Podcasts about hansard society

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?__________

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._____

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.

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. _______

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.

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.

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.--------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.

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.

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.

In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn', we talk with Simon Hart, former Conservative Chief Whip during Rishi Sunak's Premiership. Hart opens up about his time in one of Westminster's most demanding and discreet roles, chronicled in his new book, ‘Ungovernable: The Political Diaries of a Chief Whip'. From late night phone calls about MPs stuck in compromising situations to managing high-stakes parliamentary votes, Hart gives a candid account of navigating one of the most turbulent chapters in British politics. He lifts the lid on the daily challenges of keeping a restless party in line while balancing scandals, shifting alliances, and the relentless demands of government business.Hart also takes us behind the scenes of the Whips' Office – a place often shrouded in secrecy. Beyond the headlines and power plays, he gives us a rare glimpse into the day-to-day work of the Whips – part disciplinarian, part therapist – shedding light on their lesser-known pastoral and administrative responsibilities, from safeguarding MPs' well-being to orchestrating the daily rhythms of Parliament.Reflecting on his time in office, Hart shares insights into what makes a good MP and why so many arrive in Westminster unprepared for the job and the reality of life as a parliamentarian or minister. He argues that political parties must do more to identify and nurture talent early, to raise the standard of future leadership across the board.

The Government has published “emergency legislation” — the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill — to block new guidelines coming into effect that single out differential treatment of ethnic minority offenders when ordering pre-sentencing reports. These reports would then be used by judges to make decisions on sentencing. Critics are calling it a case of “two-tier justice.” The Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood says there's “insufficient democratic oversight” of how the Sentencing Council operates. In this episode, Ruth and Mark examine Parliament's limited ability to scrutinise Sentencing Council guidelines — why that's the case, how it could have been different, and why successive governments have failed to address it. They trace the issue back to a 2009 “Christmas Tree” law that had so many policy baubles it was difficult to scrutinise, an enduring trend of outsourcing decision-making to arms-length bodies, and a culture of “perma-crisis” that has defined UK politics for over 15 years. Also in this episode: Chancellor Rachel Reeves' big moment before the Treasury Committee is eclipsed by President Trump's shock international tariff announcement. At the Transport Committee, Heathrow's Chief Executive issues a full apology for the massive flight disruption caused by a power station fire that brought the Airport to a halt. Meanwhile, MPs with disabilities and health conditions testify before the Commons Modernisation Committee about the challenges they face navigating Westminster - the building and the procedures. Plus: Did Hertfordshire Police cross a constitutional line by warning former Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden MP not to look into the arrest of two of his constituents over “disparaging comments” they made in their child's school WhatsApp group? Ruth and Mark consider how other cases involving vexatious constituents have been handled by MPs and how the issues engage parliamentary privilege. After Cory Booker's 25-hour speech in the US Senate, could a filibuster ever happen in Westminster? (Spoiler: absolutely not.) And should MPs be lobbying foreign governments to build airports when they oppose them here in the UK?

In this ninth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we continue to explore the latest developments in the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, often referred to as the assisted dying bill. We are joined by Dr Marie Tidball MP to discuss the amendments she has secured for a Disability Advisory Board and an independent advocate for people with learning disabilities. After more than 90 hours of debate and over 100 votes, the Public Bill Committee has concluded its work on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. In this week's special episode, Ruth and Mark talk to committee member Dr Marie Tidball MP. She shares her insights into the amendments she proposed to ensure disabled people have proper support and protection in navigating the assisted dying process—and reflects on her experience working on the Bill Committee. The Bill is now set to return to the House of Commons for Report Stage consideration in April. Already, new amendments are being tabled, touching on issues such as the rights of people with neurodegenerative conditions and whether clinicians should be permitted to raise assisted dying as an option with patients.Ruth and Mark break down the key changes made during Committee Stage and offer a preview of the debates to come.____

Political storm clouds are gathering over Chancellor Rachel Reeves' Spring Statement. What does it mean for Parliament, party discipline and the Government's economic credibility. We speak to Dr Marie Tidball MP about her first months in Westminster - and the accessibility challenges facing disabled MPs. Plus, why did Peers get a vote on postponing local elections, but MPs didn't?With MPs facing a bleak economic outlook, proposed welfare cuts, and local elections on the horizon, how long can Ministers hold the line? Ruth and Mark dissect signs of unrest on Labour's backbenches, with a growing number of voices warning against what they see as a return to “austerity 2.0.” We explore the growing calls for a shift in economic strategy — from a wealth tax to rethinking the triple lock — and the dangers for Reeves if her current path begins to look like a “doom loop”. Also this week, Dr Marie Tidball MP joins us to share her first-hand experiences as a newly elected Labour MP (for Penistone and Stocksbridge) — and the accessibility hurdles facing disabled parliamentarians in Westminster's historic (and often inaccessible) corridors of power. She tells us about the challenges of navigating the place of Westminster's physical and procedural barriers. We also explore why the unelected House of Lords got a vote on the Goverment's plans to postpone some local elections — but MPs didn't? It's all to do with delegated legislation! And we answer listener's questions. Is anonymous evidence to Select Committees common?What's behind the Government's new ‘business motion' to control time in the House of Lords Chamber on Thursdays, until the end of the Session?And which podcasts do Mark and Ruth listen to?

Is Rachel Reeves gearing up for a standard Spring Statement — or are we in emergency budget territory? In this episode we dig into what form next week's parliamentary statement might take and why it may be more than just an economic update. We trace the history of the “one fiscal event” a year rule, explore the tough choices facing the Chancellor, and ask whether Parliament still has any real say over tax and spending. Plus, could post-legislative scrutiny finally be coming into its own?___ In this episode, Ruth and Mark cut through the fiscal fog surrounding Rachel Reeves' upcoming Spring Economic Statement — officially billed as a routine forecast update, but with growing signals it could be something much bigger. With whispers of an “emergency budget” and mounting pressure from the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) latest projections, they weigh the procedural factors that will determine whether Reeves will take action now to meet her fiscal rules, or kick the tougher decisions down the road to the autumn Budget and the Comprehensive Spending Review. They also take a step back to explore how we got here. The current approach of having just one major fiscal event per year was introduced in 2016 by then-Chancellor Philip Hammond, aiming to bring predictability and control. But when long-term economic forecasts suggest those all-important fiscal rules are at risk — especially ones that stretch five years into the future — that system starts to show its cracks. They also speak to Professor David Heald, who delivers a sobering assessment of how little control Parliament has over public finances — before spending takes place. He argues that the UK's budget-setting process is executive-dominated and ripe for reform, but political incentives keep the status quo firmly in place. Later, Ruth and Mark highlight an encouraging sign of reform: the growing use of post-legislative scrutiny, with the Football Governance Bill now including a statutory review clause. They reflect on how tools like these could support longer-term thinking in Parliament — if only they were used more systematically.____

