In this first "mini pod" of a series exploring one of the most controversial bills currently before Parliament — the proposed legislation to legalise assisted dying — Ruth Fox and Mark D’Arcy delve into the heated debates surrounding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This Private Member’s Bill has already ignited passionate discussions during its first Public Bill Committee sitting.
Ruth shares her first-hand account of attending the Committee’s initial meeting, where disagreements over procedural matters — such as whether to hold private discussions about witness lists and sitting times — set a combative tone for what promises to be a challenging legislative journey.
Together, Mark and Ruth unpack the unique hurdles faced by this Private Member’s Bill. Unlike government-sponsored legislation, it lacks co-ordination by party Whips, leaving MPs to navigate disputes independently. One major point of contention? The selection of witnesses, which has sparked accusations of bias. From the Royal College of Psychiatrists to international experts, the process of choosing who gets to testify has become a lightning rod for criticism.
Adding to the intrigue, the Government claims it is ‘neutral’ on the issue, leaving it to Parliament to decide. But how neutral is it really? Ministers on the Public Bill Committee participated in a key division, raising questions about their impartiality. And by tabling a money motion to fund the Bill’s implementation — despite uncertainty over the potential costs — have Ministers signed a blank cheque? And when will MPs and the public see an Impact Assessment?
With emotions running high, this debate — focused on profound life-and-death decisions — is set to dominate parliamentary discourse in the weeks ahead. Join us as we navigate the complexities of this contentious and deeply personal piece of legislation.
Hansard Society
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be 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.
[00:00:16] 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 D'Arcy. And welcome to our first mini pod in a series dedicated to the most controversial law currently before Parliament, the bill to legalise assisted dying.
[00:00:34] Ruth Fox: Yes, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is about to begin detailed scrutiny by a Public Bill Committee and even the preliminaries have been ominously difficult.
[00:00:49] Mark D'Arcy: And Ruth, you actually went along to that first Public Bill Committee sitting, not completely sure whether as a member of the general public you were even going to be allowed in because sometimes these preliminaries are conducted in private session rather than letting us members of the general public in.
[00:01:04] Ruth Fox: Yes, I mean there'd been speculation that it was going to be in private session, but it said on the parliamentary website it was public. I happened to be over there for another meeting earlier in the House of Lords, so I thought well, I'll pop my head in and see what's happening. So I went in and the public gallery was full, so 20-odd people sat at the back, and a very full turnout from the Committee.
[00:01:23] But I think it's fair to say the first skirmishes were somewhat tense.
[00:01:27] Mark D'Arcy: Yeah, I mean, the issue, first of all, dividing the Committee, was whether or not they should discuss the list of witnesses they were going to take in their first few hearings, because they're going to spend three days next week on taking evidence from witnesses, people like the British Medical Association, witnesses from countries where assisted dying has been legalised and they have all sorts of jurisdictions New Zealand, Australia, and the debate there was should they go into private session so that they could say things like oh such and such hasn't responded yet to our inquiries about whether they would give evidence. Or such and such just blathers and we'd rather have someone who's a bit more lucid. Those kind of discussions, which as I say, normally happen in private between the so called Usual Channels The government Whips and the opposition Whips normally agree these things in advance when it's a government bill. But this, of course, is not a government bill.
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.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
