Chapter 10 Additional Material: Parliament

On this page, you will find additional information on:

Understanding parliamentary terminology

Debates are based on a motion that is proposed and opposed; they can be put forward by MPs, though many are tabled by the government. ‘Filibustering’ is a delaying tactic of making lengthy speeches or points so that a debate runs out of time. A ‘closure’ motion is a proposal to draw a debate to an end. ‘Programme motions’, if agreed, impose time limits for stages of a bill, and the government can use a ‘guillotine’ or allocation of time motion to limit debate on a bill.

Divisions and voting When MPs are required to vote after a debate, the Speaker asks MPs to call out ‘aye’ or ‘no’, according to whether they are in favour of the motion or against it. If this does not give a clear result, the Speaker calls ‘clear the lobbies’; the House then ‘divides’, with MPs walking through one of the two division lobbies to cast their vote (division lobbies are corridors on either side of each Chamber with an Aye Lobby and a No Lobby; a similar procedure happens in the House of Lords, but with a Content Lobby and a Not Content Lobby). MPs are counted by tellers and their names are recorded as they walk through; the tellers then present the results to the Speaker in the Chamber. The Division List, recording how Members voted, is publicly available in Hansard and on the Parliament website.

Three-line whips Party discipline and management is enforced through a weekly circular sent by whips to their MPs setting out forthcoming divisions (votes) on debates and bills, and underlining them to indicate their level of importance.

  • A division underlined three times (a 'three-line whip') signifies a strict expectation to attend and vote with the party—MPs have even been brought in from hospital—but in February 2017, 52 Labour backbench rebels defied the Labour party’s three-line whip and refused to support the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill on its third reading. An MP who defies a three-line whip may be subject to disciplinary action by their party leader, including having the whip withdrawn, which means that an MP is not an operational member of their political party until the whip is restored.
  • A two-line whip means attend and vote, though MPs from different parties can ‘pair’ if both will be absent.
  • A one-line whip is guidance on the party’s policy.

See the Parliament website for more details.

Resolutions of the House are decisions following a debate and express the will of the House.

A Parliament lasts from one general election until the next. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 sets the default interval between general elections at five years.

A parliamentary session A session is a parliamentary year, starting with the State Opening of Parliament and running for about 12 months until prorogation. A new session will start after a general election but between elections, sessions normally begin in the spring. The 2017-19 session was the longest on record; running from June 2017 to October 2019, it lasted for almost 350 sitting days (this was the session which was unlawfully prorogued in 2019).

Prorogation brings a current parliamentary session to an end: all parliamentary business ceases until a new session begins.

Dissolution means the end of a Parliament. Parliament is dissolved 25 working days before a general election. See Miller/Cherry [2-6].

See the helpful parliamentary glossary at on the Parliament website.

Backbench MPs

Backbench MPs form the majority of the Commons membership. The Backbench Business Committee has recognised that ‘there are as many different ways of being a backbencher as there are backbenchers in the House’ (House of Commons Backbench Business Committee, Work of the Committee in the 2010–15 Parliament, 1st Special Report of Session 2014–15, HC 1106, [15]), but their core activities are:

  • acting as a check on government power by holding the government to account (though MPs in the party of government need to balance this with supporting their party);
  • speaking in debates and asking parliamentary questions;
  • representing constituents and constituency interests, taking up their problems and grievances, corresponding and liaising with ministers and others on their behalf;
  • representing and supporting their party in votes in Parliament (unless an MP is an independent, ie not affiliated to a political party);
  • scrutinising, amending, and sometimes initiating legislation;
  • serving on parliamentary committees;
  • contributing to the development of policy;
  • supporting national interests.

See Modernisation Committee, Revitalising the Chamber: The Role of the Back Bench Member, First Report of Session 2006–07, HC 337, pp 8–15.

