← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Progression of Bills through Parliament
08 June 2026
Lead MP
Lewis Atkinson
Responding Minister
Alan Campbell
Tags
Taxation
Word Count: 27950
Other Contributors: 38
At a Glance
Lewis Atkinson raised concerns about progression of bills through parliament in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
The lead MP asked the Government to assess whether the Parliament Act could be used for private Members' Bills like the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill if reintroduced, ensuring that necessary procedures can take place within parliamentary timeframes. I ask the government to uphold the primacy of the House of Commons and ensure that unelected peers do not undermine the will of the elected Chamber.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The MP expressed concern about the failure of the House of Lords to reach a decision on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, particularly noting that over 16 days in the House of Lords, no divisions took place despite more than 1,200 amendments being tabled. The MP highlighted the frustration and anger felt by petitioners such as Nathaniel Dye and Sophie Blake who believed Parliament should deliver changes backed by MPs and constituents but were blocked by a small number of peers. I am concerned about the actions of a small number of unelected peers who blocked the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, showing disrespect for the constitutional settlement and the House of Commons. Over 1,200 amendments were proposed in the Lords, including a pregnancy test requirement for all applicants regardless of their sex or fertility status. The debate in the Commons was nuanced and thoughtful but was overshadowed by filibustering tactics in the Lords.
The MP supported the idea of the Lords having a role in scrutinizing conscience issues but acknowledged that future Parliaments might have different outlooks on such Bills. She warned about the potential public reaction and loss of trust if the Lords were to filibuster a Bill that she opposes.
Andrew George
Lib Dem
St Ives
Discusses early-day motion 2709 on the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation, highlighting that blocking the assisted dying Bill was a fundamental attempt to halt its progression. Congratulated the hon. Member for Sunderland Central on his speech, criticised how a small minority of their lordships abused powers to block the Bill and called for accelerated reform of the House of Lords. The Leader of the House said earlier that he felt that a private Member's Bill was not necessarily the most suitable vehicle for legislation of this nature and gravity; as someone who has come out fairly high in this year's ballot, I am interested in his remarks in that regard.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Andrew Mitchell supported the importance of delivering on constituent expectations regarding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and suggested that the Government should provide parliamentary time to ensure its passage. He drew parallels with historical landmark reforms like the Abortion Act 1967.
Andrew Ranger
Con
Warrington South
Mr. Ranger praised the House of Lords for its capacity to scrutinise legislation but criticised a minority of peers who undermined public trust and frustrated progress on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith
Andrew Slaughter highlighted the fragility of private Members' Bills and emphasised that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill should progress due to public support. He criticised opponents for using procedural means rather than addressing substantive issues.
Angus MacDonald
SNP
Glasgow North
In my constituency, I am receiving a significant amount of mail expressing relief that the Bill has been rejected. The public would prefer investment in hospices, but there has been little progress on this front.
Ashley Dalton
Con
St Helens South and Whiston
He intervened to clarify that after a Bill goes to the House of Lords, the Commons can only consider amendments made by the Lords and cannot debate the Bill again. Ashley Dalton expressed concern about the impact of rushing legislation through Parliament, emphasizing the importance of proper scrutiny and the role of the House of Lords in improving laws. He highlighted his personal experience with a terminal illness to underscore the gravity of end-of-life care issues discussed in previous debates.
Enfield, Southgate
My hon. Friend has made an excellent start to his speech and questions whether the House of Lords undermining private Members' Bills by blocking them undermines their concept.
Claire Young
Lab
Barnsley Central
Ms. Young supported the idea of an elected second Chamber, arguing that it should not block Bills with majority support in the Commons and criticised peers who delayed or frustrated the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
Daniel Francis
Con
Bexleyheath and Crayford
Asks why 77 amendments were tabled by the sponsor of a Bill sent to the House of Lords if it was initially in good shape, questioning the reasons behind such changes. The hon. Member intervened to argue that the Lords' treatment of the Bill was a filibuster, highlighting tactics used by peers to avoid divisions on amendments. Fought long and hard on the learning disability issue in the Bill Committee, warning that if the Bill had passed in the Lords, there could have been a ping-pong situation with amendments being undone. He supports the principles of the assisted dying Bill but has concerns about mental capacity and learning disability. He notes that amendments on these issues were initially rejected by the Government, only to be reconsidered later under public pressure. He also points out that 77 amendments were tabled in the House of Lords by the Bill's sponsor, which would have undone measures protecting people with learning disabilities. The MP asked Alison Bennett for further clarification or elaboration on her point. I have sat on a Committee for a private Member's Bill that took 45 minutes, and I sat on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, which took 100 hours. With an issue like this, we need to look at how the private Members' Bill process works.