In this eighth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we continue to explore the latest developments in the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, often referred to as the assisted dying bill. We are joined by Danny Kruger MP, a leading voice opposing the bill on the Public Bill Committee, to explore the political, procedural, and constitutional complexities of this landmark legislation.____ Danny Kruger MP discusses how he came to play a central role in opposing the bill and reflects candidly on the intense scrutiny process, the challenges of being out-resourced, and the broader implications of legislating such a deeply controversial issue through the Private Members' Bill (PMB) process. He raises serious concerns about the lack of judicial oversight following a key amendment, the Government's behind-the-scenes support despite its neutral stance, and the potential for ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) considerations to override parliamentary sovereignty.The conversation also touches on key upcoming stages — Report Stage likely to be on April 25th, potential Third Reading dates, and the importance of robust parliamentary scrutiny in shaping public trust. Kruger calls for improved resourcing, greater transparency, and more time for debate, particularly given the bill's scope and ethical weight. With vital clauses still to be debated—particularly around NHS provision and post-legislative review — this episode offers insight into how Parliament is handling one of the most divisive and significant moral issues of our time. ____

In today's podcast we return to the vitally important, hugely complicated and normally highly emotive subject of planning reform.And help is (potentially) at hand in the form of the long awaited Planning and Infrastructure Bill which was published last week and heralded by government as providing “transformative reforms to get Britain building, tackle blockers and unleash billions in economic growth”.So who better to bring back to the Infrastructure Podcast to explain and chew over this potential new dawn of planning than Robbie Owen, infrastructure planning guru and Partner at law firm Pinsent Masons.The UK's planning system has long been a battleground between the need for economic growth and the challenges of bureaucracy, local opposition, and environmental concerns. As the government pushes forward with ambitious targets—building 1.5 million homes, upgrading transport networks, and accelerating clean energy projects—the speed at which infrastructure is planned and delivered has never been more critical.Yet, delays remain a persistent problem. As we know, major projects can take years to navigate the approvals process, with judicial reviews and lengthy consultations slowing progress. The proposed legislation includes changes to infrastructure planning, environmental impact assessments, and compulsory purchase powers  … and, as discussed on the podcast before Christmas, limits on the role of Judicial Reviews.But will these changes truly unlock growth, or are deeper structural issues being overlooked? And how can the planning system ensure that infrastructure projects not only proceed faster but also deliver better outcomes for communities and the environment? ResourcesThe Planning and Infrastructure BillThe Banner ReviewNational Infrastructure Planning AssociationNational Infrastructure CommissionPinsent MasonsAbout NISTAPodcast with Robbie Owen and the Hansard Society on Parliament's planning role.Episode 93 of The Infrastructure Podcast with Robbie Owen on the Banner Review

Labour's Planning and Infrastructure Bill promises to speed up the planning process to boost housebuilding and infrastructure development. But does it go far enough, especially when it comes to Parliament's role? Meanwhile, Ruth and Mark unpack the Reform UK fallout between Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe, exploring why small parties often struggle with internal disputes. And what does it really mean to be an “Independent” MP? Should lone wolves, party rebels and political outcasts all be treated the same? __ Labour's new Planning and Infrastructure Bill promises a wave of housebuilding and major infrastructure projects — but will it deliver? Robbie Owen, Head of Infrastructure Planning and Government Affairs at law firm Pinsent Masons, isn't convinced. He argues that to truly fast-track major projects, the Government should revive an old parliamentary mechanism: one-clause bills that authorise big-ticket schemes while shielding them from judicial review. Plus, he suggests that more transformative projects, like HS2, may need to be directly approved by Parliament so the Hybrid Bill process may need to be utilised more often. He also suggests that this Bill will not be the last word on the issue for this Government: further legislation will probably be required. This week, Ruth and Mark also dissect the dramatic fallout between Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and MP Rupert Lowe. Does this high-profile clash expose an inherent challenge for small and emerging parties—a lack of political culture and mechanisms to manage internal disputes? And with Rupert Lowe joining the swelling ranks of independent MPs, we ask: what does "independent" really mean? Some have left their parties voluntarily, others were elected as non-party candidates, while some lost the whip for defying party lines—or were suspended due to allegations. While a few are true political lone wolves, others remain quietly loyal to their former parties, voting in step and hoping to return to the fold.____

In this episode we sit down with Bambos Charalambous MP, the former Labour whip now marshalling the supporters of the assisted dying bill in the Public Bill Committee. As the bill faces intense debate, Charalambous explains the major shift from having a High Court Judge oversee assisted dying applications to a specialist panel — and why, despite extensive discussion, the Committee won't vote on this crucial change for some time. We also explore the complexities of parliamentary procedure, the legislative timetable, and the role of social media in shaping the debate. Plus, Ruth and Mark break look at the remaining timetable for getting the bill through the Commons and then the House of Lords._____

In this episode, we sit down with Toby Perkins MP, Chair of Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee, to discuss how he and his colleagues plan to hold the Government accountable for its ambitious Net Zero commitments.The Government's advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, has now recommended emissions reductions for the Seventh Carbon Budget (2038-2042) —the next milestone in achieving Net Zero by 2050. Ministers must decide how much of this advice to adopt before presenting a legally binding carbon budget to Parliament for approval. Yet, in 2021, MPs spent just 17 minutes debating the Sixth Carbon Budget Order, a move later criticised by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for its lack of scrutiny. With Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband now leading the Government, how will parliamentary oversight of climate policy change? Will MPs take their role more seriously this time? We also examine an escalating dispute between the Government and Parliament's National Security Committee. The Government has refused to allow Jonathan Powell, the new National Security Adviser (NSA), to give evidence to the Committee and has stopped sharing National Security Council (NSC) agendas — breaking a decade-long tradition of confidential engagement. Every NSA since 2010 has testified before Parliament, yet Ministers now argue Powell is a special adviser, not an official, and should not be subject to scrutiny. Critics, however, warn that this move weakens transparency and parliamentary oversight at a time of heightened public concern over defence and security. Matt Western MP, Chair of the NSC, argues that restricting access to the NSA could leave Parliament in the dark on key national security decisions. Finally, we speak to Simon Hart, former Conservative MP and Chief Whip, about his newly published political diaries—packed with eyebrow-raising revelations, from Ministers getting stuck in brothels at 2am to tantrums from sacked colleagues. But beyond the scandalous anecdotes, Hart delivers a serious message: political parties need to improve candidate selection, manage MPs' expectations, and ensure future politicians are mentally resilient enough to handle the intense pressures of modern political life.____

In this sixth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we continue to track the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which seeks to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. We discuss the pace of the Committee's progress, the dynamics between supporters and opponents of the Bill, and a key upcoming vote on the clause which proposes shifting oversight from High Court judges to an expert panel. Could this amendment sway MPs who previously supported the Bill? Later, we turn to New Zealand, where assisted dying has been legal for over three years. Professor Colin Gavaghan, from the University of Bristol, shares insights into New Zealand's experience, exploring eligibility criteria, operational challenges, and the emotional toll on medical professionals. What lessons can the UK learn from their legislative approach and the assisted dying system itself.

Parliament passed a law requiring the Government to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income on international aid. So, should Ministers be able to bypass that legal obligation through a ministerial statement? We also discuss Labour MP Mike Amesbury's suspended jail sentence and how a recall petition will be called if he doesn't voluntarily step down. Plus, we explore the controversy surrounding the Product Safety and Metrology Bill, which Brexiteers warn could stealthily realign Britain with the EU while handing Ministers sweeping legislative powers.Should MPs have a say on the Government's decision to cut yet more from the UK's international aid budget to fund increased defence spending? By law, the UK is committed to spending 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on international aid. Yet this latest reduction does not have to be put to a vote in Parliament. With aid spending now slashed to just 0.3% of GNI, could an upcoming Estimates Day debate on Foreign Office funding give MPs a chance to raise concerns about the decision? And with the aid budget shrinking, is it time to reconsider the role of the International Development Select Committee? Meanwhile, Labour MP Mike Amesbury has had his 10-week jail sentence for assault suspended on appeal — but that may not be enough to save his Commons seat. As Ruth explains, an MP sentenced to jail — even with a suspended sentence — faces a recall petition. If 10% of voters in Runcorn and Helsby back his removal, the Government will be forced into a by-election, unless he voluntarily resigns his seat first. Also in the spotlight: the Product Safety and Metrology Bill. Ministers are keen to reassure MPs about this seemingly technical legislation, but Brexiteers suspect it's a Trojan Horse for creeping EU alignment. The bill contains sweeping "Henry VIII powers," allowing ministers to rewrite laws with minimal parliamentary oversight. Ruth and Mark ponder why governments keep reaching for these controversial powers —and what it means for democracy.

In this fifth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we take you back inside the Public Bill Committee for the latest updates as MPs continue their scrutiny of the assisted dying bill. This week we speak with Kit Malthouse MP, a co-sponsor of the Bill and a key voice in the Committee's deliberations. Kit Malthouse, a former Home Office Minister and Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Choice at the End of Life, is a strong supporter of the assisted dying bill and a key ally of its sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP, in the Public Bill Committee. In this episode, Kit shares his insights on the Committee's discussion of key amendments this week, as well as the further changes he hopes to propose later in the process. We explore the challenge of determining how much detail should go on the face of the bill and how much should be left to regulations, the unusual role of Government Ministers in the Committee – speaking as Ministers but voting as MPs – and whether the decision to alter the judicial safeguards is eroding support for the bill. _____

Why is it so difficult to reform Parliaments? In this episode, we talk to Greg Power, author of Inside the Political Mind: The Human Side of Politics and How it Shapes Development. Drawing on his experience as a special advisor to Commons Leaders Robin Cook and Peter Hain, as well as his work with parliaments worldwide, Greg explains how institutional culture, political incentives, and the personal interests of MPs often derail reform efforts.With fascinating examples - from MPs in Ghana dealing with snakes in toilets to Bangladeshi politicians setting up credit unions - Greg reveals how parliamentarians navigate their roles and why constituency work, though vital, is often disconnected from policy-making. He argues that MPs' casework could be an invaluable early-warning system for governments - if only there were a way to systematically harness it. Greg also discusses how new MPs are like learner drivers - thrown into Westminster without a clear guide on how things really work. With over 50% of MPs in the current Parliament being newly elected, many are still figuring out the informal norms and unwritten rules that govern the institution. While this level of turnover presents challenges, it also offers a rare opportunity to reshape how Parliament functions - if only those in power are willing to seize it. The conversation also touches on populism and how public expectations are often at their highest when institutions are at their weakest. History shows that populist movements thrive when traditional systems fail to deliver, but once in power, they often struggle to govern effectively. Whether in Bangladesh, the USA or the UK, the lesson is clear: ignoring democratic structures in favour of quick fixes is a recipe for long-term instability.___

In this episode we dissect the fallout from Labour's WhatsApp purge following the Andrew Gwynne affair and what it means for political communication at Westminster. We also explore the latest news from the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, discussing its focus on improving accessibility to Parliament, legislative scrutiny, and the debate over MPs holding second jobs. First, we examine Labour's swift response to a controversial WhatsApp group where MPs and councillors shared offensive remarks about colleagues, constituents, and even the late Queen. Keir Starmer wasted no time, suspending multiple party members in a move that has sent shockwaves through Westminster. Mark explores how WhatsApp has become a vital yet risky tool in modern politics and how this scandal could set a precedent for future digital leaks. As MPs rush to delete old messages, we ask: is this just the beginning of a new era of political exposés?Next, we turn to parliamentary reform. The newly established Modernisation Committee has set out its priority strands of work: improving accessibility to Parliament, making Commons time more effective, and giving MPs greater certainty about the parliamentary schedule. But what will these reforms actually look like? And where does the overhaul of the legislative process fit into the picture?Finally, we tackle the ongoing debate over MPs holding second jobs. Should parliamentarians be allowed to take on paid work outside Westminster? While some argue that experience in law, medicine, or business enriches political debate, others believe outside roles dilute MPs' commitment to their constituents. The controversy surrounding high-profile MPs hosting TV shows - particularly on GB News - raises fresh questions about which types of second jobs should be restricted. Should media roles face tighter controls than other professions? And could stricter rules unintentionally discourage professionals from entering politics?

In this fourth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we take you inside the Public Bill Committee as it scrutinises the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - a landmark proposal seeking to legalise assisted dying. The Committee is in full swing, debating amendments, and tensions are running high. We sit down with Sarah Olney MP, a key player in the discussions, to unpack the latest developments. Sarah shares insights into her proposed amendments, the growing frustration with the legislative process, and concerns over the role of Ministers when the Government says it is neutral. The atmosphere in the Committee has taken a combative turn, with MPs digging in on both sides of the debate. As the bill progresses slowly, controversy is brewing over judicial oversight, particularly a proposal to replace High Court judges with an expert panel - an amendment that could significantly sway support for the bill.Olney also discusses her push for a new "test of ability" rather than "test of capacity," aiming to better safeguard vulnerable individuals. Meanwhile, questions are mounting about whether the Private Members' Bill process is the right mechanism for handling such a complex legal and ethical issue.With so much still undecided and political divisions deepening, the bill's future hangs in the balance. Is this process up to the task, or is it exposing fundamental flaws in how Parliament legislates and its capacity to make law in this area? ___

The assisted dying bill is about to undergo detailed scrutiny by the Public Bill Committee - a group of 23 MPs tasked with reviewing the Bill's text and proposing amendments to refine and improve it. But what exactly happens during this amendment process? Former House of Commons Clerk, Paul Evans CBE, breaks it down. Plus, we hear from Dr Ben Spencer MP, a former consultant psychiatrist turned parliamentarian, who has proposed dozens of amendments to the Bill.This week, Ruth is joined by procedural expert Paul Evans to break down the role and purpose of a Public Bill Committee. They explore how amendments are proposed, the rules that determine which amendments are admissible, and the grouping and selection of amendments for debate and decision. Paul explains the pivotal role played by the Committee chair in making fine procedural and political judgements and the mechanisms like ‘closure' motions that keep the process moving and guard against filibustering. What is the Government's role in this process. While officially neutral, Ministers have a ‘duty to the statute book'. So, will they step in to propose amendments, or will that responsibility fall to the Bill's sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP? Plus, we explore the tactical side of law making: is it smarter to push amendments now, or save them for the next stage when the Bill returns to the full Commons for the Report stage? We also sit down with Dr Ben Spencer MP, the Conservative MP for Runnymede and Weybridge. He voted against the Bill at Second Reading and discusses why he thinks the Private Members' Bill process is not the right route for this complex legislation. Despite his opposition to the Bill, and although he's not a member of the Public Bill Committee, he has nonetheless tabled several dozen amendments. One of his key proposals? The creation of a new body — the Assisted Dying Agency — to oversee the process. He shares why he's pursuing these amendments, how he's crafting them, and how he hopes to influence the Bill's progress from outside the Committee room.

The Government is now taking difficult decisions on everything from social security to a third runway at Heathrow which could cause splits in their own ranks. But why are MPs not paying more attention to the mechanisms the House of Commons has established to control the social security budget and repeal or reform old EU laws? And the House of Lords provides good news for Sir Paul McCartney but bad news for ticket touting by “posh people” at the Royal Albert Hall. This week we discuss the government's big challenges — from Heathrow's third runway to social security spending and the implications for parliamentary politics.Infrastructure battles ahead: Rachel Reeves announces a third runway at Heathrow, but MPs opposed to the plan may use opposition day debates, e-petitions, and backbench motions to force votes. How will the government manage dissent within its own ranks?Scrutiny shortcomings: Despite the welfare cap being breached by £8.5 billion, only a handful of MPs engaged in the debate. The growing social security budget raises long-term questions about fiscal sustainability and parliamentary oversight.House of Lords vs. AI companies: Peers vote against the government to protect creative copyrights from AI exploitation, with backing from figures like Paul McCartney. The government now faces pressure to clarify its stance.“Ticket touting for posh people” at the Royal Albert Hall: In a rare move – not seen since the 1990s - Peers have voted to amend a Private Bill against the wishes of the Bill's sponsor, the Royal Albert Hall board of trustees.Retained EU Law: Still a mystery: Ministers continue to unearth new pieces of retained EU law, but Parliament remains disengaged. Could a future reset of UK-EU relations reignite interest in these legal changes?Speaker Lindsay Hoyle's TV cameo: The Speaker of the House has appeared in an episode of Emmerdale, continuing the long tradition of political figures making pop culture appearances.

In this special episode we have an exclusive conversation with Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, the former head of the government's Parliamentary Counsel Office, who drafted the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This is a rare insight into the legislative process from the very person who crafted the bill that MPs are now scrutinising.Dame Elizabeth reveals how she was approached to draft the bill on a pro bono basis, the legal challenges she navigated, and how she worked closely with the Bill's sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP, to shape the legislation. She offers a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the drafting process, explaining how existing laws, international precedents, and parliamentary constraints influenced her approach.Mark and Ruth also dissect the key takeaways from this week's Public Bill Committee evidence sessions, including concerns over medical safeguards, judicial oversight, and the role of government in shaping the final legislation. With over 147 amendments already tabled, the bill faces intense scrutiny in the coming weeks.Tune in for an in-depth discussion on the future of assisted dying law in the UK, the political dynamics at play, and what comes next in this historic parliamentary process.

In this first "mini pod" of a series exploring one of the most controversial bills currently before Parliament — the proposed legislation to legalise assisted dying — Ruth Fox and Mark D'Arcy delve into the heated debates surrounding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This Private Member's Bill has already ignited passionate discussions during its first Public Bill Committee sitting. Ruth shares her first-hand account of attending the Committee's initial meeting, where disagreements over procedural matters — such as whether to hold private discussions about witness lists and sitting times — set a combative tone for what promises to be a challenging legislative journey. Together, Mark and Ruth unpack the unique hurdles faced by this Private Member's Bill. Unlike government-sponsored legislation, it lacks co-ordination by party Whips, leaving MPs to navigate disputes independently. One major point of contention? The selection of witnesses, which has sparked accusations of bias. From the Royal College of Psychiatrists to international experts, the process of choosing who gets to testify has become a lightning rod for criticism. Adding to the intrigue, the Government claims it is ‘neutral' on the issue, leaving it to Parliament to decide. But how neutral is it really? Ministers on the Public Bill Committee participated in a key division, raising questions about their impartiality. And by tabling a money motion to fund the Bill's implementation — despite uncertainty over the potential costs — have Ministers signed a blank cheque? And when will MPs and the public see an Impact Assessment? With emotions running high, this debate — focused on profound life-and-death decisions — is set to dominate parliamentary discourse in the weeks ahead. Join us as we navigate the complexities of this contentious and deeply personal piece of legislation.____

This week we highlight Alexis Jay's damning verdict on the Conservative government's lackluster response to child abuse inquiry recommendations and the first major test of Northern Ireland's “Stormont Brake” under the Windsor Framework. Plus, we take a look at the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill and how it measures up to its German counterpart. Child abuse inquiry fallout: Professor Alexis Jay, chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse pulled no punches in her evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, criticising the Conservatives for inaction while in power. We unpack her appeal to MPs to stop treating the issue as a political football and discuss what difference select committees can make in situations like this. Northern Ireland's Stormont Brake: Unionist members of the Assembly triggered the “democratic safeguard” to give Stormont's politicians a say before new EU chemical regulations take effect in Northern Ireland. But Hilary Benn has concluded the provisions do not meet the threshold to invoke emergency arrangements. What does this mean for the UK-EU dynamic and parliamentary politics at Westminster and in Belfast? Armed Forces Commissioner Bill: We take a deep dive into the Government's plan for a new welfare watchdog for service personnel and families—how does it compare to Germany's powerful parliamentary commissioner? ____