Party loyalty, the whip system, and the increase in career politicians mean that party-affiliated backbenchers are not independent but generally follow their party line when voting and need to balance varied, and sometimes competing, interests: constituency, party, conscience. As the Modernisation Committee points out, ‘Members of the House do not pass laws or hold the government to account in a vacuum; they do so in ways that they judge best meet the interests of their constituents, particular groups, and the nation as a whole’ (Revitalising the Chamber, para 1). All MPs (including the Prime Minister) hold constituency surgeries, normally once a week, to allow constituents to bring forward issues and concerns which can be raised in the Commons on their behalf.

But how strong is the constituency link? In 1774, Edmund Burke, MP for Bristol, made it clear in his election address that when electors have chosen their MP, they should be able to exercise their own opinion and judgment in Parliament independently of constituents’ views. An MP, he said, is not a delegate and should be prepared to go against the wishes of his constituents if he thought they were wrong:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion . . . parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good . . . You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. (Edmund Burke’s Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774)

THINKING POINT

Do you think modern MPs take this view? Consider this example: before the Iraq war in March 2003, opinion polls showed 26% support by the public for British troops going into action and 63% against, yet on 19 March 2003, the House of Commons voted for military action in Iraq by 412 votes to 149, showing 73% support for deploying British troops.

The government allocates time to the Backbench Business Committee to enable backbench MPs to raise matters for debate in the Commons (the Committee was set up in June 2010 after a proposal by the Wright Committee (House of Commons Reform Committee, Rebuilding the House, First Report of Session 2008–09, HC 1117)). At its weekly meetings, MPs ‘pitch’ proposed topics to the Committee for consideration; if accepted, they will be scheduled for debate. The Committee has been credited with making ‘a positive difference to the work of the House by providing new opportunities for self-expression by backbenchers and making Parliament more relevant to the outside world’ (House of Commons Backbench Business Committee, Work of the Committee in the 2010–15 Parliament, 1st Special Report of Session 2014–15, HC 1106, page 4).

Backbenchers sometimes rebel and vote against their party; Churchill believed that a government’s strongest opposition was not on the benches opposite but on the benches behind it. Rebellions between 1992 and 2015 were more common among government backbenchers than among opposition MPs, chiefly as a strategic act to distance themselves from their party for electoral reasons (see Jonathan B. Slapin, Justin H. Kirkland, Joseph A. Lazzaro, and Patrick A. Leslie, ‘Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament’ (2018) 112(1) American Political Science Review, 15–30) but this can have an impact on the government’s legislative programme and illustrates the pull between party loyalty and the desire to be re-elected.

MPs have become more willing to vote against their party since the 1970s, especially during John Major’s government in 1992-93, and the 2001-2005 Blair Government. Even the threat of rebellion can be enough to persuade the Government to change tack. To forestall problems on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill on 13 December 2017, the Government offered last minute concessions to induce backbenchers to keep to the party line, but eleven Conservative MPs rebelled and voted in favour of amending the Bill to give Parliament a vote on the final Brexit deal. 

Parliament and the coronavirus pandemic

In April 2020, as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, MPs in the House of Commons voted to allow remote participation by video link in questions and ministerial statements in the Chamber. No more than 50 MPs were allowed to be physically present to ensure social distancing, leading to what has been called hybrid proceedings. This was subsequently extended to the legislative process and remote voting by MPs. In May 2020, these arrangements lapsed, and in June, most MPs began to attend the Chamber physically at the same time as the House of Lords began its own hybrid proceedings. Remote participation in the Commons was then only available for questions and ministerial statements to MPs who were unable to attend for medical or public health reasons related to the pandemic. From mid-June, voting by MPs using an electronic pass-reader was introduced in the Commons. On 30 December 2020, remote participation in the House of Commons was extended to all MPs.

Voter registration

Falling levels of voter registration by the electorate and some instances of electoral fraud led to the current system of individual electoral registration, introduced by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 and becoming fully operational from December 2015. Under the old system, the head of a household registered all occupants (universities could block-register all students), but individual electoral registration requires each individual to register. Despite fears that registration rates would fall even further as a result, the number of people registered to vote across the UK increased by around 1.4 million between December 2016 and the June 2017 election, resulting in the largest electorate for a UK-wide election—approximately 46.8 million people (see the Electoral Commission website)—and broadening the representational basis on which MPs are elected. However, the system still relies on voters to opt in.