Daniel Zeichner
Lab
Cambridge
Daniel Zeichner supported the assisted dying Bill, emphasizing the importance of respecting the will of the Commons despite the opposition from the Lords. He highlighted his long-held interest in democratic reform within the upper House and stressed that if this issue cannot be resolved, it may lead to fundamental changes in the relationship between the Houses.
Argues that the House of Lords has failed to fully scrutinise the legislation as it never came to a vote, and suggests sending the Bill back for proper scrutiny. Would the Leader of the House agree that there may be a way to respect both the principle of the primacy of the Commons and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, including full scrutiny in the Lords?
Jim Allister
DUP
Upper Bann
Jim Allister criticized supporters of the assisted dying Bill for their resentment towards the House of Lords' scrutiny process. He argued that the House of Lords plays a crucial role in legislative scrutiny and highlighted potential flaws in the bill.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Defends the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation, noting that 170 peers had concerns about the Bill despite only a small number tabling amendments. Jim Shannon emphasized the importance of the House of Lords in scrutinizing legislation, particularly on morally significant subjects like assisted suicide. He cited Erskine May and the Constitution Committee's report to argue that the Lords should not be seen as a rubber stamp but as an essential part of legislative scrutiny. He also dispelled myths about opposition to the assisted dying Bill being limited to a few peers, citing Baroness Grey-Thompson, Baroness Finlay, and Lord Carlile KC for their expertise in disability, palliative care, and legal issues respectively. Shannon pointed out that dozens of amendments were tabled by over 90 peers and argued against bypassing scrutiny due to public support.
John Cooper
Lab
Sunderland Central
Mr. Cooper argues against bypassing proper parliamentary procedure for the assisted dying Bill, stating it lacks manifesto heritage and faced unresolved issues in Committee before failing due to Lords scrutiny. He emphasises that passing emotionally driven legislation undermines democratic principles.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
The suggestion that the Bill received unusual levels of consideration is not accurate; many legislations have had pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses before Second Reading.
John Lamont
Con
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Mr. Lamont thanked the hon. Member for Sunderland Central for introducing the debate and acknowledged the significance of public support for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. He argued that parliamentary scrutiny is essential to ensure proper examination, amendment, and potential failure of legislation, regardless of public opinion or polls. Mr. Lamont also addressed concerns about the role of the House of Lords in scrutinizing private member's bills and emphasized the importance of balancing democratic legitimacy with thorough parliamentary scrutiny.
Asked if the intention was to stop this at all costs, implying that such an approach has given up its rights as a revising Chamber.
Jonathan Davies questioned whether the royal medical colleges and organizations representing disabled people support the Bill as it stands, suggesting that the Lords were providing necessary scrutiny despite public opinion.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Explains that it is difficult for constituents to understand the workings of Back-Bench Bills, suggesting that such practices destroy faith in parliamentary democracy and encourage filibustering tactics rather than fair debate.
Kim Leadbeater
Lab
Spen Valley
The MP intervened to support the lead MP's points about the process of passing private Members' Bills, stressing that it would not be appropriate for such issues to be included in party manifestos.
Kit Malthouse
Con
North West Hampshire
The MP congratulated the sponsor of a petition on their campaign and criticized the House of Lords for its filibustering tactics during debates on an assisted dying Bill. He expressed shock at the pretense of scrutiny, the disconnection from the wider population, and the lack of rules in the House of Lords that allowed peers to block the Bill. Questions the importance of an absolute majority in the House of Commons in supporting assisted dying legislation. I understand the point that the Leader of the House is making. However, if the House of Commons is determined that even a private Member's Bill should go through, even in the face of a Government-attempted filibuster, does he agree that it has tools at its disposal to allow it to do so?
Liam Conlon
Lab
Birmingham Northfield
Mr Conlon thanked his colleague for initiating the debate and emphasised that the Bill's scrutiny was not merely a matter of two opposing sides but multiple perspectives. He highlighted the importance of robust parliamentary procedures to ensure strong legislation, despite some viewing them as hindrances. Mr Conlon expressed concern about the potential impact of assisted dying on palliative care services and noted the lack of support from disability organisations for the Bill.
