Parliament Matters

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood MP, is planning sweeping changes to the immigration system. So, this week we put immigration law under the microscope. Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council joins us to explain how major shifts to refugees’ rights, settlement routes and visa rules can be pushed through using Immigration Rules, with Parliament left largely powerless to influence or block them.Meanwhile, in the House of Lords, Peers are wrestling with the ever-growing Crime and Policing Bill - a legislative “Christmas tree” laden with policy baubles covering everything from abortion to terrorism proscription to artificial intelligence. We explore why Ministers want broad new powers to rewrite the Online Safety Act by regulation to tackle AI harms, and why efforts to overturn a Commons amendment to decriminalise women who have a late-term abortion failed despite concerns about a lack of scrutiny.And with the assisted dying bill set to run out of time in the Lords, Labour MP Peter Prinsley discusses his initiative to persuade the Prime Minister to back efforts to secure time for a renewed attempt to bring back the bill in the next Session and the possibility of using the Parliament Act to force it through if necessary._____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament. ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Government’s plan to restrict the right to a jury trial for certain defendants cleared its Second Reading in the Commons this week – but the fight is far from over. The proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill are already provoking fierce criticism, including from a determined group of Labour backbenchers.To explore what’s at stake, we speak to barrister and former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. We explore why legal experts are alarmed by the changes, what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system, and whether Ministers might yet be forced into compromise.Meanwhile, the Bill to remove hereditary Peers from Parliament has now passed through the Lords. We examine the late-stage deal that helped ease opposition in the Upper House, while Mark takes aim at what he calls the “total bosh” used to defend hereditary seats, dismissing it as little more than romantic nostalgia.This week the Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has also been in combative form. He has once again rebuked ministers for briefing the media before informing MPs, ordered a member out of Prime Minister’s Questions, and publicly criticised the Government’s Chief Whip. His anger follows an extraordinary Commons episode in which Government whips reportedly stretched out a vote to prevent the Conservatives securing a vote on a Statutory Instrument. One member apparently feigned illness in the voting lobby while MPs in the Chamber audibly counted down to the cut off time for another vote – the “moment of interruption” – at 7pm. The Speaker is now demanding apologies and even hinting that Government whips might need a refresher on how to manage parliamentary business.And finally, the Government has begun releasing official papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington. Do the documents support the Prime Minister’s version of events – or raise new questions that could deepen his ongoing leadership troubles?____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we continue our special series tracking the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Private Member’s Bill that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.With Committee Stage in the House of Lords progressing slowly – and time in the parliamentary Session running out – we talk to Conservative Peer Lord Harper, a prominent opponent of the legislation and one of the Peers who has been heavily involved in the lengthy Committee debates.Critics argue that the scale of amendments and extended scrutiny in the Lords amounts to a filibuster designed to run down the clock. Harper rejects that characterisation. He insists that Peers are fulfilling their constitutional role as a revising chamber by probing serious flaws in the Bill and raising concerns about safeguards for vulnerable and disabled people.Harper argues that the Bill – unusually large and complex for a Private Member’s Bill – arrived in the Lords in poor shape after too many issues were left unresolved in the Commons. He contends that organisations ranging from medical royal colleges to disability groups believe the legislation lacks adequate protections.In his view, the real problem lies with the legislative process itself: a measure with major implications for the NHS, the courts and devolved governance should have been introduced as a Government bill following full consultation and more detailed policy development before reaching Parliament.Our conversation explores whether the Lords’ scrutiny amounts to legitimate legislative examination or procedural obstruction. Ruth and Mark press him on the fact the tactics used by opponents are in practice preventing the Lords from ever reaching the stage of making actual changes to the Bill. They explore the limits of the Private Member’s Bill process, and what might happen next – including the possibility that MPs could attempt to revive the legislation in a future Session and even use the Parliament