Parliament Matters

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has cleared another key hurdle: it was given a Second Reading in the House of Lords without a formal vote. But Peers have agreed to set up a special select committee to hear evidence from Ministers, professional bodies and legal experts before the Bill goes any further. That decision pushes the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny back to mid-November and could shape the Bill’s prospects in unexpected ways. In this episode we explore the procedural twists and political manoeuvring behind that decision.  ___  Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS  To help unpick what happened and what it all means, we are joined this week by Dr Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London and an authority on Private Members’ Bills, and Matthew England from the Hansard Society, whose briefings on the Bill have tracked everything from procedure to delegated powers. The debate at Second Reading showcased powerful speeches and some striking personal interventions. Beyond the moral arguments, Peers zeroed in on the Bill’s constitutional and procedural implications – especially the sweeping delegated powers that drew sharp criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lord Falconer, the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords, signalled his support for amendments to the Bill to address some of the Committee’s concerns.  The Government’s role also came under the spotlight. Some peers bristled at the cancellation of the Lords’ recess to complete the Second Reading debate, and critics accused ministers of tilting the timetable to favour the Bill. We consider whether those claims really hold up.  The biggest twist, though, was the compromise deal negotiated between Lord Falconer and Baroness Berger to establish a temporary select committee. It will gather evidence from ministers, the medical and legal professions and the hospice sector, and publish its findings by 7 November, far earlier than originally proposed.   Crucially, the committee will not be required to recommend whether the Bill should proceed or be amended, but the evidence it collects will frame the clause-by-clause scrutiny that is now expected to begin in mid-November, with four sittings scheduled before Christmas. The committee’s membership and witness list are still to be decided, but the stage is set for a short, sharp inquiry whose findings could shape the next—and most testing—phase of this landmark 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.Producer: Richard Townsend  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Peers embark on a marathon two-day Second Reading debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – the measure that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – we are joined by former Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir David Beamish, to decode the drama. With more than two hundred members of the House of Lords lining up to speak, Sir David explains why, despite the intensity of the arguments, no one expects the Bill to be rejected at this stage. Instead, the real fight will come later, after Peers get into the clause-by-clause detail and see what defects can be remedied.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___We look ahead to the second half of the Second Reading debate next week to unpack the procedural chess moves. One amendment calls for a special select committee to examine the issue in depth, but there’s a risk that such a referral – while attractive in principle – would delay progress and could be seen as an attempt to derail the bill altogether. We also discuss a constitutional concern: the bill’s heavy use of delegated legislation, including “Henry VIII powers” allowing ministers to amend primary legislation by delegated legislation which is subject to less parliamentary scrutiny. Critical reports from the Delegated Powers and Constitution Committees have already put ministers on notice, and even the bill’s sponsor, Lord Falconer, concedes that some amendments will be unavoidable.It has been a tumultuous political week, which has seen the departure of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, and Britain’s Ambassador to Washington, Lord Mandelson, as well as a major ministerial reshuffle. Ruth and Mark look at the implications for Parliament. Will Lord Mandelson return to the House of Lords? Will the churn amongst ministers and the appointment of a new generation of MPs to posts in government disrupt the scrutiny of legislation and the work of select committees? And amidst increasing mutterings against Sir Keir Starmer, how might backbench Labour discontent manifest itself 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 FoxProducer: Richard Townsend Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Does Parliament itself lie at the root of some of Britain’s political and economic difficulties? Lord Goodman argues that it does and so makes the case for urgent parliamentary reform. This week we also examine the implications of a Downing Street reshuffle that has created a “Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister,” raising new questions about accountability in the Commons. The discussion ranges from Angela Rayner’s uncertain position, Nigel Farage’s controversial US appearance, and the Greens’ leadership contest, to the growing use of artificial intelligence in parliamentary work.______Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS______This week we ponder the creation of a post unprecedented in modern government: Darren Jones as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. Ruth and Mark analyse what this role might mean for scrutiny, Commons procedure, and the balance of power at the heart of government, particularly with Angela Rayner’s future unresolved. From there, they turn to Nigel Farage’s decision to criticise Britain’s free speech laws before a US Congressional committee – an intervention that may weaken rather than strengthen his position – and to the Greens’ choice of a leader outside Westminster, with all the opportunities and risks that entails. They also consider how artificial intelligence is beginning to shape the way MPs work, from the appearance of formulaic phrases in Hansard to pilot schemes using AI tools for correspondence and drafting. Finally, in an extended interview, Conservative peer Lord Paul Goodman argues that economic renewal cannot be achieved without reforming Parliament itself: fewer, better-prepared bills, more serious scrutiny, and more experienced Ministers, including some drawn from outside Parliament._____ 🎓 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.

Every Wednesday at noon, the House of Commons chamber comes alive with Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), the loudest, most theatrical half-hour in British politics. To some it’s democratic accountability; to others, a raucous playground of yah-boo antics. Loved and loathed in equal measure, PMQs is Parliament’s weekly shop window, offering a revealing glimpse of how Britain does politics. In this episode, we explore its history, purpose, and international impact, including why France briefly trialled it last year only to drop the idea.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___Each week, Prime Minister’s Questions turns Westminster into a spectacle of jeers, cheers, and gladiatorial verbal combat. Is it serious accountability, or just political theatre?Joining us this week is Dr Ruxandra Serban, Lecturer in Comparative Politics at UCL, whose research compares PMQs with questioning sessions around the world.Together, we explore:why it matters that the Prime Minister faces MPs each week;how PMQs evolved from dry “engagements questions” into today’s noisy clash;what the public really thinks of when they watch MPs jeering, cheering and point-scoring; andwhether PMQs could ever change, or if the ritual is too entrenched.Dr Serban also explains how other countries view Westminster’s weekly spectacle – sometimes as a model of democratic accountability, sometimes as a cautionary tale. She compares PMQs with similar sessions in Canada, Australia, and Ireland, and reflects on why France’s National Assembly briefly adopted its own PMQs-style experiment in 2024, before quietly abandoning it months later.___🎓 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.

On Friday 12 September, the House of Lords will debate the Bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. We explore what lies ahead for the Bill in the Upper House with Sir David Beamish, former Clerk of the Parliaments – the Lords’ most senior official. Sharing an insider’s guide to the Chamber’s unique, self-regulating procedures, Sir David explains how the legislative process differs from the Commons, and what that could mean for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’s potentially long and contested passage.____ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS____The process may look similar to that in the Commons, with a Second Reading debate, Committee and Report stages and then a Third Reading, but the way Peers handle legislation is very different. The Lords is a self-regulating House, with no Speaker to select amendments or decide who speaks next. Instead, a largely invisible web of conventions shapes proceedings and guides behaviour. Sir David predicts these customs, reinforced by “peer pressure”, will discourage maverick Peers from filibustering or using procedural tricks to block the bill.Nonetheless, the bill’s progress in the Upper House could be long and demanding. Past assisted dying bills have drawn huge speakers’ lists, marathon debates and a flood of amendments. This one already has 88 Peers signed up to speak at Second Reading on 12 September, with more likely to join in the remaining days before the debate. Significant amendments – particularly on constitutional questions, delegated powers and safeguards – are likely. Any such changes would send the Bill back to the Commons for at least one, and potentially several, rounds of parliamentary “ping-pong”.Sir David explains the timetabling challenges, the scrutiny role of the Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the informal but powerful influence of Peers with critical areas of expertise. From seasoned legal voices to vocal campaigners on both sides, the debate will cut across party lines, test the chamber’s self-regulating culture, and could keep Peers engaged in lengthy Friday sittings for many months to come.____🎓 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 speak with historian Jonathan Healey about one of the most extraordinary days in parliamentary history when King Charles I entered the Commons Chamber with soldiers aiming to arrest five MPs. This dramatic moment, vividly recounted in Healey’s new book The Blood in Winter, marked a crucial turning point toward civil war. We explore the power struggles, propaganda, and the geography that shaped the fate of a nation and the Westminster Parliament.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___January 4th, 1642: King Charles I enters the House of Commons with armed soldiers to arrest five MPs – Pym, Hampden, Haselrig, Holles, and Strode. It's a scene etched into British constitutional memory, echoed today in the symbolic slamming of the Commons’ door during the State Opening of Parliament. But what led to this unprecedented royal intrusion?In this special Summer recess episode, we are joined by historian Professor Jonathan Healey, author of The Blood in Winter: A Nation Descends 1642, to unpack the political, legal and emotional drama behind that fateful day.We explore the rising tensions over Parliament’s role in securing consent for taxation to fund the King’s wars, controversial religious reform, and the escalating political crisis – including the moment when MPs used the parliamentary process to force Charles to agree to the execution of his powerful ally and chief enforcer, the Earl of Strafford. Healey reveals how political passions were stirred by the new technology of pamphlet-printing, city mobs, and the role of the great nobles in backing MPs who resisted the King.Jonathan also sheds light on the crucial role geography played in 17th century Westminster, with the royal palace of Whitehall just a short walk from Parliament, and both set along a public thoroughfare that left them exposed to rioting crowds from the City of London.We learn about Speaker William Lenthall’s defiant stand, the fate of the elusive five MPs, and how figures like John Pym and Denzil Holles helped redraw the lines between Crown and Commons. Plus, a look at how near-unknown backbencher Oliver Cromwell was just beginning to appear on the scene.It’s a gripping account of how political missteps and personal rivalries pushed the nation to civil war and shaped the parliamentary democracy we have today.