In February, the House of Commons passed by acclamation a motion to permit a system of voting by proxy for Members of Parliament who have recently adopted or given birth to a child. Ahead of the Procedure Committee’s report on the matter, former Clerk of Committees Andrew Kennon offers his view on how a system of proxy voting might work, and some of the problems its designers will have to consider.
On 1 February 2018 the House of Commons debated and passed this motion moved by Harriet Harman MP:
That this House believes that it would be to the benefit of the functioning of parliamentary democracy that honourable Members who have had a baby or adopted a child should for a period of time be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy(emphasis added).
The Procedure Committee has conducted a short inquiry into this matter and is expected to report in May.
This would be less of an issue if the government had a clear majority. Normally, pairing arrangements between the whips of the main parties accommodate absences due to illness, family responsibilities, or other duties. Such understandings cannot always bear the pressure of really close votes in a hung parliament.
On such occasions, the reputation of the House is not enhanced by mothers of very small babies having to carry them through the division lobbies. Nor was it improved by very sick Members being brought by ambulance onto the precincts so their vote could be counted by being ‘nodding through’ the lobby by a whip. I remember it well from my early days as a clerk in the late 1970s.Continue reading →
Robert Hazell summarises the process of government formation that will begin tomorrow.
By Friday morning we should know most of the election results. Assuming the polls are proved correct, with Labour and the Conservatives each having around 270 to 280 seats, and both well short of a majority, what happens next? Answer: this is not a political or constitutional crisis. The parties will negotiate to work out who can command confidence in the new Parliament. That will be formally established in the vote on the Queen’s Speech in 3-4 weeks’ time. In the meantime the Cameron government remains in office as a caretaker government.
Who governs in the meantime?
If Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats choose to resign (because they have done badly, or to strengthen their negotiating position) Cameron still remains in office as Prime Minister. He may leave the Lib Dem positions vacant, or fill just a few in case of emergencies (e.g. Energy Secretary). The incumbent government will be able to respond to any emergencies at home or abroad, but otherwise is limited in the decisions it can make. Ministers remain in office, even if they have lost their seats. Under the caretaker convention, the government will try to avoid taking any decisions which might bind the hands of a future government. This means that it should not embark on any new policy, let any major government contracts, or make any senior public appointments. If these are unavoidable, it should consult first with the opposition parties: as Alistair Darling did before going to the ECOFIN meeting on 9 May 2010 to discuss the first Greek bailout.
On 15 April 2015, Professor Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit, and Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute for Government, spoke at a Constitution Unit seminar entitled ‘Coalition or Minority Government in May?’Juliet Wells comments on the event.
With a fortnight remaining before polling day, and national polls steadfastly suggesting that neither of the two principal political parties will now succeed in achieving a ‘lift-off’ in popularity, the prospect of another hung parliament looms large. It is a possibility with which pre-election commentary has increasingly been preoccupied: as Jonathan Freedland has noted, ‘the focus is not on the parties so much as the likely ruling blocs’. Against this background, Robert Hazell and Peter Riddell’s seminar on government formation after May 7 shone a welcome light onto the processes by which the ultimate ‘ruling bloc’ might come to be.
From this perspective the utility of the seminar was threefold: first, it represented an opportunity to debunk some commonplace misunderstandings about the consequences, in practical and constitutional terms, of a hung parliament; second, it provided a comparative overview of experiences in forming minority and coalition governments, both within the UK and abroad, and highlighted in particular the likely differences between 2010 and 2015; and third, it touched upon the possible deeper implications for British democracy of yet another equivocal general election result.
Recent polls have suggested that the 2015 general election will result in another hung parliament, with no single party gaining an overall majority. The media and voters may assume that 2015 will then see a replay of 2010, with the swift formation of another coalition government. Not necessarily so, as Robert Hazell, along with Peter Riddell of the Institute for Government, has been explaining in pre-election briefings for the broadcasters.
1. Will the leader of the largest party become Prime Minister?
Not necessarily. The constitutional rule is that the politician who can command the confidence of the House of Commons becomes PM. This could be the leader of the second largest party, if he can secure sufficient support from third and minor parties.
2. Does the Queen play a formative role?
No. The political parties must establish between themselves who can command confidence in the new House of Commons. The Queen will be kept informed, and will appoint that person as Prime Minister when the result of the negotiations becomes clear.