BRIEFING PAPER CBP 9042, 2 November 2020
House of Commons By Chris Watson
trends
Contents: 1. Introduction 2. Sitting days and lengths 3. Sitting lengths by business type 4. Legislation 5. Divisions 6. Parliamentary questions 7. Parliamentary written questions by department 8. Emergency debates 9. Statements 10. Petitions 11. Early Day Motions 12. Select committees 13. Suspensions and withdrawals 14. MP demographics 15. Commons characteristics 16. Public viewing of Parliament 17. MPs and staffing
www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary
2 House of Commons trends
Contents
Summary 4 1. Introduction 5 2. Sitting days and lengths 6 2.1 Commons Chamber 6 2.2 Sitting days per year 7 2.3 Number of sitting hours 7 2.4 Westminster Hall 9 3. Sitting lengths by business type 11 Business types 11 4. Legislation 13 4.1 Primary legislation 13 Public bills 13 Private bills 15 Private bills passed 16 Time spent on government bills 18 4.2 Secondary legislation 19 5. Divisions 22 Divisions in recent years 24 6. Parliamentary questions 25 6.1 Oral questions 26 6.2 Prime Minister’s questions 26 6.3 Urgent questions 28 6.4 Written questions 30 7. Parliamentary written questions by department 31 7.1 Historically busy departments 32 8. Emergency debates 34 9. Statements 36 9.1 Oral statements 36 9.2 Written statements 36 10. Petitions 38 10.1 Paper Petitions 38 10.2 E-petitions 39 11. Early Day Motions 44 12. Select committees 46 12.1 Proportion of MPs on select committees 46 12.2 Women on select committees 47 12.3 Select committee reports 48 13. Suspensions and withdrawals 50 14. MP demographics 52 14.1 Gender 52 14.2 Age 54 14.3 Ethnicity 56 14.4 Education 57 3 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
MPs who attended fee paying schools 57 MPs who attended university 58 14.5 Names 59 Forenames 60 Surnames 62 15. Commons characteristics 63 15.1 Seats 63 15.2 Seats by party 64 15.3 Candidates 65 15.4 Women candidates 66 Women candidates becoming MPs 67 Women candidates and MPs by party 68 15.5 Turnover of MPs 69 15.6 Elevation to the House of Lords 70 16. Public viewing of Parliament 71 2019 was popular with viewers 71 17. MPs and staffing 74 17.1 MPs’ Salaries 74 17.2 MP and MPs’ staff pay and expenses 76 17.3 MPs’ staff 77 17.4 House of Commons Staff 78 Numbers 78 Costs 80
Cover page image copyright: PoW-portrait2 by © UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor.
4 House of Commons trends
Summary
This briefing looks at statistics on the working and procedures of the House of Commons. It looks at the composition of the Commons, the Parliamentary mechanisms, time spent on different types of business and staffing among other things. • Six of the last nine sessions have seen a decrease in the percentage of time spent on Government bills compared to the previous sessions. • With the exception of the 2009-10 Session, which had an unusually high ‘royal assent rate’ (0.43 bills passed per Commons sitting day), the average number of public bills passed per Commons sitting day has stayed fairly constant. Since the 1997-98 session, the rate has been 0.23 public bills passed per Commons sitting day. • In terms of the number of SIs laid before the House of Commons, the 2017-19 Session had the most SIs laid since 1997-98, with 2,323. The next highest came in 2005-06 (1,885). • The general trend over the last few sessions has been a decrease in the average number of divisions per sitting day. The 2017-19 session was the longest session since the English Civil War and had an average of 1.3 divisions per sitting day (446 in total over 349 days). For comparison, the next longest session (2010-12) had 544 divisions in 295 sitting days (1.8 on average). • The 2017-19 (80.2%) and 2019-19 (83.7%) sessions had the largest average participation of MPs taking part in divisions since 2001-02. The lowest rate came in the 2008-09 session (63.0%). • There has been a gradual increase in the average number of oral questions per sitting day since 2003-04. The peak came in the 2017-19 session, with an average of 91 oral questions per sitting day. • Tony Blair had the highest attendance rate of any Prime Minister at PMQs since 1979. He attended 95.0% of the potential PMQs across his time in office, only missing 17 out of the 343 occasions. David Cameron was the next highest, with an attendance rate of 92.9% followed by Margaret Thatcher (92.3%) and Theresa May (92.1%). • There have been 18,718 Commons written statements since 2002-03. The average per sitting day is 7.5 written statements. • Nine of the ten most read debates on Hansard in 2019 were debates on subjects about which e-petitions had been submitted. • There are currently 430 men and 220 women MPs in the House of Commons. Making up 33.8% of the House, the 2019 General Election saw the highest proportion of women ever returned. • The most popular forename for women MPs since 1979 is Margaret, whilst the most popular forename for men is John. The most common MP surnames have been Jones and Smith.
5 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
1. Introduction
The data for this research briefing has been collated from a number of primary sources. When errors in the primary data have been spotted, they have been corrected in the datasets for this publication. Consequently, there may be some disparities between the data available through this publication and the primary data sources. The data is available in the accompanying spreadsheet. Due to the available information, not all sections analyse the same time periods. Parliamentary data is collected in differing periods: for instance, by session, by calendar year, or by financial year. One of the main sources of data is the Sessional Returns. This publication provides statistical information about the House and its Committees. The Sessional Returns were first published in consolidated form in the 1986–87 session. With three different Parliamentary sessions including ‘2019’, it is important to provide clarity about the differences. The 2017-19 Session began after the 2017 General Election and finished in October 2019. This was followed by the short 2019 Session which ran from October 2019 until November 2019, when the House was dissolved for the 2019 General Election. Then there is the 2019-21 session which began after the 2019 General Election. As the 2019-21 session is not complete at the time of writing, the majority of the analyses and charts in this publication do not include data from it. In the charts we have used 2019-19 to represent the short 2019 Parliamentary session. It has also been necessary to use the colour purple in a number of charts to represent the SNP as opposed to yellow, as this is easier for the reader to see. I would like to thank all those who have helped make this publication possible including colleagues from the House of Commons Library and elsewhere in the House Service. 6 House of Commons trends
2. Sitting days and lengths A parliamentary session 2.1 Commons Chamber The number of sitting days varies depending on the length of a A session of Parliament is a parliamentary session. “period which The pattern in the chart below shows that, over the past 40 years, the begins with the last session of a parliament is likely to have fewer days than average. State Opening of The first session is likely to be long in comparison to the others. Parliament and the Queen’s Speech The 2017-19 session with 349 sitting days (the longest session since the outlining the English Civil War), and the 2019 session with 15 sitting days (one of the Government’s plans shortest sessions in history), are extreme examples of this trend. for legislation during the Both the 2015 and 2017 Parliaments were anomalies as they were remainder of the comparatively short. If you discount these and look at the last session of session. It ends with the 2010 Parliament, it had the highest number of sitting days (133) prorogation, or compared to a last session in any previous Parliament in the data with a dissolution if available. However, the move to May state openings of Parliament it is the last session would have impacted that. of a Parliament.“
The average proportion of sitting days taking place in the final session Rogers and Walters, of parliaments between 1986 and 2005 was 12%. In comparison, 18% How Parliament of the sitting days in the 2010 Parliament came in the final session. Works (6th Ed), A list of previous recess, state opening and dissolution/prorogation 2006, P.138 dates since 1979-80 is available on the Parliament website.
Commons sitting days Chamber sitting days by parliamentary session 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 80-81 84-85 88-89 92-93 96-97 00-01 04-05 08-09 13-14 17-19
Source: Sessional Returns and House of Commons Library calculations
Sitting Days by Parliament • 1983 - 666 • 1997 - 643 • 2010 - 735 • 1987 - 803 • 2001 - 585 • 2015 - 300 • 1992 - 785 • 2005 - 724 • 2017 - 364
7 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
2.2 Sitting days per year It is also possible to analyse the sessional data by looking at the number of sitting days per calendar year. The chart below shows there has been a gradual downwards trend since 1988.1 The average from 1988 to 2019 was 153 sitting days per calendar year. This has been driven in part by changes to the number of sitting Fridays over this period. 1990 had the most sitting days (176) and 2017 had the fewest (130). 10 of the 12 years with the highest number of sitting days occurred before the turn of the millennium.
Annual sitting days Chamber sitting days by calendar year 200
160
120
80
40
0 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 Source: Sessional Returns and House of Commons Library calculations
2.3 Number of sitting hours Another useful measure is the number of hours the Commons chamber has sat in the sitting days over a given period. The chart below shows how this has changed since 1980. Over the whole period, the average sitting day lasted eight hours and 17 mins. However, significant differences can be identified if the data is split into sessions before and after the millennium. The average length of a sitting day for the sessions up to 1999-00 was eight hours and 41 minutes, whilst the average from 2000 to 2019 was seven hours and 50 minutes.
1 Comparable data not available pre 1988 8 House of Commons trends
Average length of sitting day by parliamentary session Chamber sitting timings (hours) 10:00
09:00
08:00
07:00
06:00
05:00 80-81 84-85 88-89 92-93 96-97 00-01 04-05 08-09 13-14 17-19 Source: Sessional Returns and House of Commons Library calculations
Two major factors for this are likely to be the use of Westminster Hall and the implementation of the Jopling report. In 1992, the Jopling report recommended reducing the number of late sittings, among other reforms.2 The House began experimenting with these new arrangements from the 1994-95 session onwards. Further changes were made from 1997 following the establishment of the Modernisation Committee. The 1999-2000 session saw the introduction of sittings in Westminster Hall. The creation of this parallel debating chamber was intended to reduce the average number of daily hours in the main chamber. The trend of average daily sitting hours decreasing also coincides with other changes to sitting patterns in the Commons Chamber and the introduction of ‘programming’. The Sitting Hours and the Programming of legislation briefing papers provide more information. The chart above shows an increase in average sitting hours in the last two sessions. The 2019 session had the highest average sitting time (eight hours and 28 mins) since the 1999-00 session. As it also only had 15 sitting days it can be regarded as an anomaly. The average daily sitting hours in the 2017-19 session (seven hours and 52 minutes) was the highest since 2010-12 (seven hours and 56 minutes). The average for the sessions between 2005-06 and 2016-17 was seven hours and 43 minutes. The amount of time MPs sit in the Commons chamber does not necessarily tell you very much about the type of business transacted or its importance. In addition to business in the chamber, MPs partake in
2 The Select Committee on Sittings of the House (Jopling Committee), Report, 18 February 1992, HC 20 1991/92, link available through the intranet or for researchers/libraries with a parliamentary papers subscription. 9 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
lots of other parliamentary work including debates in Westminster Hall, conducting constituency surgeries and sitting on select committees. 2.4 Westminster Hall The first Westminster Hall debates were held in November 1999. Five hours are available for adjournment debates initiated by back-benchers on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Since the 2010-12 session, three of the hours available on Thursdays have been made available for debates on select committee reports or on a subject chosen by the Government or by the Backbench Business Committee.
