As calls grow louder for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, we talk with Parliament’s in-house human rights watchdog: Lord Alton of Liverpool, Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. A former Liberal MP who now serves as a crossbench peer, Lord Alton was an unexpected choice to lead the Committee – traditionally chaired by a member of the House of Commons, and usually by a party politician. But his tireless advocacy on human rights around the world, especially his campaigning against China’s treatment of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, has earned him widespread respect across the political spectrum and many cross-party allies.
In a wide-ranging conversation, Lord Alton talks about his ongoing push for a “Hillsborough Law” to impose a duty of candour on public officials involved in future disasters, to prevent cover-ups. He also discusses his Committee's work on the new Mental Health Bill, and his efforts to ensure the government’s flagship green energy initiative, Great British Energy, does not spend public money on equipment like solar panels that are made with forced labour.
Meanwhile, it's been all quiet on the assisted dying bill front at Westminster this week, but not in the Scottish Parliament. Ruth and Mark discuss how the approach to a Members Bill on assisted dying in Edinburgh compares favourably to the handling of Kim Leadbeater’s Private Members Bill at Westminster.
Plus, the appointment of a new Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod brings back memories for Mark of how this key House of Lords official has found themselves caught up at the centre of political controversies in the recent past.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
David Alton became the youngest member of the House of Commons when he won the Liverpool Edge Hill by-election for the Liberal Party in March 1979. He was re-elected just weeks later in the general election and went on to represent Liverpool as an MP for the Liberals, and later the Liberal Democrats. He became particularly known for his opposition to abortion – a stance that often put him at odds with his party. In 1987 he introduced a private member’s bill seeking to reduce the legal time limit for abortion from 28 weeks to 18 weeks. Although the bill passed its Second Reading in 1988 it was talked out and did not become law. After standing down from the Commons in 1997, he renounced his party allegiance and, as Lord Alton of Liverpool, joined the Crossbenchers in the House of Lords. Following the 2024 general election, he was elected Chair of Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Parliament
Scottish Parliament
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Stage 1 report on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill
Assisted Dying Bill news release - 30 April 2025
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.
Ruth Fox: Coming up in this week's episode, Parliament's human rights watchdog on when to growl, when to bark, and when to bite.
Mark D'Arcy: A new Black Rod takes charge in the Palace of Westminster,
Ruth Fox: And it's all quiet on the assisted dying front in Westminster, but not in the Scottish Parliament.
Mark D'Arcy: And first Ruth, let's talk about human rights. There's a regular drumbeat of criticism at the moment and human rights rulings, particularly to do with immigration cases, but on plenty of other subjects as well, attacks on [00:01:00] the whole concept of the UK being signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, which remember, British lawyers were actually instrumental in drafting after the Second World War and also on judges and the rulings that they've been making.
And it's an issue that's beginning to go to the heart of all sorts of questions about the way the rule of law works in this country. So we thought it was a good moment to go and talk to Parliament's in-house human rights watchdog, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is a committee of both MPs and peers, a select committee, and it's chaired by a slightly surprising person, Lord Alton. Lord Alton was once David Alton, a Liberal MP who was elected in 1979, who eventually left the House of Commons and a bit later on became a non-aligned non-party peer and has carved out quite a role for himself on all sorts of human rights issues, and also looking at things like the influence of China.
When we talked to him in the Palace of Westminster amid the occasional clank of scaffolding and the odd helicopter going past and so forth, so apologies [00:02:00] for the noises off, we began by asking him about what he's perceived to be the Government's attitude to human rights law.
A lot of governments start to chafe at the effect of human rights decisions that cause them a bit of trouble. His committee's just spoken to the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, and before that to the Attorney General Lord Hermer. So did he detect perhaps just the start of an irritation with human rights law from those very senior figures?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I think that they ...
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.