The Electoral Reform Society has suggested a ‘motor voter’ law so that people are automatically registered to vote when they apply for a driving licence or have other contact with government services. In June 2020, Judith Cummins MP introduced the Automatic Electoral Registration Bill which would enable voters’ details to be added automatically to the register from data already held by the government. As at February 2021, second reading was scheduled to take place on a date to be announced. See also House of Lords Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, An electoral system fit for today? More to be done, Report of Session 2019–21, HL Paper 83.

THINKING POINT

Do you think it should be a criminal offence to fail to register to vote? For views, see House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration, 10th Report of Session 2010–12, HC 1463 [16–23].

Timeline: Main proposals for further reform of the House of Lords

2000 Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, A House for the Future (2000) (Cm 4534) (the Wakeham Commission)

Set up in 1999 by the government to examine the role, functions, and composition of a second chamber but to have regard to the need to maintain the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber. The Commission’s report rejected a directly elected second chamber and recommended a part-elected, part-appointed second chamber (with some elected regional members and a majority of appointed members selected by a non-statutory Appointments Commission). It could not agree on the numbers to be elected but specified that the new chamber should keep the powers of the existing House of Lords.

Hybrid chamber proposed

2001 White Paper on Reform, The House of Lords: Completing the Reform (Cm 5291)

Proposed removing the remaining 92 hereditary peers and a partly elected/partly appointed second chamber (120 members elected by the public, 120 appointed (non-party political), 332 political peers nominated by party leaders, 16 Church of England bishops), with a Cross-party Appointments Commission; the powers of the Lords would remain the same and the Commons should remain pre-eminent. The White Paper was roundly criticised.

Hybrid chamber—20 per cent elected, 80 per cent appointed

2002 Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform

The Committee suggested seven options for reforming the Lords, from 100 per cent elected to 100 per cent appointed (House of Lords Reform: First Report, Session 2002–03, HL Paper 17, HC 171).

  

2003 Consultation Paper Constitutional Reform: Next steps for the House of Lords (CP 14/03), September 2003

The Commons voted to reject all options put forward by the Joint Committee. The House of Lords supported an all-appointed chamber.

In its 2003 Consultation Paper, the government announced its intention to have a fully appointed chamber and proposed introducing a Bill to remove the remaining hereditaries. Its proposals were criticised by the House of Lords.

No consensus

Appointed chamber

2004

The government postponed its plans for a Bill in March 2004. The Bragg option (the Bragg/Falconer or secondary mandate model) suggested an indirectly elected House of Lords with 75 per cent of members indirectly elected in proportion to votes cast at a general election, and 25 per cent appointed by independent commission. The idea did not progress.

Indirectly elected chamber

2005

The government suggested a part-appointed, part-elected chamber with up to 80 per cent elected.

Mainly elected

2007 White Paper The House of Lords: Reform (Cm 7027), 7 Feb 2007

Presented a compromise 50 per cent elected, 50 per cent appointed chamber. In a free vote, the Commons voted for a 100 per cent or 80 per cent elected House of Lords; the Lords voted for a fully appointed second chamber.

50 per cent elected

2008 White Paper An Elected Second Chamber: Further Reform of the House of Lords (Cm 7438), July 2008

Set out proposals for reform based on the 2007 vote for an 80–100 per cent directly elected chamber and the remaining hereditaries to be removed.

80–100 per cent elected

2011–2012 House of Lords Reform Draft Bill, (Cm 8077), 17 May 2011

House of Lords Reform Bill 2012

The House of Lords Reform Bill proposed an 80 per cent elected, much smaller second chamber (like a senate) with 360 elected members, 90 appointed members, and 12 Lords Spiritual, with continuing application of the Parliament Acts and no changes to the role, functions, and powers of the Lords. House of Lords elections would take place at the same time as House of Commons elections but with new electoral districts and voting by the open list system. The Bill was introduced into Parliament but withdrawn in 2012 after Conservative MPs threatened to vote against it, fearing a threat to the supremacy of the House of Commons and greater risk of conflict.

