The House of Commons is already regularly lambasted for being overly theatrical but attempts to modernise its practices risk turning parliamentarians into thespians, performing rehearsed lines at pre-agreed intervals.
Earlier this month, the Procedure Committee reviewed the merits of call lists and recommended against their adoption. Here I argue that this was the right decision. Albeit imperfect, the current system is worth defending and should not be hastily sacrificed at the altar of “efficiency”.
The case for call lists
Call lists – or speakers’ lists – would mean publishing a schedule of speakers for debates in the Commons. This would be a departure from current practice, whereby MPs are chosen at the Chair’s discretion. Those who argue in favour of call lists believe they would provide for greater predictability, allowing MPs to plan their days better.
At present, an MP wishing to speak is expected to be present from the start of a debate and then can’t leave the chamber for fear of losing their spot. They may spend hours sitting on the green benches hoping for a chance to contribute, meaning they are unable to attend to other business: meeting constituents, reading emails or having lunch. And while this may seem impractical, it should not be regarded as a flaw. Rather, it’s a feature of a system that expects MPs to be present, to listen and engage. This is a system that preserves the primary function of the House of Commons as a debating chamber, not a speaking chamber.
The loss of Commons’ spirit
The Commons previously adopted call lists during the war-like circumstances of Covid-19, but the Procedure Committee’s report reflects that this experience was not ‘conducive of high quality debate’. Instead, necessitated by the pandemic’s restrictions, the usually lively arena of the Commons gave way to a sterile atmosphere, with ordered speeches and limited interaction between Members.
Yet the beauty of the Commons is the organic back-and-forth between government and opposition benches that forces Members to consider each other’s points of view. The alternative, of allocating speaking slots for the day’s proceedings, would almost certainly create a revolving door of MPs, each arriving just in time to deliver their own speech before leaving as soon as they have done so. Relieved of the obligation to meaningfully engage in the debate, speeches could be crafted less for the chamber and more for social media circulation – leading to a politics performed for algorithms and bots, not the Speaker or the benches opposite. Call lists may therefore provide individual MPs greater control – over their agenda and audience – but this efficiency would be to the detriment of robust debate.
If the legislative process becomes a one-in/one-out of set-piece speech readers, then the Commons’ spirit will be lost. MPs will not be motivated to spend time in the chamber, with even less incentive to consider – or challenge – another Member’s contribution. There would be little point in doing so anyway; the new system would almost certainly restrict independently minded contributions from backbenchers.
Lessons from the Scottish Parliament
In Holyrood, debate time is assigned to parties based on the number of MSPs they have. That allocated speaking time is then distributed by Business Managers (effectively the party Whips), whilst the Presiding Officer retains only a small portion of time for additional contributions.
As the Procedure Committee acknowledges, it would be impractical to replicate this allocation formula in the majoritarian Commons. To do so risks bolstering government voices but could also see an overrepresentation of parties from devolved nations in English-only debates. By preserving the Speaker’s discretion, then, parliamentarians can continue to contribute at their own will in Westminster.
Where the Whips enjoy greater control over who speaks, debates become issues of party management and favour, overinflating contributions from the party faithful willing to regurgitate party lines. If, as in the Scottish system, greater power was given to the Whips at the Speaker’s expense, call lists would dilute the quality of otherwise open debate. It would remove the Speaker’s present ability to draw on a broad range of contributions, often deliberately from individuals known for evidence-led arguments or for advancing nuanced perspectives.
In Edinburgh, a schedule of speakers means MSPs are inclined to deliver prewritten speeches that stand isolated, seldom responding or engaging with prior statements at the Speaker’s discretion. From my own experience, I remember the Official Report (Scotland’s Hansard) asking for a copy of speaking notes before proceedings had even begun. This request being routine speaks to an institutional assumption against genuine deliberation in the chamber.
Interventions – a large part of the Commons’ cut and thrust – are much rarer north of the border and appear like unwelcome interruptions to monologues. This is due in part to MSPs often being penalised for accepting interventions that count towards their total speaking time. MSPs can request time back, but the Scottish Parliament’s strict time limits mean guidance “discourages” interventions during certain times. As such, debate is reduced to safeguard the austere schedule demanded, in part, by call lists.
