The Government has published “emergency legislation” to block new sentencing guidelines. But why does Parliament have limited oversight of the Sentencing Council? Has heavy handed policing interfered with the work of an MP? What do disabled MPs make of Westminster - the building and the procedures? And after a 25-hour speech brought the US Senate to a halt, could it ever happen at Westminster?
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?
House of Commons
Sentencing Council
House of Commons Treasury Select Committee
Spring Statement 2025 (2 April 2025): Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP (Chancellor of the Exchequer at HM Treasury), Louise Tinsley (HM Treasury official), and William MacFarlane (HM Treasury official)
Spring Statement 2025 (1 April 2025): Paul Johnson (Institute for Fiscal Studies), Dr Jumana Saleheen (Vanguard Asset Management), and Ruth Curtice (Resolution Foundation)
House of Commons Modernisation Committee
Access to the House of Commons and its procedures (1 April 2025): Robert Halfon, Dr Marie Tidball MP, Sarah Bool MP, Steve Darling MP, and Marsha De Cordova MP.
CSPAN
United States Senate Session, 31 March 2025: Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) delivers the longest-ever Senate floor speech
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.
Intro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, A Hansard Society Production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm..
Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.
Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy. And coming up in this week's episode.
Ruth Fox: The sentencing mess. How the government got into a tangle about new criminal sentencing guidelines and how it plans to untangle it.
Mark D'Arcy: A matter of privilege. Is heavy handed policing interfering in the work of MPs?
Ruth Fox: And after a 25 hour speech brought the US Senate to a halt, could it ever happen at Westminster?
Mark D'Arcy: And Ruth, let's begin by talking about, as you described it, the sentencing mess. The Sentencing Council, the independent arms length body, [00:01:00] which to some extent has had outsourced to it the policy on how many years tariff there should be for a particular offender who's committed a particular crime, all sorts of issues of sentencing procedure, has basically landed the government in a very difficult position.
It's supposed to be an arm's length body, but it's now recommended something that's very, very uncomfortable for a government.
Ruth Fox: Yes. So what essentially it's done, uh, it has to consult on its guidelines, uh, periodically it held its consultation at the end of 2023, beginning of 2024. At the time, it was sort of passed over politically, both by the government and, and by the opposition.
Nobody really raised any questions about it.
Mark D'Arcy: Because this surfaced actually when the conservatives were still in government.
Ruth Fox: Yes.
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.