80 per cent elected

2013-16

The House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee considered various small-scale changes to the House of Lords (House of Lords Reform: What Next? Ninth Report of Session 2013–14, HC 251).

A House of Lords Reform Bill introduced by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in 2016 did not progress.

  

2016-20

Attempts have been made to remove the by-election system for the election of hereditary peers, which has an extremely small voter base (eg in 2017, 27 votes were cast in a hereditary peer by-election, which Baron Vaux of Harrowden won with 16 votes). Lord Grocott proposed the House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill in 2016, which did not progress; the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill in 2017 which made no further progress after the 2017-19 session of Parliament was prorogued; and reintroduced the Bill in 2020. In the Commons, David Hanson MP unsuccessfully introduced a private Member’s Bill, the House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill, in 2017.

  

2018

Lord Lisvane presented an Act of Union Bill to the House of Lords which proposed abolishing or reforming the Lords; the Bill made no further progress.

  

2020

Baroness Natalie Bennett introduced the House of Lords (Elections and Reform) Bill proposing the removal of remaining hereditary peers and elected members of the Lords; the Bill is still awaiting second reading as at February 2021.

  

Level of public support for an elected chamber

10.5.12

33 per cent of the UK public favoured a fully elected chamber, 41 per cent a partially elected chamber, and 5 per cent a fully appointed chamber (YouGov)

1.11.17

63 per cent supported an elected House of Lords, 10 per cent favoured it remaining unchanged, and 27 per cent thought it should be abolished (BMG Research)

2017

An e-petition to replace the unelected House of Lords with a publicly elected body collected 128,210 signatures but the Petition Committee decided not to allow it to be discussed (Petitions website)

2018

An e-petition to give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords collected 170,981 signatures; Parliament debated it on 18 June 2018

Exercise: Evaluating the arguments for and against retaining the second chamber

In 2017, a House of Commons debate on Lords reform aired arguments for and against retaining the second chamber (HC Deb 15 November 2017, Vol 631 cols 134WH–158WH). Which arguments in the summary below do you find more persuasive?

For a second chamber

Against a second chamber

Luke Graham MP: The Lords is ‘effective in its capacity to scrutinise legislation and hold the government to account, and for that reason alone we should maintain a second Chamber’. It contains many experts who bring ‘a wide range of backgrounds and expertise to these Houses of Parliament, and it would be remiss to do away with such expertise by simply abolishing the House of Lords’.

Tommy Sheppard MP: ‘The House of Lords is the largest legislative assembly anywhere in the world, with the sole exception of the People’s Republic of China. It is an institution where no one is elected by the wider citizenry, and it is accountable to no one. It is staggeringly unrepresentative of the population at large: only 26 per cent of its Members are women; 44 per cent of its Members live in London and the south-east of England; and 56 per cent of its Members are older than 70 years of age. That is an institution that in no way reflects contemporary society.’

The government view, expressed by Chris Skidmore MP (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office): ‘[T]he House of Lords plays a vital role in scrutinising, checking and challenging the work of the elected House of Commons, and in doing so it brings a wealth of expertise and experience to bear on that work. We will ensure that the Lords continues to fulfil this vital constitutional role, at the same time as respecting the vital primacy of the elected House of Commons.’

David Hanson MP, a supporter of abolition: ‘I wake up every morning knowing that I have been sent to this House because crosses were put by my name. At the next election, those crosses can be put by another candidate’s name. That keeps me on my toes and tells me that I am held to account by those at home for what I say here . . . I happen to take the view that the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild of someone who did something 400, 500 or 600 years ago should not be making legislation on my constituents’ behalf today . . . It does not seem to me that which side someone fought on in the English civil war is a basis to make legislation in the 21st century.’
Back to top