Acts to force it through.As the Bill’s prospects hang in the balance, the episode examines what this contentious debate reveals about Parliament’s procedures, political strategy, and the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising major social legislation._____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What role does Parliament play when the UK is involved in military action? In this week’s episode, we explore the evolving practice of parliamentary war powers, sparked by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s response to recent military developments in Iran and the Middle East, where defensive action was authorised before any Commons statement or vote. We discuss the royal prerogative, the uncertain post-Iraq convention on parliamentary debate before offensive military action, and whether a meaningful distinction exists between defensive and offensive military action. We also examine new legislative attempts to codify Parliament’s role and the political and military realities that shape whether MPs get a say. Plus, we discuss the long-running constitutional saga over hereditary peers, as the House of Lords prepares to consider Commons amendments to the Bill to oust the hereditaries at the end of this parliamentary Session. The Government has unexpectedly published a Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill which would increase the number of paid ministers in the House of Lords. This may be linked to the amendment in the Hereditary Peers Bill originally proposed by the Conservative Peer, Lord True, that would prohibit future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of the Upper House. It is possible that the ministerial salaries legislation is being synchronised to ease the passage of the Hereditary Peers Bill. Along the way we also touch on MPs’ pay which is on track to top £100K by the end of the Parliament, staff funding tensions, defence estimates scrutiny, and what the Spring Statement tells us about the government’s economic direction._____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After the Greens’ triumph at the Gorton and Denton by-election we ponder the implications for Parliament. Could the result tempt more MPs to switch parties? Does this heap fresh pressure on the Prime Minister? Will party leaders need to rethink how they treat opponents whose backing they may need after the next election? And with the three largest parties in Parliament securing less than 30% per cent of the vote in the by-election between them, could it spark a move to introduce electoral reform?As the controversy surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor rolls on, Conservative MP and former Security Minister Tom Tugendhat joins the podcast. He makes the case for a new parliamentary “super-committee” to investigate what went wrong, from the former Prince’s appointment as a trade envoy to Mandelson’s move to Washington,  and to consider how better to protect the constitutional monarchy from future embarrassment.Plus, Ruth and Mark can’t resist dissecting the extraordinary chain of events that saw Mr Speaker Hoyle and his Lords counterpart, Lord Forsyth, unexpectedly caught up in the arrest of Lord Mandelson.And with the Chancellor’s Spring Statement due in the coming week, as well as a series of votes to authorise billions of pounds in public spending, a lot of senior MPs have serious concerns about where the money is going in a series of government departments. So will Ministers face tough questioning during the coming Estimates Day debates or will the money be quietly voted through? Watch this space._____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why is Britain’s first female cabinet minister almost invisible in our political memory?In this episode we are joined by historian and author Nan Sloane, whose new biography of Margaret Bondfield has just been published, to uncover the remarkable and largely forgotten story of this pioneering figure. Bondfield – a working-class trade unionist – became the first woman to serve in the British Cabinet yet is rarely mentioned alongside figures such as Nancy Astor or Ellen Wilkinson. She did not enter politics through the suffrage movement. Instead, she rose through the male-dominated trade union movement, often as the only woman in the room. Born into a large working-class family in Somerset, she left school at thirteen to work in shops where staff were legally treated as domestic servants and endured punishing conditions. Driven by a fierce commitment to social justice, she became a powerful organiser, accomplished public speaker and a leading national figure within the labour movement.Elected to Parliament in 1923, she made history in 1929 when she was appointed Minister of Labour, becoming the first woman to serve in the Cabinet and the first female Privy Counsellor. But it was, as one colleague put it, the worst job in government. In the grip of a deep economic crisis, unemployment was soaring, the national insurance system was stretched to breaking point, and painful decisions had to be taken. By 1931 the crisis had split the Labour Party and brought down the Government. Bondfield lost her seat and never returned to Parliament. Rather than being remembered as a trailblazer, her legacy was overshadowed by economic crisis and party division. Was she a pioneer, a pragmatist caught in