Ten years after the House of Commons Petitions Committee was created – does it actually work? Does it genuinely shift policy? Or is it an emotional release valve? In this special anniversary episode, we bring together four Chairs of the Petitions Committee – one current, three former – for a candid conversation about what happens after hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of people click “sign”.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

The House of Commons Petitions Committee is the place in Parliament where ordinary people set the agenda. Now, a decade after it was created, is it actually the most powerful pressure valve in UK politics?

In this 10th-anniversary episode we trace the origins of the Committee – from the early battles with government and the breakthrough on brain tumour research – to the Covid era when petitioning briefly became the country’s primary political participation channel. And we revisit the petitions that blindsided even the MPs in the room.

To mark ten years, the current Chair — and three former Chairs — answer directly:

• what really happens when a petition passes 100,000 signatures;

• which petitions genuinely changed government thinking;

• do ministers watch the queue of petitions nervously;

• should petitions now get votable time in the main Chamber;

• how the pandemic supercharged petition culture;

• why petitions debates are the most watched debates after PMQs; and

• whether petitions amplify the already-loud or give voice to the unheard.

This isn’t a theoretical seminar about “democracy”. This is the Committee inside Parliament where the public decides the agenda. After a decade, what’s the verdict?

____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Britain’s modern party system frays, we rewind 300+ years to Queen Anne’s reign to trace the messy, very human birth of Britain’s party politics in conversation with historian George Owers, author of Rage of Party. He charts how religion, war, and raw parliamentary management forged early party politics, as the Whigs and Tories hardened into recognisable parties. Parliament turned from an occasional royal event into a permanent institution, and the job that would later be called “Prime Minister” began to take shape through court craft and parliamentary number-crunching.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

The Glorious Revolution triggered one change that proved transformational: Parliament now had to sit, and sit often. The Monarch’s continental wars needed constant funding, and constant funding required annual Parliaments. That imperative created a new game: the Crown’s ministers had to manage two chambers increasingly organised along party lines, avoiding the dreaded scenario in which a single faction could “force the chamber” and dictate to the Monarch. Out of that pressure cooker evolved new techniques of parliamentary management: whipping, coalition-stitching, patronage-trading. The dark arts of parliamentary arithmetic were born in this crucible.

With Queen Anne’s death in 1714, the Hanoverian succession froze out suspected Jacobite sympathisers and handed the initiative to the Whigs. Over the following decade, Robert Walpole consolidated that advantage into something new: stable, one-party government under a single commanding figure. His mix of administrative grip, parliamentary mastery, and monarchical confidence is why he is widely counted as Britain’s first true Prime Minister.

Our conversation lands back in the present with a sobering parallel. If today’s House of Commons continues to splinter, tomorrow’s successful leaders may look less like top-down disciplinarians and more like Walpole: Commons operators who live in the tea room, count every vote, understand every constituency interest, and build governing majorities from shifting factions rather than from iron party control. It’s a story about where our party system came from – and a primer for the coalition politics it may be heading back towards.

___

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage made headlines this week with his attempt to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill to take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposal was swiftly defeated by a coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent MPs, with Lib Dem leader Ed Davey leading the opposition.

_____

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

_____

In this week’s episode, we look at why Farage’s bill was always doomed to fail, and why Labour’s reluctance to formally whip against it raised eyebrows. Does that hesitation point to a deeper problem – has Labour really absorbed the lesson of the Caerphilly Senedd by-election, where Plaid Cymru took a Labour seat, Reform surged, and Labour’s vote collapsed? If progressive voters are prepared to rally behind whichever party can stop Reform, should Labour be bolder in confronting them directly?

We also consider Lucy Powell’s decisive victory as Labour’s new deputy leader – an unusual role outside government that frees her from collective responsibility and could make her a key power broker in what promises to be a gruelling budget season. How far can a tough fiscal package stretch manifesto promises before trust breaks, and is Keir Starmer in danger of drifting into a “Clegg zone” of broken-promise backlash?

