Parliament Matters

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.🎓 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 

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

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.🎓 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

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? 🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. �� Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D'Arcy and Ruth FoxProducer: Gareth Jones 

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.____ 🎓 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

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?🎓 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 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. ____   🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. �� Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D'Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Richard Townsend

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.____  🎓 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 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._____  🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode. ❓ Send us your questions about Parliament: ✅ Subscribe to our newsletter. �� Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social £ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today. Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Presenters: Mark D'Arcy and Ruth Fox Producer: Gareth Jenkins