Lewis Atkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I will just finish this point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned, Lord Falconer—the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords—made clear that he would sit down and discuss amendments with peers: indeed, he accepted and supported amendments that responded to genuine concerns with the Bill. But there was no opportunity for the Lords to reach a conclusion on amendments, because of the tactics involved. Mark D’Arcy, a BBC parliamentary correspondent for more than two decades, characterised the Lords’ treatment as this: “This is a filibuster. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes good in orange sauce, it’s a duck. If they’re going this slowly over this piece of legislation, I’m afraid it’s a filibuster. There is no other way to describe what’s going on here. It may be in order. It may be within the rules of the House, but what’s happening here is that a relatively small number of peers are putting down lots and lots of amendments and debating them very, very slowly.”

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 752673 relating to the timely progress of bills through Parliament. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I want to start by being clear about what this petition, and therefore this debate, is about. Although the petition was prompted by the parliamentary consideration of assisted dying, it is not about assisted dying; it is about British parliamentary democracy and how—or, indeed, whether—it can work. The petition poses what I would suggest is an existential question for us here: does our constitutional settlement allow changes that have been backed by the public and their representatives to pass into law? I desperately want the answer to that question to be yes. That is not because I want a specific piece of legislation to be passed; it is because if, as a country, we cannot resolve different views through Parliament—developing legislative proposals and scrutinising them, but ultimately reaching a decision on them—we are in a very troubling place.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies—my right hon. Friend may not have spoken, but many other Members certainly made that argument, and it was a key argument for voting against the Bill on Third Reading. We either believe in parliamentary democracy and in the primacy of the House of Commons where each of us independently reaches our judgment—I accept that it is a judgment; I am not an absolutist on this issue—or we do not. We cannot believe in parliamentary democracy when it suits us and not believe in it when it does not suit us. Nevertheless, I agree with my right hon. Friend on the need to legislate better and I believe that the Hansard Society has put forward some recommendations about how the approach to private Members’ Bills in general could be improved. I absolutely agree that some improvements could be made.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I will introduce the petitioners first, because they ultimately prompted the debate; I will then be happy to take further interventions. The petition was initially proposed by Nathaniel Dye, a man who felt the urgency for change and looked at his Parliament to deliver it. Nat was a music teacher, and after being diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer in his mid-30s, he campaigned for cancer awareness and support, being recognised with an MBE for his incredible efforts. Nathaniel knew he was going to die, and he believed that Parliament should engage seriously with the issues that affected him and many others with terminal illness. He campaigned strongly in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) in the last Session. As a member of that Bill Committee, I had the privilege of meeting Nat on a number of occasions. He was a remarkable man. In his final months, Nat became frustrated—angry, it is fair to say—at how the Lords were dealing with their consideration of the Bill. True to form, he decided to do something about it, starting the petition that we are here to debate today. Nat died in January this year. I pay tribute to him and his family, who have continued to support his efforts following his death. I am grateful to Rebecca Scott, his sister, for meeting me as part of the engagement process for this debate. After Nathaniel’s death, his friend Sophie Blake became the petition’s sponsor, and it is a pleasure to see her in the Gallery today, as it was to speak with her in preparation for this debate, alongside a campaigner from Dignity in Dying. Sophie has incurable stage 4 secondary breast cancer, first diagnosed in 2020. She is allergic to opioids, which form an important part of the palliative care pain relief toolkit, and unfortunately her family have experienced what she describes as “bad cancer deaths”. She does not want her daughter, Maya—also in the Public Gallery—to run the risk of being left with those memories. She wants the option of an assisted death if she feels that that is required. The key demand of Nathaniel, Sophie and the 114,000 petitioners is that Bills supported by MPs and the public must be able to complete all stages of the parliamentary process and to become law; and that the unelected House of Lords should be able to scrutinise, yes, but not block legislation backed by the elected Commons. Sophie and Nathaniel were both determined that the voices of terminally ill people should be at the centre of parliamentary consideration of the Bill. They closely monitored its various stages. They were in the Public Gallery of the House of Commons on Second Reading and of Committee Room 11 for some of the 100 hours of Bill Committee proceedings, where we made more than 100 amendments, including 30 proposed by MPs who had opposed the Bill on Second Reading.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I will finish my point. Fundamentally, the question is whether we can achieve social change in this country through parliamentary means, or not. I will just go back to how Sophie, the key petitioner, felt. She summed it up in the following way: “I’m living with incurable cancer and I know how precious time becomes when you’re facing the end of life. Watching Parliament waste that time because of the actions of a tiny number of unelected politicians is heartbreaking”. It is not that the House of Lords was improving the Bill. It may have been in some cases, but the fact that the House of Lords, in 16 days, did not divide once and decide on one amendment—

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with him—as does Rod Liddle, a journalist who did not support changing the law and was an opponent of the Bill. He said: “The truth, I am ashamed to say, is that in the case of the assisted dying Bill, my side won by cheating…What was not right was for opponents of the Bill, no matter how strongly they felt, to use machinery rather than honest debate to get the Bill booted out.”