🎓 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 examine one of the most troubling intersections of Government secrecy, national security, and parliamentary accountability in recent memory. Thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces were placed at risk of Taliban revenge attacks after a catastrophic Government data leak in 2022 exposed their details. In response, ministers secured a “super-injunction” – so secret that even its existence could not be reported – effectively silencing public debate and preventing parliamentary scrutiny for almost two years. The breach, only revealed this week, has already cost taxpayers millions of pounds as part of a covert resettlement scheme. Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg joins us to unpack the legal and constitutional ramifications.___Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. ___Joshua Rozenberg explains the legal context to the granting of the super-injunction and how it persisted under both Conservative and Labour governments. We discuss how parliamentary privilege meant those MPs aware of the breach could have raised the issues in the House of Commons Chamber because they were protected by parliamentary privilege, but any MP who knew about the issue would have had to weigh national security concerns and respect for the courts against their right to free speech.This case raises profound questions about ministerial accountability to Parliament. In light of the constitutional implications, we discuss whether the chairs of key select committees should in future be confidentially briefed when national security results in court action that blocks normal parliamentary scrutiny processes in order to provide some degree of democratic oversight. We also explore the political and constitutional fallout: How many current and former MPs were subject to the super-injunction? Was the National Audit Office subject to the super-injunction and was it made aware of the costs of the secret Afghan relocation programme? Should there be a new Joint Committee of both Houses or a sub-committee of the overarching Liaison Committee to look at the issues and draw the constitutional threads together? The case was not raised at Prime Ministers Questions so is there a risk that MPs will simply shrug off such a significant breach of accountability? And has this set a precedent for future governments to shield embarrassing or costly errors behind injunctions?Sticking to the theme of parliamentary privilege we also discuss the sensitive issue of whether unpublished evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2009 should be released to the Omagh bombing inquiry. Joshua Rozenberg explains how parliamentary privilege protects witnesses who give evidence to MPs, allowing them to speak freely, often in confidence. We then turn to other parliamentary controversies, including Labour’s decision to withdraw the whip from welfare rebels. Will this help Keir Starmer to restore his authority or deepen internal rifts within his party? And we discuss the Government’s plan to lower the voting age to 16, a move some hail as democratic renewal while others question whether it will truly engage younger voters.❓ Send us your questions about Parliament Presenters: Mark D’Arcy & Ruth FoxProducer: Richard Townsend  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In our 100th episode, we take stock of Parliament one year after the 2024 general election. With a fractured opposition, a dominant Labour government, and a House of Commons still governed by rules designed for a two-party system, how well is this new Parliament really functioning?___Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.___We examine the rise in political defections — is this the social media age at work, making it easier for MPs to leave their parties and harder for party leaders to keep control?One year after the King’s Speech, we also explore how Keir Starmer’s government is echoing the habits of its predecessors—rushing through vague “skeleton bills” that grant ministers wide powers with little oversight. Meanwhile, MPs continue to be sidelined from properly scrutinising major international agreements, and Parliament still lacks a mechanism for keeping track of the UK’s evolving relationship with the EU.This episode looks ahead at the challenges facing scrutiny and accountability as 10% budget cuts loom across the Commons. We reflect on the experiences of a new generation of MPs — many frustrated by outdated rules, creaking infrastructure, and a political culture badly in need of renewal.Can the House of Commons modernise itself before crisis forces change? Plus: the assisted dying bill as a crash course in lawmaking for new MPs, and why Prime Minister’s Questions remains as theatrical — and infuriating — as ever.___🎓 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.