impossible circumstances, or a woman judged more harshly than her male colleagues? In conversation with Nan Sloane, we explore Bondfield’s character, her relationships and international networks, and the political choices that shaped both her career and her reputation.Nan Sloane, Margaret Bondfield: The life and times of Britain’s first Cabinet Minister (Bloomsbury Publishing)🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What happens when you lose the party whip? A conversation with Neil Duncan-Jordan MPLabour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan joins us this week to reflect on his experience as one of the new intake’s most prominent rebels. He describes defying the whip over the means-testing of the Winter Fuel Allowance and proposed disability benefit cuts, the fallout from his suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the personal and political pressures that come with rebellion. He also discusses his relationship with the Whips and explains why he has twice called for Sir Keir Starmer to step down, most recently in the wake of the Mandelson affair. In this week’s episode, we also assess Starmer’s increasingly fragile position following the Mandelson–Epstein controversy, examining the risk of further damaging disclosures about Mandelson’s contact with Ministers and the potential implications for the Government’s legislative programme. We untangle the constitutional confusion surrounding proposals to strip Peter Mandelson and other disgraced peers of their titles, exploring weaknesses in the House of Lords’ Code of Conduct, and the broader dangers of legislating in response to a single scandal. Gordon Brown has called for sweeping “root and branch” standards reform – from a new anti-corruption commission to greater use of citizens’ juries on parliamentary standards and enhanced select committee scrutiny of ministerial and other public appointments. Ruth and Mark question whether such changes would genuinely rebuild public trust, pointing to nearly two decades of Hansard Society polling showing consistently low levels of trust in politicians and in the effectiveness of the political system. They also argue that the current focus on expelling disgraced Peers from the House of Lords misses a fundamental issue: the Prime Minister’s largely unchecked power to appoint them in the first place. We return to the slow progress of the assisted dying bill in the House of Lords, where disagreement continues over whether the pace of debate reflects legitimate scrutiny or amounts to filibustering. Some MPs are calling for accelerated Lords reform in response – but would a wholly elected second chamber be more likely to block legislation rather than less? Finally, we discuss two significant reports from the Procedure Committee: one recommending against the introduction of call lists for debates in the Commons Chamber, and another proposing changes to the way select committee chairs and deputy speakers are elected in the House of Commons. 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It has been a bruising week for the Prime Minister after the House of Commons backed a Conservative “Humble Address” demanding documents on Sir Keir Starmer’s vetting of Lord Mandelson for the Washington Ambassadorship. We explain how the procedure works, what role the Intelligence and Security Committee may play in decisions on disclosure, and how legislation to strip a peerage could be introduced. Plus, the latest on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament as yet another report lands with a new set of costings.______🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week we explore one of Westminster’s strangest constitutional hangovers: why MPs can’t simply resign. With the Gorton and Denton by-election triggered by Andrew Gwynne’s departure, listeners asked the obvious question – why the medieval-sounding detour via the Chiltern Hundreds (or its less glamorous cousin, the Manor of Northstead)? We trace the rule back to 1623, when the Commons barred resignations, and to later fears about MPs being bought off by “offices of profit” from the Crown. The workaround – appointing an MP to a Crown office that disqualifies them – still survives, complete with modern legal “fudges”. Along the way, we revisit colourful resignations and near-resignations, from mass Ulster Unionist walkouts to John Stonehouse’s attempted disappearance and Gerry Adams’s objection to being handed a Crown role he didn’t want.In this episode we also check the Government’s legislative scorecard as the Session edges toward its expected May close, with several dozen bills already on the statute book and many more still in play. We explain “carry-over” motions – how some bills can leap across prorogation – and why the Government has produced surprisingly few bills for pre-legislative scrutiny compared with the first Session in recent previous parliaments.Finally, the focus shifts to the Armed Forces Bill, the five-yearly legislation rooted in the Bill of Rights that renews the legal basis for military discipline and Parliament’s consent for a standing army. Labour MP Jayne Kirkham joins us to discuss how her Ten Minute Rule proposal secured Royal Fleet Auxiliary access to the new Armed Forces Commissioner, and what it’s like learning the ropes on bill committees as a new MP._____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The