Parliament Matters

The Government has announced that the State Opening of Parliament and King’s Speech will take place on Wednesday 13 May - just as we predicted last Autumn!

However, Ministers have not confirmed when prorogation – marking the end of the current Session – will take place. It is likely to be the last week in April but could slip into the week of the local elections. That means when Parliament returns after the Easter recess there will potentially be just 12 sitting days left for the Government to get all its remaining Bills through to Royal Assent, a period of legislative scramble known as the “wash-up”.

This week Mark and Ruth are joined by the Hansard Society’s researcher, Matthew England, to explore the legislative loose ends still hanging in the balance. Any Bills not agreed by both the Commons and the Lords before the Session ends will fall — raising the stakes for last-minute negotiations.

The pressure is on. Peers have made significant amendments on a range of high-profile issues, including revenge porn, restricting social media access for under-16s, victims’ access to court transcripts, and AI and online safety. This is the House of Lords’ moment of maximum leverage – so expect intense deal-making and potential Government concessions.

But there’s also high political drama in play. Will opposition in the Lords kill the Bill to implement the UK’s treaty to transfer the Chagos Islands – home to the strategically vital Diego Garcia airbase – to Mauritius? Might the Government try and revive it later using the Parliament Act – or quietly let it drift?

And what about the Hillsborough Law , now stranded in the Commons? While the Government could carry it over into the next Session, unresolved questions remain – particularly whether a “duty of candour” should apply to the security services. Could failure to pass the Bill this Session come at a political cost for the Prime Minister?

We then turn to listener questions where we:
explain what a “dilatory motion” is;
explore what’s happening with the stalled Northern Ireland Troubles Bill;
discuss retirements from the House of Lords;
break down how select committee chairs and members are chosen; and
debate whether Parliament should move out of Westminster.

Finally, why are MPs asking so many more Written Parliamentary Questions than before? Is it ambitious new MPs – or even AI tools like ChatGPT? Drawing on new data and analysis, Matthew digs into what’s driving the surge, what it means for parliamentary scrutiny, and whether the system needs reform.
____
🎓 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.

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood MP, is planning sweeping changes to the immigration system. So, this week we put immigration law under the microscope. Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council joins us to explain how major shifts to refugees’ rights, settlement routes and visa rules can be pushed through using Immigration Rules, with Parliament left largely powerless to influence or block them.

Meanwhile, in the House of Lords, Peers are wrestling with the ever-growing Crime and Policing Bill - a legislative “Christmas tree” laden with policy baubles covering everything from abortion to terrorism proscription to artificial intelligence. We explore why Ministers want broad new powers to rewrite the Online Safety Act by regulation to tackle AI harms, and why efforts to overturn a Commons amendment to decriminalise women who have a late-term abortion failed despite concerns about a lack of scrutiny.

And with the assisted dying bill set to run out of time in the Lords, Labour MP Peter Prinsley discusses his initiative to persuade the Prime Minister to back efforts to secure time for a renewed attempt to bring back the bill in the next Session and the possibility of using the Parliament Act to force it through if necessary.
_____

🎓 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.

The Government’s plan to restrict the right to a jury trial for certain defendants cleared its Second Reading in the Commons this week – but the fight is far from over. The proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill are already provoking fierce criticism, including from a determined group of Labour backbenchers.

To explore what’s at stake, we speak to barrister and former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. We explore why legal experts are alarmed by the changes, what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system, and whether Ministers might yet be forced into compromise.

Meanwhile, the Bill to remove hereditary Peers from Parliament has now passed through the Lords. We examine the late-stage deal that helped ease opposition in the Upper House, while Mark takes aim at what he calls the “total bosh” used to defend hereditary seats, dismissing it as little more than romantic nostalgia.

This week the Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has also been in combative form. He has once again rebuked ministers for briefing the media before informing MPs, ordered a member out of Prime Minister’s Questions, and publicly criticised the Government’s Chief Whip. His anger follows an extraordinary Commons episode in which Government whips reportedly stretched out a vote to prevent the Conservatives securing a vote on a Statutory Instrument. One member apparently feigned illness in the voting lobby while MPs in the Chamber audibly counted down to the cut off time for another vote – the “moment of interruption” – at 7pm. The Speaker is now demanding apologies and even hinting that Government whips might need a refresher on how to manage parliamentary business.

And finally, the Government has begun releasing official papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington. Do the documents support the Prime Minister’s version of events – or raise new questions that could deepen his ongoing leadership troubles?
____

🎓 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 continue our special series tracking the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Private Member’s Bill that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.

With Committee Stage in the House of Lords progressing slowly – and time in the parliamentary Session running out – we talk to Conservative Peer Lord Harper, a prominent opponent of the legislation and one of the Peers who has been heavily involved in the lengthy Committee debates.

Critics argue that the scale of amendments and extended scrutiny in the Lords amounts to a filibuster designed to run down the clock. Harper rejects that characterisation. He insists that Peers are fulfilling their constitutional role as a revising chamber by probing serious flaws in the Bill and raising concerns about safeguards for vulnerable and disabled people.

Harper argues that the Bill – unusually large and complex for a Private Member’s Bill – arrived in the Lords in poor shape after too many issues were left unresolved in the Commons. He contends that organisations ranging from medical royal colleges to disability groups believe the legislation lacks adequate protections.

In his view, the real problem lies with the legislative process itself: a measure with major implications for the NHS, the courts and devolved governance should have been introduced as a Government bill following full consultation and more detailed policy development before reaching Parliament.

Our conversation explores whether the Lords’ scrutiny amounts to legitimate legislative examination or procedural obstruction. Ruth and Mark press him on the fact the tactics used by opponents are in practice preventing the Lords from ever reaching the stage of making actual changes to the Bill. They explore the limits of the Private Member’s Bill process, and what might happen next – including the possibility that MPs could attempt to revive the legislation in a future Session and even use the Parliament Acts to force it through.

As the Bill’s prospects hang in the balance, the episode examines what this contentious debate reveals about Parliament’s procedures, political strategy, and the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising major social 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.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox
Producer: Richard Townsend
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What role does Parliament play when the UK is involved in military action? In this week’s episode, we explore the evolving practice of parliamentary war powers, sparked by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s response to recent military developments in Iran and the Middle East, where defensive action was authorised before any Commons statement or vote.

We discuss the royal prerogative, the uncertain post-Iraq convention on parliamentary debate before offensive military action, and whether a meaningful distinction exists between defensive and offensive military action. We also examine new legislative attempts to codify Parliament’s role and the political and military realities that shape whether MPs get a say.

Plus, we discuss the long-running constitutional saga over hereditary peers, as the House of Lords prepares to consider Commons amendments to the Bill to oust the hereditaries at the end of this parliamentary Session. The Government has unexpectedly published a Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill which would increase the number of paid ministers in the House of Lords. This may be linked to the amendment in the Hereditary Peers Bill originally proposed by the Conservative Peer, Lord True, that would prohibit future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of the Upper House. It is possible that the ministerial salaries legislation is being synchronised to ease the passage of the Hereditary Peers Bill.

Along the way we also touch on MPs’ pay which is on track to top £100K by the end of the Parliament, staff funding tensions, defence estimates scrutiny, and what the Spring Statement tells us about the government’s economic direction.
_____

🎓 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.