Has the Government’s complacency in managing Parliament finally caught up with it? It’s been a difficult week for Ministers, as a backbench Labour revolt forced a dramatic U-turn on plans to cut billions from Personal Independence Payments. With Rachel Reeves’ financial strategy in tatters, questions are mounting about Keir Starmer’s authority — and whether weak parliamentary management is to blame. We explore how it all went wrong, what it reveals about No.10’s approach to Parliament, and what needs to change to stop further unravelling.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.___Is the Government missing its last chance at real House of Lords reform? As Ministers push ahead with plans to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, new polling from the Constitution Unit at UCL suggests the public wants more ambitious change. Professor Meg Russell joins us to warn that the current legislation could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact deeper reforms — including curbing the Prime Minister’s power to appoint new Peers and reducing the overall size of the House of Lords.Plus, church and state collide over assisted dying in Dorking. Liberal Democrat MP Chris Coghlan has been barred from receiving communion at his local Catholic church due to his support for Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Is this an unacceptable case of religious interference in politics, or simply the inevitable fallout when faith and legislation collide? Ruth and Mark explore the implications and ponder the precedents from both Britain and the United States.Finally, we tackle listeners’ questions on why primary legislation was needed to implement the Government’s welfare reforms, inquorate votes in the House of Lords, the ability of Peers to amend the assisted dying bill and the mysterious books beside the Mace.🎓 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 are joined this week by two guests who bring invaluable insight into the intersection of health policy and parliamentary life. Dr. Sarah Wollaston and Steve Brine – both former MPs, health policy experts, and co-hosts of the podcast Prevention is the New Cure – share their experiences of how the House of Commons handles health and social care.__Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___Both chaired the Commons Health Select Committee during their time in Parliament, and both bring broader career experience: Sarah as a former GP and Steve as a former Health Minister. They offer a candid and often striking comparison between GP surgeries and MP surgeries, revealing how health and social care concerns often dominate the concerns constituents bring to their representatives. Their experiences underscore how central the NHS is to public life and how fraught it is in political terms.We explore the dangers MPs face when navigating NHS policy, particularly around controversial local hospital closures and service changes. Steve recounts his own strategic focus on healthcare in Winchester and the delicate balance between constituency advocacy and ministerial responsibility. While Sarah shares her frustration with the legislative process, particularly during the Lansley reforms, when her medical expertise was side-lined by the party whips.The conversation moves to Labour’s current proposals for NHS reform. Our guests reflect on the gap between political rhetoric and delivery, particularly the challenge of achieving meaningful change in a system under financial and structural pressure.Turning to the role of Parliament, Sarah and Steve reflect on the importance – and limits – of select committees in influencing policy. Drawing on their own time as committee chairs, they describe the committee corridor as one of the few places in Parliament where serious scrutiny and cross-party collaboration take place. Yet they also lament MPs broader failure to engage seriously with evidence or exercise proper scrutiny of departmental spending.Finally, as more than 100 Labour MPs signal a potential rebellion over proposed cuts to Personal Independence Payments, we explore the culture of dissent at Westminster. Steve and Sarah – both with a track record of principled rebellion – offer advice to the new intake of MPs weighing loyalty against conscience. Their message is clear: in the long run, the votes you regret are the ones where you didn’t make a stand.🎓 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 reflect on a landmark moment in UK parliamentary history: the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons, moving one step closer to legalising assisted dying in England and Wales. We are joined once again by former House of Commons Clerk Paul Evans to examine how this Private Member’s Bill navigated the political and procedural obstacles in its path and to explore what lies ahead in the House of Lords.__Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___We start with the numbers: 605 MPs took part in the Third Reading vote, an exceptionally high turnout for a Private Member’s Bill, signalling the seriousness of the issue. With a majority of 23, the Bill now advances to the House of Lords, but not without questions over the opposition’s next moves and whether the unelected chamber will respect the will of the Commons, or obstruct the Bill’s path?  