Lewis Atkinson
MP for Sunderland Central · Labour · United Kingdom
“That will presumably be returning next July, so I want to extend an early invite to all Members and the future Member for Clacton not just to enjoy our beautiful coast but to help ensure that all rubbish from day-trippers to Roker and Seaburn is properly disposed of—in the bin.”
“Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell), is an ardent fan of Europe, so I am sure he will join me in wishing Sunderland AFC well for the season ahead. I specifically want to mention the contribution of David Bruce, who recently departed as the club’s chief business officer.”
“Mrs Helen Smith has been teaching at St Anthony’s girls’ Catholic academy for more than 30 years, including as head of sixth form and leading the A-level politics programme.”
“I am, however, still deeply saddened—angry, even—that that grant has not been used by the council to prevent the recent closure of the Basis homeless drop-in centre, and that no alternative provision has been put in place.”
“In the last year, Sunderland has shown that it is truly a city on the up. A new hospital, library, bridge, construction skills academy, offices and housing are all open or opening soon—all secured under a Labour council—and there are investment plans in place for the Crown Works film studio, expansion of the Metro to Washington and much m…”
“Fulwell community library, which is run by a fantastic team of volunteers led by Richard Beck, provides a welcoming space for people to enjoy books and a cuppa, as I did there the other week.”
The complete record
Every one of 557 lines we hold for Lewis Atkinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“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 is always a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman; he is much more experienced in this place than I am. However, over 16 days of debate in the House of Lords, the will of the Lords was not tested once. There were no Divisions. If the will of the peers was so overwhelmingly against the Bill, the Lords could have divided on Second Reading if the House had wished; it chose not to. The opponents of the Bill in the Lords went out of their way, it is suggested, to avoid Divisions. Some amendments may have passed, but a great number of others would probably have been defeated. With more than 1,200 amendments tabled, and 1% of peers tabling 60% of them, that small number of peers took up more than a third of the total speaking time.”
“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.””
“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.”
“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.””
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Like others, I sat with officials from the Department of Health and Social Care after Second Reading, so there absolutely was DHSC involvement, including in many of the amendments that Lord Falconer introduced. Going back to the principle of parliamentary democracy, I respect the point that my hon. Friend makes, but all the issues she has highlighted were aired before Third Reading. She says that we are not a debating Chamber but a decision Chamber, so why—”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The closures are due not just to economic factors on the high street, which people have discussed; the Music Venue Trust conservatively estimates that since 2015 over 125 grassroots music venue closures have been due specifically to planning issues.”
“It is tempting to assume that a lot of money is sloshing around because of the success of some of our international acts, but that is absolutely not the case for grassroots music venues trying to keep the show on the road, as it were, on our high streets. That is why 350 have closed in recent years. Of the 366 small venues that Ed Sheeran played in when learning his trade, more than 150 are now closed. Of the 34 venues that Oasis played in before being signed, only 11 remain. If we do not work to ensure that the agent of change principle is properly applied, which Lords Amendment 94 sought to do, we risk further catastrophic loss of venues.”
“I would like to speak to Lords amendment 94B and 94C on the agent of change principle. My particular concern, as I said last week, relates to grassroots music venues and the impact on them of the current lack of robust application of the agent of change principle through planning guidance. To set a little context, there were 1,150 grassroots music venues a few years ago. The Music Venue Trust now believes that has fallen to 800 venues. Grassroots music venues are important, and not just to local cultural identity—Sunderland is a music city, as we all know. Those venues are core to the UK music industry, which is worth £5.2 billion a year in this country, and grassroots music venues are the research and development department of that industry.”
“I fondly remember the vibrant cultural scene during my time in Broadstairs. Too many grassroots music venues risk facing their own “Waterloo” at the moment.”
“Absolutely. Too many music venues risk becoming old news by being forced to shut, even if they are where the likes of Fleetwood Mac learned their trade. I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The Government recently made a welcome commitment to set out a new high street strategy. The high street is, of course, changing due to changing retail habits, including online shopping. Cultural venues such as music venues are absolutely core to the regeneration and future of the high street, which means that the sort of protections envisaged in Lords amendments 94B and 94C become even more crucial.”
“A local music venue is therefore stressed about potential threats, and a developer is not able to build houses. There is reported to be greater clarity in Scotland. I understand that the Scottish planning system is significantly different in many elements from the one in England. The Music Venue Trust reports a significant reduction in the number of venue closures in Scotland.”
“To reassure the Minister, I should say that I am not seeking a widespread power that would extend noise protections to all sorts of establishments. My concern, and that of others across the House and in the other place, relates specifically to cultural venues—in particular grassroots music venues and nightclubs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has ably set out. I support the Government’s mission to build more houses and create more residences. The example in my constituency is that the lack of clarity and enforcement of the current framework is stopping properties being built—some flats in my city centre are not being built because the developer tries to get away with what it can under noise abatement, in the absence of a clear statutory duty.”