Westminster Hall debating time % of the combined total debating time in the Chamber and Westminster Hall
5,000 Westminster Hall Hours 100%
4,000 Main Chamber Hours 80%
% of WH compared to 3,000 60% both combined
2,000 40%
1,000 20%
0 0% 99-00 02-03 05-06 08-09 12-13 15-16 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns
The chart above shows the combined number of hours in both chambers since the 1999-00 session and looks at the percentage of the time that Westminster Hall was used. The combined sitting hours in the 2017-19 session was nearly 3,900 compared to just 165 in the short 2019 session. The percentage of time spent using the Westminster Hall debating chamber compared to the main chamber has slowly increased over the period, albeit only slightly. The dips in the 2004-05 and 2019 sessions coincide with particularly short sessions (39 and 7 Westminster Hall days respectively); whilst the rises in 2005-06 and 2017-19 could be attributed to longer sessions (136 and 303 Westminster Hall days respectively). However, 2010-12 was a similarly long session but did not see the same rise despite the number of Westminster Hall days rising from 43 in 2009-10 to 195 in 2010-12. From 2009-10 until the 2019 session, the share of sitting time in Westminster Hall compared with total Commons Chamber business rose year-on-year. It went from 23.6% in 2009-10 to 29.5% in 2017- 19. 10 House of Commons trends
The 2017-19 session had the highest share of Commons business in Westminster Hall since the second chamber was established with nearly a third of all Commons business taking place there. The rise from 2014-15 (25.1%) to 2017-19 (29.5%) is likely due to an increase in the amount of time available in Westminster Hall from the beginning of the 2015 Parliament. This was in response to a Procedure Committee review in 2014.3 Another factor that has led to an increase in time spent in Westminster Hall is the introduction of the Petitions Committee and the subsequent debates. More information about Westminster Hall debates can be found in our briefing: House of Commons sittings in Westminster Hall.
3 Procedure Committee - First Report 2014-15, Business in Westminster Hall, 11 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
3. Sitting lengths by business type
As well as looking at the length of time the House of Commons sat in each parliamentary session, it is useful to analyse what type of business was taking place. This section examines how Commons Chamber debating time was split up in the 2017-19 session and how the different types of business (by percentage) compare to other sessions. Business types Government business takes up the majority of time on the floor of the Commons Chamber but there are other forms of business. Non- governmental business includes private members’ bills, backbench business, opposition day debates and estimate days. The sessional returns also record the time taken for types of business such as points of order and daily prayers. The chart below shows the distribution of the time spent in the 2017-19 session on each type of business. Business types that accounted for less than 0.5% of the time come under ‘other’.
% of time spent in the chamber by business types 2017-19 parliamentary session
Government Bills Q's to Ministers (incl Topical Q's) Government Motions Statements Backbench Business Urgent Questions Daily Adjournment Debates Opposition Days Private Members Bills Business Statements Standing Order No. 24 Debates Private Members' Motions Motions for approval of SI's Ways and Means Motions Points of Order Estimates Addresses Daily Prayers Other
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Source: Sessional Diary 2017-19
The majority of time spent in the Chamber was on government bills (18%). Question times (including topical (in light green on the chart)) were next (13%), followed by 12% for government motions. There was a large amount of time spent on points of order in the 2017- 19 session comparatively. Despite only accounting for 2% of the total, 12 House of Commons trends
over 44 hours were spent on them. This was more time than the previous four sessions combined. This trend continued into the 2019 session, where 3% of the time in the session was spent on points of order. There was at least one point of order on 10 of the 15 sitting days in the session. On 19 October, 1 hour and 36 mins were spent on points of order, 43% of the sessional amount in one day. This was a Saturday sitting where MPs came to Parliament to debate a motion to approve the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. After the vote, the Speaker took a number of points of order from MPs on both sides of the chamber. The following charts illustrate both the changes in time spent on points of order since 2010-12 as well as some other business types not covered elsewhere. The 2019 session has been omitted due to its length.
% Chamber time on different types of business By parliamentary session Points of order Business statements
10-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-19
0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Questions to ministers (Incl topical) Opposition day debates
10-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-19
0% 5% 10% 15% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Source: Sessional diaries
Further analysis of the different types of business follows in sections on other parliamentary mechanisms.
13 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
4. Legislation 4.1 Primary legislation In the UK, the term ‘primary legislation’ is used to describe laws enacted by a legislature. When the UK Parliament passes primary legislation, it normally takes the form of an Act of Parliament. A Bill becomes an Act when it has completed all of its parliamentary stages and has received Royal Assent. Bills in the UK Parliament can be subdivided into two categories: public and private. With the exception of finance bills (which always begin in the Commons), bills may first be introduced in either the House of Lords or the House of Commons.
Public Bills Public bills/acts make up the vast majority of primary legislation passed in the House of Commons. Although some public bills/acts can apply specifically to a certain region, they affect public general law which applies to everyone.
Private Bills Private bills/acts are used for more specific or localised issues when specific legal authority is required. They may allow a local authority to do something or exempt a specific person/authority from an act already in force.
Hybrid Bills Sometimes, elements of both private and public primary legislation are included in a bill/act. If that is the case, they are called hybrid bills.
Different procedures apply to public, private and hybrid bills.
Private Members’ Bills Private Members’ bills are not the same as private bills. Private Members’ Bills are public bills and are brought forward by backbench MPs (private members) to change the general law.
The percentage of private members’ bills which are enacted is relatively low compared to bills introduced by the Government. 4
Public bills The chart below shows the number of public bills introduced per session. This includes bills introduced first in the Commons or those introduced first in the Lords and subsequently sent to the Commons. The data splits up the bills into Government bills and Private Members’ Bills (PMBs). The full dataset is available along with this briefing.
4 Rogers, Robert & Walters, Rhodri, How Parliament Works, 7th Ed, 2015 14 House of Commons trends
Number of public bills introduced Bills introduced both in the Commons and the Lords by session
500 Private Members' Bills 2.0 Government Bills 400 Average per Commons sitting day 1.5
300 1.0 200
0.5 100
0 0.0 97-98 01-02 05-06 09-10 14-15 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns
The number of bills introduced per session will usually reflect the session’s length. However, there is a trend that the first session of a Parliament will usually see more bills introduced than any other in that Parliament. The last session will usually see the fewest. The largest number of Government bills in this period were introduced in 2017-19 (60), followed by 2005-06 (58) and 1997-98 (53). The chart above shows the number of bills introduced in either the House of Commons of the House of Lords in each session. It also indicates the average number of bills introduced per Commons sitting day in each session. This allows broad comparisons to be drawn despite the length of sessions varying significantly. The average over the whole period up to the end of the 2017 Parliament is 0.96 public bills introduced per Commons sitting day. Although fewer public bills tend to be introduced in the last session of a Parliament (given that they have generally been shorter in length), the number of bills introduced per Commons sitting day is actually higher in the final sessions of recent Parliaments. With the exception of the 2017 Parliament, which finished with a very short session, every Parliament since 1997 has seen its highest number of public bills introduced per sitting day in its last session. All of the final sessions in this period up to 2017 have averaged at over one bill introduced per Commons sitting day, with the highest in 2004-05 (1.58). The chart below shows how many public bills were passed and received Royal Assent in each session. 15 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Number of public bills receiving Royal Assent Bills receiving royal assent both in the Commons and the Lords by session
80 Private Members' Bills 2.0 Government Bills 60 Average per sitting day 1.5
40 1.0
20 0.5
0 0.0 97-98 01-02 05-06 09-10 14-15 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns
Longer sessions usually result in more bills being passed. For example, the session in which the most bills received Royal Assent was the 2017- 19 session, which lasted more than two years. In that session, 51 Government Bills and 14 Private Members’ Bills reached the statute book. More bills tend to reach the statute book in the first session of a Parliament than in each of the subsequent sessions, although they are often also the longest sessions of each Parliament. If the data is adjusted to take account of differing session lengths (showing the number of public bills receiving Royal Assent per sitting day) a different trend emerges. With the exception of the 2009-10 Session, which had an unusually high ‘royal assent rate’ (0.43 bills passed per Commons sitting day), the average has stayed fairly constant. Over the whole period, the rate was 0.23 per Commons sitting day. There is not an obvious link between the ‘royal assent rate’ in the first and last sessions of a Parliament, neither is there a link between those sessions that are longer or had more public bills passed in terms of raw numbers. Private bills The chart below looks at the private bills introduced per session since 1997-98 and the success rate in the same period according to data collected from the sessional returns. The highest number introduced in one session in the period was 17 (1997-98). The next highest number came in 1999-00 and 2007-08 where 12 were introduced. No private bills were introduced in the very short 2019 session. The number of private bills has declined in recent years. Despite being the longest session since the English Civil War, there were only four private bills introduced in the 2017-19 Session. 16 House of Commons trends
Private bills Total number of Private Bills introduced per session and their success rate
20 Private Bills introduced* 100%
% Private Bills receiving 80% 15 Royal Assent
60% 10 40%
5 20%
0 0% 97-98 01-02 05-06 09-10 14-15 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns Notes: *Introduced into the House of Commons or brought from the House of Lords; includes suspended or revived Bills (those carried from one Parliamentary Session to the next). Does not include Hybrid bills. Private bills passed In terms of success rate, three sessions in the period have had all of the private bills introduced receive Royal Assent. This occurred in 2003-04, 2015-16 and 2017-19. The 2004-05 session was the only one in the period which had no successful private bills (excluding 2019 where none were introduced). There does not seem to be any link between the success rate of private bills and the length of a session or its position in the Parliament. This is probably because private bills can take more than one session to complete their passage through parliament. Despite (or possibly because) fewer private bills are being introduced, their success rate has improved on average since 2008-09.
17 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
The following chart looks at the success rates for Government bills introduced in either House over the period.
Success rate of government bills by house % receiving royal assent by session after being introduced in either House
100%
80%
60% Commons Lords 40%
20%
0% 97-98 01-02 05-06 09-10 14-15 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns
Since 1997, almost all Government bills first introduced in the House of Lords have become Acts in the same session. In only three sessions has one or more Government bills originating in the Lords failed to pass. Between 1997-98 and 2016-17, only one of 175 Government bills introduced in the Lords did not receive Royal Assent. There was a sharp drop in the success rate for Government bills introduced in both Houses in the 2019 Session. This can be explained by the fact that it was an abnormally short session, thus many Government bills did not have time to progress through Parliament: it should be regarded as anomalous. The success rate for Government bills introduced first in the Commons is generally lower. Only three sessions out of the 21 in the sample resulted in a 100% success rate (2001-02, 2009-10 and 2014-15). The average success rate for Government bills over the whole period stands at 86%. The success rates for Commons bills likely fluctuates due to carry-over. The Government can introduce bills late in a session not expecting them to pass before prorogation meaning they are carried over to the next session.
18 House of Commons trends
Time spent on government bills The Commons Chamber spends more time debating Government bills than any other type of Parliamentary business. In the 2017-19 Parliamentary Session, this type of business accounted for 18% of the total time (510 hours, 25 mins). Despite always being the largest category, the proportion of time spent on Government bills in the Chamber has declined in recent years.
% Time spent on government bills by session
100% 70 No. of Government Bills introduced 60 80% % of Business 50
60% 40
40% 30 20 20% 10
0% 0 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06 07-08 09-10 12-13 14-15 16-17 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns, Sessional Diaries and House of Commons Library calculations
In the 1997-98 Session, 36.9% of the time spent transacting business in the Commons Chamber was dedicated to the consideration of Government bills. The peak came in 2005-06 when this rate reached 41.3%. In contrast, in the 2017-19 session Government bills accounted for only 18% of the time on the floor of the House. Six of the last nine sessions have seen a decrease in the percentage of time spent on Government bills compared to the previous sessions.
Time spent on government bill stages Hours 800 Lords Amendments Third Reading Report Stage Committee of the House 600 Second Reading
400
200
0 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06 07-08 09-10 12-13 14-15 16-17 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns and Diaries
19 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Three sessions (1997-98, 2010-12 and 2017-19) saw an exceptionally More information high amount of time spent considering Government bills in ‘committees about the stages of of the whole house’. a bill can be found This was caused by the proliferation of constitutionally important bills on the Parliament going through Parliament in those sessions. Bills are usually considered website. by a committee of the whole house when they are of major constitutional importance. A committee of the whole house can also, however, be formed if legislation is urgent or if its provisions are uncontroversial, so that a separate public bill committee is not needed. Although there were a larger than normal number of constitutional bills in 2010-12 and 2017-19, these were also two-year sessions and the first of a new Parliament. Both of these factors tend to correlate with increased time spent on Government bills.
Sessions with large amount of time spent on committee of the whole house • 1997-98: Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997 leading to the second devolution referendums & Human Rights Act
• 2010-12: Fixed Term Parliaments Act and Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act
• 2017-19: European Union (Withdrawal) and (Withdrawal Agreement) Acts
The ‘Timetabling of constitutional bills since 1997’ briefing paper has more information.
4.2 Secondary legislation As well as primary legislation, Parliament considers secondary legislation, which is also known as delegated legislation. Secondary legislation is usually in the form of Statutory Instruments (SIs) but can also be Rules or Codes of Practice. These are used to enact changes to the law without the need for a new Act of Parliament. Changes can range from technical, like altering the level of a fine, to fleshing out acts with greater detail. Secondary legislation is (generally) subject to less scrutiny. The balance of primary and secondary legislation is therefore an important issue. 20 House of Commons trends
Statutory Instruments laid before the House of Commons By session and per Commons Chamber sitting day
2,500 Laid before House 14
Per Sitting Day 12 2,000 10
1,500 8
6 1,000 4 500 2
0 0 97-98 01-02 05-06 09-10 14-15 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns
The chart above shows the number of SIs laid per session since 1997- 98. It also calculates the number laid per sitting day during the same period by session. There is a clear correlation between a last session of a Parliament and a higher number of SIs laid per sitting day. With the exception of the 2016-17 session, every last session of a Parliament has had over 10 SIs laid before the House of Commons per sitting day. These are also the only times in this period where over 10 SIs laid per sitting day has been reached. The highest average was in 2004-05 (10.5 SIs laid per sitting day). Although the 2016-17 session didn’t conform to this trend (with an average of 5.1 SIs laid per sitting day in the session) it was still technically the highest sessional average in the Parliament. Despite 2016-17 having the second lowest ratio since 1997 (5.1 SIs laid per sitting day), the lowest came in the other session of the same Parliament (2015-16) with 4.8 SIs laid per sitting day. In terms of the actual number of SIs laid before the House of Commons, the 2017-19 Session had the most SIs laid in the data available, with 2,323. The next highest came in 2005-06 (1,885). In each Parliament in the dataset, the most SIs are laid in the first session. However, the first session typically proves to be less SI-intensive when the length of those sessions has been accounted for. The average number of SIs laid per sitting day in the first session of a Parliament is typically lower than subsequent sessions. Whilst there is no obvious trend in the number of SIs per session over the period, since 2015 there has been a decline in the number per calendar year An average of 2,100 UK SIs were issued annually from the 1950s to around 1990. This then rose to an annual average of 21 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
3,200 in the 1990s, 4,200 in the 2000s, and fell to around 3,000 a year on average during the 2010s (to June 2019). 5 For more information, see the Library briefing paper on Acts and Statutory Instruments: the volume of UK legislation. The Institute for Government published an article on secondary legislation in its Parliamentary monitor. This looked primarily at the 2017-19 Parliamentary Session but provides some further analyses on length, scrutiny and the scope of SIs. Additionally, the Hansard Society published a briefing in September 2020 on Coronavirus-related Statutory Instruments and the procedural obstacles to effective scrutiny of them.
5 House of Commons Library briefing, Acts and Statutory Instruments: the volume of UK legislation 22 House of Commons trends
5. Divisions
About divisions A division is how a vote in the House of Commons is conducted. The House reaches its decisions or highlights its opinions by debating motions. MPs argue for or against a specific motion and then reach a decision, with or without the need for a vote.
Not all divisions happen straight away as some are deferred. This means that MPs can vote on a series of motions using ballot papers at a convenient time (currently from 12.30pm on Wednesdays) instead of holding divisions at the time the question was raised in the Chamber. Typically, motions on statutory instruments and certain types of motion which are not subject to amendment are voted on this way.
Proceedings on bills are excluded from voting via ballot paper. Deferred divisions are included in the data.6 Committee divisions are not included.
The chart below shows the average number of divisions per sitting day for each parliamentary session since 1945.
Divisions Average per sitting day by parliamentary session 3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1945 1955 1966 1977 1987 1998 2009 2019 Source: Sessional InformationDigest, Hansard, House of Commons Library Calculations
The highest average number of divisions per sitting day was 2.5 in the 2000-01 session. This session lasted 83 days and there were 209 divisions. In contrast, the lowest average was 0.6 divisions per sitting day. This occurred twice, in 1950 (65 divisions in 105 sitting days) and in 1965-66 (39 divisions in 65 sitting days). The short 2019 session saw an average of 1.1, which is the lowest since the 1973-74 session (0.8). These sessions were notably short ones, lasting 17 and 47 days respectively.
6 More information about deferred divisions can be found in the MPs Guide to Procedure 23 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
The general trend over the last few sessions has been a decrease in the average number of divisions per sitting day. The 2017-19 session was the longest session since the English Civil War and had an average of 1.3 divisions per sitting day (446 in total over 349 days). For comparison, the next longest session (2010-12) had 544 divisions in 295 sitting days (1.8 on average). The chart below shows the average proportion of MPs that took part in the divisions per session over the past 20 years. It looks at the average participation rate across all the divisions.
Division participation rate Average participation rate of all MPs during the session (%) 100
80
60
40
20
0 01-02 03-04 05-06 07-08 09-10 12-13 14-15 16-17 19-19 Source: HoC Library Commons divisions and MPs voting records & Commons Votes API Notes: Incomplete sessional data for 2015/16.
The 2017-19 (80.2%) and 2019-19 (83.7%) sessions had the largest average participation of MPs taking part in divisions during the 20-year period. The lowest rate came in the 2008-09 session (63.0%). 24 House of Commons trends
Divisions in recent years
This rise in division participation over the last few years may be explained by several factors. There have been key votes during the Brexit process which would have been strongly ‘whipped’. However, this wouldn’t explain the consistently high participation in other votes in the same period unrelated to Brexit. Tighter numbers in recent years may have had an effect. Having a small majority or minority Government can have an impact on participation rates, as opposition MPs are more encouraged to vote with a higher chance of defeating the Government. This then leads to the Government whips ensuring that more of their MPs are present to vote to avoid defeats. However, the early signs in the 2019-21 session show that although the Government majority has increased, the high participation rate has been sustained (81.7% up to summer recess 2020). Another factor could be the increased accessibility of divisions results. The public are now able to access division records for their MP in a quick and user-friendly way. This could mean that constituents are engaging more with their MP about the decisions they are making in divisions and subsequently holding them to account. Note: The participation rate calculates all MPs across a session and so includes those who may have not taken their seats or would traditionally not vote in divisions.7 This is to ensure data consistency across the period. Available data is incomplete in the 2015-16 session.
7 Traditionally, the Speaker and their three deputies would not partake in divisions barring exceptional circumstances. The speaker may cast a deciding vote if the division is tied. 25 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
6. Parliamentary questions
This section looks at parliamentary questions (PQs). There are three types of questions that are most commonly asked in the House of Commons:
Oral questions MPs can apply to ask questions at daily ministerial Question Time. These happen at the beginning of the sitting day (except Fridays) and there is a rota to show which department is responsible for responding each day. MPs can submit a question in advance (a tabled question) and can follow it with a supplementary question on the same topic.
Prime Minister’s Questions A specific and most well-known type of oral questions are the questions to the Prime Minister (PMQs). These happens every Wednesday at noon. Most tabled questions at PMQs are ‘Engagement questions’ which the PM answers at the beginning. Consequently, MPs generally only ask their supplementary question and the PM does not know which subject it will be on.
If more questions are submitted than slots available, a ballot (known as the 'shuffle') is run which decides the questions that are to be asked and in which order. These are followed by topical questions, (one question not submitted in advance). MPs who do not get the opportunity to ask their question can get a written answer if they wish.
Written questions MPs can table questions to government departments through the Table Office for a written reply. There are two types of written question: named day questions usually require an answer in three sitting days but MPs are only allowed to ask a limited amount of these per day. Ordinary written questions usually require an answer within a week, but MPs can ask an unlimited amount of these.
Urgent questions (previously private notice questions) MPs can apply to the Speaker to require a minister to attend the Chamber that same day. These happen just after ministerial question time. Once the relevant department has been notified and had the opportunity to provide a background briefing to the Speakers office, the Speaker will decide whether to allow the urgent question.
To be judged as ‘urgent’, a question should relate to a very recent or imminent event or development on which a minister may reasonably be expected to provide an answer that day. Until 2002, urgent questions were called private notice questions.
More information can be found in the MPs' Guide to Procedure.
26 House of Commons trends
6.1 Oral questions This data comes from the online parliamentary search and includes tabled and supplementary questions asked by MPs in the Chamber. Looking from the 1990-91 session, the average number of oral questions per sitting day asked across all of the sessions since was 59. There has been a gradual increase in the average number of oral questions per sitting day since 2003-04. 8 The peak came in the 2017- 19 session, with an average of 91 oral questions per sitting day before falling back to 60 in the 2019 session. This was the lowest average since 2008-09 where it was also 60. The change of Speaker at the beginning of the 2019 session may have affected the number of oral questions asked, but it is difficult to draw comparisons for such a short session. Question times did reduce in length in the 2019 session.
Oral parliamentary questions Average per sitting day by parliamentary session
100
80
60
40
20
0 90-91 93-94 96-97 99-00 02-03 05-06 08-09 12-13 15-16 19-19 Source: Parliamentary Search; Includes supplementary questions
6.2 Prime Minister’s questions One specific type of oral question time is Prime Minister’s questions (PMQs). These currently take place on Wednesdays at 12 noon. This has not always been the case. Until dissolution of the House of Commons in March 1997, PMQs took place twice a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays for 15 minutes. From the return of the House of Commons in May 1997 after the General Election, PMQs switched to one 30-minute session every Wednesday. For this reason, the following chart which looks at the attendance of various Prime Ministers, is not directly comparable. This data covers PMQs from 1979-80 to the end of October 2020. There were only four sitting Wednesdays with Boris Johnson as PM until the 2019 General Election; he attended three out of four in that period.
8 These figures include sitting Fridays, when ministerial question times are not held. 27 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Prime Ministers' attendance at PMQs % of PMQs attended in tenure by parliament
79-83 83-87 Thatcher 87-90 90-92 Major 92-97 97-01 01-05 Blair 05-07 07-10 Brown 10-15 Cameron 15-16 16-17 May 17-19 19-19 Johnson 19-21*
0 20 40 60 80 100 Source: Parliamentary Search, Parliamentary Calendar, Hansard and Sessional Returns, House of Commons Library briefing 'Attendance of the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) since 1979. Notes: *Johnson PMQs in 19-21 session correct as at time of publication (up to the 22 Oct 2020)
The data in the chart looks at parliaments, but takes account of changes of Prime Minister mid-way through a parliament. The period after Theresa May’s leadership election in 2016, up to the 2017 General Election, was the highest attended in the data available: she attended 23 out of 24 possible PMQs (95.8%). This was marginally higher than Tony Blair’s first term in office (1997-2001) where he attended 134 out of a possible 140 PMQs (95.7%). Excluding Johnson’s four PMQs between his appointment and the 2019 election, the lowest attendance rate was between the 1992 and 1997 general elections when John Major attended 87.7% of the 310 possible PMQs. However, as mentioned above, this was at a time when PMQs was split into two smaller weekly sessions and so the figures are not directly comparable. For the latest analysis, see our briefing paper on the attendance of PMQs. In terms of whole tenures, the chart below shows that Tony Blair had the highest attendance rate of any Prime Minister since 1979. He attended 95.0% of the potential PMQs across his time in office, only missing 17 out of the 343 occasions. 28 House of Commons trends
David Cameron was the next highest, with an attendance rate of 92.9% followed by Margaret Thatcher (92.3%) and Theresa May (92.1%). There are many reasons why Prime % PMs attendance at PMQs Ministers might not % across each PMs tenure attend PMQs. For Thatcher example, they may be Major attending an international Blair engagement, Brown participating in a Cameron national event or be May unwell. Johnson*
When the Prime 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Minister is away on an Notes: * Only includes PMQs up to end of Oct 2020 official engagement, their deputy or another senior minister will answer PMQs. Of those who have deputised for the PM, Tony Newton, now Baron Newton of Braintree, attended most frequently in the period since 1979. He stood in for John Major on 27 occasions. Harriet Harman is the only woman to have deputised for a Prime Minister at PMQs; she was at the despatch box on 10 occasions during Gordon Brown’s tenure between 2007 and 2010. On the occasions when the Prime Minister is away, a senior Shadow Minister from the Official Opposition party usually takes the place of the Leader of the Opposition. 6.3 Urgent questions There has been a sharp rise in the number of urgent questions (UQs) allowed per sitting day since 2009. Before 2002, they were known as private notice questions. The highest average of UQs came in 2017-19 when 0.88 were granted per sitting day. In comparison, the average from 1990-91 to 2008-09 session was consistently under or around 0.1. The decision to grant UQs rests with the Speaker, and there is a correlation between the number granted and the holder of that office. Speakers have differing styles and choose to interpret parliamentary mechanisms in varying ways. Despite a large increase during the tenure of John Bercow, data available up to the October recess 2020 (after the new Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle had been elected) shows that UQs in the Commons continue to be granted at a similar rate in the 2019-21 session. Despite being lower than the previous two sessions, the average (0.5) for the current session is the third highest should it remain at this level for the duration of the session (66 UQs in 126 sitting days so far). This is up to publication date (Oct 2020). 29 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
The chart below shows the number of UQs granted by each speaker from Bernard Weatherill onwards. Lindsay Hoyle does not appear in the chart below because he was elected as Speaker just one day before the end of the 2019 Parliamentary session. The following day, the House of commons dissolved for the subsequent general election.
Urgent/Private Notice Questions Average per sitting day by parliamentary session
Bernard 1.00 Weatherill 0.80 Betty Michael John Boothroyd Martin Bercow 0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 90-91 93-94 96-97 99-00 02-03 05-06 08-09 12-13 15-16 19-19
Source: Sessional Returns and Parliamentary Search (pre 1997-98 PNQs)
There is no data publicly available on the number of UQs applied for but not granted.
Increase in Urgent questions It is well documented that the number of UQs granted during the tenure of John Bercow MP (beginning on 22 June 2009), increased. In a speech at the University of Birmingham on 2 February 2012, entitled, The House of Commons – On the Road to Recovery, he made the following comments on urgent questions: “…I do not apologise for restoring this instrument of scrutiny. I believe the evidence demonstrates that it has helped revive the standing of the House by demonstrating its relevance.”
30 House of Commons trends
6.4 Written questions There has been a steady decline in the average number of written questions per sitting day over the last few years. There was, however, an increase in the 2017-19 session. The peak came in the 2005-06 session when there was an average of 457 per sitting day. However, on average at least 200 have been asked per sitting day since the 2012-13 session. This was last seen at the beginning of the millennium.
E-tabling E-tabling was introduced in 2003. Both take-up of the system, and the percentage of questions e- tabled, were low at first but have since risen. The number of questions that could be electronically tabled was limited to five a day in 2011. This limit was later raised to 20 in April 2013. Some MPs ask a large number of questions: for instance, in the double-length 2010-12 session, eight MPs had more than 1,000 questions answered and the 20 MPs with the most answers were responsible for 20% of all questions.
Written parliamentary questions Average per sitting day by parliamentary session
500
400
300
200
100
0 90-91 93-94 96-97 99-00 02-03 05-06 08-09 12-13 15-16 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns
There are signs that the current session is beginning to buck that trend. Although we cannot make exact comparisons until the end of the session, we have seen a large number of questions being tabled to date. In the 91 sitting days since the 2019 General Election (up to summer recess 2020), there have been just under 30,000 written questions tabled. This is an average of about 330 per sitting day. If it is sustained throughout the session, this rate would be on a par with the 2010-12 session. Whether this rate will be sustained throughout the session remains to be seen. The coronavirus pandemic, and resulting policy responses, seem likely to have affected the number of questions asked by MPs. A Commons Library Insight, Written Parliamentary Questions: The June peak explored the potential reasons why over 7,000 questions were tabled in June; the most for a calendar month in over a decade. 31 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
7. Parliamentary written questions by department
The 2019 session was unusually short, and meaningful comparisons with other recent sessions are difficult to draw. Therefore, the following chart shows the breakdown of written parliamentary questions (WPQs) per department in the 2017-19 session. The Department for Health and Social Care received most written questions in the session with 14.8% of the total. The Home Office and the Department for Education were next with 9.3% and 8.2% respectively. More information can be found by viewing the full Procedure Committee report on Departmental performance in the 2017 Parliament.
Written parliamentary questions by department Ordinary written and named day PWQs in the 2017-19 session
DHSC Home Office DFE DWP DFT HMT MOJ FCO MHCLG BEIS DEFRA MOD Cabinet Office DCMS DFID DIT DExEU NI Office Scot Office Equalities Office Ordinary Written Questions Wales Office Named Day Questions Attorney General Prime Minister Leader of HoC
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Source: Procedure Committee WPQs summary 2017-19, data calculated differently to Sessional Returns and Parliamentary search
The Department of Health and Social Care has continued to receive the most questions in the current session. It has answered nearly 5,000 questions in the first six months of 2020 alone. 32 House of Commons trends
7.1 Historically busy departments Given the nature of changing departmental responsibilities, it can be difficult to say which departments receive the most questions over a longer period. Despite this, the data available from Parliamentary Search indicates that the Department of Health (or equivalent) has consistently received the most questions. The chart below shows the top five departments that have received the most questions since the 1989-90 session. For consistency and because of the movement of areas like transport and the environment, we have not combined departments and so the Department for Health and Social care for example is treated as separate from the Department of Health. The section below attempts combine departments in order to make comparisons. The chart shows that despite not having the 1.3% of questions answered by the Department of Health and Social Care (created in January 2018) included in the total, the Department of Health has comfortably received the most questions over the period. It received 10.4% of the nearly 1.4 million WPQs in the period. The Home Office was second with 8.6% of the questions, followed by the Ministry of Defence, HM Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, receiving approximately 6% each.
Written parliamentary questions since 1989-90 % of PWQs per department, 1989-90 session to summer recess 2020
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Defence
Treasury
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Source: Parliamentary Search
Written parliamentary questions by policy area This section aims to provide some approximate comparisons of the number of WPQs tabled for policy areas that tend to move around departments. The following percentages have been calculated by putting together departments which received over 2,000 questions in some common policy areas over the same period. Due to the overlaps within departments, these should be only used as a rough estimate. 33 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Employment and Social Security – 7.6%
(Includes Department for Work and Pensions, Department of Social Security, Department for Education and Employment and Department of Employment)
Transport – 6.9%
(Includes Department for Transport x 2, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions)
Education – 6.6%
(Includes Department for Education, Department for Education and Skills, Department for Education and Employment, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Department of Education and Science and Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills)
Business – 6.3%
(Includes Department of Trade and Industry, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform)
Environment and Energy – 5.1%
(Includes Department of the Environment, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Department of Energy and Climate Change, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department of Energy)
34 House of Commons trends
8. Emergency debates
How are emergency debates granted? Any MP can apply to the Speaker for an emergency debate in the Chamber. These are also called Standing Order No. 24 debates—after the rule that allows this. Emergency debates are normally held on a neutrally phrased general motion, which usually starts, “That this House has considered” followed by the relevant matter.
The process involves two stages. First, an MP applies to the Speaker to ask for the opportunity to make an application speech of up to three minutes in the Chamber, setting out their reasons why the debate should be held.
If the Speaker grants this, the MP makes the speech the same day. After the application speech, the Speaker decides whether to ask the House to grant the emergency debate. This decision usually depends on the subject’s importance, the urgency of the matter and whether or not there are debates/questions in the near future on the same topic.
If the Speaker puts the application to the House and the House agrees it, the debate can happen immediately, but usually takes place the next day the House is meeting. 9
A comparative analysis of data in the sessional diaries between 2010-12 and 2017-19 reveals some interesting findings on emergency debate applications and granted debates. Emergency debates still consume a small proportion of the overall sitting time in the House of Commons. However, there has been a significant rise in the amount of time being spent on emergency debate applications since the beginning of the 2015-16 session.
% Time spent on emergency debate applications by session
0.08%
0.06%
0.04%
0.02%
0.00% 10-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-19 19-19 Source: Sessional Diaries and House of Commons Library calculations
By the 2016-17 session, the proportion of total time spent on the applications doubled compared to 2015-16. No time was spent on them in the 2019 session.
9 UK Parliament, MPs Guide to Procedure, Emergency Debates 35 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Despite the same percentage of time being spent on applications in the 2016-17 and 2017-19 sessions, the proportion of time spent on the Emergency debates themselves does not align. debates applied The chart below shows that the 2.9% of time spent on emergency for and granted debates in 2017-19 was proportionally over four times that of the 2016- Session Applied Granted 17 session (0.6%). The number of minutes spent on emergency debates in 2017-19 (4,834) was greater than all other sessions in the period 10-12 7 3 since the 2010-12 session combined (1,804). 12-13 5 1 13-14 1 0 % Time spent on emergency debates by session 14-15 1 1 15-16 5 4 3% 16-17 8 4 17-19 29 22 19-19 0 .. 2% Source: Parliamentary search
1%
0% 10-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-19 19-19 Source: Sessional Diaries and House of Commons Library calculations
36 House of Commons trends
9. Statements 9.1 Oral statements
Oral statements take place in the Chamber. The Government uses them to tell MPs about developments in policy or react to an event. Oral statements give MPs a chance to scrutinise ministers by asking questions about the statement. 10
The chart below shows the proportion of Commons sitting time spent on oral statements. Despite 2017-19 having the largest proportion of time spent on these, the rate over the period analysed has stayed largely consistent. The amount of time spent on them in the 2017-19 session was 269 hours and 20 mins (around 10.0% of total sitting time that session).
% Time spent on government statements by session
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0% 10-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-19 19-19 Source: Sessional Diaries and House of Commons Library calculations
The lowest percentage in the period came in the 2014-15 session (6.3%), whilst the average over the period was 7.3% a session. 9.2 Written statements
A Government written statement is another method used to inform MPs. Data on written statements is not gathered in the sessional returns or diary and so different sources have to be used to analyse these.
The chart below shows the average number of written statements per sitting day according to data obtained from Parliamentary Search. Only written statements submitted to the House of Commons have been analysed because the same statements are usually repeated in both the House of Lords and Commons.
10 UK Parliament, MPs Guide to Procedure, Oral Statements 37 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Government written statements by session Average per sitting day, House of Commons
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 02-03 05-06 08-09 12-13 15-16 19-19 Source: Parliamentary Search
The number of Commons written statements over the period was 18,718. The average per sitting day is 7.5 written statements. The average number per sitting day dipped after the 2014-15 session, with only 4.6 and 4.4 in 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. The rate has increased again since then, but the last four sessions have been the lowest four in the dataset. The highest in the period came in the 2009- 10 session when there was an average of 10.3 written statements per sitting day. 38 House of Commons trends
10. Petitions
Background The right to petition the monarch for redress of personal grievances has been exercised since at least 1215 with Magna Carta.
The traditional petition is the public petition. This historically has been presented on the floor of the House by an MP. It is now possible, however, for the public to submit their own petitions on the e- petitions website.
A Petitions Committee, set up after the 2015 General Election, now takes charge of both types of petitions (public and e-petitions).
10.1 Paper Petitions Paper petitions (also known as public petitions) are presented by MPs in the Chamber on behalf of constituents or other members of the public. Paper petitions receive a response from the Government. The Petitions Committee also considers paper petitions for debate. There is no minimum number of signatures needed for this to happen.11 According to data from Parliamentary Search, there were 487 paper petitions presented in the 2017-19 session. The following chart shows the number of petitions per sitting day for each session back to 1992- 93. Paper petitions Average per sitting day by parliamentary session 8
6
4
2
0 92-93 97-98 02-03 07-08 13-14 19-19 Source: Parliamentary Search
The average for the whole period was 1.48 paper petitions per sitting day.
11 UK Parliament, MPs Guide to Procedure, Petitions 39 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
The 2009-10 session There is a clear outlier in the 2009-10 session. This was a relatively short session (69 days) but had 510 petitions presented. Looking deeper into the data, it appears that a large majority of these came in one month. The session lasted from November 2009 to April 2010 but 272 of the petitions were presented in December 2009. This was more in one month than some sessions had in total. The main driver for this surge was the Badman Report on elective home education in June 2009 and subsequent Home Affairs Committee report in December 2009. There were 218 petitions on the issue in December 2009, making up 80% of the total that month. A recent increase in paper petitions As the chart above shows, in recent sessions there has been an increase in the average number of paper petitions presented per sitting day. This increase could be due to the rise in public awareness of the petitions process, following the formation of the Petitions Committee and the e-petitions process. However, early signs suggest that the 2019-21 session is not following the same trend. Data available up to summer recess 2020 show there has been an average of just 0.75 paper petitions per sitting day. If this remains the same for the whole session, it would be the lowest rate since 1997-98. 10.2 E-petitions Set up in 2015 as a joint House of Commons and Government system overseen by the petitions committee, the e-petitions website allows the As of the 2019 public to start petitions. There are standards for e-petitions which must General Election, be met before they go live on the website. These are set out on the there had been petitions website and are applied by the Petitions Committee. nearly 23 million unique validated An e-petition requires a Government response from the relevant signatures since the department if it reaches 10,000 signatures. If an e-petition reaches the formation of the e- threshold of 100,000 signatures, the Petitions Committee can petitions site in recommend it for a Westminster Hall debate. The committee’s decision 2015. This is will depend on various factors, such as whether the same subject has equivalent to been recently debated. almost 35% of the UK population. Similarly, an e-petition that has not reached 100,000 signatures may also be considered for a debate if the Petitions Committee see fit. Sometimes, petitions on similar subject areas are grouped together when assessing their suitability for debate.
Highest signature count in 2017-19 The most signed petition during the 2017-19 Parliament was: “Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.” It was signed by over 6.1 million people.
40 House of Commons trends
2017-19 Session E-petitions 2017-19 Parliament
Total number of unique users of the e-Petitions website 15,166,387 Total number of petitions submitted 33,181 e-Petitions rejected 25,027 e-Petitions successfully opened 8,154 e-Petitions which received a Government response 456 e-Petitions debated in Westminster Hall 74
Source: Petitions Committee correspondence Notes: Unique users measure how many different people signed an e-petition website regardless of the number of petitions they signed during the Parliament. It is possible for one email address to have two signatures in order to allow for couples who share an email address but these make up a very small proportion of the unique users data.
The table above sets out some of the statistics for the 2017-19 Parliament. In addition to these figures, nine of the ten most read debates on Hansard in 2019 were debates on subjects about which petitions had been submitted. They were read over 535,000 times between them. There are a number of reasons why an e-petition may be rejected by the e-petitions committee, e.g. A petition is already open on the same subject, it asks about something the Government or House of Commons is not responsible for or it refers to a case where there are active legal proceedings. For the full list of reasons for rejection, see the standards for petitions. During the 2017-19 Parliament, the Petitions Committee conducted two inquiries following the receipt of petitions: online abuse and the experience of disabled people and fireworks. In total over 63,000 people contributed to the fireworks inquiry. The committee also followed up on its inquiries from the 2015-2017 Parliament relating to petitions on the funding of research into brain tumours and the meningitis b vaccine.
Constituency data We are also able to analyse the e-petitions data by constituency. We can see which constituencies the signatories live in and look at which areas were the most active/successful. In terms of receiving a Government response, the most successful in the 2017-19 Parliament were e-petitions started in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency. Over the course of the Parliament, seven Government responses were made to e-petitions started in this constituency. The next most successful was Oldham West and Royton with six Government responses, followed by Bermondsey and Old Southwark, 41 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Holborn and St Pancras, Totnes and Witney (each with five Government responses). The data indicates that petitions originating in 45% of constituencies in the UK (293 out of 650) received at least one Government response over the course of the Parliament. How many people signed e-petitions? It’s also possible to analyse how many different people engaged with the site and signed at least one e-petition – known as unique signatories - by consistency. The uniqueness is determined by the e-petitions site which looks at email addresses and postcodes. In other words, how many different people engaged with the site and signed at least one e- petition. The site can also monitor high activity on IP addresses for any fraudulent activity. Signatories from British citizens overseas are not counted towards individual constituencies. The map at the bottom of this section shows the activity of unique signatories by constituency in the 2017-19 Parliament. Dark green denotes many signatories moving towards light green for those constituencies that had fewer unique users. The most unique signatories were in Bristol West (58,343), whereas the fewest were in the constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar (5,214). 25 constituencies had more than 40,000 unique signatories across the 2017-19 Parliament. We can also look at the unique signatories by electoral region to determine which parts of the country have engaged most with the e- petitions website. As the dark green on the map on P.43 indicates, London had the largest number of unique signatories across the region (2.4 million) followed by the South East (2.3 million) and the North West (1.6 million). A fairer measure, however, is to look at the unique signatories per constituency in the electoral regions, as some have more constituencies than others (see chart below). This still places London at the top and the South East in second place (33,090 and 27,407 per constituency retrospectively). However, on this measure, the South West comes third with 24,653 per constituency compared to 24,590 for the East and 22,033 for the North West.