The discussion then turns to the Speaker’s Conference reports on the abuse and intimidation faced by MPs and candidates. Guest Sofia Collignon, from Queen Mary University of London, outlines the full spectrum of harassment – from online threats to in-person intimidation – and explains why women and minority candidates are often targeted most. She explores what could genuinely make a difference: stronger accountability for social media platforms, a dedicated national policing unit, clearer party responsibility for campaign conduct, and improved citizenship education. Drawing on international examples, she argues for firm action that protects democratic participation without shielding politicians from legitimate public scrutiny.

A listener’s question about Westminster Hall sparks a discussion about the history and purpose of the Commons’ parallel debating chamber. Ruth and Mark trace its origins to the late 1990s, when it was created to give MPs more space to raise issues and hold ministers to account. They explain why no votes are taken there, how it provides a forum for petitions, select committee reports and backbench debates, and why some of the Commons’ most-watched debates now happen there.

_____

🎓 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 Jones

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, we explore how far Parliament can go in holding members of the Royal Family to account, as pressure grows for MPs to scrutinise Prince Andrew’s finances and royal titles. We ask whether Nigel Farage should get a right of reply at Prime Minister’s Questions amid his growing prominence, and examine Labour’s reshuffle of select committee posts and calls for greater transparency in how they’re filled. Plus, a look back at the rebuilding of the House of Commons Chamber, 75 years after its postwar reopening.

 ___

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

 ___

Normally Parliament steers clear of discussing the Royal Family but with Prince Andrew embroiled in the scandal around the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, there are increasing calls for MPs to act. Could he be called before a select committee to explain his finances and housing arrangements? Might Parliament legislate to strip him of his titles? Could he be removed from the line of succession to the Throne? To explore these issues we are joined by Dr Craig Prescott of Royal Holloway, University of London, an expert on the modern monarchy.

With other party leaders increasingly using Prime Minister’s Question Time to take potshots at Nigel Farage, does the Reform UK party leader deserve some kind of right of reply? The problem is that while he may have a commanding lead in the opinion polls, he leads a tiny contingent of MPs – so giving him a regular slot, ahead of other parties could create more problems than it solves. But there are ways he could hit back at his critics.

There’s also movement on the select committee corridor as Labour MPs elect new members to fill vacancies left by those promoted in the recent government reshuffle. But questions remain about the process itself. Should there be greater transparency around how parties decide who sits on these influential committees?

Finally, this month marks 75 years since the Commons Chamber re-opened after being destroyed in the Blitz. We speak to Dr Eloise Donnelly, Curator of Parliament’s Historic Furniture and Decorative Art, about how the reconstruction balanced modernisation with tradition. From a 15-year-old apprentice carving the Speaker’s Chair to German prisoners of war quarrying the stone, the story of the rebuild is one of craftsmanship, controversy and continuity. At the heart of a new exhibition marking the anniversary is a remarkable architectural scale model of the postwar Chamber — built in 1944 to help MPs visualise the design, exhibited across the country, lost for decades, but then rediscovered in Parliament. As Ruth reveals, this long-missing model solves a small but fascinating mystery in the Hansard Society’s own history.

🎓 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.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Gareth Jones

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s been an extraordinary week in Westminster, with three separate ministerial statements to the Commons on the China spying case. To make sense of the confusion, Ruth and Mark are joined by Professor Mark Elliott, public law expert from Cambridge University, to unpack the sudden collapse of the prosecution against two alleged spies.

_____

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

_____

Newly released government witness statements revealed details about the claims of espionage inside MPs’ offices, yet the case was abruptly dropped amid tangled legal arguments over whether the Government had ever formally designated China as an “enemy state.”

So, what really happened? Was this a legal failure or a political fix to avoid a diplomatic crisis? And with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy now launching an inquiry, where does the story go next?

Plus, as the parliamentary season re-opens after the party conference break, Ruth and Mark look at the elephant traps ahead for the Government, including the Budget (Mark wonders why anyone in the Government thinks it is a good idea to “live-brainstorm” tax raising ideas), the lingering row over the Afghan data leak and superinjunction, the long-promised vote about the future of multi-billion pound restoration and renewal of Parliament and the steady drip of terrible local election results chipping away at Labour morale.

