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.