42 House of Commons trends
Unique e-petition signatures per constituency Number of unique signatures per constituency in electoral regions
London South East South West East North West East Midlands Yorkshire and The Humber Scotland West Midlands North East Northern Ireland Wales
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Source: Petitions Committee correspondence
Despite having more unique signatories than the number in the North East or Northern Ireland, if looking at signatories per constituency, Wales has the lowest level of engagement (at 15,137 unique signatories per constituency).
Further reading For more analysis on e-petitions, the following House of Commons Library Insights may be of interest:
• - E-petitions: Is there a link between general elections and signing petitions?; 10 February 2020
• - Online petitions and parliamentary debate: How do UK parliamentary petitions grow over time?; 22 August 2019
44 House of Commons trends
11. Early Day Motions
About EDMs Early Day Motions (EDMs) are short proposals that give MPs a chance to express an opinion, publicise a cause or support a position.
It’s rare for EDMs to be debated, but other MPs will have the chance to show their support for the proposal by signing the EDM. They can also submit amendments to it.
They are used primarily by MPs to raise awareness of a particular issue and can be used to highlight the subject in the press. They are also seen as a way for MPs to register an opinion publicly.
There’s a particular type of EDM (known as a ‘prayer’) that you can use to object to a negative statutory instrument (a type of delegated legislation). More information can be found in the MPs' Guide to Procedure.
The number of EDMs tabled grew significantly after the 1960s culminating in a peak average of 18.1 per sitting day in the 2009-10 session. The long 2010-12 session had more EDMs tabled than any other before or since (3,024). However, it had fewer than the previous session on a per sitting day basis. Since then, as the chart below shows, there has been a large drop in the average number of EDMs per sitting day. The 2019 average of 6.8 was the same as the 1998-99 session. These are the lowest rates since the 1984-85 session (5.7). The 2019 session was a short session and so MPs may not have felt it worthwhile tabling EDMs. However, the previous session (2017-19) had an average of 8.0; the lowest since the beginning of the millennium. Early Day Motions Average per sitting day by parliamentary session
20
16
12
8
4
0 45-46 52-53 60-61 68-69 75-76 83-84 91-92 99-00 07-08 16-17
Source: Sessional Returns
45 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Why a decline?
The fall in the average number of EDMs correlates to some extent with the rise in UQs. It is possible that backbenchers have started favouring other ways to show interest, concern and dedication to a particular cause. However, EDMs do not scrutinise the executive in the same way that UQs do. Another factor affecting the number of EDMs could be the creation of the Backbench Business Committee (BBCom) in 2010. Backbench Business debates provide an alternative means of raising an issue and may to some extent have displaced EDMs. However, EDMs at least arguably still have a role. This is because the number of signatories to an EDM may indicate to BBCom which issues have higher levels of interest among MPs. Although less so recently, there have been questions about the cost of printing EDMs in the past.12 Since the 2009-10 session they are not reprinted on a weekly basis.13 It is possible that MPs are choosing to use them less because of this.
2013 Procedure Committee report In 2013, the Procedure Committee considered whether there was a case to reform or abolish EDMs. It concluded that there should be no changes.14
12 3 Feb 2014, HC Deb c112w 13 26 Jul 2010, HC Deb c712 14 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmproced/189/189.pdf 46 House of Commons trends
12. Select committees
About select committees The current system of departmental select committees in the House of Commons was created in 1979. There has since been an increase in the number of select committees, but the number of places on each committee has remained roughly constant. An MP may sit on more than one committee.
The departmental committees are designed to mirror government departments and are re-organised following machinery of government changes.
Other select committees deal with internal House matters or cover cross-cutting issues, such as environmental audit.
The chart below shows the number of Commons committees per parliamentary session, based on the sessional returns. The number of select committees peaked in the 2009-10 session. That year there were 50; almost double the lowest amount in 1983-84 and 1984-85 (26). The spike in the 2008-09 session mostly resulted from the creation of regional select committees, set up by the Labour Government. They were established on 12 November 2008 and existed until the end of the Parliament. This also explains the drop in the 2010-12 session.
Commons Select Committees Number of commons select committees by parliamentary session 60
50
40
30
20
10
0 79-80 83-84 87-88 91-92 95-96 99-00 03-04 07-08 12-13 16-17 Source: Sessional Returns Notes: Number of Select Committees taken from those listed in sessional returns, excludes sub committees.
12.1 Proportion of MPs on select committees The percentage of MPs who have served on select committees has remained mostly constant, (see the chart below). The average participation rate for MPs over the whole period is 51%. The highest participation rate was in 2010-12, when 64% of MPs served on select committees. This is to be expected as a longer session is 47 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
likely to result in a greater amount of vacancies on committees and an opportunity for more MPs to join one. Similarly, 2017-19 was the third highest with 60% (the second highest was in 2012-13, also 60%). The lowest came in 1988-89, when 40% of all MPs served on a select committee.
% MPs serving on Commons Select Committees % compared to all seats by parliamentary session 100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 79-80 83-84 87-88 91-92 95-96 99-00 03-04 07-08 12-13 16-17 Source: Sessional Returns Notes: Excludes the Chairmen's Panel, the Court of Referees and the Select Committee on Standing Orders. Compared against all seats, including those which are not taken up.
Another way of analysing the changes over time is to look at the available places on Select Committees as opposed to the number of MPs themselves. Our briefing on the Evolution and changing composition of departmental select committees looks at this for Parliaments back to 1979 and provides more detailed information about each period. Additionally, it also looks at the length of time taken to appoint MPs on to Select Committees at the beginning of a new Parliament and notes that this time has reduced since 1979. 12.2 Women on select committees The proportion of women MPs appointed to departmental select committees has broadly mirrored the increasing proportion of women MPs elected. In the first round of appointments after the 2019 general election, 71 women were appointed out of 222 places (32.0%).15 This was lower than 33.8%, the percentage of seats filled by women at the 2019 general election. Similarly, after the 2017 general election 30.2% of women were appointed to select committees compared to the 32.0% of seats held by women.
15 12 places were yet to be filled after the Scottish Affairs Committee wasn’t fully appointed until a later stage due to a disagreement about the number of places for the SNP. 48 House of Commons trends
In previous Parliaments, the proportion of places held by women on select committees has been higher than the proportion of women in the House. Out of the 11 general elections since 1979, seven have resulted in a higher proportion of women on select committees in the first round of appointments compared to the proportion elected. 2015 saw the largest proportion of select committee seats filled by women in the period, representing 35.1% of the 191 available places. This compared to women making up 29.4% of the elected MPs in the Commons.
% Women elected and on Commons Select Committees Appointments made in first round after GE and % women elected at GE
60%
40%
20%
0% 79 83 87 92 97 01 05 10 15 17 19 Source: Votes and Proceedings Notes: Scottish Affairs committee not fully appointed after 2019 GE in first round, only the chair was appointed following a disagreement about the allocation of places for the SNP
Among the initial nominations to departmental select committees in 1979, 1983 and 1987, more male MPs with knighthoods were appointed to select committees than women MPs. In 1979 six women were nominated; in 1983 and 1987, eight women and seven women respectively were appointed. At the beginning of each of these three Parliaments, nine knights were nominated to serve on select committees.16 12.3 Select committee reports Since the 2007-08 session, the sessional returns have published the number of reports published by select committees. The chart below shows the available data in this period. The highest number of reports published per sitting day was four in the 2009-10 session. This session also had the largest number of select committees in the period.
16 House of Commons Library briefing, Evolution and changing composition of departmental select committees 49 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Commons Select Committee reports Reports per sitting day by parliamentary session 5
4
3
2
1
0 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-19 19-19 Source: Sessional Returns
50 House of Commons trends
13. Suspensions and withdrawals
There are two standing orders (SO) which dictate disciplinary procedures in the Chamber. MPs can be asked to withdraw from the Chamber for the rest of the day by the Speaker (SO No. 43 – disorderly conduct). More serious offences can lead to the suspension of a MP (SO No. 44 – order in debate).
Standing Order No. 43 – A requirement to leave the Parliamentary Estate for the rest of the sitting day (Withdrawal) The Speaker, or chair can order any MP whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw from the House for the remainder of that days sitting.
Standing Order No. 44 - Suspension For more serious offences or should the Speaker decide that the powers under SO.43 are inadequate, they may name the MP which can lead to their suspension from the precincts of the House for a period of time.
MPs may be suspended from the service of the House because of misbehaviour in the Chamber, if they have been found to have breached the Code of Conduct or have been found to have committed a contempt.17
There were no instances of either standing orders being used in the 2019 session, largely due to the length of the session. However, there were two withdrawals and two suspensions in the 2017-19 session. On the 13th June 2018, Ian Blackford MP was ordered to leave the Parliamentary Estate for the remainder of that day's sitting for refusing to sit down when ordered to by the Speaker. On the 10th December 2018, Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP was also ordered to leave the Parliamentary Estate for taking the mace from the table of House. This was the last time a MP was asked to withdraw (as of summer recess 2020). The two suspensions in the 2017-19 session were for Ian Paisley and Keith Vaz. Ian Paisley MP was suspended on 18 July 2018 for 30 sitting days,18 whilst Keith Vaz MP was suspended for six months on the 31 October 2019.19 Both of these suspensions followed a Committee on Standards report into the MP’s conduct. There has been one suspension in the current session so far but no withdrawals. Conor Burns MP was suspended for seven days on 11 May 2020, also following a Committee on Standards report.20
17 Further details of the disciplinary powers of the House of Commons and the processes that can lead to suspension can be found in: House of Commons Background Paper: Disciplinary and Penal Powers of the House of Commons, SN06487 18 Committee on Standards Report [HC 1397 2017-19] Ian Paisley 19 Committee on Standards report [HC 93 2017-19], Keith Vaz 20 Committee on Standards report [HC 212 2019-21], Conor Burns 51 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
The chart below shows the number of suspensions since the 1949-50 session. Only four suspensions have taken place from the beginning of the 2013-14 session to July 2020. Suspensions from the House of Commons Suspensions by parliamentary session 10
8
6
4
2
0 49-50 62-63 76-77 90-91 04-05 19-19
Source: Sessional Returns and House of Commons Library research briefing SN02430
There have been 54 suspensions since the 1949-50 session, nine of which occurred in one session (1987-88). Although a moderately long session, this was an unusually high amount, especially when you consider that they all occurred on different dates.
