Parliament Matters

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.___ 🎓 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

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.🎓 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  

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.🎓 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

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?🎓 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 £ - 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

It’s Parliament Week, and Ruth and Mark are joined by researchers Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Richard Huzzey 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.🎓 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 £ - 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  

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.🎓 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 £ - 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