With the Government still under pressure to set up an independent inquiry into child grooming gangs should Parliament have a role in setting up inquiries into state failures and national disasters? Currently, Ministers take crucial decisions about who should chair an inquiry and what its precise remit should be. But a House of Lords Committee last year proposed giving Parliament a greater say and adopting a more systematic approach to implementing inquiry recommendations. Next week, Ministers will move the money resolution for the Assisted Dying Bill. This crucial procedural step will pave the way for the Bill's next stage in a Public Bill Committee. Will Ministers face tough questions about how much they expect the proposed assisted dying system to cost during the 45-minute debate? In other news, there's been a spectacular promotion for former policy wonk and government adviser Torsten Bell, in the wake of the resignation of Treasury Minister Tulip Siddiq. Only elected last July, he's just been made Pensions Minister, but will he be haunted by his many pronouncements as a talking head at Commons select committees and in media panel discussions?Finally, is there still a place in the Commons for Masterpiece Theatre-style pyrotechnics? After Shadow-Chancellor Mel Stride's attempt to shame Rachel Reeves with some Shakespearean rhetoric bombed in the chamber, Ruth and Mark reflect on whether parliamentary theatricals are now obsolete.

This week, we examine how Elon Musk's tweets have steered the UK parliamentary agenda in the first sitting days of the New Year. From a viral petition demanding a general election, to intense debates on child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, Musk's influence has left its mark on this week's key political discussions. Ruth and Mark also unpack the rise of identical parliamentary questions and share their plans to cover the Assisted Dying Bill's next stages later this month.Elon Musk's tweets are more than just clickbait - they are actively driving UK politics. Ruth and Mark explore three major Commons events this week that were all amplified by Musk's controversial social media posts: a petition signed by three million people calling for a general election, debates on grooming gangs, and controversies surrounding the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Musk's online influence has placed these issues at the forefront of political discourse, but his incendiary comments have also raised serious concerns about misinformation, online abuse, harassment and MP safety.In this episode, Ruth and Mark break down the strategies and tensions behind the parliamentary debates. They highlight how political positioning on the Children's Bill overshadowed critical discussions on education reform. Musk's online dominance and abuse has also escalated security risks for MPs like Jess Phillips, who faces intensified threats after his vituperative personal attacks.We unpack the politics behind the parliamentary decisions, look at the challenges of effective political communication, and preview how the issues may play out in the weeks ahead. We close with a look at the latest parliamentary trend: the orchestrated surge of identical questions by whips aiming to amplify government messaging. From project management jargon to strategic question crafting, this episode sheds light on the mechanics of Westminster.

In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn' we sit down with Steve Baker, whose reputation as the "Hard Man of Brexit" made him a key figure in the UK's departure from the EU.Baker reflects on his pivotal role as the "Rebel Commander" in orchestrating rebellions during the Brexit years, his methods of leadership, and the toll politics has taken on his mental health. The episode offers an unfiltered look into the mechanisms of political rebellion, party dynamics, and the personal costs of parliamentary life. Baker recounts his journey from a newcomer to Parliament to a commanding figure in the Brexit movement, detailing how he leveraged personal conviction and strategic organisation to challenge successive Prime Ministers and government whips. He candidly discusses the emotional and mental toll of his role, sharing moments of intense pressure and his eventual mental health struggles. Baker offers an insider's view of parliamentary rebellion, revealing how he employed technology, unwavering resolve, and personal connections to mobilise support. He contrasts his approach with traditional methods, emphasising leadership through shared goals rather than coercion. The episode also explores the Conservative Party's ideological fractures, the influence of the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee, and the broader implications of Brexit for British democracy.___

In this episode we explore the experiences of the SNP during its transformative rise at Westminster from 2015, as seen through the eyes of Patrick Grady MP who served as the party's Chief Whip between 2017 and 2021. Patrick shares insights on the challenges, tactics, and controversies faced by the SNP as they sought to amplify Scotland's voice in Parliament while navigating the complexities of being a third-party force with a mission for independence.From six to 56: A political earthquakePatrick recounts the seismic shift in 2015, when the SNP surged from six MPs to 56, reshaping Scotland's presence at Westminster. He describes the cultural adjustments required as the party transitioned to its expanded role and new responsibilities as the third party and sought to master Westminster's traditions and procedures while asserting their identity in a political system designed for two-party dominance. Along the way, creative tactics like the "breakfast wars" and spontaneous acts of defiance helped carve out their space. Blending experience with fresh energyThe SNP's parliamentary team was a mix of seasoned hands and new talent, bringing diverse professional backgrounds to the table. Patrick reflects on the complexities of maintaining party discipline in such a dynamic environment while managing the inevitable evolution of internal dynamics over time. Theatrics with a purposeFrom walking out of Prime Minister's Questions in protest to whistling Ode to Joy during Brexit votes, Patrick sheds light on the purpose behind the SNP's theatrical moments. These acts were not mere stunts but initiatives that helped draw attention to critical issues for Scotland, such as the contentious Internal Market Act and the English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) procedures. The human side of whippingBeyond the public stage, Patrick shares insights into the pastoral care aspect of a Chief Whip's responsibilities. Supporting MPs with diverse personal and professional needs - especially those with young families - required empathy and flexibility, even as legislative demands loomed large.Reflections on a remarkable journeyHaving stepped down from Westminster, Patrick reflects on the impermanence of being an MP, his pride in representing Glasgow North, and the unpredictable challenges that shaped his tenure, from Brexit to the pandemic. His practical advice to his successors? Don't forget a water filter jug to tackle London's hard water — a small but vital tip for life in the capital.