assisted dying bill – properly known as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – is facing an extraordinary procedural logjam in the House of Lords. More than 1,170 amendments remain to be debated, organised into 89 groups for debate, yet only 20 of those groups have been reached after seven days in Committee. With just a handful of sitting Fridays left before the end of the Session, Lord Falconer has warned that the Bill is very unlikely to complete its Lords stages in time. In a letter to Peers, he has floated a list of possible compromise amendments but has also, for the first time, strongly indicated that the Parliament Act may need to be invoked to override the opposition of a small group of Peers and secure the Bill’s passage in the next Session.Although rarely used, and never in relation to a Private Members Bill, the Parliament Act has been deployed before on highly contentious measures, most recently the Hunting Bill in 2004. Using it to force through the assisted dying bill would require intricate choreography in both the Commons and the Lords, as well as major political decisions about whether the government formally takes ownership of the Bill or whether it continues as a Private Member’s Bill. It would also raise difficult questions about how amendments are handled, and how far MPs and ministers are prepared to go to assert the primacy of the elected House in the face of sustained resistance from a small but determined group of Peers.In this episode, we explore how the Parliament Act works, how it could be used in this case, and the political and constitutional trade-offs involved in relying on it to deliver this legislation.____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we ask whether MPs who switch parties should be forced to face a by-election – and what this month’s spate of defections says about representation, party power and voter consent. We also unpick a dizzying week in British and global politics as “hurricane Trump” batters the post-war order, testing the UK-US alliance and raising awkward questions about NATO, defence spending and procurement. Plus: the Lords’ push for an under-16s social media ban, Chagos ping-pong, and why is the bill to remove hereditary Peers from the House of Lords stalled?____ With Westminster watching Washington’s every swerve, we explore why Keir Starmer’s most outspoken pushback on tariffs and Greenland matters – and why making big foreign-policy statements outside the Commons still rankles. In the Lords, a proposed ban on social media for under-16s forces the government into damage-limitation. Is the government’s promised consultation a serious route to action, or simply a way of kicking a difficult issue into the long grass? We look at how enforceable such a ban would be, how it fits with the existing Online Safety Act, and the political and constitutional tension of tightening access at 16 while simultaneously debating votes at 16. We then turn to a growing list of legislative headaches: the Hillsborough Law stalling again amid disputes over national security carve-outs; renewed procedural drama over the Chagos Islands Bill, how the financial privilege of the House of Commons blocks Lords amendments, and what options Peers have left.  We also ask why the bill to remove he remaining hereditary peers appears to be stuck in a curious parliamentary holding pattern. Finally, we focus on party switching, the e-petition calling for automatic by-elections for defecting MPs, and whether such a rule would enhance democratic accountability or simply hand party machines a powerful new weapon against dissent. As we were recording, news broke of an actual by-election, with Andrew Gwynne MP announcing his resignation on health grounds – a vacancy that could trigger a contest with significant implications for Labour’s internal politics and Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership.____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What are MPs actually paid and what does the public fund to help them do their job? In this conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) we explore the delicate balance between supporting MPs to do their jobs effectively and enforcing strict standards on the use of public money. We discuss how IPSA has shifted from a rule-heavy “traffic cop” to a principles-based regulator, why compliance is now very high, and the security risks and pressures facing MPs‘ offices as workloads rise and abuse becomes more common._____Sixteen years after the expenses scandal that reshaped British politics, Richard Lloyd offers a rare insider’s account of how Parliament is now regulated from the outside. Drawing on his experience in government, regulation and civil society, he explains why MPs’ pay and expenses were taken out of politicians’ hands, how IPSA evolved from a body widely seen as hostile and bureaucratic into a more service-focused regulator, and why independence remains essential even when it attracts controversy.Richard explains the basic package of salary and pension, and how this compares with those of parliamentarians in other countries, but also the less well-understood support that sits behind an MP’s work: travel between Westminster and constituency, accommodation for those far from London, and – most of all – the funding that pays for staff, offices and equipment.We