Progression of Bills through Parliament

Simon Opher Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the 326 signatories from Stroud who helped to make this debate possible, as well as the many petitioners who are in the Public Gallery. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for what I thought was an absolutely excellent speech.

Even before taking up my role as an MP, I cannot say that I was a massive fan of the other place. There are undoubtedly many wonderful peers whose expertise and scrutiny make a valuable contribution to our legislative process. However, the idea that individuals should by virtue of their religious office or, until very recently, the lottery of life—or, indeed, because of political donations or cronyism—have a role in shaping, and blocking, our laws is impossible to justify in a democracy.

My views on the issue were cemented by my experience with the Terminally Ill Adults Bill. I had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee, which sat for more than 100 hours, considered hundreds of pieces of written evidence, heard three full days of oral evidence from experts and accepted more than 150 amendments. I also explored my constituents’ views on this during many surgeries. I take issue with the idea that the Bill is not a good piece of legislation. I have worked in palliative care for many years, and this is an excellent piece of legislation. Saying that it is weak is simply a tactic used by those who do not agree with assisted dying.

Through abuse of parliamentary procedure, a handful of peers were able to impede the progress of the Bill, despite it being endorsed by the Commons and the public. According to polling, only 14% of people believe that the House of Lords should be able to prevent the Bill. Just 1% of peers took up more than a third of the speaking time on the Bill, tabling 60% of the amendments. As we have heard, although many of those amendments were tabled in good faith, others, which I will not go into, were absolutely ridiculous. The obstruction we saw with the assisted dying Bill can never be allowed to happen again. I am grateful that we have and can use the Parliament Act, but it is increasingly clear that we must look at other mechanisms. We need to completely change, and possibly even get rid of, the House of Lords.

Peers continue to frustrate the timely progress of Bills that were passed by the democratically elected Commons. There was not just the assisted dying Bill, but the Employment Rights Act 2025, when Opposition peers refused to put down their bats in the game of ping-pong. That is why I, with others, set up the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform to examine the options for reform.

Comprehensive reform may take time, but there are practical changes that could be implemented in the shorter term. The self-governance of the House of Lords is fiercely guarded by many peers; however, without underpinning rules, those gentlemen’s agreements are open to abuse, as we saw over the course of the previous parliamentary Session. I had the pleasure of speaking to Baroness Smith, the Leader of the House of Lords, and although she managed to deliver all the Government business in a difficult Parliament, the ability of a small number of peers to disrupt, due to the lack of authority of the House of Lords Speaker, was abundantly clear.

For private Members’ Bills, it was open season, as in those circumstances the Speaker has no powers of curtailment or to insist on the grouping of amendments, nor can the party leaders in the Lords impose any discipline. There are, in fact, no rules, which allows a small number of peers to block legislation based on their own particular views. It is time that the other place adopts rules about conduct and the primacy of the Speaker. In the longer term, we need to abolish the House of Lords Chamber and replace it with something that is fit for purpose.

The public expect Parliament to debate, scrutinise and improve legislation, and not allow a small, unelected minority to prevent the will of the elected House from being carried into law. I hope that the Government will work with hon. Members to ensure that what happened to the assisted dying Bill will never happen again, and that the will of the Commons on that point is made in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Opher]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for his opening remarks. I am one of five Members in the room who were members of the Bill Committee, and I think I am the only one of those who voted against the assisted dying Bill on both Second Reading and Third Reading.

As Members know, I support the principles of the Bill, but I continue to have concerns about the issues of mental capacity and learning disability. I want to talk about the Bill that we sent to the other place. It should be remembered that the Bill we passed on Second Reading was not open to people with cancer, HIV or multiple sclerosis. It was not open to people under the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010, which includes those three conditions. We had to put that right in Committee, because the original Bill was not open to people with cancer.

[Pete Wishart in the Chair]

In Committee we took evidence, and we accepted evidence from somebody who said, “Move to a panel situation.” However, that person also said to us, “Look at the law in Spain and how it treats the families of people with learning disabilities.” As a Committee, we decided to accept that person’s evidence on having a panel but disregard their evidence on the role of the families of people with learning disabilities.