And finally, the latest developments on the assisted dying legislation which is now facing scrutiny by a special Lords select committee. We go through the membership and the balance of opinion on what could be a very important body. If the subsequent debates on the bill over-run, Ministers could face a legislative logjam in the Upper House.

________

🎓 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 Jones

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we speak with Peter Just, author of a new book, Margaret Thatcher: Life After Downing Street. Peter explores how Thatcher reinvented herself after her departure to maintain her status as an international figure, and how she remained a parliamentary thorn in John Major’s side. We also compare her parliamentary afterlife with that of other Prime Ministers, and consider the value that former leaders can bring to the institution of Parliament.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

Peter Just’s new book, Margaret Thatcher: Life After Downing Street, explores the political afterlife of Margaret Thatcher, once she had left No. 10. Peter explains how Thatcher reinvented herself as a global political figure, championing British business abroad, and how she exerted a continued influence on domestic politics and parliamentary life.

We also compare her legacy with that of other ex-Prime Ministers, including the unusually active parliamentary role of Theresa May, and consider what value former Prime Ministers bring when they stay engaged in the work of Parliament.

Peter explains how, after her personally devastating departure, Thatcher built a new role with the support of trusted aides. Though her interventions in the House of Commons were rare, her mere presence in Parliament carried weight. She became a political irritant to John Major’s Government – encouraging rebels over Maastricht and criticising the Government’s policy on Bosnia – yet behind the scenes she was often a diplomatic and commercial asset.

____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we talk to political journalist Seb Whale about his new book The Usual Channels, which reveals the hidden world of Westminster’s whips. Seb charts how party discipline has evolved – from the stormy politics of the 1970s and the Maastricht battles of the 1990s to the legendary “black book,” the Brexit showdowns and the short-lived Liz Truss premiership. He explains how the whips’ office has adapted to a modern Parliament—especially with the influx of women MPs—and why, even today, whips still wield decisive influence over MPs’ careers and remain indispensable despite the pressures of contemporary politics.

___

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

Political journalist Seb Whale's new book, The Usual Channels: Inside the Mysterious World of Political Whips, takes us inside the famously secretive world of Westminster’s whips. It lifts the lid on how these behind-the-scenes powerbrokers have shaped British politics for decades.

Seb shares how he interviewed dozens of current and former whips to piece together the real story – tracking their evolution from the days of Humphrey Atkins, Walter Harrison and Jack Weatherill in the stormy 1974–79 Parliament, through the Maastricht battles of the 1990s, the Brexit upheavals under Theresa May and Boris Johnson, and the dramatic downfall of Liz Truss.

We explore how the arrival of many more women MPs under New Labour, the rise of social media, and a more independently minded generation of backbenchers have forced whips to adapt their tactics – without losing their grip on ministerial careers or party discipline. Seb also reveals the truth behind the legendary “black book” of MPs’ secrets and the enduring mix of “carrot and stick”.

The conversation highlights why the relationship between the Government whips’ office and Number 10 has been decisive – from Margaret Thatcher’s exit to Liz Truss’s collapse – and looks ahead to the whips’ future in a Commons marked by high turnover, a commanding majority and ever-fractious politics. Despite these pressures, Seb argues, the whips remain the unseen grease that keeps the machinery of Parliament running.

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has cleared another key hurdle: it was given a Second Reading in the House of Lords without a formal vote. But Peers have agreed to set up a special select committee to hear evidence from Ministers, professional bodies and legal experts before the Bill goes any further. That decision pushes the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny back to mid-November and could shape the Bill’s prospects in unexpected ways. In this episode we explore the procedural twists and political manoeuvring behind that decision.

 ___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

To help unpick what happened and what it all means, we are joined this week by Dr Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics at Queen Mary University of London and an authority on Private Members’ Bills, and Matthew England from the Hansard Society, whose briefings on the Bill have tracked everything from procedure to delegated powers.