revisit how the 2008–09 expenses scandal changed everything, and how IPSA’s early reforms tightened the rules on housing costs, ending practices like mortgage interest claims and “flipping” second homes. Richard also addresses more recent controversies, including MPs renting to other MPs, and why IPSA has moved to stop new arrangements where public confidence and perceived conflicts of interest are at stake.Richard argues that today’s system is delivering: spending is now close to 100% compliant, serious wrongdoing is rare, and IPSA’s approach is evolving from dense rulebooks to clearer principles – parliamentary purpose, integrity, value for money and accountability – backed by enforcement when needed. We also explore the strain on MPs’ offices, the separation between parliamentary and party-political activity, the rising security threat, and the growing impact of AI on constituent correspondence.Finally, Richard discusses the politically charged question of MPs’ pay, the Citizens’ Panel work that shifted views once the reality of the job was understood, and the wider role independent regulators can play in rebuilding trust in our democratic institutions._____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a dramatic day at Westminster, Kemi Badenoch launched a pre-emptive strike against Robert Jenrick, sacking him from the Shadow Cabinet, suspending the Conservative Party whip, and moving before his headline-grabbing jump to Reform UK. We unpack what the defection tells us about party discipline, Reform’s “fishing operation” for Tory MPs, and whether anyone else might follow.We then turn to government difficulties over the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, better known as the Hillsborough Law. With its proposed “duty of candour” for public officials, campaigners fear national security carve-outs (especially around MI5/MI6 evidence) could fatally water it down, with MPs particularly from Merseyside and Manchester pushing back hard as the Bill heads toward key Commons stages.In our interview, Backbench Business Committee chair Bob Blackman MP sets out his committee’s “manifesto” for Commons reform: spreading backbench time beyond Thursdays, fixing the committee’s stop-start elections, and even replacing the Private Members’ Bill lottery with a more rational selection process.Finally, we assess whether the assisted dying bill is being talked out in the Lords, what rescue routes might exist - including invoking the Parliament Act - and we note the arrival of a new Lord Speaker, Lord Forsyth, as wider Lords reform looms.____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is it like to be part of a small but growing parliamentary party? We talk with the leader of the Green Party group at Westminster, Ellie Chowns, about the challenges of operating with limited numbers, the practical realities of parliamentary life, and how institutional structures shape the influence of smaller parties. We discuss our political culture, the Greens’ approach to leadership, internal decision-making, and the Green’s longer-term ambitions for electoral and parliamentary reform and a more representative system.With only four MPs, the Green Party covers a wide range of policy areas with a small parliamentary footprint. We explore how this affects visibility, workload, and the ability to intervene in debates and committees, within a system largely structured around the governing party and the official opposition and how smaller parties have to work strategically, pooling resources and coordinating closely to make the most of limited opportunities.Those structural constraints are set alongside the everyday realities of parliamentary work and the gap between Westminster’s formal traditions and the practical demands of representing constituents. Our discussion reflects on how much of an MP’s role is shaped by operational pressures: setting up offices, handling large volumes of casework, and mastering complex procedures while immediately taking on full responsibility for constituency representation.We explore how the Commons operates in practice and what this means for reform. Chowns raises issues around speaking rights, voting processes, and the allocation of time and space, linking them to wider questions of efficiency, accessibility and accountability, and to longer-standing debates about whether existing procedures are suited to a more diverse and multi-party political landscape.We also look at how the Green Party functions internally, both within its small parliamentary group and in its relationship with the wider party leadership. We consider how approaches to policy development, legislative coordination and party discipline shape representation, particularly in the absence of the tightly enforced whipping systems used by larger parties.Finally, we talk about electoral reform and the case for a more proportional system. The experience of operating as a small party within a majoritarian parliament is connected to broader arguments about structural change, the future direction of UK politics, and how rising public support for the Greens could translate into greater influence.