“That guidance has not been sufficiently implemented; the Music Venue Trust reports that there has not been a meaningful reduction in the number of planning applications that risk threatening music venues. There is an issue about enforcement. Will the Minister say a little about the work that the Government are doing to increase the resources and the ability of local authorities to enforce the national planning policy framework when it comes to “agent for change” in future? The other reality, I am afraid, is that the NPPF, including the draft NPPF set out by the Government recently, is not strong enough; Lord Brennan of Canton referred to that in his speech in the other place last Thursday, I believe.”
“The Night & Day Café in Manchester spent three days fighting noise abatement proceedings from a nearby development, which put stress and risk on that establishment over time. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) is not in his place today, but he intervened last week in the debate, referencing venues like that one. I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment from the Dispatch Box that the current planning framework is not operating as initially envisaged. I think the “agent of change” principle was first put into the national planning policy framework in 2018, following a private Member’s Bill secured by the now Lord Spellar—MP for Warley at the time.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to say a little about the national planning policy framework at the moment. When my hon. Friend spoke, he made a good point about local plans. Part of the issue at the moment is that local councils have very different approaches. I wonder whether there is scope for the Government to ensure, or certainly encourage, local authorities to explicitly reference and identify grassroots music venues in their local plans so that when such planning applications are put in, there is explicit recognition of those venues. It is not just the risk of actual closure that the lack of “agent of change” envisages; there is also the ongoing uncertainty.”
“If inappropriate planning applications that threaten our music venues continue to come in, how long will she and the Government wait before reviewing the policy and looking to further strengthen it? Indeed, if there is any chance of a late concession in the event that the agent of change returns here from the other place, will she consider taking potential statutory powers not to be used except when needed to safeguard our grassroots music venues?”
“If it is the Government’s intention to try to get the policy solution through planning guidance rather than through statute, will the Minister commit on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning to reconsider some of the language in the draft NPPF to strengthen those points in particular? Will the Minister also write to local authorities on ensuring that local plans include grassroots music venues? There has to be a review of the NPPF. Could the Minister say a little about how long she believes it is appropriate to monitor the implementation of the NPPF if this is where we end up at the end of ping-pong and there are no statutory powers engaged to protect our music venues?”
“But the existing draft national planning policy framework states, in P4: “Existing businesses, community facilities, public services and defence and security activities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on their current or permitted operation”. “Should not” gives far too much leeway. There is also no explicit reference in the draft national planning policy framework to specific actions about noise levels, sound insulation, licensing outcomes or operating hours, despite those being the most common and predictable mechanisms through which “agent for change” risks threaten our music venues.”
“I entirely agree. The title of this Bill includes the words “community empowerment” and “devolution”. I want my community in Sunderland to be empowered: to have the powers to ensure that our key cultural venues—such as Pop Recs, Independent and the Bunker—retain protections from further development around them. I turn to the draft national planning policy framework, which the Minister referred to. I understand the Government’s difficulty in breaking what some might say is a precedent by not putting planning guidance into statute. I understand that there is a genuine judgment to be made, even if there is a shared policy intent.”
“I understand the temptation to distinguish between urban, rural and coastal communities, but does the Minister recognise that urban communities such as mine in Sunderland are also coastal communities? By the limitations of geography, our economic activity is limited by 180°, and there are particular issues regarding transport links, economic geography and so on. Does she agree that it is not a binary distinction between urban, rural and coastal, and that many city council areas such as mine, as well as combined authorities, need to be considered as coastal communities as well?”
“Will the Minister elaborate on funding for brownfield sites? In my constituency, we have Riverside Sunderland, the most ambitious city centre regeneration project in the UK. That is only possible because of £30 million of Homes England funding, which will create more than 800 homes. Does she agree that it is somewhat hypocritical for parties that voted against that funding to say that they favour a “brownfield first” or “brownfield only” policy for building?”
“I thank the Minister for those welcome words, the acknowledgment that there is no policy difference here, and that she will keep statutory guidance under review, should that be necessary. Will she commit, on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning, to a meeting before the publication of the final NPPF, at which we could give serious consideration to explicitly mentioning issues such as noise reduction and insulation, when it comes to grassroots music venues?”
“That process took too long, incurred cost and risk to the venue, and ultimately meant that the flats were not built, so we actually have housing that is not being built due to a lack of clarity on the agent of change principle. That shows why that principle needs to be strengthened; currently, given that the guidance is not statutory, developers are incentivised to try to get away with proposals. Will the Minister meet me, other members of the APPG on music, and the Music Venue Trust to discuss strengthening the guidance? Will she also make sure that the statutory guidance in the NPPF that she refers to specifically refers to noise abatement in relation to grassroots music venues?”
“For those reasons, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s 2024 report recommended that “the agent of change principles are put on a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity.” This Bill is an opportunity to do so—if not through Lords amendment 41, then potentially through alternative means, which I hope the Minister will say something about. I repeat the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), about whether the guidance will be statutory or general. In my constituency, the Music Venue Trust had to intervene in a planning application to convert a unit of flats near Independent on Holmeside because the plans did not contain sufficient noise protection.”