House of Commons procedure is a key factor in how parliament works. But, at times, it can be a source of frustration and can appear difficult to change. Nonetheless, history shows that procedural reform is possible – and backbench MPs have often been vital to bringing it about. A new Unit report, published today, assesses how change comes about, analysing successful past campaigns to identify lessons for would-be reformers in this parliament. In this post the report’s authors – Meg Russell, Lisa James and Hannah Kelly – discuss some key conclusions.
The procedural rules of the House of Commons have a significant impact on how parliament operates. They shape its relationship to both the government and the public, affect how MPs work, and determine how well they can do their jobs.
Commons procedure is often based on long traditions, and may sometimes appear immutable. Rarely does a procedure reach the news without being referred to as ‘archaic’. But in fact, the Commons rules have greatly evolved over time – and backbench MPs have often been driving forces in bringing reforms about. MPs who face frustrations with the system, or hear criticisms from outside about how parliament works, therefore have a chance to change things.
A new Constitution Unit report, published today, draws together the lessons of past reforms, and offers practical advice to those wishing to pursue change in the future. It considers how reform ideas are developed, gain popularity, and ultimately get adopted, as well as the challenges they can face along the way – all illustrated with case studies of important changes over the last 20 years. We summarise some of its key points here.
Actors
Our new guide is primarily aimed at backbench MPs, who are the day to day users of parliamentary procedure – whether in terms of the legislative process, questioning procedures, committee business or other mechanisms. Individual MPs, at the front line of this work, will often spot problems and want to bring about reform. But they are part of a wider ecosystem of actors with an interest in parliamentary procedure.
Specialist committees, most obviously the Commons Procedure Committee and Modernisation Committee, consider these questions as part of their core role. They may take up suggestions from MPs and others, and collect evidence on the desirability and workability of reforms. The government is a crucial actor, sometimes wishing to pursue reform, and sometimes to resist it – and has significant powers in the process, as discussed below. Opposition parties, too, may take positions. Outside parliament, individual experts (such as academics) and specialist organisations (such as the Constitution Unit, Hansard Society and Institute for Government) can provide ideas for change and evidence in support – including that drawn from other legislatures. For example, a Constitution Unit report first suggested the creation of a Backbench Business Committee, while the Hansard Society proposed evidence-taking in legislative committees.
All of these different participants interact, and when this works successfully a head of steam may build up behind an idea which is sufficient to help bring it about.
Objectives
Reform advocates may pursue change for various reasons. The world is changing fast, and sometimes parliament simply needs to work to keep up. Some reforms are targeted at enhancing parliament’s connection to the public – for example, there was long pressure to create a Petitions Committee to put public concerns directly on parliament’s agenda. Other reforms are about MPs’ working lives, such as the introduction of proxy voting for new parents (and subsequently other groups). Another important objective is strengthening parliament’s scrutiny role – achieved, for example, by the introduction of elections for select committee chairs and members. In addition, some proposals aim at expediting parliamentary business, which may be a priority for the government – but needs to be treated warily by members if it might limit scrutiny.
Some reforms tick more than one of these boxes, and the more the case can be made that a change will bring advantages for various groups, the more likely it is to happen.
Building support
The key place to build support is within parliament itself. An MP with a reform idea may most naturally first discuss it with close colleagues, particularly within their own party. But to succeed, reforms almost invariably require cross-party support, and proposals that appear partisan can easily (and rightly) run into trouble. Obvious mechanisms to build cross-party support include committees, such as those already mentioned, and all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs). One particularly notable mechanism was the informal grouping Parliament First, which fitted neither of these categories, but brought together senior figures from all of the parties with a serious interest in reform. Its members pressed for several reforms which went on to happen – including the election of select committee chairs, and the appearance of the Prime Minister in front of the Liaison Committee.
