By Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson.
This blog is based on a paper presented by the authors to the Annual Conference of the PSA Parliaments group in November 2024 at the Senedd Cymru in Cardiff.
Photo credit: UK Parliament / Jessica Taylor: https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/cet-westminster-hall-debates/index.html
On 30 November 1999 Labour MP Phyllis Starkey made history, being the first MP to introduce a debate in Westminster Hall, the new parallel debating chamber for the House of Commons. Agreed to by MPs initially as a temporary ‘experiment’ for just one parliamentary session through which to debate topics put forward by backbench MPs and by select committees, Westminster Hall has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. It rarely attracts much attention, though recent reforms such as the introduction of debates on e-petitions, have put it more firmly into the media spotlight.
Despite its 25 year history, we still know little about this parallel chamber – no comprehensive research has been undertaken and internal parliamentary reviews have been very limited. Has it added value to parliamentary business, as hoped when first introduced by the first Modernisation Committee in 1999? Drawing from pilot research we have undertaken over the past few months (including analysis of parliamentary debates and interviews), we take a closer look at the business taking place in Westminster Hall debates to identify four main ways in which these can add value to the House of Commons.
1. It discusses very specific types of topics
Although debates taking place in Westminster Hall are wide ranging, they tend to fall into two main areas. Often they are used by MPs to raise ‘hyperlocal’ issues of the sort that would not typically be selected for debate in the main chamber because they only affect a particular constituency. Recent examples of this type of debate include dental healthcare in East Anglia and support for the hospitality sector in Eastleigh. Westminster Hall is also a place where very emotive topics can be debated. These are often on health-based issues which have affected their constituents, such as Helen Hayes’ recent debate on lobular breast cancer. Tabled in memory of one her constituents, Heather Cripps, Hayes pushed for better awareness of the symptoms and more research into its treatment. Members of Heather’s family attended the debate and sat in the public gallery. Debates such as this one showcase a much more human side to parliamentary politics and as such, Westminster Hall can be an arena which acknowledges the grief and pain of constituents and their families.
2. It is a place where MPs have fewer time constraints
One of the real benefits to talking in Westminster Hall is that there is far less pressure on time. MPs introducing a debate have longer to talk and, although time limits are sometimes imposed for particularly well attended debates, other contributing MPs will generally have more time to make their speeches. One MP told us that it gave them time ‘to breathe’, allowing them to develop their points and have less choppy debates. The MP introducing the debate will also get the right of reply to the minister’s response, something which they wouldn’t get in an adjournment debate in the main chamber.
3. Its layout facilitates ‘physically close’ scrutiny
Although the main House of Commons chamber can seem small and crowded at busy times, Westminster Hall is a much more intimate atmosphere. During its first ever debate, then Minister Peter Hain described it as ‘the first non-confrontational Chamber that Westminster has experienced in 800 years of political sparring’. MPs are seated in a horseshoe seating area more akin to select committees, with all MPs and ministers at the same level. This means that MPs sit much closer to the responding government minister. And the public gallery is within touching distance of them, with no screens acting as a barrier. MPs speak of being able to ‘look the minister in the eye’ and this can put ministers under considerable pressure, particularly during high profile debates. The close proximity of the public gallery can be particularly powerful, facilitating conversations before and after debates and allowing the minister to see the faces of those impacted by government policy as they deliver their speech.
4. It offers a kinder parliamentary culture
The combination of a more intimate seating area and the more sensitive topics often debated there can facilitate a very different culture to the often adversarial Commons chamber. MPs and officials who participate regularly in Westminster Hall speak of a kinder etiquette, epitomised by DUP MP Jim Shannon’s regular notes to MPs to congratulate them on their debate and ministers going out of their way to thank every contributing Member in their responses. Although debates can occasionally become heated, the absence of any divisions and the location of Westminster Hall away from the limelight of the main chamber tends to inhibit overt partisanship in favour of a more collegiate atmosphere.
Debates in Westminster Hall can feel more remote to onlookers than those in the Commons chamber, but they offer something quite different. MPs have described it to us as ‘gold dust’ and ‘parliament’s best kept secret’, a chamber which is especially useful when campaigning on behalf of constituents. With the new Modernisation Committee hoping to look at how to make backbench debates more effective, this Parliament could bring opportunities to entrench the value of Westminster Hall in parliament’s work even more fully.
About the authors
Cristina Leston-Bandeira is Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds. Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester.