Progression of Bills through Parliament

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) introduced the debate, he said that it was not about the assisted dying Bill; he proceeded for the next 25 minutes to talk about little else. It is quite clear that many of that Bill’s supporters, out of a sense of churlish resentment of the House of Lords daring to do its job, have come today to give vent to that view. Of course, for some of them, it dovetails with their aversion to the very existence of the House of Lords in the first place.

In the most compelling and effective speech that we have heard, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) pointed out that when we talk about parliamentary democracy, we do not have the luxury of just talking about the House of Commons. Ours is a bicameral situation—we have an elected House of Commons and a House of Lords, and both have an essential and irrefutable function in passing the laws of our land. That is a fundamental component of our parliamentary democracy. It might cause some to resent the existence of the other House, but it is the reality. Just as we, as Members of this House, are entitled to have our say and to vote as we please, Members of the House of Lords, so long as they exist, have the same right to express themselves, and to move, speak to, and ultimately, if they ever get to the end of the process, vote on amendments. That is how that place works, for better or for worse.

I suspect that if we had a Reform or a Conservative Government in two or three years’ time who decided to extract the United Kingdom from the European convention on human rights, the very people complaining the loudest today about the functioning of the House of Lords would be cheering it on as it attempted to filibuster that. We need to dissect their argument and discover that it is not quite as altruistic as some would have us believe; there is a lot more self-interest at play. The complaint amounts to a desire to have an unsafe Bill forced into law—that is the real complaint. Of course, it is the function of the House of Lords to apply rigour and scrutiny. I salute the Lords for the rigour that it supplies, and the many notable peers with expertise on these issues far beyond that of anyone in this Chamber. [Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Jim Allister]

Was it not so obvious that not a single royal society of experts supported this Bill, just as not a single Member of this House was elected on a manifesto to support it? Yet we have this cry that it should be railroaded through—where is the democracy in that?

We hear this audacious demand to use the Parliament Act, which has never been used for a private Member’s Bill and is only ever used for Government Bills, to ram the Bill through. If we take scrutiny seriously, we must not bring Parliament into disrepute. Passing a flawed Bill that allows the state and doctors to end vulnerable lives would most certainly bring Parliament into disrepute. This was a Bill riddled with flaws—my goodness, look at what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said—[Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order. This has been a very good-natured debate and we have allowed everybody to be heard. Mr Allister expects the same courtesy.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

The House of Commons expressed its view. The Bill then went to the House of Lords for further consideration. I know from conversations with a number of MP colleagues that they supported the principle of the Bill to allow it to progress, so that the House of Lords could look at it further and in the hope that improvements would be made. I reflect on what happened in the Scottish Parliament, where a similar Bill achieved the support of MSPs at the first stage. After it received further scrutiny and further amendments, it went back to the Scottish Parliament, and it was rejected—[Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[John Lamont]

That was because amendments could not be secured to satisfy people's concerns.

This was a private Member’s Bill. In such circumstances, there was no constitutional obligation on the Lords—as I stated earlier in relation to the Salisbury convention—to ensure that it completed its passage through Parliament. Indeed, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of private Member’s Bills do not become law. That is not a constitutional failure; it is a long-standing feature of our parliamentary system.

Similarly, scrutiny should not be confused with obstruction. One reason why many peers believed that further scrutiny was necessary was that significant issues remained unresolved after the Bill left the House of Commons. More than 500 amendments had been tabled during Public Bill Committee, but only a small proportion not supported by the sponsor were accepted. On Report, 88 amendments were deemed in order, but only seven were selected for debate and decision by the House as a whole. That was the wrong approach to take.

The breadth of concerns, underpinned by expert testimony, should have prompted deep reflection on what more needed to be amended. The Cabinet Office’s guide to making legislation is very clear: if a private Member’s Bill is to make it on to the statute books,

“As far as possible, amendments should be made at Committee Stage in the first House.”

It is therefore hardly surprising that many peers concluded that further scrutiny was required. Indeed, several Members indicated during proceedings in the Commons that they expected the Lords to undertake detailed scrutiny and improve the legislation where necessary. The Lords therefore performed precisely the role that many MPs expected it to perform.

It is also important to recognise that the nature of the concerns that were raised. This was not simply a handful of peers attempting to delay legislation; more than 140 peers expressed opposition to, or serious concerns about, the Bill. Those concerns came from individuals with substantial expertise, including former leaders of the medical profession, senior NHS figures, specialists in psychiatry and palliative care, legal experts and representatives of vulnerable groups. Whether one agreed with their conclusions or not, those concerns deserved careful consideration. That is exactly what parliamentary scrutiny is intended to achieve.

Some supporters of the petition have pointed to opinion polling as evidence that Parliament should ensure legislation progresses. Public opinion is, of course, important, and Members of this House are elected to represent the people who send us here, but our constitutional system has never operated on the basis that polling alone determines whether legislation becomes law. Parliament is a representative democracy, not a system of government by opinion survey. Members of both Houses are expected to exercise judgment, consider evidence, scrutinise proposals and weigh consequences. If legislation were to acquire a special constitutional status simply because it polled well, we would fundamentally alter the balance between public opinion and parliamentary scrutiny. That would be a profound constitutional change, and it should not be undertaken lightly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to clarify my point. My point is not about the specific content of the Bill; it is about the constitutional crisis caused its blockage. Is it really okay that the only way out of that is to wait for another private Member’s Bill? Is there a role in ensuring that it comes through the Commons?

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[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.

[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.

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Mr Atkinson, as you can see you have two and a half minutes.