In this episode, we discuss a variety of intriguing questions from listeners about the traditions and inner workings of Parliament. Topics include conduct in the Commons chamber, the practice of whipped votes, the origins of the Private Members' Bill ballot, and the unusual presence of ministers on select committees. We also discuss why MPs often refer to question numbers rather than asking questions directly in the Chamber, and consider the prospects for a future House of Lords committee dedicated to scrutinising EU-related issues affecting Northern Ireland.
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.
Parliamentary etiquette in the House of Commons chamber
The role of whipped votes in opposition
Why a Treasury Minister is a member of the Public Accounts Committee
The history of the Private Members’ Bill ballot
Why MPs read out the number, rather than the text of their question in the Commons Chamber
A proposal for a new House of Lords Committee on scrutiny of Northern Ireland issues
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There are consequently minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.
[00:00:00] Intro: You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.
[00:00:17] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.
[00:00:23] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark Darcy. And this is one of our special Urgent Question editions, where we deal with questions sent in by listeners to the main podcast. So Ruth, what have we got?
[00:00:33] Ruth Fox: Well, Mark, our first question is, it's anonymous, they haven't put their name to it, and I'm not sure it's really a question, perhaps more of a critique of our discussion recently about etiquette in the House of Commons chamber. So anonymous says, "listening to your podcast on chamber etiquette was pretty infuriating".
[00:00:53] I'm not sure whether he's - he or she - is infuriated by what we were saying or by the etiquette itself or both but he says, she says, "they all did normal jobs before becoming MPs. In no normal job would they sit five hours with no food, drink or break in order to make a three minute speech on something they are expert on, only to be cut off by the speaker at one minute past three.
[00:01:15] Who cares about looking smart and not using "you" in the chamber? But people should care about the insane waste of everybody's time, that's how debates work, and the snobbishness about doing other work on the phone while waiting their turn. Of course they have to do other work during those four hours and 57 minutes they've got to sit in the chamber."
00:01:32] He also makes the point, and I think on this he or she is right, "you're also out of date on the use of honourable and gallant. Labour MPs are conspicuously using it now to refer to the large number of new Labour MPs with military ties." I think he's probably right on that. Parliamentary etiquette rules say it's fallen out of favour but they have been using it a little bit more because Labour's got so many military related MPs.
Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.
In this fourth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we take you inside the Public Bill Committee as it scrutinises the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - a landmark proposal seeking to legalise assisted dying. The Committee is in full swing, debating amendments, and tensions are running high. We sit down with Sarah Olney MP, a key player in the discussions, to unpack the latest developments.
In this episode we dissect the fallout from Labour’s WhatsApp purge following the Andrew Gwynne affair and what it means for political communication at Westminster. We also explore the latest news from the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, discussing its focus on improving accessibility to Parliament, legislative scrutiny, and the debate over MPs holding second jobs.
The assisted dying bill (Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill) is now at the Committee stage, where a Public Bill Committee reviews the bill clause by clause. This briefing outlines the Committee’s role, how MPs propose changes to the bill and where these are published, how the Chair selects and groups amendments, and how these are debated and voted on.
The assisted dying bill is about to undergo detailed scrutiny by the Public Bill Committee - a group of 23 MPs tasked with reviewing the Bill’s text and proposing amendments to refine and improve it. But what exactly happens during this amendment process? Former House of Commons Clerk, Paul Evans CBE, breaks it down. Plus, we hear from Dr Ben Spencer MP, a former consultant psychiatrist turned parliamentarian, who has proposed dozens of amendments to the Bill.
Stay informed with updates and analysis on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill as it moves through Parliament. Learn about the debates, procedures, decisions, and key milestones shaping the assisted dying legislation.