Lisa Smart
Lib Dem
Hazel Grove
The Bill's lack of progress is an issue, with more than 114,000 people signing the petition. This highlights the need for meaningful reforms to the House of Lords, particularly towards an elected second Chamber.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
She raised public concern about the House of Lords blocking a Bill and suggested that Baroness Smith's private Member's Bill could help modernize the House by running a public consultation.
She agreed with Peter Bedford's points about the need for quality debate in both Houses and expressed disappointment that the Lords did not have an opportunity to fully discuss the Bill.
Luke Taylor
Con
Central Devon
He criticized the Lords for blocking a Bill that was supported by MPs and the public, highlighting the filibustering tactics used to prevent its progression. He mentioned specific amendments and their impact on the terminally ill adults end-of-life bill. That is exactly what happened.
Suggests that filibustering and delays by the House of Lords have a chilling effect on introducing issues of conscience as private Members' Bills, affecting Back Benchers' ability to introduce such legislation.
Mary Glindon
Lab
North Tyneside
Questions whether a private Member's Bill should override the constitution when dealing with contentious issues like assisted dying, considering the rarity of using the Parliament Act.
Meg Hillier
Lab
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Acknowledges that the Bill was launched quickly without pre-legislative scrutiny, arguing that the House of Lords did its job by scrutinising it thoroughly despite delays. She corrected myths about the timetabling of Government Bills compared to private Members' Bills, explaining the constraints on debate in the Lords and stressing the importance of scrutiny by a revising Chamber. She also noted that the Bill had an excessive number of delegated powers which could lead to issues with future Governments.
Suggested that significant House of Lords reform and meaningful reform of the private Member's Bill process could unite people with differing views in this Chamber.
Peter Bedford
Con
Aylesbury
He expressed concerns about the filibustering of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the House of Lords, despite a clear majority vote in favour in the Commons. He highlighted that debates should be based on principles and not procedural tactics, stressing the importance of maintaining public confidence in parliamentary democracy.
Pippa Heylings
Con
St Albans
Pippa Heylings expressed gratitude towards petitioners and constituents for their support regarding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. She emphasized the thorough scrutiny the bill underwent in both Houses and called for parliamentary reform to ensure timely passage, criticizing the House of Lords for impeding democratic processes.
Simon Opher
Con
Stroud
Mr. Opher expresses dissatisfaction with the House of Lords, particularly regarding its ability to block well-endorsed Bills like the Terminally Ill Adults Bill. He highlights that a small number of peers obstructed progress and calls for reform or abolition of the Lords. The MP thanked Thomas Tugendhat for his speech and expressed agreement that the House of Lords should amend legislation but not block it. He asked what Tugendhat thought about this approach.
Siân Berry
Green
Bristol West
The Greens were not whipped on this issue; all four Green MPs voted for it. Debate was serious and involved engagement with constituents from various groups. The House of Commons supported the Bill but the Lords blocked further consideration, leading to disappointment.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge and Malling
The MP argued that the role of democracy is to measure, weigh matters slowly and take time on issues of life and death. He highlighted that Government Bills require extensive pre-Committee work involving years of expertise from various stakeholders before they reach Parliament. The MP questioned the legitimacy of constitutional reform based on a petition with 140,000 signatures. The right hon. Gentleman is making the entirely valid point that democracy is not just what happens in either Chamber, whether it is the Lords or the Commons, and democracy cannot be reduced to a number.
Many constituents are upset by the filibustering of the assisted dying Bill, despite public and MP support.
Agrees that denying an opportunity for improvement to Bills through amendments is a travesty and undermines the process.
Government Response
Alan Campbell
Government Response
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for chairing the debate earlier. The Government's democratic mandate and the primacy of the Commons are reflected in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, which limit the ability of the Lords to delay legislation against the will of the Commons to one year. However, there needs to be a balance between how scrutiny takes place and how rules and conventions are respected. The House of Lords played a significant role in scrutinising the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, including over 1,200 amendments. Despite limited time for private Members' Bills, lessons need to be learned about using time effectively and building consensus on such matters. It is not for the Government to dictate how the Lords conduct their business, but both Houses must reflect on the actions that impact public trust in our political system.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.