The Politics of Parliamentary Procedure

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

This project will analyse the process by which parliamentary rules are changed in the UK House of Commons, to assess how far - and why - this process is controlled by the government.Parliamentary rules have important political consequences, because they shape how parliament operates and distribute power and resources between MPs. Among other things, these rules structure the processes of law-making, political debate, and government accountability. However, parliamentary procedures are not set in stone. Instead, MPs are often able to establish new rules and amend existing ones. As a result, many academics have tried to explain how parliamentary rules are chosen and changed.A widespread existing argument is that the process of choosing parliamentary rules is dominated by the government. This is a frequent claim about the UK parliament, and a common assumption in comparative studies of other legislatures. Such claims are important, because they suggest that governments may rewrite parliaments' rules to suit their own interests. This could limit opportunities for MPs to scrutinise and challenge ministers, or to present their own policy alternatives. Moreover, this isn't just an abstract hypothetical concern - recent years have seen much criticism in the UK, during Brexit and the pandemic, that the government has too much control over how parliament operates.However, existing academic work on this subject has a number of limitations. Most importantly, very little work systematically describes and explains the process by which parliamentary procedures are changed. This is true of both comparative and UK-focused literature. Some quantitative work analyses the timing of reforms or cross-national procedural variation. Other qualitative studies have explored specific episodes of reform. But we lack a clear overall picture of exactly how far, why, and with what consequences, the government controls parliamentary rules.This project will thus assess the extent, sources, and consequences of government control over procedures in the UK House of Commons, and suggest potential avenues for reform. I will pursue this aim through three specific objectives. First, I will systematically describe how the process of procedural change unfolds in the UK House of Commons, develop and test an explanation for these patterns, and identify their consequences. I will do this by summarizing formal reform patterns since the nineteenth-century, and by using interviews and committee reports for a more detailed analysis of reform processes since 2005. This combination will allow me to explore how the government's role has evolved over time, as well as how the system currently operates. Second, I will establish an overview of the formal rules governing the consideration of procedural reforms in a wider set of parliamentary democracies. This will allow me to understand the variety of options that exist for organising this important political process. Third, I will draw together the previous two components to produce practical reform proposals for the UK, outlining how the House of Commons might ensure it is genuinely able to choose its own internal rules.This project will have a number of benefits. First, it will help provide a more thorough understanding of the way in which parliamentary rules are chosen and changed in the UK, shedding light on which actors dominate this process, why they do so, and with what consequences. Second, it will help policymakers, researchers, and citizens understand how the UK's system for changing parliamentary procedures might be reformed, by providing evidence about how the current approach works, and what alternative approaches are available. Finally, the project will provide valuable new data for other researchers who want to understand the process of parliamentary reform in the UK and elsewhere, thus allowing exploration of further important questions about how democratic institutions are organised.