Parliament Matters

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  

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.🎓 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

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.🎓 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

Another Budget, another broadside from Mr Speaker, deploring the advance leaking of its contents by Ministers. After the Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced important changes to the Government’s rules on borrowing for investment, and Sir Keir Starmer signalled a rise in the minimum wage, both in advance of Budget Day, Sir Lindsay Hoyle rebuked them in an angry statement from the Chair. But Ruth and Mark conclude that Ministers have strong incentives to “pre-leak” Budget plans, making it unlikely this trend will change, especially given that the Speaker has no effective powers to punish them.Meanwhile, as political tensions rise over the handling of the Southport murder case, they explore the reason MPs are not permitted to deliver a running commentary on live court cases – why Parliament operates a sub judice rule – and how this policy is enforced to protect judicial integrity.And David Laws, a Lib Dem minister in the 2010 Coalition Government, stops by to discuss relations between his party and Labour and their tangled history which has led to a suspicious and conflicted relationship between the two parties, despite their relative ideological closeness. With Labour now in Government, and with the largest-ever contingent of Lib Dem MPs on the Opposition benches, what might the next chapter in this story hold?🎓 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

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.🎓 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 

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?🎓 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 

The Conservative leadership race is heating up, but should MPs alone choose their leader? Should MPs who resign their party's whip face by-elections? On 29 November, MPs are expected to debate the controversial 'assisted dying' bill - will it stymie other Private Members’ Bills? Meanwhile, Nigel Farage is pushing for a parliamentary debate and vote on the government's deal regarding the Chagos Islands. Will he get his way?In this episode, we dive into the high-stakes Conservative leadership contest. As party members face a pivotal decision, we ask whether MPs alone should have the final say in choosing their leader. We also explore Sir Graham Brady’s proposal for Conservative MPs to vote on the final two candidates, giving an indication of their preferred choice to party members. Would this approach bring clarity or add even more confusion to the leadership race?Next, we turn to the dramatic resignation of Labour MP Rosie Duffield, who resigned the Labour whip just three months into this Parliament. In her scathing resignation letter, Duffield criticised Keir Starmer’s leadership and Labour’s internal policies. Her departure raises significant questions: should MPs who resign the whip be required to step down from Parliament and contest a by-election? Or should they face a recall petition from their constituents? We also reflect on past instances where MPs resigned the whip early in a new Parliament and the impact this has on their ability to represent their voters.We then focus on the Government’s announcement of the 13 Fridays when the House of Commons will sit to consider Private Members’ Bills. The debate on Kim Leadbeater’s ‘assisted dying’ bill is likely to be scheduled for 29 November. Will this bill dominate parliamentary time and push other Private Members’ Bills to the sidelines? We explore the potential procedural roadblocks that could hinder the bill’s progress and how similar issues have been managed in the past.Nigel Farage has led calls in the House of Commons for a debate on the future of the Chagos Islands. The government’s decision to transfer sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius while retaining control of the US base on Diego Garcia has raised both sovereignty and treaty scrutiny concerns. We discuss how this case once again exposes the limitations of Parliament’s oversight of international treaties and what might happen next.Finally, we answer listener questions on a range of topics, from the role of All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the upcoming Budget to the tradition of MPs “bobbing” to catch the Speaker’s attention at Prime Minister’s Questions and the complexities of statutory consultation processes. 🎓 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 

In this episode, we explore the outcomes and implications of the latest Select Committee Chair elections in Parliament. The newly elected chairs will play a pivotal role in scrutinising the government, but can they effectively work together? We talk to Dr. Marc Geddes, a leading expert on Select Committees, who highlights how this year’s competitive elections compare to previous parliaments and what that could mean for committee dynamics in the future.What did the candidates promise in their nomination papers? We discover the unique candidacy of one MP who ran on a platform of "Stop this Nonsense," railing against the flood of campaign emails and leaflets during the election process (or what she described as the “Select Committee Chair silly season”).Another newly elected chair is proposing weekly summaries of public hearings in a "crop and drop" format, allowing colleagues to easily communicate updates to their constituents.Throughout the episode, we tackle listeners' pressing questions:How much influence do party leaders wield in Select Committee elections?Which committee chairs are likely to make it to the government frontbench before the next election?How do Select Committees decide which inquiries to prioritize?What role does public engagement play in their inquiries?In addition, Ruth and Mark dissect the latest Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) session. Despite the influx of new MPs, PMQs remains a spectacle of soundbites and jeering, with little progress on substantive debate. They discuss how newer MPs seem to be following in the footsteps of the old guard, continuing the orchestrated shouting matches led by party whips.One key issue raised during this PMQs was Rishi Sunak’s focus on whether the government will publish an Impact Assessment related to the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Allowance. Ruth explains the significance of Impact Assessments and why they matter for government transparency and accountability.The episode also explores the political dilemma faced by Labour MPs who abstained from the Winter Fuel Allowance vote. Voting against the motion would allow the wealthiest to continue receiving the benefit, while voting for it would mean supporting means-testing, potentially disadvantaging struggling constituents. Ruth and Mark debate whether constituents will understand the nuances behind MPs' decisions to abstain and how this might impact their future support. 🎓 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