A version of this piece was published on The Conversation on 11 November 2014.
By Louise Thompson
It’s not often that parliamentary procedure hits the headlines. And it’s even less often that delegated legislation does. So the debate (if you can call it that) in the House of Commons about whether the UK would opt in to various parts of European legislation was a rarity indeed.Those watching the House of Commons on Monday evening were treated to a truly confusing spectacle that may have left many disheartened with Parliament – and with democracy.
Although 11 measures were put before the Commons, including confiscation orders and freezing orders of criminal records, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) wasn’t one of them. This came despite weeks of debate in the press and a flurry of excitement from backbench Conservatives on the matter. They wanted a vote and had been told that they would get one. Asked why this promise wasn’t delivered on the day, Home Secretary Theresa May argued that there was “no legislative requirement” to bring all of the 35 issues in the package before the House.
The house began to debate the issues only for Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to use a little known piece of parliamentary procedure, asking that “the question be not now put”. Once MPs had become a little more acquainted with page 404 of Erskine May, the House voted. The Prime Minister emerged – still dressed in white tie – having rushed from the Lord Mayor’s banquet to the division lobby to support the measure, due to fears that the government would lose. The government won the vote, but now Labour wants a separate vote on the warrant to be held. The government wants a debate to be held about the debate. Confused? So were MPs.
Outspoken backbencher Jacob Rees Mogg called the debate a “procedural prestidigitation” and senior Conservative Edward Leigh admitted to being “completely confused”. Even the Speaker, John Bercow admitted that he had thought the house would be debating – and voting on – the EAW as well. The BBC’s Mark D’Arcy described the incident as “the most extraordinary tangle” the Commons has ever got into, while The Telegraph referred to it as one of the “most chaotic and acrimonious debates in its history”.
Afterwards, there was an array of speculation as to just who should be blamed. For some, it was David Cameron and Theresa May. Others saw it as opportunism on the part of the Labour Party and accused the opposition of trying to cut short a debate on issues that it actually thought were rather important. We could argue endlessly about what the government’s master plan had been here and why it all went wrong. But whatever the point of these shenanigans was, there is one clear loser – and that is Parliament. And perhaps, democracy.
Firstly, those watching the debate would be forgiven for thinking that the government can simply mess parliament around and doesn’t really need to honour a commitment to giving the House of Commons a vote or a debate on issues. Twitter was awash with comments about parliament being deceived or, even worse, being treated with contempt by the government and it’s not hard to see why.
Secondly, and more importantly, this debacle showed the business of parliament and parliamentary debate in a very negative light. However the European Arrest Warrant saga is ultimately resolved, the spectacle of MPs arguing in such a way will only add to the already poor public perception of parliament. The Hansard Society’s annual Audit of Political Engagement regularly demonstrates the general public’s poor regard for politicians and parliament. Other research has found that the public sees politicians as noisy, aggressive and unprofessional. Earlier this year John Bercow attacked the game playing, partisanship and acrimonious debate displayed during Prime Minister’s Questions, arguing that Parliament was “spray painting its own shop window” when its members behaved so badly.
Monday night’s debate will do nothing to improve the reputation of our Members of Parliament. The way citizens perceive Parliament is crucial to the functioning of democracy because it affects the trust that they have in the institution. If the House of Commons chamber is the shop window of parliament, then we need to stop playing politics with parliamentary procedure and to start showcasing mature and sensible debate. This is this kind of debate that actually makes up the vast majority of what goes on in the House of Commons – we just don’t often get to read about it, and our politicians don’t do a very good job of publicising it.
Louise Thompson is Lecturer in British Politics at the University of Surrey. She tweets @louisevthompson.
Image: Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced here with the permission of Parliament.