Parliament’s baffling and inefficient customs must go
4 min read
As you’d expect, new MPs like me have been bombarded with information since the July election.
Most of it is vital for understanding how best I can stand up for my constituents in Parliament – how to ask questions and organise debates, for example. But we’ve also had a baffling number of traditions to get our heads around.
Some are harmless – personalised coat pegs on which MPs would have once hung their swords from before entering the Chamber. Physically forcing the Speaker into his or her seat upon election, as MPs apparently had to do in bygone times when being the liaison between Parliament and the monarch, came with the inherent risk of being beheaded, simply for being the bearer of bad news.
Some aspects of how Parliament works endanger trust in our democracy
But I and many of my colleagues have been shocked by the sheer inefficiency of many of Parliament’s quirks and customs.
‘Bobbing’ – attempting to catch the eye of the Speaker by standing up in the Chamber does not feel like an appropriate way of trying to raise my constituents’ issues. The order paper slates far too many people to ask questions, including a number who realistically will never be called.
The grouping of questions on the order paper, which ensures similar questions are asked together, means MPs can increase their chances of putting something to minister – but only if that question is planted by the whips. This doesn’t exactly encourage independent thought.
All the while, the House of Lords is miles ahead of us on this. In the Upper Chamber, a ‘call list’ is published every day outlining those who have put in to speak and that list is loyally adhered to. An apposite reminder of how working practices can change for the better.
Then there are the debates. Stopping MPs from popping in for five minutes to get a quick clip for their social media and then scurrying off is one thing. But having to remain until the end of a debate you’ve spoken in, despite the fact that these can go on for hours – with contributions of varying relevance – does not seem to be the best use of time.
Being present for the opening remarks should be mandatory, but perhaps a maximum requirement of staying on for a further hour after you’ve spoken would encourage better attendance, without breaking up the flow of a debate.
It’s not just the newbies who have their gripes. Long-standing MPs like Stella Creasy, and indeed the Leader of the House Lucy Powell, have been campaigning for years to make Parliament a more family-friendly place to work. The late sitting hours are not helpful for those with childcare requirements, or indeed conducive to the proper scrutiny of legislation.
Some suggestions are more practical than others. Knocking through voting lobbies to build a larger, hemispherical chamber is more hassle than it’s worth, considering the already exorbitant cost of maintaining the parliamentary estate in its current guise.
The arcane and complicated procedural intricacies put people off politics. But worse still, some aspects of how Parliament works endanger trust in our democracy. MPs and second jobs, scandals around lobbying, the revolving door between the public and private sector. It all adds up.
Turnout at the July election was 60 per cent, the second-lowest since 1885. Indeed, the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition did polling earlier this year which found that two-thirds of respondents felt the UK was getting more corrupt, while only one in three thought politicians put important issues before our own interests.
The government now has a huge opportunity to arrest this alarming slide into apathy. There are plenty of levers to pull, and I look forward to seeing the work of the nascent Modernisation Committee.
Appointing a new anti-corruption champion, a position vacant for two years under the former government, would be an important signal to voters that we’re taking the issue of trust seriously. But whether it’s procedural headaches or serious corruption risks, it surely is time to bring this, the mother of all parliaments, into the 21st century.
Phil Brickell, Labour MP for Bolton West
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
