Lee Dillon
Main Page: Lee Dillon (Liberal Democrat - Newbury)
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Procedure Committee about our fourth report of the Session, which looks at the idea of introducing call lists. I am happy to stand in for the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), on this occasion. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time today, and my colleagues on the Procedure Committee for the thoughtful and constructive way in which they have approached this work.
We launched this inquiry because Members from all sides of the House raised concerns with us. Some colleagues told us that they wanted more certainty in the sitting day, and others spoke about the challenges they face because of disabilities, long-term health conditions or caring responsibilities. Colleagues from smaller parties explained how difficult it can be to know whether they will be called at all in a debate. For many of them, call lists seemed like a straightforward answer. We also heard the opposite view, which is strongly and sincerely held. Some Members were worried that call lists could change the very character of debate in this Chamber. They feared that we would lose the spontaneity, energy and genuine back and forth that makes this place what it is.
Our task was to look at all of this in a balanced and evidence-based way. We took written and oral evidence from a wide range of people, including the former Deputy Speakers Nigel Evans, Baroness Laing and Baroness Winterton, smaller parties, the Hansard Society, Centenary Action and the presiding officers of the devolved legislatures. Their insights were incredibly helpful, and we are grateful to all of them. After weighing everything carefully, the Committee concluded that call lists should not be introduced. This was not a decision that we reached quickly or casually, so I want to explain the main reasons behind it.
First, we found that there is not a single, clearly defined problem that call lists would solve. The concerns raised with us were varied; they included accessibility, work-life balance, speaking opportunities, and the general flow of business. Call lists might help with some of those issues, but not all, and certainly not in a consistent or fair way. They are simply too blunt an instrument to deal with such a wide range of issues.
Secondly, we heard real worries about what call lists would do to debates themselves. Many Members reflected on the pandemic period, in which call lists were used out of necessity. Those arrangements were right for that moment, but they undeniably reduced spontaneity—interventions were limited or banned, and the Chamber felt flatter. The natural rhythm of debate was lost. That experience made clear that call lists can change the atmosphere of this place in ways that we might not want to repeat.
Thirdly, we looked at how other legislatures use call lists. It was a useful exercise, but in truth, those legislatures’ systems operate in a very different procedural environment. Many of them allocate speaking rights proportionately between parties; that is not how this House works. We cannot simply lift one feature from another Parliament and drop it into ours without considering the procedural ecosystem around it.
Fourthly, we examined how call lists would fit in with the way time is currently managed in this House. Our existing system strikes a careful balance between certainty and flexibility; we know when the day starts and ends, and we know how long different types of business can run, but we also have the ability to respond quickly to events through urgent questions and statements. That flexibility is essential to the House’s role in holding the Government to account. Introducing call lists would disrupt that balance, and would require a much wider rethink of how the parliamentary day is structured.
Finally, we considered the role of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Their discretion in calling Members is fundamental to how debates are managed. They are elected by the House, they are impartial, and they are trusted to use their judgment fairly. Call lists would inevitably limit that discretion. We did not find a strong enough case to justify restricting the Chair’s ability to steward debates effectively, and we note that informal mechanisms are already in place to support Members who have genuine health or accessibility needs, and that the Speaker’s Office handles these with care and sensitivity. Our report also suggests that the Modernisation Committee should set out how it intends to approach its upcoming work on the use of time in the Chamber. That broader perspective will help the House to think about these issues in the round, rather than in isolation.
We fully understand why some colleagues may be disappointed by our conclusions. We listened carefully to all the views put to us and took them seriously, but our recommendation is based on detailed evidence and a clear view that call lists are not the right solution to the concerns raised. They would change some of the fundamental features of how this Chamber operates, and not necessarily for the better. This report is not the end of the conversation; what it does is give the House a structured foundation on which those conversations can continue.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this report to the House.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is very rare—in fact, I cannot think of a previous occasion over what is approaching 29 or 30 years in this House—that I have heard a statement from a Select Committee, every word of which I entirely agree with. This is one of those occasions, and I congratulate the Committee and the Members who were involved in the preparation of this excellent contribution.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) very much for what he has said, and I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—it is not often that we have two people agreeing spontaneously with the Member speaking on behalf of the Committee. I think that I have the strongest legs in the Chamber, because I am nearly always called last. In the previous statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, you brought me in fourth from the end, so that record has been beaten today for a change.
I enjoy the spontaneity that we have in the Chamber, and I do not think there is any need whatsoever for change. I am not a traditionalist, but I love the way we do it—let us not change it.