The debate at Second Reading showcased powerful speeches and some striking personal interventions. Beyond the moral arguments, Peers zeroed in on the Bill’s constitutional and procedural implications – especially the sweeping delegated powers that drew sharp criticism from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lord Falconer, the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords, signalled his support for amendments to the Bill to address some of the Committee’s concerns.

The Government’s role also came under the spotlight. Some peers bristled at the cancellation of the Lords’ recess to complete the Second Reading debate, and critics accused ministers of tilting the timetable to favour the Bill. We consider whether those claims really hold up.

The biggest twist, though, was the compromise deal negotiated between Lord Falconer and Baroness Berger to establish a temporary select committee. It will gather evidence from ministers, the medical and legal professions and the hospice sector, and publish its findings by 7 November, far earlier than originally proposed.

Crucially, the committee will not be required to recommend whether the Bill should proceed or be amended, but the evidence it collects will frame the clause-by-clause scrutiny that is now expected to begin in mid-November, with four sittings scheduled before Christmas. The committee’s membership and witness list are still to be decided, but the stage is set for a short, sharp inquiry whose findings could shape the next—and most testing—phase of this landmark legislation.

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Peers embark on a marathon two-day Second Reading debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – the measure that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – we are joined by former Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir David Beamish, to decode the drama. With more than two hundred members of the House of Lords lining up to speak, Sir David explains why, despite the intensity of the arguments, no one expects the Bill to be rejected at this stage. Instead, the real fight will come later, after Peers get into the clause-by-clause detail and see what defects can be remedied.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

We look ahead to the second half of the Second Reading debate next week to unpack the procedural chess moves. One amendment calls for a special select committee to examine the issue in depth, but there’s a risk that such a referral – while attractive in principle – would delay progress and could be seen as an attempt to derail the bill altogether. We also discuss a constitutional concern: the bill’s heavy use of delegated legislation, including “Henry VIII powers” allowing ministers to amend primary legislation by delegated legislation which is subject to less parliamentary scrutiny. Critical reports from the Delegated Powers and Constitution Committees have already put ministers on notice, and even the bill’s sponsor, Lord Falconer, concedes that some amendments will be unavoidable.

It has been a tumultuous political week, which has seen the departure of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, and Britain’s Ambassador to Washington, Lord Mandelson, as well as a major ministerial reshuffle. Ruth and Mark look at the implications for Parliament. Will Lord Mandelson return to the House of Lords? Will the churn amongst ministers and the appointment of a new generation of MPs to posts in government disrupt the scrutiny of legislation and the work of select committees? And amidst increasing mutterings against Sir Keir Starmer, how might backbench Labour discontent manifest itself in the House of Commons?

____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Does Parliament itself lie at the root of some of Britain’s political and economic difficulties? Lord Goodman argues that it does and so makes the case for urgent parliamentary reform. This week we also examine the implications of a Downing Street reshuffle that has created a “Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister,” raising new questions about accountability in the Commons. The discussion ranges from Angela Rayner’s uncertain position, Nigel Farage’s controversial US appearance, and the Greens’ leadership contest, to the growing use of artificial intelligence in parliamentary work.

______

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

______

This week we ponder the creation of a post unprecedented in modern government: Darren Jones as Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. Ruth and Mark analyse what this role might mean for scrutiny, Commons procedure, and the balance of power at the heart of government, particularly with Angela Rayner’s future unresolved. From there, they turn to Nigel Farage’s decision to criticise Britain’s free speech laws before a US Congressional committee – an intervention that may weaken rather than strengthen his position – and to the Greens’ choice of a leader outside Westminster, with all the opportunities and risks that entails.

They also consider how artificial intelligence is beginning to shape the way MPs work, from the appearance of formulaic phrases in Hansard to pilot schemes using AI tools for correspondence and drafting.

Finally, in an extended interview, Conservative peer Lord Paul Goodman argues that economic renewal cannot be achieved without reforming Parliament itself: fewer, better-prepared bills, more serious scrutiny, and more experienced Ministers, including some drawn from outside Parliament.