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely. I absolutely respect the fact that others, including opponents of the Bill, reach different judgments on this difficult issue. Ultimately, as I said, in our parliamentary democracy that is for Parliament to resolve, on the balance of judgment of its constituent-elected MPs. That is explainable to our constituents. If something that constituents wish for is decided on by Parliament, that can be explained; what struggles to be explained is when tactics and filibustering are used to not reach a decision at all. I will come on to talk a little about that. At this stage, it is important to say that I spoke to groups opposed to assisted dying as part of my preparation for the debate—again, not to discuss the substance of assisted dying itself, but, as part of balance, to get their view about the process. It is fair to say that their position includes the assertion that the Lords were justified in not reaching a decision on the Bill because Commons consideration in Committee was flawed. I personally disagree; having sat in Committee for more than 100 hours—way in excess of nearly any other Bill—I might be expected to say that. Those exact same arguments, however, were available to Members before Third Reading.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). I have heard it said that it was inappropriate for this issue to be brought as a private Member’s Bill, but equally we know that it would have been inappropriate for it to be included in any party’s manifesto. I see opponents of the Bill, as well as proponents of it, nodding in assent. Clearly, both public opinion and parliamentarians’ opinions on this issue are not split across party lines. The Prime Minister was clear in advance of the general election that he favoured a free vote to decide this issue—not on what the outcome of the issue should be—and that a private Member’s Bill was an entirely appropriate mechanism to achieve that. I hear some opponents saying, on the one hand, that a private Member’s Bill was never appropriate to do this but, on the other hand, that it would not have been appropriate to include this issue in a manifesto. Therefore, one is left to conclude that those opponents think there is no viable vehicle for social change in this country.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  We reached a decision. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it should be respected?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I do.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am going to finish now. More in Common reports a shift from frustration to anger among the general public—not on this issue specifically but because it is too difficult to get things done in this country. There is a sense that our institutions are broken and that action is blocked at every turn. That cannot be healthy for anyone, least of all for people who are dying and have a limited number of days left. For people like Nathaniel and Sophie, parliamentary delay and inaction are not abstract concepts. Delay takes time that they do not have and it prolongs a status quo that MPs clearly voted to change. I would not serve here if I did not believe in British parliamentary democracy. The petitioners believe that we must act to demonstrate that parliamentary democracy remains fit to deal with the issues of the day, including life or death. I pay tribute to them. This issue is not going away, and I look forward to this debate.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, and I respect her significant experience and expertise in this place. Again, though, I gently say that that very argument was well rehearsed; in fact, I think she made it on Third Reading. And the judgment collectively of MPs was that it did not carry.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree. I will come on to talk about future consideration of the legislation. The arguments against the process—that the consideration was somehow flawed—were widely debated before Third Reading, and the Commons reached a conclusion on that. All MPs had to make a judgment, independent of the Whips, on whether they wanted to pass the legislation. Sophie and Nathaniel were in the Commons Gallery on the day of Third Reading. They, like people across the country, thought a clear decision had been made: that assisted dying reform would become law, with significant safeguards, subject to some further iteration in the Lords, if required, including an extended implementation period of up to five years to allow any other considerations to be worked through. It was the approach of the House of Lords, specifically a small number of peers, that outraged Nathaniel, Sophie and the other petitioners.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I think the right hon. Member is rather mischaracterising what I said. As I said, and as the Hansard Society says, I think there is a clear constitutional response within our existing settlement. It is not about fundamental Lords reform, though I may be in favour of that; it is about use of the Parliament Act. Does he agree that, if the Commons agrees to this again, using the Parliament Act is entirely appropriate?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I am not here to speak for the sponsor of anything; I am here to speak for parliamentary democracy. Fundamentally, on Third Reading, MPs clearly backed the Bill. That was the final chance for MPs to have their say. In all those debates, my hon. Friend made his points well and ably, as I made mine, in Committee and beyond. I entirely respect his perspective, but I am bringing us back to the issue of parliamentary democracy. It is entirely appropriate, and no one is disputing—the petitioners are not disputing—that the Lords should scrutinise and indeed amend legislation passed to them from the Commons; what the petitioners find outrageous, frankly, is the failure to consider it. I will come on to that.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I note that the Scottish Parliament democratically came to a judgment on the devolved issue of hospice funding that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The arguments he made were aired extensively before Third Reading and the Commons made its judgment clear. I will turn to my conclusions, as I know a lot of Members wish to speak. The public expects Parliament to work. More widely than on assisted dying, we can all sense a general public mood of impatience that change cannot be delivered in this country. Many on the Government Benches felt some of that impatience when it took 18 months from our election to pass the Employment Rights Act 2025, partly due to the ponderously slow process of the Lords. We rightly asserted the primacy of the Commons at that stage. Parliamentary democracy is not a pick-and-mix affair.