Procedure Committee (House of Commons)
This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Procedure Committee (House of Commons) | |
|---|---|
.png) | |
| Name | Procedure Committee |
| Body | House of Commons of the United Kingdom |
| Established | 1975 |
| Jurisdiction | Parliament of the United Kingdom |
| Chamber | House of Commons |
| Membership | 11 |
| Chair | Sir Charles Walker |
| Parent committees | Select Committee (United Kingdom House of Commons) |
Procedure Committee (House of Commons) is a select committee of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom responsible for examining the practice and procedure of the House of Commons. It reviews rules, precedents and working arrangements affecting members such as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom), and chairs of departmental committees, advising on reforms to standing orders and chamber business. The committee reports to the House of Commons and its recommendations have informed changes alongside input from bodies including the House of Lords and the Parliamentary Archives.
History
The committee was first created in the 19th century and reconstituted in 1975 during reforms influenced by debates in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards era and the aftermath of inquiries such as the Franks Report. Across the 1980s and 1990s its work intersected with debates involving figures like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and John Major on modernising procedures, and responded to constitutional developments such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Post-2010 it addressed changes following the Expenses scandal (United Kingdom) and recommended measures echoing reforms associated with the Wright Committee. Contemporary iterations have worked amid pressures from events including Brexit and the prorogation dispute involving Boris Johnson.
Membership and Appointment
Members are appointed by the House of Commons and traditionally include experienced MPs from parties represented in the chamber such as the Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), Liberal Democrats (UK), and other groups including Scottish National Party and Democratic Unionist Party. Chairs have included prominent backbenchers and former ministers; appointment follows procedures overseen by the Committee of Selection (House of Commons) and adoption by the House of Commons Commission. Membership reflects the wider composition of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and has included MPs with prior roles in bodies like the Public Accounts Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee.
Remit and Powers
The committee's remit is set by the House of Commons and encompasses examination of practice and procedure, consideration of private Members’ business such as matters raised by Backbench Business Committee, and proposals for changes to Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It may take evidence from officials including the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Serjeant at Arms, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, and consult institutions such as the House of Lords and the National Audit Office. While it cannot itself change law, its recommendations can lead to action by the House of Commons or by legislation debated in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
Procedures and Working Methods
The committee conducts structured inquiries, publishes calls for evidence, and holds oral evidence sessions with witnesses drawn from bodies like the Cabinet Office, the Institute for Government, and academics associated with institutions such as the London School of Economics and Oxford University. It produces majority and minority reports, votes on recommendations, and liaises with procedural offices including the Table Office (House of Commons). Its practice of issuing short reports on urgent matters has been used during crises involving the COVID-19 pandemic and in scheduling disputes connected to Parliamentary sovereignty debates.
Notable Reports and Recommendations
The committee has influenced reforms such as proposals on debating rights resembling changes advocated by the Wright Committee, recommendations on private Members’ bills echoing precedents from the Parliament Act 1911 era, and suggestions on electronic voting and remote participation inspired by practices in legislatures like the United States House of Representatives and the Canadian House of Commons. Reports have addressed the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons, improvements to select committee scheduling akin to reforms championed by members of the Public Administration Committee, and measures to enhance transparency comparable to standards from the International Parliamentary Union.
Influence on Parliamentary Practice
Recommendations have been adopted by the House of Commons leading to changes in standing orders, sitting patterns, and the conduct of oral questions to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The committee’s work has shaped backbench mechanisms such as the Backbench Business Committee and influenced procedural precedents cited in notable rulings by the Speaker of the House of Commons and during litigation considered by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Its reports are frequently referenced in debates by MPs including former chairs and speakers linked to historic reforms associated with figures like Betty Boothroyd and John Bercow.
Criticisms and Controversies
Critics have argued the committee is sometimes slow to act on crises such as the Parliamentary expenses scandal (2009) and that its consensual, cross-party approach can dilute robust reform proposals pushed by advocates from entities like the Institute for Government or Reform. Others contend that recommendations have been ignored by major actors including successive Prime Minister of the United Kingdom incumbents, and that tensions exist between procedural conservatism upheld by the Clerk of the House of Commons and reformist pressures aligned with campaigns from organisations such as Democracy UK and academic commentators at Cambridge University.