In this episode we explore the highs and lows of coalition government through the eyes of Alistair Carmichael, former Deputy Government Chief Whip for the Liberal Democrats during the 2010-2015 coalition. Carmichael reflects candidly on how he personally navigated the seismic challenges of coalition politics, from managing party discipline to reconciling conflicting priorities within the government to providing pastoral support to colleagues. Alistair Carmichael offers a fascinating account of the inner workings of the coalition government, discussing the monumental challenges faced during his time as Deputy Chief Whip in the coalition government. Reflecting on the dynamic interplay between national, party, and constituency interests, he describes the delicate balance required to maintain stability during a period of economic crisis. The conversation sheds light on the nuanced strategies he employed to hold his party together, including persuading MPs to support controversial policies like the rise in tuition fees, and how he worked to maintain cohesion within a fractious parliamentary party. He shares vivid memories of key moments in the coalition, including the volcanic ash cloud that disrupted his campaign and the EU budget veto that nearly shattered government unity. He also discusses the pastoral side of his role, describing how he supported MPs through personal and professional crises, even as he juggled the unique challenges of representing one of the UK's most remote constituencies. His reflections highlight the personal toll of coalition politics but also affirm his belief in the value of entering government to make a meaningful difference The episode concludes with Carmichael's thoughts on the legacy of the coalition and lessons for future Liberal Democrats.[NOTE: This is the first in a series of conversations with former Whips, some of which took place just as the UK general election was called in Summer 2024. There may be the occasional reference to the forthcoming election - we have not edited these out in order to retain the context of the discussion and questions.] ____

In this special episode of Parliament Matters, we sit down with author and researcher Sam Freedman to explore the themes of his book, Failed State. Freedman delivers a sharp critique of Britain's governance, examining how bad laws and weak parliamentary scrutiny are contributing to systemic dysfunction.We discuss:Parliamentary scrutiny in crisis: Freedman highlights the erosion of Parliament's role in scrutinising legislation, forcing the unelected House of Lords and even the courts to fill the gap, creating further constitutional tensions.From part-time MPs to professional politicians: How Parliament's evolution has failed to keep pace with its members' changing roles, leaving many MPs frustrated and directionless.Poor legislation's ripple effects: Freedman discusses how the lack of oversight has led to flawed laws and policies, citing examples from his time in government, such as the rushed Academies Act.Decentralisation as a solution: Freedman makes the case for empowering regional and local authorities to address over-centralisation and strengthen governance.This engaging conversation covers Parliament's structural flaws, the realities of modern political life, and bold reform ideas—exploring how fixing the core of our democracy could lead to better outcomes for everyone.

As Christmas approaches, Westminster eases into its pre-festive lull. Yet, a major political storm clouds the year's end: the fallout from the Government's decision not to compensate the WASPI women. This controversy highlights a recurring dilemma in politics—the risks of opposition parties over-promising and the inevitable backlash when those promises confront the harsh realities of governing. And as a seasonal stocking filler, Ruth and Mark talk to the authors of two fascinating books that uncover hidden aspects of parliamentary history. Labour's decision not to offer compensation to the WASPI women (Women Against State Pension Inequality) who have lost out in the equalisation of the state pension age has ignited a political storm. Any number of Labour MPs are now haunted by the pledges of support they gave to the WASPI campaign – but beyond their embarrassment, every instance of a party reneging on its pre-election promises corrodes what is left of trust in politics.The case also raises questions about the role of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), the gatekeeper role MPs play in referring cases to the Ombudsman and the need for legislation to upgrade the Ombudsman system. Successive governments have said there has not been enough parliamentary time for a bill: but is that a valid reason or just an excuse? Meanwhile, a brace of parliamentary committees have made a surprise choice of Chair: does it signal a new rebellious mood, or simply a lack of experience in the ranks?For a seasonal treat Ruth and Mark talk to the authors of two captivating books that shed light on overlooked corners of parliamentary history. In Necessary Women, Mari Takayanagi explores the hidden contributions of women in Westminster — from housemaids and secretaries to pioneering clerks. Meanwhile, John Cooper's The Lost Chapel of Westminster reveals the captivating story of St Stephen's Chapel, a remarkable space transformed into the House of Commons chamber after the Reformation. This repurposing left an enduring legacy on British parliamentary politics, shaping traditions like opposing benches and in-person voting — practices that continue to define Westminster's political culture today.

In this week's episode the ‘assisted dying' bill takes centre stage as the newly chosen members of the Public Bill Committee gear up for detailed scrutiny of the legislation. With 23 members, including two ministers, this committee promises a mix of seasoned voices and first-time MPs debating a very difficult issue. Our guest, Matthew England from the Hansard Society, breaks down the committee's composition, party balance, and the strategic dynamics that will influence the bill's trajectory. The podcast also explores the ongoing debate over hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Ruth and Mark dissect the Second Reading of the bill to abolish their voting rights, highlighting the passionate arguments on both sides. From constitutional principles to fiery rhetoric about political assassinations, the debate reveals deeper tensions about the future of Lords reform. Meanwhile, the Intelligence and Security Committee is back, with a new lineup tasked with overseeing Britain's intelligence services. We discuss the significance of this committee's work in ensuring transparency and accountability in the shadowy world of national security. Finally, the Liaison Committee prepares for its first grilling of Prime Minister Keir Starmer. What themes will emerge, and can select committee chairs hold the PM to account effectively? Ruth and Mark consider the challenges of this high-profile session. Join us for sharp analysis and behind-the-scenes insights into the workings of Parliament. Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review on your favorite podcast platform.___

Is the Football Governance Bill being filibustered in the House of Lords? Did the House of Commons just vote for electoral reform and proportional representation as the Liberal Democrats claim? And what are your fantasy parliamentary reforms? Welcome to a landmark episode of Parliament Matters, where we've stepped out of the studio and into the heart of Westminster. For the first time, we're recording in front of a live audience at the 60th anniversary conference of the Study of the Parliament Group - a gathering of parliamentary aficionados, practitioners, and self-described anoraks. Joining us is former Commons Clerk Paul Evans, whose deep procedural expertise adds extra depth to the day's discussions.We kick off with the Football Governance Bill, born from the Tracy Crouch fan-led review, which sought to safeguard the English football pyramid's financial stability after crises like the European Super League debacle. Now in the House of Lords, the Bill faces delays and accusations of filibustering. Ruth explains the key issues, including definitions of “sustainability” and “English football,” which are left to ministerial regulation rather than the face of the Bill - much to the frustration of opposition peers. Paul unpacks the concept of hybridity, a procedural pitfall that could derail the bill, and we learn how this relates to broader debates about parliamentary process and regulatory overreach. Next, we turn to a rare parliamentary moment: a 10-Minute Rule Bill introduced by Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney proposed proportional representation for elections. Unusually the right to bring in the bill was put to a formal vote this week. However, the bill's chances of progression are slim, as it's been relegated to the “legislative gulag” of backbench bills unlikely to see further debate. With the newly established House of Commons Modernisation Committee inviting ideas for its agenda, we discuss our own “fantasy” parliamentary reforms. Paul pitches his bold “Festival of the Estimates,” an initiative to engage MPs and the public in substantive discussions about taxation, public spending and the trade-offs involved. We then turn to our audience for a Q&A session on topics including whether we should have an “investiture vote” for new Prime Ministers, let experts rather than MPs question the Government on its Budget, give Select Committees more powers and restore the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act.

In this special episode, we dive into the fascinating world of US congressional procedure with Hansard Society member Kacper Surdy, the once-anonymous force behind the influential social media account @ringwiss. Despite being a 20-year-old Durham University student, Kacper has become a go-to authority on Capitol Hill's intricate rules, earning the admiration of seasoned political insiders. With Donald Trump hinting at bypassing Senate norms to appoint controversial figures to his cabinet, Kacper unravels the high stakes procedural battles shaping Washington.Ruth and Mark sat down with Kacper to explore the remarkable story of how a British student became a trusted commentator on US congressional workings—all without setting foot in Washington, DC. Kacper reveals how his fascination with the 2020 presidential election led him to explore and master the inner workings of the House and Senate. From maintaining a hobbyist's passion for procedural rabbit holes to fielding inquiries from Capitol Hill insiders, Kacper reflects on his future plans for this unexpected, niche expertise.He explains the key differences and historical connections between British parliamentary traditions and US congressional rules, offering insights into the House's meticulous documentation of precedents versus the Senate's more informal approach. He also explores the potential impact of recess appointments on the balance of power in Washington, decoding the controversial practice that Trump has hinted at using to bypass Senate scrutiny, its historical origins and why it's a constitutional flashpoint today.NOTE: This episode was recorded just before Matt Gaetz, Trump's nominee to be Attorney General, announced he was withdrawing from the post. We've left the discussion about this in the recording because it may be relevant to consideration of other nominations in the future.

From the emotional weight of the Assisted Dying Bill's historic Second Reading to the first Cabinet resignation under Keir Starmer's leadership, this has been a whirlwind week of high-stakes drama and political intrigue in Westminster. Nearly three million people have signed a parliamentary e-petition calling for another general election and it's been a week of party defections and divisions. We unpack what it all means for the future of this Parliament.This week saw MPs engage in a solemn and respectful debate over landmark legislation. The Assisted Dying Bill cleared its Second Reading with a decisive majority of 55 votes, but the solemn silence that greeted the announcement of the result in the House of Commons reflected the gravity of the decision. There is still a long way to go if the Assisted Dying Bill is to make it to the statute book, but it cleared this first hurdle. So, what happens now as it moves into the Public Bill Committee?Meanwhile, a petition calling for a general election has amassed nearly three million signatures. It has sparked a debate and perhaps tells us something about public discontent with the current Government after just six months. But it has also revealed the constitutional illiteracy of some of our politicians and the commentariat. Despite its size, this petition holds no legal weight, though it will trigger a House of Commons debate in January having crossed the 100,000 signature threshold. What approach will the Government take?In other news, Sir Keir Starmer's Cabinet saw its first resignation this week as Transport Secretary Louise Haigh stepped down. The move came after a past offence—declared to Starmer before her appointment—resurfaced. We unpack the implications for the Government's ethics bar: has it been set too low, or is this the high standard needed to rebuild public trust in politicians and Parliament?

With the return of the bill on assisted dying next week we're unapologetically getting into the weeds of Parliamentary procedure for this episode, and looking at whether a Private Members Bill from a backbench MP is really the best way of passing such potentially important legislation. Two doyens of PMBs in UK policy circles; Dr Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University in London, and Dr Ruth Fox, director at the Hansard Society, help shine a light on a little understood, but sometimes hugely important, part of our legislative system, while Liberal Democrat MP Roz Savage, who has her own backbench bill, explains what it's like going through the process to host Alain Tolhurst. We also hear from two former Conservative MPs; Virginia Crosbie and Dean Russell, who together managed to get a long-awaited bill securing fairer tips for hospitality staff onto the statute book last year, about how they did it. To sign up for our newsletters click here Presented by Alain Tolhurst, produced by Nick Hilton and edited by Ewan Cameron for Podot

It's Parliament Week, and Ruth and Mark are joined by researchers Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Richard Hussey to celebrate an unsung hero of Westminster: the petitioning system. Once on the verge of irrelevance, this mechanism has seen record levels of public engagement, sparking debates and inquiries on an avalanche of citizen-driven issues. Together, they explore how petitioning adds value for both petitioners and MPs, and what has driven this surprising revival of a centuries-old tradition in the digital age.As the news of the death of Tony Blair's Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, reaches us, Ruth and Mark reflect on his unique place in British politics. Prescott was more than a brawler; he was a symbol of working-class pride in a political landscape increasingly dominated by career politicians from privileged backgrounds. With the decline of working-class representation in the House of Commons, they ask: could Angela Rayner, the current Deputy Prime Minister, step into Prescott's shoes? Can she wield the same influence within Sir Keir Starmer's government and hold Labour's coalition together as Prescott once did?With the select committee system kicking into gear - launching inquiries and grilling cabinet ministers - Ruth and Mark explore whether this quieter venue could outperform the raucous Commons Chamber in scrutinising the Government. In a Parliament where Labour's dominance looms large, how might committees leverage their tools to ensure Ministers are held to account, especially when their reports are ignored, or responses fall short?From nostalgia for a working-class titan to the mechanics of modern parliamentary accountability, Ruth and Mark delve into the past, present, and future of how Westminster engages with the people it serves.

Could one of the most consequential Private Members' Bills in nearly fifty years - the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which seeks to legalise assisted dying - be sidelined not due to its content but because MPs fear they won't have time to scrutinise it properly?Ruth and Mark look at increasing concerns in the House of Commons that the time constraints around private members legislation could prevent Kim Leadbeater's bill from receiving the level of debate and scrutiny the issue demands.If MPs are perceived to have reached a decision on anything other than the merits of the Bill, the House of Commons will risk looking ridiculous. So, should the Government step in to ensure there's enough time for consideration in the Chamber and in Committee, while remaining neutral on the merits of the policy? Or might Ministers prefer to sit on their hands?Also, as the Government's proposal to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords clears the Commons, how will the denizens of the Upper House respond? The Shadow Leader of the Lords warns the “execution will be up close and personal,” with Peers having to march through the lobbies to approve the Bill, under the watchful gaze of the colleagues they will be voting to exclude. And finally, an embarrassing blunder: the Government has discovered that it has been unlawfully charging fees for UK visa applications for years and is trying to quietly regularise its mistake. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is not impressed with the Home Office. It's a painful example of the perils of delegated legislation.

