Alan Campbell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Government agree with my hon. Friend that there must be a balance between planning rules and practicality, and we did consult on changes to the national planning policy framework to emphasise the need for proportionality in these matters. Through the nature restoration fund, we will also remove the need for site-by-site approaches to mitigation to support protected species at the strategic level. My hon. Friend may wish to raise this issue directly with Ministers at Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on Monday to get the latest thinking.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion these concerns on behalf of his constituents. The police do have a number of powers to seize e-scooters and e-bikes that are being used illegally or antisocially. We will be consulting further shortly and are committed to pursuing legislative reform in due course. As my hon. Friend points out, it is a question of not just having the legislation but using that legislation. Were he to seek a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate, he could put his frustration and concerns directly to the relevant Minister.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join my hon. Friend in congratulating James, Josh and Gabriella, along with the other students at Braes and St Mungo’s. I thank Powering Futures for its important work. As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to turning around the broken system that we inherited and to getting more young people into work. I encourage him to join up with other Members, some of whom have raised these issues today, to look at applying for a Backbench Business debate where he could talk not only about how proud he is of his constituents’ campaigning but about what further action could be taken in future.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency sounds untenable. The police and local authorities have legal powers to deal with dangerous, abandoned and obstructive vehicles, and they work closely with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to target untaxed vehicles. Should my hon. Friend wish to apply for a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate, I am sure that it would be well attended. She could then hear directly from the Minister what the Government could do further.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for her community and the wider region, and she raises serious matters. There are opportunities for her to apply for a debate to hear directly from a Minister—perhaps in a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate—but I will certainly take up her request that a Minister considers visiting to see the issue for themselves.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, we use British businesses for our contracts. I am sorry to hear of the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituent, and I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State, if she gives me the details later. Following that, should a meeting be necessary, I am sure I can help to arrange one.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Lady gives me the details of that case, I will certainly raise it with Government colleagues. She is right to raise these matters, which will be of huge concern to the family. If she wishes to have a meeting with the relevant Minister to explain why such a pathway and change is necessary, I will help her to arrange one.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  With respect, the hon. Gentleman may be jumping to the wrong conclusion on the matter, but he has been around long enough to know that if he does not get the answer that he wants first time—or indeed second time—he can keep going. It is also up to him; if he wants to hear directly from Ministers on those matters and put those questions to them, then there are Adjournment and Westminster Hall debates. I am sure there would be a lot of interest in the topic from across the House.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of NEETs. She is a great champion for her constituency, the region that we share, and young people in the area. The Government are committed to taking action, including the biggest reforms to apprenticeships in a decade and extending our youth guarantee, but as she suggests, there is more to be done. We will use Alan Milburn’s interim report to build on our reforms, and we look forward to receiving the full recommendations in the autumn. When that has happened, as I said earlier, the Government will want to update the House and find time for a debate on those matters.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I do. My hon. Friend raises an important matter, and I am concerned that she has not had the engagement from the councils that they should be offering. I hope they do respond with the seriousness that this warrants and take an active role in ensuring that such problems are sorted out on behalf of residents. Unfortunately, this is yet further evidence of Reform councils underperforming.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but it is not for me, or for the Government, to tell the Lords how to conduct their affairs. It is not the Government’s job to pick up this Bill, after it has been through this first, stalled, failed, stage—

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

  More

  I certainly will go away and reflect on that, but as my hon. Friend knows, because he is a very distinguished member of the Modernisation Committee, we are looking at how the House of Commons should best use its time. Part of that discussion will relate to when private Members’ Bills are debated and how long they are debated for. He will know that a number of Commons Committees have looked at this question over a period of time—not least the Procedure Committee, which, if memory serves, is looking at it again. However, limited time is available for private Members’ Bills. There might be a clear decision at the end of a debate—on a time-limited Second Reading, for example, although that would be novel, given that the aim is often to get to 2.30 pm having talked out a Bill, and sometimes the Government of the day help in that process [ Interruption. ] They do; that is part of how private Members’ Bills are dealt with. The more I look at the issue, the less I am sure whether they are necessarily fit for purpose. However, if we were to get to that point, that would not address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about how long the House should take to consider these matters. This House rose to the occasion on Second Reading—recall the great fear that there would be a great row, which would show the House at its worst. The House rose to that occasion, but we had at least five hours of debate on Second Reading, so I worry slightly about what would happen if the process were curtailed. At the heart of the issue, although I am not commenting on the Bill in this context, is the fact that Members need to reflect on whether a private Member’s Bill is the route for certain legislation, particularly when it concerns a big issue and there is a question of conscience.

