End booing and jeering in the Commons? ‘Hear, hear!’ say new MPs

Antiquated”, “rowdy” and “weak” are some of the main criticisms levelled at the House of Commons in evidence provided to the Commons modernisation committee, which is chaired by the leader of the House, Lucy Powell. A variety of interested parties, including the Hansard Society and the Commons women and equalities committee, have submitted proposals for reform that are designed to make the place more accessible, in every sense, as well as inclusive.

Powell says: “The role of an MP has changed: no longer just legislators, [we are] increasingly helping constituents with problems, being visible and active in the communities we represent. We have a greater diversity of MPs and a broader range of political parties in the Commons than ever before, but some of our processes and procedures don’t reflect this new reality.” No doubt traditionalists will be horrified...

Yes, it would seem so, and it is certainly true that for many members of the public, terms such as “honourable member”, “second reading”, “debate on the adjournment”, “reasoned amendment”, “privilege”, “humble address” – and, indeed, “leader of the house” – are opaque.

Most reporting on parliament, to be fair, adds sufficient context and explanation to make sense of proceedings for the average interested member of the public, but anyone diving into the BBC Parliament channel – or, less likely, picking up a copy of the official record, Hansard, or reading it online – will find things sometimes difficult to follow.

Obviously, like the Ruritanian uniforms and ornate Pugin interiors, parliamentary traditions have a long and glorious past, and such ceremonials as the State Opening of Parliament serve to remind people of the struggles for democratic supremacy in Britain. On the other hand, the country does have a problem with participation, and with confidence in its politicians.

For the public, this is the noisy highlight of the week – the one parliamentary moment virtually guaranteed to be on the news and clipped for social media. It’s a lively event, as the main political leaders clash in this most intense of cockpits. Sometimes clear divisions open up between the parties, which clarifies public understanding; but there is also obfuscation, and MPs can at times be guilty of terminological inexactitudes.

The women and equalities committee certainly finds such sessions unsatisfactory. The “chairman” – a sexist and contested term – Sarah Owen (Labour, Luton North) complains that heckling by MPs “must be addressed”: “Booing and jeering does not belong in any workplace, let alone one that is subject to public scrutiny, and which should be setting an example for others.”

The danger, of course, is that the adversarial nature of the Commons is turned into the more restrained, and frankly boring, atmosphere seen in, for example, the Scottish parliament, the EU parliament, or the US Senate, where debates are stultifyingly boring and attract even less public interest.

Yes. Some major issues are hoving into view, not least that of MPs having second (and third, fourth, or even fifth) jobs. They cannot have it both ways, after all. Either they are too overworked and under-resourced to carry out their legislative and constituency duties properly, or they can organise their busy lives well enough to host television shows, practise at the Bar, serve as company directors or local councillors, and even make online greeting videos on request.

The forces of conservatism in the Commons, which have seen off previous attempts at reform, are usually formidable; but the turnover at the 2024 general election was so dramatic that there has been no better moment since around the turn of the century to get things changed.

Powell and her colleagues will bring forward recommendations, and nothing will change quickly. There may be some useful simplification of jargon and procedures, and the minor parties and backbenchers might get some more time and attention. Given the public mood, second jobs are likely to be a little more restricted.

On the other hand, most of the still generous “expenses”, perks, and astonishingly long and frequent “recesses” (more or less holidays) will likely be left unmolested. There are limits, after all.