_____ 

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Every Wednesday at noon, the House of Commons chamber comes alive with Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), the loudest, most theatrical half-hour in British politics. To some it’s democratic accountability; to others, a raucous playground of yah-boo antics. Loved and loathed in equal measure, PMQs is Parliament’s weekly shop window, offering a revealing glimpse of how Britain does politics. In this episode, we explore its history, purpose, and international impact, including why France briefly trialled it last year only to drop the idea.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

Each week, Prime Minister’s Questions turns Westminster into a spectacle of jeers, cheers, and gladiatorial verbal combat. Is it serious accountability, or just political theatre?

Joining us this week is Dr Ruxandra Serban, Lecturer in Comparative Politics at UCL, whose research compares PMQs with questioning sessions around the world.

Together, we explore:

• why it matters that the Prime Minister faces MPs each week;
• how PMQs evolved from dry “engagements questions” into today’s noisy clash;
• what the public really thinks of when they watch MPs jeering, cheering and point-scoring; and
• whether PMQs could ever change, or if the ritual is too entrenched.

Dr Serban also explains how other countries view Westminster’s weekly spectacle – sometimes as a model of democratic accountability, sometimes as a cautionary tale. She compares PMQs with similar sessions in Canada, Australia, and Ireland, and reflects on why France’s National Assembly briefly adopted its own PMQs-style experiment in 2024, before quietly abandoning it months later.

___

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Friday 12 September, the House of Lords will debate the Bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. We explore what lies ahead for the Bill in the Upper House with Sir David Beamish, former Clerk of the Parliaments – the Lords’ most senior official. Sharing an insider’s guide to the Chamber’s unique, self-regulating procedures, Sir David explains how the legislative process differs from the Commons, and what that could mean for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’s potentially long and contested passage.

____

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

____

The process may look similar to that in the Commons, with a Second Reading debate, Committee and Report stages and then a Third Reading, but the way Peers handle legislation is very different. The Lords is a self-regulating House, with no Speaker to select amendments or decide who speaks next. Instead, a largely invisible web of conventions shapes proceedings and guides behaviour. Sir David predicts these customs, reinforced by “peer pressure”, will discourage maverick Peers from filibustering or using procedural tricks to block the bill.

Nonetheless, the bill’s progress in the Upper House could be long and demanding. Past assisted dying bills have drawn huge speakers’ lists, marathon debates and a flood of amendments. This one already has 88 Peers signed up to speak at Second Reading on 12 September, with more likely to join in the remaining days before the debate. Significant amendments – particularly on constitutional questions, delegated powers and safeguards – are likely. Any such changes would send the Bill back to the Commons for at least one, and potentially several, rounds of parliamentary “ping-pong”.

Sir David explains the timetabling challenges, the scrutiny role of the Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the informal but powerful influence of Peers with critical areas of expertise. From seasoned legal voices to vocal campaigners on both sides, the debate will cut across party lines, test the chamber’s self-regulating culture, and could keep Peers engaged in lengthy Friday sittings for many months to come.

____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we speak with historian Jonathan Healey about one of the most extraordinary days in parliamentary history when King Charles I entered the Commons Chamber with soldiers aiming to arrest five MPs. This dramatic moment, vividly recounted in Healey’s new book The Blood in Winter, marked a crucial turning point toward civil war. We explore the power struggles, propaganda, and the geography that shaped the fate of a nation and the Westminster Parliament.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

January 4th, 1642: King Charles I enters the House of Commons with armed soldiers to arrest five MPs – Pym, Hampden, Haselrig, Holles, and Strode. It's a scene etched into British constitutional memory, echoed today in the symbolic slamming of the Commons’ door during the State Opening of Parliament. But what led to this unprecedented royal intrusion?

In this special Summer recess episode, we are joined by historian Professor Jonathan Healey, author of The Blood in Winter: A Nation Descends 1642, to unpack the political, legal and emotional drama behind that fateful day.