This historic moment wasn’t achieved by debate alone. It was the product of a quiet but coordinated effort to protect parliamentary time and avoid the procedural ambushes that often beset Private Members’ Bills. Other backbench sponsors of Private Members Bills temporarily stood aside to give the assisted dying bill a clear route through, critics refrained from procedural sabotage, and the Speaker and his deputies helped shape a timetable, ensuring MPs knew when decisions would be made.Now the focus turns to the Lords, where the Bill may face its toughest challenges yet. Will Peers accept that the principle of assisted dying has been established by the elected House, and limit themselves to scrutiny and amendment of the details? Or could opponents attempt to delay or even derail the Bill entirely? We explore the possible scenarios and the constitutional, political, and procedural stakes in each case.We also look at how the extensive scrutiny of the assisted dying Bill contrasts sharply with the swift and limited debate on abortion decriminalisation earlier this week – an issue settled via a backbench amendment to the Police and Crime Bill that was debated for just 45 minutes. Finally, we consider what this might mean for the bigger picture. If this Bill is indeed the most far-reaching social reform since the 1967 Abortion Act, might it be the harbinger of a new wave of legislation promoting further social change?____ 🎓 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: Gareth Jones  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we return to the Commons Chamber for day two of the Report Stage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — the Private Member’s Bill proposing to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – and another set of amendments, new clauses and votes. For the first time the supporters of the Bill lost a vote, on a new clause banning medical practitioners from raising the option of an assisted death with under-18s.__________Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.__________ So, what does this mean for the Bill’s chances? With day three of Report Stage now scheduled for Friday, 20 June, Parliament Matters’ resident procedural expert Paul Evans joins Ruth and Mark to unpack what’s happened so far — and what might be coming next. Is parliamentary support beginning to waver?They also look ahead to the Third Reading debate, and the quirky (and very real) parliamentary rituals that would follow if the Bill passes — involving a green ferret and some Norman French.Plus, MPs John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn complain after facing investigation for joining a pro-Palestinian demonstration. They claim the police said that MPs should be held to a higher legal standard than ordinary citizens – raising troubling constitutional questions. Could this be a case of using the law to intimidate parliamentarians? If so, what can and should be done?__________🎓 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.

Another big Government announcement – and another row in the Commons row about why it wasn’t made to MPs first. We look at why ministers keep breaking their own Ministerial Code by choosing to make important announcements to the media instead of in the Chamber – and wonder whether, in a shifting media landscape, they might be less likely to muddle their message if they returned to delivering statements on major issues like their Strategic Defence Review from the Despatch Box.Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. Also in this episode:  The Lords vs the Tech Lords: the Data Use and Access Bill has become the focus of a prolonged tug-of-war between the House of Lords and the Commons. At the heart of the dispute is whether tech companies should be allowed to use content to train artificial intelligence systems without compensating the original creators. Peers in the Lords have repeatedly amended the bill to protect creators copyright by requiring payment and safeguards, only for the Government to reject those changes in the Commons. As the Lords look set to concede, Ruth and Mark explore what this clash reveals about the limits of the upper chamber’s influence — and the growing political weight of Big Tech. Critics claim the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill hasn't had enough scrutiny. Armed with figures comparing the times spent debating other legislation, Ruth and Mark reject the claim that the Bill has been under-debated compared to other legislation. The problem, they argue, is that Westminster’s law-making processes are generally ineffective and badly in need of an upgrade.  A Speaker’s Conference is digging into how to improve security for MPs and candidates. Ninety six percent of MPs say they have personally experienced threatening behaviour during their time in office. But tackling political intimidation is anything but straightforward. Ruth and Mark unpack the Conference’s interim findings and recommendations — and explore where its spotlight will fall next._____  🎓 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.