Suspensions in the 1987-88 session • 12.11.1987 (Vol 122 c565-70); Tam Dalyell (Lab), SOs relating to disorderly conduct, 5 sitting days
• 24.11.1987 (Vol 123 c232); Dafydd Wigley (PC), SOs relating to disorderly conduct, 5 sitting days
• 11.01.1988 (Vol 125 c1-3); John Hughes (Lab), SO No.43 relating to disorderly conduct, 5 sitting days
• 25.01.1988 (Vol 126 c31-3); Ken Livingstone (Lab), SOs relating to disorderly conduct, 5 sitting days
• 18.02.1988 (Vol 127 c1245-9); Harry Cohen (Lab), SOs relating to disorderly conduct, 5 sitting days
• 15.03.1988 (Vol 129 c1008-11); Alex Salmond (SNP), SOs relating to disorderly conduct, 5 sitting days
• 13.04.1988 (Vol 131 c181-7); Davel Nellist (Lab), SO No.43 relating to disorderly conduct, 5 sitting days
• 20.04.1988 (Vol 131 c934-960); Ron Brown (Lab), Damaging the mace, 20 sitting days
• 25.07.1988 (Vol 138 c17-20); Tam Dalyell (Lab), SOs relating to disorderly conduct, 20 sitting days
For more detail on suspensions and withdrawals, see our briefing on MPs who have withdrawn from the Commons Chamber or who have been suspended.
52 House of Commons trends
14. MP demographics
This section gives a brief analysis of the composition of the House of Commons over time, including the demographics of MPs. More detailed analysis in this area can be found in our briefing Social background of Members of Parliament 1979-2019. There are also some further demographic statistics of the current Parliament on religion, disability and LGBT in the General Election 2019 briefing paper. 14.1 Gender There are currently 430 men and 220 women MPs in the House of Commons. Making up 33.8% of the House, the 2019 General Election saw the highest proportion of women ever returned. Women Elected to the House of Commons 1918-2019 general elections, includes those who did not take their seats 250
200
150
100
50
0 1918 1924 1935 1951 1964 1974 (F) 1983 1997 2010 2019 Sources: Kavanagh and Cowley, The British General Election of 2017 & previous editions; House of Commons Library
Of the women MPs elected at the 2019 General Election, 104 were Labour, 87 Conservative, 7 Liberal Democrat and 16 SNP. 51% of Labour MPs elected in 2019 were women, compared with 24% of The election of Dr Conservative MPs, 64% of Liberal Democrat and 34% of SNP MPs. Caroline Johnson on the 8 December The first woman was elected in 1918. Countess Constance Markievicz 2016 was the first was elected to represent Dublin St Patricks, but as a party member of time that the Sinn Féin she did not take her seat. The next year Nancy Astor became number of women the first woman to sit in the Commons after winning a by-election in ever elected was Plymouth Sutton for the Conservatives. Since 1918, 552 women have equal to the been elected to the House of Commons; 55% were first elected as number of men Labour MPs and 31% as Conservatives. currently sitting in the House of The chart below shows the percentage of women elected at each Commons. She was general election by party. This looks at the percentage of women MPs the 455th women from a particular party as a proportion of the whole house. to be elected. 53 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
As shown, the number of women elected will be linked to the respective fortunes of the parties they represent. The data does not take by-elections into account. Of the 28 general elections in the dataset, Labour have had more women elected in 20 of them. In the 1918 and 1923 elections, both the Labour and Conservative parties had the same number of women MPs elected – 0 and three respectively. % Women elected to the House of Commons by Party 1918-2019 general elections, includes those who did not take their seats 20%
Conservative 16% Labour
12% Others
8%
4%
0% 1918 1924 1935 1951 1964 1974 (F) 1983 1997 2010 2019 Sources: Kavanagh and Cowley, The British General Election of 2017 & previous editions; House of Commons Library Notes: Comparison to all Members elected at each General Election
Women Prime Ministers There have only been two women Prime Ministers in the UK and both have been members of the Conservative Party.
Margaret Thatcher was the first, becoming PM in May 1979 and the 75th woman to be elected to the House of Commons.
Theresa May was the second woman Prime Minister and served in the role from July 2016 to July 2019. Theresa May was first elected in the constituency of Maidenhead at the 1997 General Election. She was the 191st woman to be elected to the House of Commons (by swearing-in order).
54 House of Commons trends
14.2 Age The average age of an MP has remained consistent around 50 years old across the period with a slight upward trend. The lowest average age at a general election was 49.3 years in 1997 with the highest average age at the 2005 general election (51.2). The average age is generally lower after an election where there is a change of party in Government. This is because it is more likely that there are more new MPs and these new MPs are likely to be younger than those they have defeated. The average age after the 2019 general election was 51, however, we are still awaiting the dates of birth of some of the newly elected members which is likely to result in a reduction of that average slightly. The most populated age bracket between 1979 and 1997 was 40-49, however every election since then has had the most populated age bracket at 50-59.
Ages of MPs elected at General Elections, 1979-2019
Average Age Group Not at GE 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ known Total
1979 49.6 6 120 205 203 87 14 635 1983 48.8 10 120 223 201 86 9 649 1987 49.0 4 112 252 197 79 6 650 1992 50.0 1 82 259 211 95 3 651 1997 49.3 10 92 255 225 69 8 659 2001 50.3 4 79 236 247 83 10 659 2005 51.2 3 89 191 249 100 14 646 2010 49.9 14 112 193 218 98 15 650 2015 50.6 15 92 209 214 98 22 650 2017 51.1 13 104 189 201 115 28 650 2019* 51.0 21 109 182 194 105 21 18 650
Source: House of Commons Library, Members’ Names Information Service; House of Commons Library research Notes: * Verified information about age is not available for 101 MPs mostly those first elected at the 2019 General Election. Age data for 83 Members has been gathered from a variety of public sources.
The table below shows the age of MPs elected at the 2019 General Election by party. The age brackets containing the fewest MPs were 18- 29, 70+ and ‘Not Known’. The most populated age bracket was 50-59 with 30% of MPs in that group.
55 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Age of MPs elected at the 2019 General Election by party
Age Group Not Total MPs 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ known
CON 365 3% 16% 30% 31% 13% 3% 4% LAB 202 3% 16% 25% 28% 21% 4% 2% SNP 47 6% 19% 28% 28% 15% 2% 2% LD 11 0% 18% 36% 36% 9% 0% 0% Other 25 8% 20% 20% 24% 28% 0% 0% Total 650 3% 17% 28% 30% 16% 3% 3%
Source: House of Commons Library, Members’ Names Information Service; House of Commons Library research Notes: Verified information about age is not available for 101 MPs mostly those first elected at the 2019 General Election. Age data for 83 Members has been gathered from a variety of public sources.
It is also possible to analyse age range by their gender of newly elected MPs at each general election. The chart below shows the comparison in age between women and men for new MPs at each election up to 2017.
Average age of newly elected MPs 1979-2017 at general elections 60
50
40 Women
30 Men
20 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017
Sources: House of Commons Library, Members’ Names Information Service; House of Commons Library research Notes: Comparable data for 2019 is not available
The average age for newly elected women in the period was 44.4 whereas the average age for newly elected men in the same period was 41.2. Except in 1997, the average age of newly elected women MPs has remained higher than for newly elected men. 56 House of Commons trends
14.3 Ethnicity
It is difficult to establish the number and proportion of MPs identifying with ethnic minority groups, as they are not required to officially state their ethnicity. We therefore rely on external sources who collect this information, often based on MPs’ public assertions. It’s also important to note that official categorisation of ethnic groups may not necessarily reflect how a person identifies. 1987 is often identified as the year in modern times when the first ethnic minority MPs entered Parliament. However, as explained in Ethnic diversity in politics and public life, differing understandings of, and attitudes towards, ethnicity mean it is difficult to be certain about when the first MP from an ‘ethnic minority background’ entered Parliament and how many there have been since. This is based on their family origins as described by various sources.21 It is possible that the first MP from what we would describe today as an ‘ethnic minority background’ was James Townshend, elected to Parliament in 1767 as Whig MP for West Looe. His British grandfather worked for the Royal Africa Company, a mercantile trading company that also traded enslaved people; his grandmother, of African and Dutch descent, was a prominent businesswoman who also owned enslaved people.22 In 1987 Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington), Paul Boateng (Brent South), Bernie Grant (Tottenham) and Keith Vaz (Leicester East), were elected to the Commons, all representing Labour. Diane Abbott is the first Black woman MP. Two Conservative MPs, Jonathan Sayeed, whose father was Indian, and Richard Hickmet, whose father was Turkish, were elected in 1983, though they are said not to have identified as belonging to an ethnic minority group themselves.23 The number of MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds has risen from four in 1987 to 65 in 2019. However, if the House of Commons reflected the UK population (14.4% from ethnic minority groups in 2019) there would be around 93.
21 Victorian Commons, Ethnic Minorities in Parliament: a new addition to the Victorian Commons; Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; The Scotman, Memorial Calls for Scotland’s ‘forgotten’ first non-White MP; Open University, Making modern Britain, J Clement Vaz, Profiles of Eminent Goans, 1997, p262 22 London Historians’ Blog, From Gold Coast to Gold Coach: James Townsend, a Black Lord Mayor of London in the Eighteenth Century 23 The Clarion Mag, The rich history of BME MPs 57 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Black and Minority Ethnic MPs elected at general elections % of all MPs elected at each general election, 1987-2019
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017 2019 Sources: Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, British Electoral Facts 1832-2006; House of Commons Library, CBP7186 General Election 2015; British Future, ’52 minority MPs to sit in ‘most diverse UK Parliament ever’, 9 June 2017; British Future, ‘Diversity Milestone’ as one in ten now from an ethnic minority background, 13 December 2019
The chart above shows the gradual increase in the percentage of MPs from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds elected at general elections since 1987. The data is not broken down further by ethnic group. In every election since 1987, Labour has had the most MPs who identify with Black and Minority Ethnic groups. As a result of the 2019 General Election, MPs from Black and Minority Ethnic groups (excluding White Minority groups), represented 20% of the Labour Party; the largest proportion in any party at any general election.24 14.4 Education MPs who attended fee paying schools The chart below shows the percentage of each party’s MPs elected at general elections who attended a fee-paying school. The Labour Party’s average has remained fairly constant over time with the average over the period up to 2017 being 15% of its MPs. The highest was 18% in 1979 and 1983 with the lowest being 13% in 2017. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats also had their highest in 1979 (73% and 55% respectively). The Conservative average over the period up to 2017 was 61%, the lowest being in 2017 (44%). The Liberal Democrat average over the period up to 2017 was 40%, the lowest being in 2015 (13%). Data is available for the SNP for 2015 (7%) and 2017 (6%).
