This 2002 report lays bare the operation of one of the most distinctive, mysterious and critical features of the Westminster Parliament: the ‘usual channels’ - that is, the relationships between the government and opposition parties through which Parliament’s business is organised.
Although the initiative in arranging the parliamentary agenda at Westminster lies largely with the government of the day, in practice the government negotiates with the opposition parties - particularly the official Opposition - to arrange parliamentary business through what are euphemistically known as the ‘usual channels’.
The ‘usual channels’ operate differently in certain respects in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but across both Houses few records are kept of what has been agreed, and the system operates entirely informally and privately.
The operation of the ‘usual channels’ in the Westminster Parliament contrasts with the practice in many other legislatures, including the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly, where parliamentary business is arranged through a Business Committee.
In 2010 the House of Commons backed the creation of a House Business Committee to take charge of business in the Lower House, but the 2010-2015 coalition government did not bring forward proposals to establish one. Accordingly, the ‘usual channels’ continue to operate in the Commons as well as the Lords, so the findings of this 2002 report remain current. Indeed, with renewed attention focusing on the control of business in the House of Commons as a result of the Brexit process, it is more valuable than ever to understand how the current process works.
The report explains what the ‘usual channels’ are, how they came into existence, how they work, and who the key figures are in the ‘usual channels’ system. The report also asks how effective the ‘usual channels’ are, and whether Parliament should have greater control over its own agenda.
Table of Contents
- The Usual Channels
- What are the Usual Channels?
- Who are the Usual Channels?
- What do the Usual Channels Do?
- A History of the Usual Channels
- A Week in the Life of the Usual Channels - the House of Commons
- The Usual Channels in the House of Lords
- Government Domination of Parliament
- The Importance of Personality in the Usual Channels
- Programme Motions
- The Usual Channels Outside the Usual Channels
- A Critique of the Usual Channels
- A Westminster Business Committee?
- Opening up the Usual Channels
Banner image: ‘John Bercow takes the Chair and expresses his thanks to the House of Commons’, by UK Parliament
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?