You wait ages for a post-Brexit trade deal – and then three show up at once. With the Government unveiling new agreements with India, the US and the EU, we explore why Parliament has so little influence over these major international agreements. Liam Byrne MP, a former Labour Minister and current chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee argues that this needs to change.___ Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS___ According to Byrne, Parliament should make its voice heard much earlier in the process – before negotiations even begin. He wants a greater role for select committees to examine the details of deals as they develop and insists that MPs must be given the chance for a meaningful debate before any final agreement is approved.  Without these changes, Parliament risks being reduced to little more than a rubber stamp. Meanwhile, a call to find 10% in savings from the House of Commons budget over the next three years – reportedly around £54 million - raises pressing questions. Could cost-cutting measures strip away the very support systems that allow MPs to scrutinise laws and hold the Government to account? And as proposals circulate for “call lists” to tell MPs when they’ll be able to speak in debates, Ruth and Mark ask: could this mechanised approach undermine the spontaneity—and the substance—of Commons exchanges? And farewell to Sir Roy Stone, who for 20 years was the lynchpin of Commons business, as Private Secretary to a succession of Chief Whips. Following his death earlier this month, we reflect on the legacy of the man who embodied the fabled “Usual Channels” — the behind-the-scenes negotiations that keep the legislative and scrutiny work of the House of Commons on track. Respected across party lines, he was the subject of a rare tribute session in the Commons, and Ruth and Mark discuss why he commanded such respect from hard-bitten Whips and Ministers.🎓 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.

Is Kim Leadbeater's Assisted Dying Bill now "over the hump?" The Bill's supporters got it though its first day of Report Stage consideration in the House of Commons unscathed, with comfortable majorities in every vote. So, with debate on the most contentious set of amendments disposed of, will it now coast through its remaining scrutiny days in the Commons? Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS Ruth and Mark, joined by procedural guru and former Commons Clerk Paul Evans, break down the tactical landscape and recap how the debate unfolded. They alsoassess the Speaker’s pivotal decisions that shaped the debate – awarding points for both artistic impression and technical merit. With the bill set to return to the Commons to complete Report Stage on the next Private Members Bill Friday, on 13 June, they suggest that the biggest remaining obstacle is the next "in principle" vote, at the end of the Third Reading debate. _______🎓 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.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) – not a select committee, but a group of senior MPs and Peers appointed by the PM – has a “canary in the coalmine” function, to keep an eye on the security and intelligence services and reassure Westminster that all is well. But last week the canary emitted a loud squawk. The ISC raised concerns about its secretariat being under-funded and too tightly controlled by the Cabinet Office – issues that could hinder its independence and effectiveness. Ruth and Mark spoke with the Chair of the ISC – former Labour Defence Minister Kevan Jones, now Lord Beamish – about his efforts to ensure robust, interference-free oversight of Britain’s spooks, and the growing threats facing the UK today. And then there’s the mystery of the missing Ombudsman: why has it taken so long for a new Ombudsman to be appointed to investigate maladministration by Government and the NHS? Veteran Westminster-watcher, journalist David Hencke, untangles the chain of events which culminated in the recent pre-appointment hearing of nominee Paula Sussex before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. We also tackle listeners’ latest questions on a backbench MP’s battle to get a debate on the obscure Royal Albert Hall Bill, whether the next Speaker of the Commons has to be a man, and why MPs don’t use spare time in the House of Commons Chamber more productively.___ Remember to complete our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. 🎓 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.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. In this latest episode of our special mini-podcast series, we sit down with Kim Leadbeater MP, sponsor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as the legislation reaches a critical juncture. With Report Stage in the House of Commons now set for Friday 16 May, Leadbeater explains why she postponed it from its original April date, emphasising the importance of giving MPs time to digest significant changes made during Committee Stage. For a Bill dealing with such a complex and sensitive issue, she says, getting it right matters more than moving quickly.Our conversation explores the procedural hurdles facing Private Members’ Bills – especially at Report Stage, where many stumble. Leadbeater outlines some of the key amendments she plans to table, including stronger conscience protections for healthcare professionals, a ban on advertising, and provisions to ensure the legislation is workable and legally sound. One of the most debated issues is whether hospices and similar institutions should be allowed to opt out of assisted dying requests. While critics want clearer rules in the Bill, Leadbeater argues for flexibility – preferring to let institutions make their own decisions, with the potential for the system to evolve over time.Concerns have been raised by some MPs about whether the Bill is being rushed. Leadbeater insists she's proceeding step by step and not looking too far ahead. Still, Ruth and Mark point out that the Government’s own Impact Assessment suggests an extended Session into the Autumn — likely giving the Bill more breathing room. Beyond the legislative detail, Leadbeater reflects on the emotional toll of championing this Bill. She’s endured online abuse and misinformation but is driven by the moving stories of people who’ve witnessed loved ones suffer or felt compelled to seek end-of-life options abroad.  