We explore the rising tensions over Parliament’s role in securing consent for taxation to fund the King’s wars, controversial religious reform, and the escalating political crisis – including the moment when MPs used the parliamentary process to force Charles to agree to the execution of his powerful ally and chief enforcer, the Earl of Strafford. Healey reveals how political passions were stirred by the new technology of pamphlet-printing, city mobs, and the role of the great nobles in backing MPs who resisted the King.

Jonathan also sheds light on the crucial role geography played in 17th century Westminster, with the royal palace of Whitehall just a short walk from Parliament, and both set along a public thoroughfare that left them exposed to rioting crowds from the City of London.

We learn about Speaker William Lenthall’s defiant stand, the fate of the elusive five MPs, and how figures like John Pym and Denzil Holles helped redraw the lines between Crown and Commons. Plus, a look at how near-unknown backbencher Oliver Cromwell was just beginning to appear on the scene.

It’s a gripping account of how political missteps and personal rivalries pushed the nation to civil war and shaped the parliamentary democracy we have today.

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week we examine one of the most troubling intersections of Government secrecy, national security, and parliamentary accountability in recent memory. Thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces were placed at risk of Taliban revenge attacks after a catastrophic Government data leak in 2022 exposed their details. In response, ministers secured a “super-injunction” – so secret that even its existence could not be reported – effectively silencing public debate and preventing parliamentary scrutiny for almost two years. The breach, only revealed this week, has already cost taxpayers millions of pounds as part of a covert resettlement scheme. Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg joins us to unpack the legal and constitutional ramifications.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey.

___

Joshua Rozenberg explains the legal context to the granting of the super-injunction and how it persisted under both Conservative and Labour governments. We discuss how parliamentary privilege meant those MPs aware of the breach could have raised the issues in the House of Commons Chamber because they were protected by parliamentary privilege, but any MP who knew about the issue would have had to weigh national security concerns and respect for the courts against their right to free speech.

This case raises profound questions about ministerial accountability to Parliament. In light of the constitutional implications, we discuss whether the chairs of key select committees should in future be confidentially briefed when national security results in court action that blocks normal parliamentary scrutiny processes in order to provide some degree of democratic oversight. We also explore the political and constitutional fallout: How many current and former MPs were subject to the super-injunction? Was the National Audit Office subject to the super-injunction and was it made aware of the costs of the secret Afghan relocation programme? Should there be a new Joint Committee of both Houses or a sub-committee of the overarching Liaison Committee to look at the issues and draw the constitutional threads together? The case was not raised at Prime Ministers Questions so is there a risk that MPs will simply shrug off such a significant breach of accountability? And has this set a precedent for future governments to shield embarrassing or costly errors behind injunctions?

Sticking to the theme of parliamentary privilege we also discuss the sensitive issue of whether unpublished evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2009 should be released to the Omagh bombing inquiry. Joshua Rozenberg explains how parliamentary privilege protects witnesses who give evidence to MPs, allowing them to speak freely, often in confidence.

We then turn to other parliamentary controversies, including Labour’s decision to withdraw the whip from welfare rebels. Will this help Keir Starmer to restore his authority or deepen internal rifts within his party? And we discuss the Government’s plan to lower the voting age to 16, a move some hail as democratic renewal while others question whether it will truly engage younger voters.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy & Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In our 100th episode, we take stock of Parliament one year after the 2024 general election. With a fractured opposition, a dominant Labour government, and a House of Commons still governed by rules designed for a two-party system, how well is this new Parliament really functioning?

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

___

We examine the rise in political defections — is this the social media age at work, making it easier for MPs to leave their parties and harder for party leaders to keep control?

One year after the King’s Speech, we also explore how Keir Starmer’s government is echoing the habits of its predecessors—rushing through vague “skeleton bills” that grant ministers wide powers with little oversight. Meanwhile, MPs continue to be sidelined from properly scrutinising major international agreements, and Parliament still lacks a mechanism for keeping track of the UK’s evolving relationship with the EU.

