Recent procedural developments in the British House of Commons/ Elements nouveaux en matiere de procedure a la Chambre des communes Britannique.

• Author: Priestley, Steve

The "Mother of Parliaments' may have a somewhat staid, matronly reputation abroad, but actually she is constantly updating her wardrobe. This article looks at some of the latest procedural fashions in Westminster, as introduced since the election of a 'New Labour' government in 1997.

A good parent should be prepared to learn lessons from her offspring. One excellent example of this practice can be seen in the decision in 1999 to adopt at Westminster a variant of the Australian Parliament's 'Main Committee.' In Canberra, the House of Representatives has since 1994 sat in more than one room at once. When sitting outside the main Chamber, the House is constituted as the Main Committee. This committee, which is not unlike Committee of the Whole in that any Member may attend, provides an additional forum for the second reading and later stages of bills as well as for the debate of committee reports and of other papers laid before the House.

The advantage of such a system is clear: the House is able either to conduct more business, or to devote more time to the business it already conducts. The potential disadvantages are also clear: with two chambers in operation, Members are required to choose which debate they will attend; and attendance in both chambers is likely to be less than it is when just one chamber is in operation.

The Modernisation Committee of the British House of Commons (formed by the New Labour government to drive forward its agenda of reform for the procedures of the House and chaired by the Leader of the House) was impressed by Canberra's Main Committee, and in 1998 brought forward proposals to do something similar at Westminster. With its large majority, the government was able to override the misgivings of traditionalists--not all of them in the ranks of the Conservative opposition-and on 30 November 1999, sittings of the House began in Westminster Hall.

Or more accurately, sittings began in the old Grand Committee Room, which lies just off historic Westminster Hall. The term 'committee' was not used for these sittings, as it was felt this would detract from the fact that they are sittings of the House, albeit not in the House. When the House sits in Westminster Hall--which it does three days each week and sometimes at the same time as it is also sitting in the main Chamber--the only question before it is that the sitting be adjourned; unlike the Australian model, no substantive business is taken. The main purpose of these sittings has been to provide opportunities for backbenchers to raise issues of current interest and to hear a ministerial reply. This is achieved by a series of short debates, which may last for 90 minutes or for 30 minutes--it's not unlike a drawn-out version of the Canadian 'late show.' Members apply for their debates by submitting a topic to the Speaker, who has complete discretion over what to allow. They are grouped so that particular Ministers answer on particular days.

Other, 3-hour debates in Westminster Hall may be initiated by the Government, or by the Liaison Committee. In the latter case, the subject for debate (still on a motion that the sitting be adjourned) will be a Report from a committee of the House.

Sittings in Westminster Hall have become popular among most Members, only a few diehard traditionalists refusing to have anything to do with them. Many have realised these debates present excellent opportunities for a longer exchange than is possible in Question Time, and a less heated, more useful one at that. The full record of the debates is published in Hansard, as with any other sitting of the House, and many are covered by the press. All in all, an interesting case of a mother borrowing her daughter's clothes, adjusting them to fit, and finding they suit her well.

Changing the Hours

Another consequence of the election of an unexpectedly large number of new Members--many of them women--in 1997 was the renewed call for more 'family friendly' sitting hours. For decades, the House met at 14.30 daily (9.30 on Fridays) and continued until 22.30 or often later (14.30 on Fridays). Such hours undoubtedly suited those Members, who by 1997 were very few, who wished to spend their mornings practicing law or otherwise engaging in business outside the Palace of Westminster. Wednesday morning sittings had already been introduced by 1997, but this was not going to be enough to satisfy new Members, such as the 'Blair babes'--as the British tabloid press, with its characteristic disregard for political correctness, labelled the large number of women Labour MPs elected in the 1997 landslide.

Thus the newly created Modernisation Committee once again appalled the traditionalists by proposing new sitting hours, and the House perhaps surprised itself a little by voting to change the times of its sittings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Monday was left unchanged, in order to allow most Members to travel to Westminster from their constituencies on Monday morning-not to have done this would have wrecked the purpose of the new 'family friendly' hours.

So, starting in January 2003, the House met at 11.30 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and rose at 19.30 (18.30 on Thursday). To anyone who had been in the House before 1997, this felt very strange. It was not so much the 'early' starts--these left plenty of time for a hearty breakfast--as the early finishes. What does a Member of Parliament do in the evenings, if the House is not sitting?

Well, do not imagine that the bars and dining rooms did a roaring trade, because they did not. In fact, takings plummeted. No longer tied to the environs of the House, Members found their diaries filling with outside dinner invitations and, much worse, requests to meet or speak to all sorts of people they would really rather not spend their evenings with, but whom they could not reasonably refuse.

So why were not they with their families? For the nearly 600 MPs whose constituencies lie outside London, those families were still a frustratingly difficult commute away. Some brought their families to London, but their families did not really like London, so that did not work either. Disillusionment set in, fuelled by the fears of absent partners unhappy that their previously preoccupied MP spouse was now at a loose end.

The backlash soon came, accentuated by the concerns of senior Members that select committees were finding it difficult to choose meeting times that did not conflict with important business on the floor of the House. The decision was revisited, and in a compromise that gave nobody all that they were wanted but most people some of what they wanted, the former sitting hours were reinstated for Tuesdays, and on Thursdays the hours of sitting were adjusted to run from 10.30 to 18.30. The House now sits on only 13 Fridays each year, and then to consider exclusively private Members' business.

Incidentally, the shortening of the Westminster week to run effectively from Monday evening to Wednesday evening (Thursday's business generally being unwhipped) has reinforced a trend already observed, for Members to spend more time in their constituencies. Many contend that MPs are in danger of becoming glorified social workers, more concerned with coverage in their local newspapers than contributing to debates in the House on issues of national or international concern.

Such can be the unintended consequences of seeking to give Members more time with their families.

Changing Some Terminology

The term 'stranger' has long been applied to anyone in Parliament who is not a Member or Officer of either House. For as long as anyone can recall, the public gallery in the House of Commons has been known as the Strangers' Gallery; and the bar to which Members and Officers may take guests is the Strangers' Bar. And, when the Speaker processes to the House to open each sitting, a policeman selected for his loud and authoritative voice cries "Hats off, Strangers!"

But 'stranger' is not a very respectful or inclusive term to apply to members of the public who elect and pay for Parliament. So concluded the Modernisation Committee in 2004, and within months the House had voted to abolish the term. Wherever it occurred in the Standing Orders, the term 'stranger' was replaced by the words "member of the public", and the Strangers' Gallery became the Public Gallery. Some have suggested that the policeman with the loud voice...