concern about the schedule for implementation of the proposals. Might time be made available for us to debate these issues?

[Lucy Powell]

Fortuitously, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is sitting beside me. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Government worked apace over the recess to meet our statutory deadline for setting up the compensation scheme, and my right hon. Friend has already made two statements on the matter during the three or four short weeks during which the House has sat since the election. I know that it is a personal commitment of his to ensure that those affected have justice and compensation, and I know that he has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said today.