____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the Government investigating allegations of foreign influence in British politics, we are joined by John Pullinger, Chair of the Electoral Commission, to take stock of the health and resilience of the UK’s electoral system. Our discussion ranges widely over the pressures facing elections and campaigning today, and what issues Parliament may need to grapple with in a future elections bill.A major theme is political finance and the extent to which current rules are fit for purpose. We explore concerns about the risk of foreign money entering UK politics, the role of large donations, company funding and unincorporated associations, and the growing difficulty of tracing money in a digital age. We also discuss whether capping donations is realistic, and how reforms can restore public confidence without creating new loopholes or partisan flashpoints.Participation and engagement are another key focus. With millions missing from the electoral register and turnout at historically low levels, we discuss the barriers facing groups such as young people, private renters and disabled voters, and whether better civic education and democratic literacy could help reverse long-term disengagement – while staying firmly politically neutral.We also look at the increasingly hostile climate in which candidates campaign, including harassment, intimidation and online abuse. We consider where responsibility lies between social media platforms, political parties and the police, and whether stronger standards and enforcement are needed. Linked to this are wider concerns about misinformation, deepfakes and digital campaigning, and how online activity is blurring traditional lines in election spending rules.Finally, the conversation turns to election security and foreign interference, the independence of the Electoral Commission, and practical challenges such as postponed local elections and the growing pressures on electoral administrators. Together, these themes underline the scale of the challenges facing UK democracy – and the difficult choices involved in tackling them._____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend   Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we are joined by author and former royal correspondent Valentine Low to explore the evolving relationship between Downing Street and the Palace and why it matters for Parliament. Drawing on his book Power and the Palace, we explore how royal influence has shifted from Queen Victoria’s overt political interventions to Elizabeth II’s studied neutrality. Along the way, we connect historical episodes – where monarchs helped shape diplomacy and constitutional outcomes – to today’s flashpoints, from the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament to referendums and royal finances and the looming constitutional headaches of future hung parliaments.We trace the story from Queen Victoria, who sought to shape foreign policy and even push ministers out of office, to the modern expectation that the Sovereign stays “above politics.” Low brings this history to life with vivid portraits of royal–minister tensions: Victoria’s exasperation with Palmerston’s “forgotten” correspondence, Edward VII’s surprise charm offensive in Paris that helped thaw relations ahead of the Entente Cordiale, and George V’s attempt to convene politicians at Buckingham Palace to tackle the intractable question of Irish Home Rule.From there, we turn to the weekly audience between Monarch and Prime Minister – private, unknowable, but still constitutionally significant – before arriving at the Boris Johnson years, when prorogation and election timing strained conventions and exposed how fragile the “golden triangle” of Palace–No.10–Cabinet Office co-ordination can be. Low also unpicks the uncertainty over dissolution rules after the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the continued secrecy surrounding the expanded Cabinet Manual, and how “Sedwill’s Law” effectively created a new precedent for what happens if a Prime Minister dies in office.Referendums have revealed further strains: the carefully calibrated words attributed to the Queen during the 2014 Scotland vote, the controversy over claims she backed Brexit, and the Palace’s tightrope walk once neutrality is publicly questioned. We also revisit the aftermath of Diana’s death and the Blair years, the role of state visits as diplomatic “show business,” and the perennial politics of royal costs.____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why do UK Prime Ministers seem to burn out so quickly? Joined by historian Robert Saunders, we explore why so many leaders have struggled to survive in office since the Brexit referendum. The role has always been exceptionally demanding, but have the pressures of the post-2016 era made it harder than ever? Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic are major political shocks that have destabilised parties and strained the capacity of government, while the rise of new media has created a relentless and unforgiving environment of scrutiny.We also examine the leadership pipeline, with politicians reaching the top more quickly and with less experience of policy-making, party management and elections. Against this backdrop, we consider whether conventions such as collective cabinet responsibility are now part of the problem rather than the solution – encouraging inauthenticity, stifling legitimate disagreement and making it harder to manage broad political coalitions. The discussion explores the widening gap between public expectations and the realities of governing in a low-growth, post-financial-crisis economy, and concludes by asking whether rebuilding trust will require more honest communication, better political training and a willingness to rethink long-standing assumptions about how power is exercised at the top of British politics.___🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We’re taking a short break over Christmas and New Year, but to keep you company we’ve wrapped up a selection of standout episodes as a festive gift for you. 🎁Whether you’re travelling, cooking up a feast, putting your feet up, or stealing a quiet moment away from the chaos, dip into these great conversations over the festive period.We’ll be back to normal parliamentary podding in the New Year.In the meantime, you can catch up on this selection — or explore our full back catalogue — via your favourite podcast app or on our website.With best wishes for the season from everyone at the Hansard Society.Ruth & Mark. __________❓ Send us your questions about Parliament for us to tackle in the New Year.  ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode brings you an exclusive recording of the official hustings for the election of the next Lord Speaker. Organised by the Hansard Society and chaired by podcast co-host Ruth Fox, the event took place last week in the Robing Room of the House of Lords.Peers put questions to the two contenders for the role: Conservative peer Lord Forsyth and Crossbench peer Baroness Bull. This episode gives listeners rare access to the full exchange between peers and the candidates.The discussion ranged from the practical business of running the House of Lords chamber to some of the biggest constitutional and governance challenges facing Parliament.The Lord Speaker chairs proceedings in the Lords from the Woolsack and acts as an ambassador for the House. The role also includes chairing the House of Lords Commission and sharing responsibility for the Restoration and Renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster. Created in 2006, the post replaced the Lord Chancellor as presiding officer and is filled by a five-year election among peers. Once elected, the Lord Speaker steps away from party affiliation and does not vote.From the outset, peers quickly tested a central tension in the contest: was Lord Forsyth too political, and was Baroness Bull political enough? Questions followed on how the Lord Speaker should defend the House if a future government had little or no representation in the Lords, prompting discussion of constitutional conventions, respect for the Commons’ electoral mandate and the Lords’ role as a revising, “think again” chamber.Key themes included governance, security and the looming decisions on restoration and renewal, with both candidates stressing the need for clearer accountability, better communication with members and efforts to rebuild public trust in Parliament. Other questions covered public engagement and media coverage, sitting hours and late nights, amendment grouping and Question Time, and the practical support available to members, especially those based outside London._____🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There have been three significant developments at Westminster this week: a Commons vote that the Liberal Democrats are presenting as a major breakthrough, a peerages list that raises questions of political balance, and renewed concerns about the limited powers Parliament holds to scrutinise international treaties.We begin with the Ten Minute Rule Bill proposed by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Al Pinkerton, intended to create a duty on the Government to negotiate entry to the EU Customs Union. The motion succeeded only on a tied vote, resolved by Deputy Speaker Caroline Nokes using her casting vote. This was not a vote on the Bill’s text, nor does it compel Government action: it simply grants leave for the Bill to be introduced and placed in the Private Members’ Bill queue, where its prospects are uncertain.We then turn to the latest appointments to the House of Lords. Labour gains the largest share, and the Liberal Democrats secure five new peers, while Reform UK receives none—an outcome that is increasingly difficult to justify given Reform’s parliamentary and local government presence and their sustained lead in the opinion polls.  We also consider the implications of the anticipated hereditary peer departures on Lords committee work and scrutiny.We also preview the upcoming Lord Speaker contest between Lord Forsyth and Baroness Bull. Ruth chaired the official hustings earlier this week, so she discusses the issues and questions that were raised.   We talk to Lord Goldsmith, Chair of the International Agreements Committee, about treaty scrutiny. Lord Goldsmith argues that the current 21-day scrutiny period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act is inadequate and overly dependent on Government control of parliamentary time. When in opposition Labour spokespersons agreed, but now they are in Government Ministers think the system is satisfactory.Finally, the programme closes with an update on the Assisted Dying Bill’s slow progress in the Lords and the potential reputational consequences if proceedings continue to stall.____ 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. 📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.