This episode looks ahead at the challenges facing scrutiny and accountability as 10% budget cuts loom across the Commons. We reflect on the experiences of a new generation of MPs — many frustrated by outdated rules, creaking infrastructure, and a political culture badly in need of renewal.

Can the House of Commons modernise itself before crisis forces change? Plus: the assisted dying bill as a crash course in lawmaking for new MPs, and why Prime Minister’s Questions remains as theatrical — and infuriating — as ever.

___

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Has the Government’s complacency in managing Parliament finally caught up with it? It’s been a difficult week for Ministers, as a backbench Labour revolt forced a dramatic U-turn on plans to cut billions from Personal Independence Payments. With Rachel Reeves’ financial strategy in tatters, questions are mounting about Keir Starmer’s authority — and whether weak parliamentary management is to blame. We explore how it all went wrong, what it reveals about No.10’s approach to Parliament, and what needs to change to stop further unravelling.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

___

Is the Government missing its last chance at real House of Lords reform? As Ministers push ahead with plans to remove the remaining hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, new polling from the Constitution Unit at UCL suggests the public wants more ambitious change. Professor Meg Russell joins us to warn that the current legislation could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact deeper reforms — including curbing the Prime Minister’s power to appoint new Peers and reducing the overall size of the House of Lords.

Plus, church and state collide over assisted dying in Dorking. Liberal Democrat MP Chris Coughlan has been barred from receiving communion at his local Catholic church due to his support for Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Is this an unacceptable case of religious interference in politics, or simply the inevitable fallout when faith and legislation collide? Ruth and Mark explore the implications and ponder the precedents from both Britain and the United States.

Finally, we tackle listeners’ questions on why primary legislation was needed to implement the Government’s welfare reforms, inquorate votes in the House of Lords, the ability of Peers to amend the assisted dying bill and the mysterious books beside the Mace.

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We are joined this week by two guests who bring invaluable insight into the intersection of health policy and parliamentary life. Dr. Sarah Wollaston and Steve Brine – both former MPs, health policy experts, and co-hosts of the podcast Prevention is the New Cure – share their experiences of how the House of Commons handles health and social care.

__

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

Both chaired the Commons Health Select Committee during their time in Parliament, and both bring broader career experience: Sarah as a former GP and Steve as a former Health Minister. They offer a candid and often striking comparison between GP surgeries and MP surgeries, revealing how health and social care concerns often dominate the concerns constituents bring to their representatives. Their experiences underscore how central the NHS is to public life and how fraught it is in political terms.

We explore the dangers MPs face when navigating NHS policy, particularly around controversial local hospital closures and service changes. Steve recounts his own strategic focus on healthcare in Winchester and the delicate balance between constituency advocacy and ministerial responsibility. While Sarah shares her frustration with the legislative process, particularly during the Lansley reforms, when her medical expertise was side-lined by the party whips.

The conversation moves to Labour’s current proposals for NHS reform. Our guests reflect on the gap between political rhetoric and delivery, particularly the challenge of achieving meaningful change in a system under financial and structural pressure.

Turning to the role of Parliament, Sarah and Steve reflect on the importance – and limits – of select committees in influencing policy. Drawing on their own time as committee chairs, they describe the committee corridor as one of the few places in Parliament where serious scrutiny and cross-party collaboration take place. Yet they also lament MPs broader failure to engage seriously with evidence or exercise proper scrutiny of departmental spending.

Finally, as more than 100 Labour MPs signal a potential rebellion over proposed cuts to Personal Independence Payments, we explore the culture of dissent at Westminster. Steve and Sarah – both with a track record of principled rebellion – offer advice to the new intake of MPs weighing loyalty against conscience. Their message is clear: in the long run, the votes you regret are the ones where you didn’t make a stand.

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, we reflect on a landmark moment in UK parliamentary history: the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons, moving one step closer to legalising assisted dying in England and Wales. We are joined once again by former House of Commons Clerk Paul Evans to examine how this Private Member’s Bill navigated the political and procedural obstacles in its path and to explore what lies ahead in the House of Lords.

