The limits of debate in the House of Commons

Victoria Atkins was properly reprimanded for barracking a minister in the Commons, but let's not pretend it was grave disorder or a democratic outrage

Social media was afire with virtuous outrage on Friday at an incident from the debate on the King’s Speech, focusing on planning, the green belt and rural affairs. Steve Reed, the environment, food and rural affairs secretary, was speaking from the dispatch box when the shadow health secretary, Victoria Atkins, tried to intervene in his speech to clarify issues of budgets for farming, flood defences and food security. Reed was not minded to let her intervene, given that the debate was drawing rapidly to a close, but continued his speech; Atkins, however, remained at the opposition dispatch box repeatedly trying to ask a question. She became som persistent and disruptive—though Hansard only records, rather primly, “[Interruption.]”—that the deputy speaker, Sir Christopher Chope, intervened to restore order and allow the minister to make progress. Chope also remarked, severely, “The right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle [Atkins] has behaved abominably”.

Such a direct rebuke from the occupant of the chair is rare, and should not usually be necessary. Atkins was clearly in the wrong, and should have accepted much more quickly that the minister was not going to allow her to intervene; a glance at the clock would have told her that the debate had to end very shortly and it was perfectly reasonable for Reed to argue that “there are only three minutes left and I need to cover the points that have been raised”. It is doubly regrettable that Atkins’s office defended her conduct on the grounds that she was “trying to get answers” and added “She will always stand up fearlessly for farmers and our rural area in Westminster, even if that means a rare admonishment from the Chair”. That is simply not good enough: every Member “stands up for” his or her constituents, and will from time to time want to “get answers”, but neither grants immunity from the rules of order or basic courtesy in the chamber. They are not trump cards.

Just so that we are clear, then, I am saying that Atkins behaved badly and rudely, deserved a reprimand from the deputy speaker, and certainly should not have authorised her office to try to justify her rudeness on the grounds of dedication to her constituents. Nevertheless, I have to say that the tone of some of the criticisms, on social media and elsewhere, was pious in the extreme and, as I will explain shortly, potentially corrosive. Josh Fenton-Glynn, newly elected Labour MP for Calder Valley, was perfectly entitled to a bit of political snark when he tweeted “I think the fact you don’t get to speak as much in opposition is hard for them to get used to”. It was sharp but wry and Atkins had earned it.

Another Twitter user who followed him took a very different tack, however, protesting that “Atkins’ disgusting behaviour should like to a formal naming and suspension”. Perran Moon, Labour MP for Camborne and Redruth, agreed and tweeted “The behaviour of Victoria Atkins today in the House of Commons was an absolute disgrace & I hope the authorities take appropriate action”. There were many other comments in a similar vein, expressing outrage and disgust, and demanding some kind of punitive action.

Can we just try for a little perspective here? Atkins was rude and disruptive, but she was, at the end of the day, trying to participate in a debate. She was clearly saying repeatedly “Will he give way?” as she wanted to question parts of his speech relating to the NHS. Certainly she was too insistent, and became far too agitated, but where are we setting the bar for formal sanctions to be imposed on Members of Parliament?

Let us start by looking at the regulatory framework. The speaker of the House of Commons, and by extension the deputy speakers, is responsible for maintaining what Erskine May, the authoritative guide to parliamentary practice, calls “orderly conduct of debate”. In order to do this, he may, if a Member “makes any noise or disturbance while another Member is speaking, or commits any other breach of order or decorum not amounting to grossly disorderly conduct”, see fit to “intervene and call the Member to order, or direct them to resume their seat”. This is, in fact, a relatively accurate description of the confrontation between Atkins and Reed: she was “making a noise or disturbance while another Member is speaking”, and the deputy speaker intervened and made clear that she should resume her seat, which she did. There is no provision in these circumstances for further disciplinary action, nor is any needed: the offence is dealt with, the Member rebuked, and the House moves on to the next business.

Should Atkins have been “named”, as one keyboard warrior thought was essential? Under Standing Order S.O. No. 43, the speaker may order a Member “whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day’s sitting”. “Naming” takes matters a stage further: under Standing Order S.O. No. 44, a Member who is guilty “of disregarding the authority of the chair, or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House by abusing the rules of the House or otherwise”, is identified by the speaker who proposes the question “that such Member be suspended from the service of the House. A first suspension is for five sitting days while a second is for 20. A Member ordered to withdraw or suspended must leave the precincts of the House of Commons, while a Member who is suspended forfeits his or her salary for the duration of the suspension.

