Reshaping procedure: Exploring new ideas for improving parliamentary practices
4 min read
When you hear the word ‘procedure’ you probably think of standing orders, Erskine May and the MPs’ Guide to Procedure. But the Procedure Committee’s remit goes far beyond that.
It covers everything we do: when we meet, the way MPs vote, the flow of our parliamentary debates. The conduct of parliamentary business matters because it affects how we carry out our duties as elected representatives. This new Parliament brought not only 335 new MPs but also many new ideas along with it, as reflected in the various submissions made to the Modernisation Committee. Some of these ideas overlap with our committee’s focuses.
Take proxy voting, for example. The temporary arrangements – which lapse at the end of the current parliamentary session – allow MPs to cast a vote when they are experiencing a serious long-term illness or injury that prevents them from voting in person. We are currently considering whether these arrangements should be made permanent, and whether they operate in a way that is compassionate to individual circumstances, while also encouraging continued participation in proceedings and attendance on the estate.
On the broader theme of modernisation, we also want to look at how we do debates. As such, we have opened an inquiry into call lists – or speaker lists – and their possible use. Call lists are currently employed by other legislatures to give certainty over timings, and they allow elected representatives to better plan their days and weeks. They were also used by the House during the pandemic to manage the choreography of debates in virtual and hybrid proceedings, with mixed views on their effectiveness. Some argue they curb the flow of natural debate, reduce participation in the chamber and restrict the kind of discussion that is so core to what the Commons is known for, both at home and around the world. We are going to see what the pros and cons are in this debate.
Advertising Revenue helps fund our journalism.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker.
Eagle-eyed select committee chair contest followers would have spotted my campaign pledge to clamp down on excessive electioneering and canvassing by candidates
Another new feature of this Parliament is the record number of independent MPs elected to the Commons. The new Independent Alliance informed the Speaker they would be operating in the House as a ‘technical group’, but this doesn’t necessarily give them the same benefits in parliamentary proceedings as being a registered political party. Moreover, recent parliaments have seen many more independent MPs sitting than at any given time before, with losing the whip happening much more frequently than in the past. How, then, should these MPs be referred to in Hansard, to be sufficiently distinguished from those elected as ‘independents’? Our inquiry into the status of independent MPs will explore this further.
Eagle-eyed select committee chair contest followers would have spotted my campaign pledge to clamp down on excessive electioneering and canvassing by candidates. I am sure I was not the only MP to receive dozens of flyers through my office door and endless WhatsApp messages and emails. While these elections matter greatly to the proper functioning of our democracy, we need to ensure they are properly regulated. We are also now 15 years on from the Wright report reforms on committee chair and deputy speaker elections and now feels as good a time as any to review current rules on internal House elections to make sure they are working for MPs and for the public.
All of this continues alongside our regular work of examining the timeliness and quality of responses to written parliamentary questions, and our accountability sessions with the Leader of the House. Of course, any of our recommendations will need to be approved by the House, but we play an important role in starting and guiding those conversations that can lead to updating our procedures and a more effective, efficient way of running Parliament. In all these discussions, we warmly welcome the views of colleagues across the House and procedural experts more broadly to ensure that our chamber operates in the best possible way.