A sort of lecture hall-culture is promoted in the Scottish Parliament, with the Presiding Officer too often scolding chuntering members in favour of a library-like silence. Naturally, nobody desires the roar of a football stadium during important discussions, but parliamentarians should be expected to interject. Call lists, however, encourage an obedience whereby parliamentarians patiently wait their turn.
In 2022, we saw what happens when this natural order is disrupted. One MSP was caught in the headlights when called to speak at the beginning (rather than the end) of a debate, and so proceeded to read a speech commending contributions that had yet to occur. This illustrates how call lists foster dependence on scheduling, leaving MSPs unable to deviate from their prewritten remarks and respond in real time. By contrast, and except for the frontbench, in the Commons MPs do not speak in any order but catch the Speaker’s eye and are called to contribute throughout. This requires them to fine-tune their speech accordingly and avoids a “Parliament That Goes Wrong” style spectacle.
Responsiveness as a baked-in benefit of the current system
While a comparison Holyrood provides only hypothetical risks, call lists would certainly change how MPs hold the government to account. The burden falls on those advocating for this change to explain why predictability outweighs the flexibility provided by the current system.
The Hansard Society’s reflection on the operation of call lists during the pandemic demonstrates how rigid timetabling funnelled debate into tightly packaged speaking slots, limiting opportunities to scrutinise the government. The current procedural framework, however, operates on a markedly different basis, characterised by flexibility rather than constraint. Urgent Questions and Government Statements, for example, often mean the Order Paper is updated at short notice, enabling significant developments to be debated on the Commons floor. It is a responsiveness that ensures MPs hold the government to account and attend to current affairs. But these procedural interventions disrupt a day’s proceedings with the Speaker empowered to let arising matters be discussed for as long as necessary. And these are a regular occurrence: recently, across 238 sitting days, there were 159 UQs and 153 Statements.
The purpose of call lists, however, is to ensure MPs know when, or if, they will get to speak in the Commons, a system that is incompatible with the framework at present. Either timings would require constant adjustment, thereby undermining the certainty call lists are designed to provide, or this need for predictability would restrict opportunities to debate the most urgent matters as they arise. Call lists demand certainty, but the spontaneity of Parliament is one of its strengths.
Sympathy should be had for the length of time MPs spend in the chamber, but it also true that the green benches are not the only forum for discussion in the Commons. Westminster Hall debates, themselves an invention of earlier modernisation efforts, provide a means for additional discussion with the guaranteed response of a Minister on the issue presented. These debates are far more compact, ranging from 30 minutes to an hour and a half, allowing MPs to deal with other commitments during the working day. Arguably, this is the already available solution to the long shifts that many MPs are concerned about.
There are, of course, reasonable criticisms to be made of the present system where it fails to be accessible to all Members, particularly if those with disabilities are excluded from contributing. However, as the Procedures Committee noted, call lists would seem to be an extreme and unnecessary answer to such issues. Instead, the Chair’s discretion exists to address individual cases, whilst initiatives such as Workplace Adjustment Passports and the Members Accessibility Group provide opportunities for better tailored solutions moving forward.
An MP today faces an increasing number of pressures and is exposed to perhaps a heightened scrutiny that their predecessors were free of. Lobbying, constituency casework, media requests all pile up on an MP’s desk. Some are distractions, others – participating in debates among them – are core obligations of their role. Legitimate though some complaints are, call lists are an incomplete solution to these immense pressures and would weaken our democracy, materially undermining the House’s primary function. MPs aren’t elected to read a script in the chamber; they are put there to debate ideas, to challenge and be challenged. Good legislation depends on MPs genuinely engaging with that duty. Call lists might provide an orderly chamber, but it would be a weaker, less engaged one.
Declan McLean.
Declan McLean is a PhD student at Cardiff University. His research focuses on the future of the UK’s territorial constitution. He has worked in the Scottish and UK Parliaments and as a Researcher at the University of Glasgow’s Law School.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.