__

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

We start with the numbers: 605 MPs took part in the Third Reading vote, an exceptionally high turnout for a Private Member’s Bill, signalling the seriousness of the issue. With a majority of 23, the Bill now advances to the House of Lords, but not without questions over the opposition’s next moves and whether the unelected chamber will respect the will of the Commons, or obstruct the Bill’s path?  

This historic moment wasn’t achieved by debate alone. It was the product of a quiet but coordinated effort to protect parliamentary time and avoid the procedural ambushes that often beset Private Members’ Bills. Other backbench sponsors of Private Members Bills temporarily stood aside to give the assisted dying bill a clear route through, critics refrained from procedural sabotage, and the Speaker and his deputies helped shape a timetable, ensuring MPs knew when decisions would be made.

Now the focus turns to the Lords, where the Bill may face its toughest challenges yet. Will Peers accept that the principle of assisted dying has been established by the elected House, and limit themselves to scrutiny and amendment of the details? Or could opponents attempt to delay or even derail the Bill entirely? We explore the possible scenarios and the constitutional, political, and procedural stakes in each case.

We also look at how the extensive scrutiny of the assisted dying Bill contrasts sharply with the swift and limited debate on abortion decriminalisation earlier this week – an issue settled via a backbench amendment to the Police and Crime Bill that was debated for just 45 minutes.

Finally, we consider what this might mean for the bigger picture. If this Bill is indeed the most far-reaching social reform since the 1967 Abortion Act, might it be the harbinger of a new wave of legislation promoting further social change?

____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Gareth Jones

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we return to the Commons Chamber for day two of the Report Stage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — the Private Member’s Bill proposing to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – and another set of amendments, new clauses and votes. For the first time the supporters of the Bill lost a vote, on a new clause banning medical practitioners from raising the option of an assisted death with under-18s.

__________

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

__________

So, what does this mean for the Bill’s chances? With day three of Report Stage now scheduled for Friday, 20 June, Parliament Matters’ resident procedural expert Paul Evans joins Ruth and Mark to unpack what’s happened so far — and what might be coming next. Is parliamentary support beginning to waver?

They also look ahead to the Third Reading debate, and the quirky (and very real) parliamentary rituals that would follow if the Bill passes — involving a green ferret and some Norman French.

Plus, MPs John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn complain after facing investigation for joining a pro-Palestinian demonstration. They claim the police said that MPs should be held to a higher legal standard than ordinary citizens – raising troubling constitutional questions. Could this be a case of using the law to intimidate parliamentarians? If so, what can and should be done?

__________

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Another big Government announcement – and another row in the Commons row about why it wasn’t made to MPs first. We look at why ministers keep breaking their own Ministerial Code by choosing to make important announcements to the media instead of in the Chamber – and wonder whether, in a shifting media landscape, they might be less likely to muddle their message if they returned to delivering statements on major issues like their Strategic Defence Review from the Despatch Box.

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Also in this episode:

The Lords vs the Tech Lords: the Data Use and Access Bill has become the focus of a prolonged tug-of-war between the House of Lords and the Commons. At the heart of the dispute is whether tech companies should be allowed to use content to train artificial intelligence systems without compensating the original creators. Peers in the Lords have repeatedly amended the bill to protect creators copyright by requiring payment and safeguards, only for the Government to reject those changes in the Commons. As the Lords look set to concede, Ruth and Mark explore what this clash reveals about the limits of the upper chamber’s influence — and the growing political weight of Big Tech.

Critics claim the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill hasn't had enough scrutiny. Armed with figures comparing the times spent debating other legislation, Ruth and Mark reject the claim that the Bill has been under-debated compared to other legislation. The problem, they argue, is that Westminster’s law-making processes are generally ineffective and badly in need of an upgrade.

A Speaker’s Conference is digging into how to improve security for MPs and candidates. Ninety six percent of MPs say they have personally experienced threatening behaviour during their time in office. But tackling political intimidation is anything but straightforward. Ruth and Mark unpack the Conference’s interim findings and recommendations — and explore where its spotlight will fall next.

_____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.