Following Kemi Badenoch's election, this episode explores the unique challenges she faces as the new Leader of the Opposition. What does it take to build an effective Opposition? What strategic decisions, policy initiatives, and personnel choices must she navigate? What resources and procedural tools can she use to challenge the Government and build a compelling public profile? How does she balance party cohesion with presenting a credible alternative government and preparing for future elections?Nigel Fletcher, political historian and founder of the Centre for Opposition Studies, joins us to discuss what defines an effective Leader of the Opposition. We explore the nuances of opposition strategy, including the complex process of shaping a shadow cabinet. Badenoch must perform a high-stakes balancing act—critiquing government policy while preparing her party as a viable alternative. We debate critical aspects of her role, from parliamentary strategy to engaging effectively with the media. Her “straight-talking” style may attract public attention, but it also brings risks if her statements cross into controversial territory.The episode covers essential resources at the Opposition's disposal, such as "Short money" public funding, and explores the logistical challenges of running an efficient office without the governmental support systems ministers enjoy. We also examine the dynamics within the Conservative Party. With several prominent figures opting out of Badenoch's shadow cabinet, how will she manage rival ambitions and maintain unity? And we explore the historical tactics the Opposition has used in Parliament to pressurise the government and capture public support.Tune in for an in-depth discussion of the intricacies of setting up an effective Opposition—and a candid look at the challenges ahead for Kemi Badenoch as she embarks on this role.

This week we turn the spotlight on Kemi Badenoch's debut as Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's Questions, as she sparred with Keir Starmer for the first time. We examine her strategy, topic choices and what it will take to position herself as a credible challenger in the House of Commons Chamber and beyond.Then we analyse Donald Trump's re-election and its potential ripple effects on UK policies, from trade tariffs to defence commitments. How might a shift in US foreign policy affect British alliances, and what could this mean for Parliament's upcoming agenda? And might Nigel Farage, the new MP and UK Reform Party leader, leverage his connection with President Trump and if so how it could affect Keir Starmer's government?The long-awaited Ministerial Code has finally been published. The Prime Minister's new guidelines set out the do's and don'ts for Ministers and tighten up some of the rules on ministerial conduct. The “seven principles of public life” – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership – provide an ethical framework to the document. Ruth and Mark break down the changes, from empowering the independent advisor on ministerial interests to initiate investigations to the newly required quarterly declarations of ministers' interests and monthly reporting of gifts and hospitality.Finally, we explore Northern Ireland Assembly's upcoming democratic consent vote on the Windsor Framework, which governs the nation's post-Brexit trade rules. Professor David Phinnemore of Queen's University Belfast joins us to explore why this vote matters, how it's viewed differently by the nationalist and unionist parties in the Assembly, the possible outcomes, and the broader implications for the UK-EU relationship and UK politics.

In this episode we discuss a range of intriguing listener's questions about the traditions and workings of Parliament.Mark and Ruth start with a listener's critique of their discussion of etiquette in the House of Commons chamber in the previous episode. Is it really a good use of MPs' time to spend hours in the Chamber listening to a debate and waiting to speak? They explore the perils of parliamentary multi-tasking and the importance of attire and decorum in debates.One listener asks why opposition MPs don't have fewer whipped votes given that they can't win against a government with such a large majority. Another listener asks why a Minister is a member of the Public Accounts Committee.Ruth recounts her historical tour in search of what turns out to be an elusive answer to the question of when the Private Members Bill ballot was first introduced. The search took her back further than she expected!And why do MPs refer to the number of their question on the Order Paper in the Chamber, which can be perplexing for viewers. Wouldn't it be clearer if they simply asked the question out loud?Mark and Ruth also discuss the evolving role of select committee scrutiny of issues affecting Northern Ireland and the recent suggestion for a dedicated Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords to examine the implications of the UK's treaty arrangements with the EU as it affects Northern Ireland.

With Labour's first Budget due next week, Ruth and Mark walk through the elaborate process which sets the parameters for Commons debates on the Government's taxation plans – and which may set limits on MPs' ability to amend them. They also explore whether a better system is needed to scrutinise both tax policies and government spending.Amid reports of MPs quaffing cartons of milk and munching apples in the Commons Chamber, they offer a guide to parliamentary etiquette, the 'Do's and Don'ts' that Honourable Members must observe to stay in Mr Speaker's good books and maintain good-tempered debate. Don't wear jeans or chinos. Don't call other MPs “you”. Keep speeches short and to the point and tell the Chair if there's a good reason why you should be called to speak in a particular debate. And Mark has a warning for MPs scrolling through messages on their phones at the back of the Chamber.Plus, the new Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee, Layla Moran MP, discusses NHS reform, outlines how she plans to highlight the costs of neglecting social care reform, and suggests that her committee won't need to revisit its earlier reports on 'assisted dying'. With a majority of newly elected MPs on her committee she also describes her plans to build a cohesive and effective team to scrutinise this key area of government policy.

The Government's bill to exclude the last vestiges of the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords has cleared its Second Reading debate in the House of Commons – but should it have proposed a more ambitious reform of the Upper House?With some MPs calling for wider changes, including several Conservatives who think the Church of England bishops should be removed alongside the hereditaries, Ruth and Mark look at the prospects for the Bill and the chances of it being amended to include other reforms. Could peers attempt to block it when it comes before them? And what does Monty Python have to do with all this?As Labour celebrate a hundred days in office Mark fails to detect a Kennedy/Camelot vibe and Ruth warns that having squandered political capital on avoidable scandals they are also failing to keep their promise of better law-making, by pushing through ‘skeleton bills' which give sweeping powers for ministers to make the law at a later date with minimal scrutiny from Parliament. Plus, ‘assisted dying' will be the top issue among this year's Private Members Bills; but there are other meaty issues to chew on, like tackling climate change, requiring solar panels on new homes, regulating Airbnb-style short accommodation lets and banning mobile phones in schools.And with MPs and election candidates menaced by violence and intimidation, what solutions might emerge from a proposed Speaker's Conference?

Following the chaotic scenes in Parliament on Wednesday Sonia Sodha of The Observer analyses the political week. Dr Ruth Fox of The Hansard Society explains why an opposition day debate about Gaza, and calls for a ceasefire, descended in to bitter arguments about parliamentary procedure. John Nicolson of the SNP discusses why his party thinks the Commons Speaker should resign over the issue. And, to reflect on the wider crisis, Sonia speaks to former Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood and the Chair of the International Development Select Committee, Sarah Champion, who has just returned from a trip to the Egypt-Gaza border. On Monday the Business Secretary, Kemi Badenoch, gave a robust response to claims made by the former Chairman of the Post Office who she had previously sacked over the Horizon scandal. Sonia speaks to two MPs who were in the chamber for that statement: Conservative Conor Burns and Labour's Kevan Jones, who has campaigned for many years on behalf of wrongly convicted sub-postmasters. And, after Keir Starmer's chief of staff suggested Labour could make use of citizens' assemblies to decide on contentious issues, Sonia brings together Louise Caldwell, who took part in the Irish citizens' assembly on abortion, and Joe Twyman of Deltapoll, who has helped run such assemblies in the past.