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

  More

  Hang on. As we have already said, we have just been through the private Members’ Bill ballot again. We will have to wait and see. With respect, the hon. Lady does not know whether somebody is going to pick up the Bill and run with it in future.

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

  More

  This is cold comfort to people who want to see the Bill pass, and pass soon, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that this has all been part of that process. I do not want to play with hypothetical situations, but let us imagine that this legislation was taken forward. I have no evidence to suggest this will happen, other than the fact that it could, but if one of the MPs near the top of this year’s private Members’ Bills ballot decided to pick up the assisted dying Bill and run with it, there would be lessons to be learned. There would be lessons about how we use time, and about how wide the scope of the Bill should be because of the amendments that would be tabled. There would be a lesson about how the Lords should deal with the situation, even though it would be deeply uncomfortable for them. I gently say to the proponents and opponents of the Bill that, if someone picks it up and runs with it, and prays in aid the Parliament Act—as I have said, our view is that it falls within the scope of that Act—there would be rules around that, too. Lessons need to be learned on top of what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge is getting at, which is about how we take public opinion with us and build consensus, which, as we have heard, takes time.

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

  More

  I will give her one more go and then I am moving on.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  That is the case in the Commons. I am trying to recall Second Reading, but I assume that is what happened. If there is a majority in favour of a Bill and a motion to bring the debate to an end, that motion will succeed—it does not matter what the Government of the day say. I was talking about other Bills that the Government might dispute, rather than distinctly private Members’ Bills where there is a matter of conscience and a free vote. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire is drawing out the contrast, and there is a wider debate about how the House of Lords conducts its business. As I have said before, at the end of the day if the House of Lords to carry out independent scrutiny, it is not for the Government of the day to set those rules. It might be for them to look at an issue in the context of the Parliament Act, for example, but it is not for them to set the day-to-day rules. Unless the Government had a majority in the House of Lords, they would not be able to do that.

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

  More

  No, I do not, although who is to say whether in future the Government—or a Government—will decide to make the issue part of their manifesto, bring it forward and deal with it differently in that way? It is rather unfair for the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) to expect this Government to pick up this Bill—or his Bill, if he picked it up and it failed. The hon. Gentleman has been through this before: he had a private Member’s Bill, which had quite a lot of public support. It got through its Second Reading and to Committee, and he got through clause 1. The reason why it did not get any further was that the Government of whom he was part—the coalition Government—stopped it. I have to say, in this well-tempered debate, that it is a bit rich for him to talk about Governments picking up Bills and running with them when he knows full well that it is much more complicated than that.

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

  More

  Hang on. I would want to see what happened here. We talk about private Members’ Bills changing the law on matters of profound conscience and social policy, such as, for example, abortion or capital punishment; I was not around at the time, but I doubt that those got through at the first go. I do understand that many people rightly regard this issue as a matter of life and death, but there were many people at the time who regarded abortion or capital punishment as matters of life and death. We have to be slightly patient and see what progress any future private Member’s Bill, if that is the route taken, might make.