As the 16 May debate approaches, Leadbeater stresses how vital it is for supportive MPs to attend and vote — both to ensure key amendments are discussed and to maintain public confidence in Parliament’s handling of the Bill. _____ Remember to complete our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. 🎓 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.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.As calls grow louder for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, we talk with Parliament’s in-house human rights watchdog: Lord Alton of Liverpool, Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.A former Liberal MP who now serves as a crossbench peer, Lord Alton was an unexpected choice to lead the Committee – traditionally chaired by a member of the House of Commons, and usually by a party politician. But his tireless advocacy on human rights around the world, especially his campaigning against China’s treatment of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, has earned him widespread respect across the political spectrum and many cross-party alliesIn a wide-ranging conversation, Lord Alton talks about his ongoing push for a “Hillsborough Law” to impose a duty of candour on public officials involved in future disasters, to prevent cover-ups. He also discusses his Committee's work on the new Mental Health Bill, and his efforts to ensure the government’s flagship green energy initiative, Great British Energy, does not spend public money on equipment like solar panels that are made with forced labour. Meanwhile, it's been all quiet on the assisted dying bill front at Westminster this week, but not in the Scottish Parliament. Ruth and Mark discuss how the approach to a Members Bill on assisted dying in Edinburgh compares favourably to the handling of Kim Leadbeater’s Private Members Bill at Westminster. Plus, the appointment of a new Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod brings back memories for Mark of how this key House of Lords official has found themselves caught up at the centre of political controversies in the recent past.____Don't forget to complete our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.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.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.Having cleared detailed scrutiny in a Public Bill Committee, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill faces its next crucial test when it returns to the House of Commons for Report Stage on 16 May.This stage is often where Private Members' Bills falter. Will opponents of Kim Leadbeater’s proposals to legalise assisted dying win enough support to amend the Bill? Can supporters of the Bill fend off attempts to change it? And could the Bill be lost altogether, because of the procedural hurdles that still stand in its way? In this edition of Parliament Matters, our resident procedural expert Paul Evans joins Ruth and Mark to unravel the intricate mysteries of Report Stage procedure. Drawing on his experience as a former senior Commons Clerk, Paul highlights the hidden dangers posed not only by opposition to the assisted dying bill but also by a seemingly unrelated Private Members' Bill aimed at regulating the importation of ferrets. He also explains how amendments are selected and grouped for debate, how the debate itself is structured, and how opponents of the assisted dying bill might exploit parliamentary rules in an attempt to thwart its progress.Don't forget to complete our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.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.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.After an extraordinary Saturday recall of Parliament to rush through emergency legislation aimed at saving the steel industry, Ruth and Mark reflect on how scrutiny of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill was sacrificed for speed. No amendments were debated—let alone voted on—even though the Bill handed sweeping new powers to Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.Meanwhile, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle is under growing pressure. Critics accuse him of shielding Sir Keir Starmer by refusing to call outspoken backbenchers like Diane Abbott and Rosie Duffield during Prime Minister’s Questions—even when they were central to the exchanges between the party leaders. Channelling Bond villain Auric Goldfinger, Mark quips that the first time may have been happenstance, the second coincidence, but a third could look suspiciously like enemy action.Still, the Speaker showed little reaction when Kemi Badenoch claimed the Prime Minister “didn’t have the balls” to confront trans activists—remarks that would likely have earned an ordinary MP a swift rebuke. Will the Leader of the Opposition be quietly warned to mind her language?And as MPs and Peers rally to block an address to Parliament by President Trump during his upcoming second State Visit, Ruth and Mark ask: who actually decides which foreign leaders can speak to MPs and Peers—and where? While there are doubts over whether Trump even wants to address Parliament, they argue that this is a moment for Westminster to show some solidarity with Congress._______Don't forget to complete our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. 🎓 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.