98%
True
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.
Petition 752673 ('Act to ensure Bills backed by MPs & public can complete all stages in Parliament') had received 114,649 signatures, comfortably above the 100,000 threshold that triggers consideration for a Commons debate. '114,000' is accurate.
Permalink →
85%
True
As a member of that bill committee... we made more than 100 amendments including 30 proposed by MPs who opposed the bill at second reading, after around 100 hours of committee proceedings.
The Commons committee stage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill involved more than 100 hours of line-by-line scrutiny – more than almost any recent government bill – and the committee made extensive amendments (including replacing High Court approval with review panels). The '100 hours' figure is confirmed; the precise counts of amendments (100+) and opponent-tabled amendments (30) are consistent with the record.
Permalink →
80%
True
Over 1,200 amendments tabled, 1% of peers tabling 60% of them, and that small number of peers made up more than a third of the total speaking time.
Around 1,300 amendments were tabled to the Bill in the Lords – a record for any bill. Roughly three-quarters were tabled by about nine peers (about 1% of the House) who oppose assisted dying, and opponents took the great majority of speaking time (opponents spoke ~55 of ~75 committee hours). The claim's figures ('over 1,200', '1% tabling 60%', 'more than a third of speaking time') are accurate and if anything understate the concentration.
Permalink →
85%
True
Over 16 days of debate in the House of Lords, the will of the Lords was not tested once. There were no divisions in the House of Lords.
The Lords committee stage ran to roughly 75 hours over many sitting days and no divisions (recorded votes) were held on the bill – second reading (12 Sept 2025) was agreed without a division and committee stage is not a stage at which amendments are normally voted on. The claim that the Lords never divided/tested its will on the bill is accurate; the '16 days' figure is consistent with the extended committee timetable.
Permalink →
97%
True
MPs clearly backed at third reading the final chance for MPs to have their say... a clear decision had been made [in the Commons].
The Commons passed the bill at second reading by 330–275 (29 November 2024) and again at third reading by 314–291 (20 June 2025). The claim that the elected chamber reached a clear decision in favour of the bill is correct.
Permalink →
97%
True
The Parliament Act has only ever been used seven times and never for a private members bill.
Since 1911 the Parliament Act procedure has been used to pass a bill without Lords consent on seven occasions (Government of Ireland Act 1914, Welsh Church Act 1914, Parliament Act 1949, War Crimes Act 1991, European Parliament Elections Act 1999, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, Hunting Act 2004). All seven were government bills; it has never been used for a private member's bill.
Permalink →
96%
True
The Parliament Act has been used on issues of conscience before, for example equalizing the homosexual age of consent in 2000 or the Hunting Act in 2004.
Two of the seven uses of the Parliament Act were the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which equalised the age of consent at 16, and the Hunting Act 2004, which banned hunting wild mammals with dogs. Both were passed after the Lords declined to accept the Commons' position, as the claim states.
Permalink →
95%
True
The legislation approving abortion in this country came through the private members bill route, backed by the then Labour government who appointed a medical advisory committee who also supported its passage.
The Abortion Act 1967 originated as David Steel's private member's bill (drawn third in the 1966-67 ballot). Harold Wilson's Labour government was supportive: it provided extra parliamentary time at report stage and a medical advisory committee chaired by Sir John Peel of the RCOG reported in favour. The claim is accurate.
Permalink →
90%
True
Support levels among the British public of 60% compared to opposition in the teens... more than four in five citizens said that assisted dying should be reintroduced in the session of parliament we are now in.
Polling (e.g. More in Common, late Jan/early Feb 2026) put support for legalising assisted dying stable at around 60-61%, with opposition far lower, and found that 83% – more than four in five – said the bill should be brought back in the next parliamentary session if it ran out of time. Both figures match the speaker's claim.
Permalink →
90%
True
It took 18 months from our election to pass an employment rights act partly due to the ponderously slow process of the Lords.
The Employment Rights Bill received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, becoming the Employment Rights Act 2025. Measured from the general election on 4 July 2024 that is about 17-18 months, and its final passage involved prolonged 'ping-pong' with the House of Lords. The '18 months' claim is accurate.
Permalink →
80%
True
Only 14% believe the House of Lords should be able to prevent the bill becoming law, according to polling.
The figure matches a real poll: Opinium surveyed 2,050 UK adults on 15-17 April 2026 (commissioned by Dignity in Dying, the campaign group supporting the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill) and found that 14% think the House of Lords should be able to prevent the Bill from becoming law, while 47% believe the House of Commons should get the final vote. Note the poll was commissioned by a campaign group with a position on the Bill; the fieldwork is by an established pollster and the speaker's citation of the 14% figure is accurate.
Permalink →