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that private Members’ Bills provide an important avenue for democratically elected Members of the Commons to seek important legislative change. For decades, they have been a long-established precedent in how this country introduces social change—whether that is the decriminalisation of homosexuality and abortion, or the abolition of the death penalty. Fundamentally, I do not believe that the unelected Lords should be able to block such key social change, but I will come on to some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a considered speech, but he did point out that part of the issue is declining trust in politics. Whatever our individual views on this matter, does he not see that for the House of Commons—the elected Chamber—to reach a conclusion that is then blocked by the Lords risks further significantly undermining trust in politics and democratic institutions in this country?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  All that remains is for me to thank Members for their many contributions today and the spirit in which they were made—the same spirit in which we participated in the Second and Third Reading debates. Those, including the contributions from opponents of the Bill, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, improved the Bill. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch when she said that we are not here as a debating Chamber, but as legislators. To be clear, the petitioners do not believe that the Lords or anyone should unquestionably take up what has been done, but they do question how social change is possible in a democratic society, which is what we profess to be in our constitutional settlement. As the Leader of the House ably set out, that constitutional settlement has been evolving over time, including through the Parliament Act. The Hansard Society is absolutely clear that the Lords were within their rights to do as they did under the current constitutional settlement. It is also clear that the Bill therefore passes back to the Commons, should it be reintroduced, and that the Parliament Act would be an entirely appropriate means to do that. Let me be clear, because there has been some suggestion that that would force the Bill through without amendment. Should the Bill be reintroduced, there would again be opportunity for the Lords to consider and pass amendments to it. But there would not be an opportunity for the Lords to not reach a conclusion. I am far from being a constitutional radical. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge did a good job of painting me as some radical saying that I wanted to abolish the Lords. Maybe his AI suggested that I wanted to do those things because he certainly did not listen to my speech. Perhaps we can have a cuppa to discuss it. The petitioners want to see that change is possible within our constitutional settlement. These are issues of life and death; they are not abstract concepts for the petitioners. I again thank Nathaniel and Sophie for their work in introducing the petition and thank everyone who signed it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered e-petition 752673 relating to the timely progress of bills through Parliament.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  The Milburn report identifies a state failure to provide timely and appropriate mental health support—and this is just about child and adolescent mental health services, up to adult services. Most tellingly, it states that there are no waiting time targets for mental health services. Will the Minister have a conversation with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to supplement the jobs guarantee with a mental health support guarantee, and ensure that young people are not waiting more than 18 months for mental health support?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The history of the NHS shows that there is no one way of securing improvement or accountability, and that a range of different mechanisms have a role. Patient voice, patient choice, performance management—including centralised performance management—planning, democratic challenge, competition and collaboration all have a place, and it is for the Government of the day to make a judgment about the right blend of mechanisms with which to pursue their objectives. Overall, I think that the Bill represents a good attempt to do that, given the NHS that this Government inherited and their ambitions, as set out in the NHS plan. There was undoubtedly duplication between the DHSC and NHSE, and returning to the situation before 2012, when there was direct departmental oversight of the NHS, is not a radical step. There are, of course, costs to this transition. Unfortunately, in terms of morale, I think that these costs were somewhat exacerbated by the regretful manner in which the original announcement about NHSE abolition and ICB changes were made, which did not do justice to the commitment and professionalism of impacted staff. But that does not change the fact that the Government’s overall diagnosis is correct: since the 2012 reforms, accountability has been muddied, and a total reset of regulation is required to empower NHS providers to meet the urgent health needs of the population with the resources available. However, I agree that there are significant questions about the role of HSSIB, and I hope that this issue can be resolved in Committee. The Government have been clear that they see the future role of ICBs as strategic commissioners. That capability needs to be developed, and I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) that it needs to be done with particular care in relation to specialist services. There also needs to be a resolution of how the development of neighbourhood health services will be strategically led. ICBs must retain the capacity to work at place level, and I join others in questioning the proposal to remove local authority representation on ICBs. Combined authority representation does not suitably replace that. Mayors’ responsibilities are entirely different and do not include anything to do with social care or public health that rightly sits with councils, and we need that to be hardwired into ICB membership. I want to end on an area of healthcare that is the subject of a manifesto commitment that is not currently in the Bill: delivering parity of esteem for mental health. It is unconscionable that waits for NHS mental health services are significantly longer than physical health waits and that, as yet, there is no specific commitment to bring them down. The Health and Care Act 2022 introduced a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on NHS mental health spend. I wonder whether, as part of this Bill, there is scope to widen that duty to include reporting on the different waiting times for physical and mental health, and to make some progress on the very welcome cross-Government mental health strategy that has recently been announced.