Progression of Bills through Parliament

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

I do.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Lewis—time.

[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.

[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.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Lewis, you have to finish now.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. A large number of colleagues wish to take part. I want this to be an orderly debate, in which everybody has their say, so I shall institute an immediate six-minute limit on speeches. If everybody sticks to that, everybody should get in. Just in case colleagues are tempted to give way to others and therefore prolong their speech, I should say that nobody will be given extra time if they give way to another colleague. That is to ensure that everybody gets in.

In terms of parliamentary courtesy, this is a debate; it is not an opportunity to come in, make a short intervention and then leave. Therefore, if you make an intervention, you are expected to stay for some significant time and to return for the winding-up speeches. I hope that is agreeable to colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Briefly, please.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I ask the Leader of the House about the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament, which is fast developing into a major scandal? According to some estimates, up to £800 million may already have been spent, with barely a brick being laid. We need an urgent decision. I served for many years on various bodies concerned with this programme, and the whole debate has been bedevilled by plans for 15-year decants that may never happen and the setting up of a delivery authority, instead of just getting on with the work around us. The Leader of the House may not agree with my particular view, but I am sure he agrees that we need to have a decision, there needs to be clear leadership, and we need to get on with the work.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I absolutely agree with the Father of the House, and in taking this job I made it one of my priorities to see if we could move restoration and renewal forward. I am pleased to be able to tell him that there is a degree of consensus between the two commissions and the client board on these matters, and a report will be forthcoming early in the new year. It is important that we get that report right, rather than rush it, but it will set out what the future might look like and where decisions might lie. I hope that report will give Members the opportunity to consider these matters carefully, because it is important that we make progress, but whichever route we choose will not come without a considerable cost. I am absolutely clear that once that report is out there and Members have had a chance to digest it, it will be up to this House and the other place to have the final say on how we move forward on this, as I hope we will.

Business of the House

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have served for several years on the programme boards for restoration and renewal. The existential threat to this building is fire. I have raised on several occasions, as I know others have, the importance of installing a water mist system, installing more fire doors and making sure that they all shut. This is such an important issue. I do not demand an immediate answer, but will the Leader of the House try to persuade the authorities that rather than having endless debates on whether to decant, we need to protect this building with a water mist system? The modern systems are designed so that they will not even damage paintings, but they could save the building.

[Lucy Powell]

All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is lucky him for sitting on the programme board for so long. In all seriousness, the safety of this building and of the people who work here is paramount for the House authorities, for me and for the Speaker—you and I discuss it regularly, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that we must address these issues. I hope that he will continue to offer his advice and thoughts through the programme board in the coming months; I am not sure whether his party will nominate him to do so, but I hope it will.