There is simply no reasonable argument that Atkins was guilty of grossly disorderly conduct. To begin with, Erskine May makes it clear that a Member crossing into territory of possible suspension must be warned “repeatedly” so as not to be “taken unawares”, and Atkins was not warned. Moreover, she did not disrupt business, infringe specific rules of the House in terms of unparliamentary language or the sub judice resolution or anything like it. To be clear, once again: she was rude and over-persistent in trying to intervene on a minister who clearly was not going to accept her intervention. But the whole incident lasted for perhaps two or three minutes.

For the speaker or another occupant of the chair to name a Member is extremely rare, reflecting the seriousness and severity of the sanction. Only seven MPs have been named in the last 30 years (one of them, Dennis Skinner, twice) for behaviour like seizing the Mace or refusing to withdraw an accusation of dishonesty. Friday’s events were so far below that bar it is baffling to have to compare them. It will also have been obvious to Sir Christopher Chope that the debate was finishing at 2.30 pm, as it must, at which point a whip moved the adjournment and the day’s business was concluded. To let the clock tick down and then issue a stern reprimand from the chair was in every way the best and most appropriate way to handle the situation.

But there is a deeper issue, the corrosive one I mentioned earlier. While Atkins’s conduct, or her way of going about what she was doing, was disorderly and rude, her purpose, to intervene on a minister to seek clarification on some remarks he had just made, was part of the normal progress of debate. Proceedings in the House of Commons cannot be reduced to a succession of speeches delivered to a quiescent chamber, each being faithfully recorded by the Official Report but forming not a narrative but merely an anthology. Friday’s business was a debate, and debates involve interaction, Members engaging with each other and tackling the content of speeches. That is why it is perfectly permissible for a Member to seek to intervene on someone who is speaking, to deal immediately and directly with something they have just said.

Judgement is required in when and how often to seek to intervene. Any Member is entitled to some degree of momentum when addressing the House, which is why it is entirely at their discretion whether to allow an intervention or not. There is a degree of theatre to this, too: seeking to intervene and being refused, if followed by a theatrical sigh and a heavy sitting-down, can effectively make the point that there is a potential flaw in someone’s argument which they are afraid to let you expose. But persistence should not be allowed to cross a line into nuisance, and that is where Atkins’s judgement failed on Friday.

Was what happened “disgusting”, as Perran Moon alleged? It is not for me to define Moon’s sensitivities, but if he found that “disgusting” then his parliamentary career, whether long or short, is going to be a hard and bruising road. If you think Atkins should have been named, excluded or suspended, you are lowering the bar for a serious sanction to so low a level that it will be called for—by Members on all sides, because this kind of thing is thrown back at those who demand it—on a weekly basis. The list of MPs who have been suspended will become as overcrowded as the prison system the government is trying to manage.

These are the very early days of the new parliament, and it is understandable that feelings are running high. Labour MPs are euphoric, flushed with an historic victory, keen to flex their muscles as the governing party after 14 years in opposition and, as is plain human nature, gleeful suddenly to be in a position of dominance over the Conservative Party which they have seen as an obstacle for so long. Tories, by the same token, are stung, hurt and in shock, some still adjusting to the fact that they are the opposition (most of them have never sat on the opposition benches) and indignant that what power they had three weeks ago has vanished from their hands. Some will be more gracious in defeat than others, and on both sides, slowly but surely, a new pattern of behaviour and a new rhythm of life will establish itself.

To say that Victoria Atkins clearly crossed line of acceptable behaviour last week does not mean that any kind of firm, robust, active debate is out of bounds. The rules of order exist to create a framework in which MPs on all sides can conduct vigorous debate and engage with each others’ arguments, not sit mutely and wait their turn to read out their prepared speeches. If we create an atmosphere of intimidated hush, where in pursuit of noble aims like respect and mutual understanding Members dare not even try to challenge one another for fear of some sanction from the chair, we suppress actual debate. There are so many people who fret about an over-mighty executive and a government which does not listen to the concerns of voters: the only institution which can address those problems, however imperfectly, is Parliament. Sometimes the temperature will run too high, MPs will cross boundaries in a state of agitation, and they will be controlled by the occupant of the chair. Those moments are usually brief, as Fridays’s was, and the House should move on quickly. Otherwise the House of Commons is in as much danger as over from crossing from the “efficient” part of Bagehot’s constitution to the “dignified” side, and that is almost certainly irreversible.