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

  More

  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. I thank the petitioners for their hard work and the Petitions Committee for scheduling this debate, and I thank all the Members who have taken part. This has been a well-attended debate and it makes the case, dare I say it, for petitions to be heard in the main Chamber. However, that is another discussion. Let me say at the outset that I understand the strength of feeling on this issue and appreciate some of the frustration that has come across this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the way in which he introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for reminding me of my duties and responsibilities in this place. I make no apology for saying that those are absolutely what I endeavour to carry out on any issue at any time. I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to listen to the debate and to respond, but given the role I play, I make no apology if I say some unpalatable things. The problem, with an issue of such importance and such division, is that what I have to say will probably end up being unpalatable to both sides, not just one. There are two interrelated elements to this petition and, subsequently, to this debate: first, the principles surrounding the role of each House and, secondly, the passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I will begin by dealing with the first, which is the primacy of the Commons. The primacy of the elected chamber, the House of Commons, and the way in which it has primacy over the House of Lords, is absolutely fundamental to our constitution. It is reflected in the legislation and the conventions that govern how Parliament works. For instance, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 reduced and then further reduced the ability of the House of Lords to delay legislation against the will of the Commons. Since its passage, the Parliament Act 1949 has limited the ability of the Lords to delay the will of the Commons to just one year, and I can confirm that that applies to all Public Bills, including private Members’ Bills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said. The Government’s democratic mandate and the primacy of the Commons are also reflected in the Salisbury-Addison convention that the House of Lords should not reject on Second Reading any Government legislation that carries out a manifesto commitment and that such legislation will not be subject to “wrecking amendments” in its passage. However, the key fact is that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was a private Member’s Bill and therefore, unlike the Parliament Act 1949, the Salisbury-Addison convention did not apply. The will of the Commons is given precedence over the will of the Lords. However, I want to place on record the Government’s view that we greatly value the work of the House of Lords in scrutinising and improving legislation. There have been many occasions where the Members of the other place have drawn on their experience and expertise in their field—whether that is law, science, public service, military matters or indeed medicine—to bring a depth of scrutiny to legislation that sometimes the Commons is unable to. A great deal of legislation is significantly improved because of the patient, rigorous work done in the Lords, and the Government do not have any plans to further curtail the ability of the Lords to scrutinise legislation passed on by the Commons. It seems to me that it is for the Lords to decide what their rules are, and even if the Government set about trying to change the rules, they do not have a majority in the House of Lords. We need to bear that in mind. But—it is a very big “but”—there clearly needs to be a balance between how scrutiny takes place and how rules and conventions are respected. History shows that where the House of Lords overrides the expressed will of the elected House and is considered to be preventing legislation from completing its stages, pressure builds to revisit those rules and conventions—that is one of the first and last times I think I will ever have agreed with Tom Brake. [ Laughter. ] I want to turn to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I will not rerun the Bill, its progress and who was right or wrong, but it remains an issue of profound ethical and personal importance to many. As is the convention for matters of conscience, the Government maintained a neutral position throughout the passage of the Bill, except to ensure that, should it have passed, they would assist to make it workable. That position has not changed. All MPs and peers, including Government Ministers, will have had their own personal views, and it is right that, as MPs, we had a free vote on the Bill. On two occasions—on Second Reading, by a majority of 55, and on Third Reading, by a majority of 23—the Commons, including myself, supported the legislation. In the Commons, the Bill received over 500 amendments and, as we have heard, was in Committee for something like 100 hours. Many of those amendments were agreed to. In the Lords, there were more than 1,200 amendments. There are some key differences, of course, in the way the two Houses can deal with those hundreds of amendments, but I suggest that some Members of the Lords who spent their time putting down amendment after amendment and urging that they be debated genuinely believed that the Bill that left the Commons was not of merit and was flawed. They have a right to scrutinise legislation, and they used that right. I heard some of the examples that were given of some of the amendments, which quite frankly ran the risk of making the process rather farcical, but there were many others that were genuine and sincere attempts to make the Bill right. Behind all this is an issue that is central to private Members’ Bills: the question of time. Unless rules on private Members’ Bills change, any private Member’s Bill—whether in the House of Commons or the House of Lords—can be timed out because it is simply talked out. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, in retrospect, shouldn’t the House of Commons and the Government have made time for this? I remind him that there was time in the House of Commons—the Bill passed there. It was not in the House of Commons that we had the problem; it was in the House of Lords. However, it is a matter for the Lords themselves, where the Bill had 90 hours and 45 minutes of debate. As a private Member’s Bill both in the Commons and the Lords, it is to a large extent the Bill’s sponsors who decide how that time should be used. As in the Commons stage, that time was allocated and used in such a way in the Lords. It took a very long time in Committee in the House of Commons, and it took quite a long time on Report in the House of Commons. That was time that might otherwise have created some space later in the process, which the Lords might have been able to make better use. However, I suspect that I am being slightly optimistic when I say that.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the whole House joins my hon. Friend in sending our condolences to George’s family. Schools are required to provide mandatory swimming instruction. If that is not happening I will take it up with the relevant Secretary of State to determine why it is not happening and what further action can be taken. I encourage him and others to attend next Tuesday’s Westminster Hall debate on water safety.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join my hon. Friend in sending condolences to all the families of those who have tragically died, including David. As part of the Beat the Heat campaign, the UK Health Security Agency promotes safer choices around where, when and how people swim. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, primary schools are required to provide mandatory swimming instructions. Primary school leavers should be able to swim 25 metres confidently; if there are reasons why that is not happening, I will ask the relevant Department to find out what they are. The number of deaths is tragically high and the issue will affect a number of constituencies, so I urge him and others to attend the Westminster Hall debate next Tuesday, to raise questions directly with the Minister.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who have worked so hard to ensure that Blackpool Pride is a great success this year and in years past, including Councillor Matthew Thomas. I encourage my hon. Friend to participate in the general debate later today, and take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy Pride Month this June.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I encourage the hon. Gentleman to apply for an Adjournment debate, or perhaps a Backbench Business debate, because these are indeed matters of concern. The Government are doing all we can, but should there be some use in further meetings, I will help him to arrange them.