Other actors already mentioned can be key to building support. Getting the government on board for a reform is a major asset, which makes it far more likely to succeed. One example is Tony Blair’s voluntary agreement to appear before the Liaison Committee. The government will tend to be risk averse, but may become more open to changes if it is clear that proposals have a broad cross-party base of support, and could bring advantages to government backbenchers, the public, or the image of parliament. To bolster their case, MPs supporting change may use parliamentary mechanisms, such as EDMs, questions, backbench debates and working through key committees, to raise the profile of their proposal. It may also be useful to propose that changes are adopted initially on a trial basis ahead of permanent adoption – as happened with the introduction of Westminster Hall as a parallel debating chamber.
External support can be valuable too. The kinds of organisations indicated above can help to disseminate ideas about the proposal, and evidence in support. The media can also be important. For example, stories about a heavily pregnant MP being forced to delay birth helped break down government resistance to proxy voting for new parents.
Achieving change
Most procedural changes will require an amendment to the House of Commons standing orders. That can only be achieved if a motion is proposed, and approved by members of the chamber (either on the nod, or in a division).
Where a standing order change is needed, a key obstacle will be access to the Commons agenda. Here the government is a crucial gatekeeper – under standing order no. 14, it is the default owner of most parliamentary time. It also usually commands the votes of the majority of MPs, and even when procedural changes are not officially whipped, many members will take their cue from the whips. These are both strong reasons to bring the government on board for changes. Some important proposals – such as those from the Procedure Committee to update the private members’ bill procedure – have effectively been blocked by the government never providing time to debate them.
But there are other options to secure a debate. Backbench business has been used to discuss procedural change in the past, and the Backbench Business Committee recently stated its readiness to consider proposals in this area. The Procedure Committee, or ad hoc groups of members, could use this route for many (though not all) standing order changes.
There are also some reforms that can occur without standing order change, through alterations in practice. A key example is the increasing use of urgent questions under Speaker John Bercow (which continued under Lindsay Hoyle). Another would be the extent to which the government chooses to publish bills in draft form, for consideration by committees (which, after more than 20 years, remains a work in progress).
The importance of timing
A good idea and breadth of support may not in themselves be enough to secure a proposal. Timing can also be crucial. A change of government and influx of new MPs can provide an opportunity – particularly if the governing party signed up to a proposal when in opposition. A crisis of some kind can also act as a catalyst. The introduction of departmental select committees in 1979, dubbed by one parliamentary specialist ‘the reform of the century’, is a classic case of a reform that followed a general election. The ‘Wright committee’ was established in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal, and its proposals (election of select committee chairs and members, plus introduction of the Backbench Business Committee) were implemented immediately before and after the 2010 general election.
The lesson from this is that it is a good idea to have proposals ready in order to take advantage of the right political moment. Many changes mentioned here were developed long before implementation, and were argued for over many years. For example, the Hansard Society report suggesting evidence-taking in bill committees was published in 1992, with the change introduced in 2006. The Wright committee changes had also been several years in the making. So organisation and persistence pay off.
So, what should MPs do if they want to achieve reform?
As indicated above, our report suggests several tried and tested strategies for achieving procedural change – a list of key points is provided in its closing pages. They include using parliamentary mechanisms to put proposals on the agenda, seeking government support but also being willing to pursue other routes, considering the piloting of arrangements as a first step, and holding proposals in reserve for the right moment. Building sustained alliances inside and outside parliament is crucial to success. A particularly advantageous move could be recreating a cross-party group along the lines of Parliament First, to think broadly about a reform programme, and agitate for it.
One of the most important lessons is not to give up. The examples considered in the report, and touched upon above, show that the House of Commons can change, and has in recent years changed in very important ways. Backbenchers have often been key to bringing those changes about, and with organisation and persistence they can repeat this again.
About the authors
Meg Russell FBA is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCL, and was Director of the Constitution Unit October 2015 – May 2026.
Lisa James is a Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit.
Hannah Kelly is a former Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit.