Claire Young

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I thank the petitioners who provoked the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) on one important point: there are benefits of having a revising Chamber. However, I believe that the proper duty of the Lords is to scrutinise, improve and revise, not to block or frustrate. That distinction matters most of all in the case of private Members’ Bills, which proceed with limited time allocated to them and, for conscience issues, without a whipped vote. When our constituents send us to this place, they trust that we will apply our judgment to serious matters carefully and thoughtfully, and while taking their views into account. I certainly tried to take that approach when I voted on the assisted dying Bill, as, I believe, did Members on both sides of the House, regardless of the view that they took. When we consider the time spent scrutinising the Bill, which a number of Members have mentioned, we should not overlook the time that individual MPs committed to learning, researching and listening. I suspect that it was far more than is typical for a Bill that emanates from a manifesto. The questions on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were among the most difficult and personal to come before us in Parliament, yet in debates on the Bill, I saw the House at its very best. There was careful argument, deep feeling and genuine respect among Members who profoundly disagreed. What followed did not reflect the same spirit. In the other place, the Bill fell not because peers had weighed it up and rejected it, but because its passage was run down by delay, by more than 1,000 amendments and by a refusal to let the elected House reach its conclusion. The clock was allowed to defeat what a vote could not. I cannot accept that an unelected Chamber should be able to set aside the settled will of the elected Chamber simply by running down the time. It is precisely because of such episodes that I support a wholly elected second Chamber, as I have for many years—I, for one, am not relying on this specific petition to decide my view. An unelected House should not hold the power to block a Bill that commands a majority in the elected House. The Government’s removal of hereditary peers was a welcome step but, as I have said before, they too often tinker at the edges when our constitution needs fundamental reform. That reform will never be completed if an unelected Chamber can override the wishes of the people whom the public chose. In plain terms, that is undemocratic. The petition, which was signed by more than 114,000 of our fellow citizens, is just the latest evidence that the public will no longer accept an unelected few standing in the way of the elected many. I commend the petitioners and urge the Government to introduce the reform that this moment so clearly demands.