It was clear that there was a cross-party whipping operation in place. Very early in the process, we saw that anyone from an opposition position, like me, had their amendments rejected. For example, my early amendments on learning disability were rejected. The Minister would stand up and say, “The Government advice is to reject these amendments,” and they would be rejected. However, as the public criticism grew, with my later amendments on learning disability, the same Minister would get up and say, “The Government’s position is to reject them,” and then vote in favour of them with the majority of the Committee. We ended up, against Government advice, accepting some amendments on learning disability but rejecting others, and that was the Bill that went to the Floor of the House.

I also note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central that he had advice from DHSC officials, because that advice was not given for my 26 amendments. It appears that advice was given to supporters of the Bill, but not to those who were against it. Those issues continue to concern me about the Bill that we sent to the other place.

We have heard a list of Members of the other place who tabled amendments, but we have not heard that the person who tabled the fourth highest number of amendments was the Bill’s sponsor in the other place. They tabled 6% of the amendments, 77 of them, to make the Bill stronger. The Bill that we said was the strongest possible Bill when we sent it to the other place had 77 amendments tabled by its sponsor.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Daniel Francis]

I will give way just once.

[Dr Opher]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making a very powerful speech. These types of debate are slightly triggering for some of us who were on the Committee. I have absolutely no problem with the House of Lords amending the legislation. In fact, that is its job. What it cannot do is simply block the legislation. I wonder what my hon. Friend thinks of that.

[Daniel Francis]

My view is that some Members most probably tabled too many amendments, but the Bill’s sponsor tabled 77.

Amendments 548A and 549A, which were not reached, would have undone the very measures that other Members and I sought for the learning disabled community. If they had come back to the Floor of the House, I can assure Members that I would have fought tooth and nail during the ping-pong process to ensure that they were not introduced. It is all well and good saying, “They talked it out,” but there were measures to undo what was accepted in Committee and on the Floor of the House to protect people with learning disabilities. I will continue to oppose those.

I would also say that the House of Lords Committee took evidence from a great number of royal colleges and disabled groups that we had not heard in Committee in the Commons, and it was that evidence that led to a number of Lords amendments.

Do I believe that the House of Lords needs reform? Yes, most probably it does, but we need a good, long, hard look, folks, at how we scrutinise in both Houses. There were 310 days between the Bill being sent to the House of Lords and Prorogation. Well, it took 327 days to deal with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, and 347 days to deal with the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, so the situation is not unique to this Bill. It applies to Government Bills as well.

I will be very careful as the Leader of the House is here—I serve with him on the Modernisation Committee—but there is also an issue about how much time we spend scrutinising Bills in the Commons. In 2007-08, we spent 12.4 hours scrutinising Government Bills; we now spend less than eight hours before we send a Bill to the other place. We now spend 26% of our time on the Floor of the House scrutinising Government Bills.

There is a question for ourselves, folks. Is our priority having clips for social media or sending Bills to the other place in a proper manner? That is the question we should ask ourselves. I support the principles of the Bill, but I continue to believe it had issues that were not corrected. If it had come back during the ping-pong process, I would have opposed it, but there is a question we need to ask ourselves about reforming the other place and our own House.

Business of the House

Simon Opher Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Let me first thank the hon. Gentleman for listing a number of future debates. I was pleased that, after he had raised the matter with me in during business questions last week, I was able to protect time for this afternoon’s debate, and that we were able to find Government time for a proper debate on Holocaust Memorial Day next week. As ever, I thank him for his continued work as a very diligent and good Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

As for the other issue, the hon. Gentleman will know that decisions about the policing of protests and demonstrations are a matter for the police—they are operational matters—but he is right to say that public safety should be at the fore, along with ensuring that no one is subject to antisemitism or any other kind of hate as a result of any demonstration.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

May I pick up some comments that were made a little earlier? Many of my constituents have written to me expressing their concerns about campaign finance laws following media reports that a certain foreign billionaire will be providing very large donations. Will the Government introduce legislation to cap individual donations, close existing loopholes and enhance the powers of the Electoral Commission?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is right: foreign money and foreign donations have no place in UK politics and are prohibited under current law, but the existing legislation may need to be tightened. As he will know, we have a manifesto commitment to look at donations to political parties, and we will be introducing a Bill on elections, probably in the next Session.