24 Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, British Electoral Facts 1832-2006; House of Commons Library, CBP7186 General Election 2015; British Future, ’52 minority MPs to sit in ‘most diverse UK Parliament ever’, 9 June 2017; British Future, ‘Diversity Milestone’ as one in ten now from an ethnic minority background, 13 December 2019. 58 House of Commons trends
% MPs attending fee-paying schools by party
100% Conservative Labour Lib Dem SNP 80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017
Sources: Kavanagh and Cowley, The British General Election of 2017 & previous editions
‘The British General Election of…’ series of books analyse the education of candidates and MPs at each election.25 This publication is not yet available for the 2019 General Election. According to data from the Sutton Trust, Conservative MPs elected at the 2019 General Election were the most likely to have attended a fee- paying school (41%), compared to 30% Liberal Democrat, 14% Labour and 7% SNP. 26 MPs who attended university The following chart shows the percentage of MPs who attended university by party. The highest average over the period 1979-2017 was for the Conservatives with 77% of their MPs attending university. This was following by the Liberal Democrats (75%) and Labour (66%). The SNP had an average of 69% but this data is taken from only two general elections as data is not available for the period before 2015. In both of those elections, they had a smaller proportion than the other three parties.
25 P. Cowley and D. Kavanagh et al, The British General Election of 2017 & previous editions 26 The Sutton Trust, Rebecca Montacute, A Comprehensive Victory, 18 December 2019 59 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
% MPs attending universities by party
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% Conservative Labour Lib Dem SNP
0% 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017
Sources: Kavanagh and Cowley, The British General Election of 2017 & previous editions
In 2015, 100% of Liberal Democrat MPs had attended university, out of eight MPs elected for the party. The 2017 general election saw a higher percentage of Labour MPs (84%) attending university than Conservative (83%) for the first time in the period. The available data also shows that the Conservative party has had a higher proportion of MPs who have attended Oxford or Cambridge university than any other party. In 1979 and 1983, nearly half its MPs had attended Oxbridge. Its average over the period up to 2017 was 43%. This compares to 17% for the Labour party and 26% for the Liberal Democrats. The data shows that no SNP MPs elected in 2015 or 2017 attended Oxford or Cambridge. 14.5 Names
About the data This section looks at the names of MPs in the ‘Members’ Names Information Database’ database. It looks at MPs in the Commons since 1979 (although some more historical data is available, especially if they served before 1979 and then were elevated to the House of Lords).
The word clouds below look at the forenames and surnames of MPs as per the database (though some MPs decide to use a middle name instead of their given forename). Where a forename is available, we have used that instead of using their middle (or other) preferred name. This should only be used as a guide. Different spellings, shortened versions and specific naming requests from MPs will affect the analysis.
The word clouds have been made using wordclouds.com. 60 House of Commons trends
Forenames The two word clouds below show the most common first names for Commons MPs for men and women in the Commons since 1979.
At first glance, it looks as though there are fewer names for men than women. This is because the frequency of the most popular men’s names is more extreme, making the less used names appear smaller. The seven most popular men’s names account for over 30% of all the forenames of Commons MPs in the database. The most common name is John with 148 followed by David (105) and James (77). 158 men’s names have only one record in the database, such as Keir, Dale and Zac. The most popular women’s forename is Margaret with 13 MPs in the database.27 This is followed by Helen (11) and Angela and Sarah (10). 173 names have only one record in the database, such as Peggy, Rosena and Hannah. There are 253 different names for women in the database and 334 different names for men. In both cases, the analysis works on names being exact. Consequently, if an MP has a shortened version of their name, the name in question can be spelt in different ways or it includes their middle name in a preferred first name, this will show up as a separate name. For example, Heidi Allen has a given first name of Heidi- Suzanne. The word clouds on the following page look at the most used forenames by party. In a clockwise direction there is Conservatives, Labour, SNP and Lib Dems. As there have been more men MPs than women MPs, the party charts are dominated by men’s names. The party
27 Although as explained at the beginning of the section, not all of them use their given name of Margaret as their preferred first name. 61 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
for each MP is their current or latest party: they are not included if they have become an independent/crossbencher or Speaker in either House. The most popular name for all four parties was John. The next most frequent names for the Conservatives were David, Robert and Michael. There are 315 different Conservative forenames in the database. The most common women’s names are Angela and Caroline. David and Michael are also prominent in the Labour party, as is James. The most common women’s name is Helen. There are 363 different Labour forenames in the database. Paul and Robert are common in the Liberal Democrats along with John and David. Sarah is the most common name for women. There are 87 unique Liberal Democrat forenames in the database. There are fewer names to analyse for the SNP but of the 64 different forenames in the database, John, George and Richard appear the most, whilst the most common women’s name is Margaret. 62 House of Commons trends
Surnames The following word cloud looks at surnames of the previous and current MPs since approximately 1979. The most common surnames, Jones and Smith, both have 25 records each, this is followed by Davies (17), Williams (13) and Clark (12). In total, there are 1,645 unique surnames in the period analysed: of these, 1,316 have made only one appearance (80%). There have not been many dominant surnames, with only 11 out of the 1,645 names appearing 10 or more times in the database.
63 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
15. Commons characteristics 15.1 Seats The number of MPs at any one time has changed over the years. Following the 2010 General Election, the Coalition Government announced that it would bring forward a Bill on electoral reform which would reduce the number of constituencies and make them more equal in size. Changes in the Legislation introduced in 2011 was meant to reduce the House of number of seats are Commons from 650 seats to 600 but the initial boundary review was nearly always driven never completed. by boundary In March 2020 the Government announced it would not implement the changes. However, the 1918 increase net reduction in the number of seats in the House of Commons to 600 to 707 was due to and instead it would introduce a Bill to amend the Rules of the Speaker’s Redistribution. Conference on Until the periodical reviews of constituencies introduced in 1944, the reform of the redistribution of seats was ad hoc and linked to the Reform Acts that franchise, extended the franchise for parliamentary elections. redistribution of seats and of Permanent machinery for redistributing parliamentary seats was election introduced after the Speaker’s Conference of 1944. Since then, regular administration. boundary reviews have been undertaken to ensure a broadly equal distribution of electors between constituencies. This number then fell in 1922 to 615 Four separate independent Boundary Commissions undertake reviews in following the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These changes take creation of the Irish effect at general elections. The chart below shows the distribution of Free State. seats at general elections by country. More information can be found in: Constituency boundary reviews and the number of MPs. 64 House of Commons trends
Number of seats in the House of Commons Seats at each boundary review since 1832 1832 1844 1852 1861 1865 1868 (a) 1885 1918 1922 1945 1950 1955 England 1974 1983 Wales 1992 Scotland 1997 Ireland/Northern 2005 Ireland 2010
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Source: House of Commons Library, UK Election Statistics 1918-2019. University constituencies (1832-1945) are included within the countries they were located Notes: (a) In 1870 four boroughs were disenfranchised for corruption and the six seats they returned were abolished rather than reallocated. At the 1874 and 1880 GEs there were 4 fewer English seats and 2 fewer Irish seats. The data treats Monmouthshire as a Welsh county.
15.2 Seats by party The Labour and Conservative parties have dominated the results of general elections in the modern era. Combined, they have won 91% of all available seats since 1918 (Conservatives 50%, Labour 41%). The only election since 1918 where they didn’t form the two top parties was in 1918. This was when both a coalition Liberal party and Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour. 28 The 2019 result gave the Conservatives 365 seats, their highest since 1987. Labour won 202 seats, their fewest since 1935 (154). The Liberal
28 Notes about party and country calculations: Conservative - Includes Coalition Conservative for 1918; National, National Liberal and National Labour candidates for 1931-1935; National and National Liberal candidates for 1945; National Liberal & Conservative candidates 1945-1970. Liberal Democrat - Coalition Liberal Party for 1918; National Liberal for 1922; and Independent Liberal for 1931. Figures show Liberal Party seats up to 1979, show Liberal/SDP Alliance seats for 1983-1987 and Liberal Democrat seats from 1992 onwards. Northern Ireland - The SDLP (formed 1970) and the DUP (formed 1971) are included in the table from 1974 onwards. Ulster Unionists took the Conservative whip at Westminster until 1972 and are listed as Conservatives for general elections up to 1970; from 1974 they are listed as Others 65 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Democrats won 11 seats, whilst the SNP won 48 seats and Plaid Cymru won four. The difference between the percentage of seats won by the winning and second place party in 2019 was 25%, the highest since 2001 (37%) and 1997 (38%). The largest difference in the period since 1918 was in 1931 (76%).
Number of seats won by party at general elections 600 Con Lab LD
500 SNP PC Other
400
300
200
100
0 1918 1924 1935 1951 1964 1974 1983 1997 2010 2019 (F) Source: House of Commons Library UK Election Statistics 1918-2019 Notes: For elections up to 1992, the Speaker of the House of Commons is listed under the party he represented before their appointment. From 1997 the Speaker is listed under 'Other'. See footnotes for further explainers on party and country data h d hhi lh 15.3 Candidates The number of candidates standing at general elections since 1918 steadily increased until 2010 before starting to fall again. 3,320 stood in 2019. The highest number of candidates came in 2010 (4,133) whilst the lowest number in this period was in 1931 (1,292). In recent times, the peaks have tended to coincide with elections that resulted in a change of governing party. The second highest number of candidates after 2010 was in 1997, when 3,724 candidates stood.
66 House of Commons trends
No. of candidates at general elections 5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 1918 1924 1935 1951 1964 1974 1983 1997 2010 2019 (F) Source: House of Commons Library General Election research papers; Rallings and Thrasher, British Electoral Facts 1832-2012
15.4 Women candidates Data is also available on the number of women candidates standing in general elections. The chart below shows the percentage of women that stood for election for the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. It also shows the overall percentage of all women standing for election.
Women as a % of all candidates at general elections By party
80% Con Lab LD All
60%
40%
20%
0% 1918 1924 1935 1951 1964 1974 1983 1997 2010 2019 (F) Source: House of Commons Library General Election research papers; Rallings and Thrasher, British Electoral Facts 1832-2012
At the 2019 General Election, over half of Labour Party candidates were women (53.1%). This was the first time in history that more than 40.6% of any party’s candidates were women. 2019 also saw the highest total number of women candidates in history (1,121). This was 33.8% of all candidates standing. 67 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
When aggregating all elections, Labour have had a higher percentage of women candidates standing in elections since 1918, compared to other parties standing in elections across this period. Their average is 14.3% compared to 8.8% for the Conservatives and 14.2% for the Liberal Democrats. The SNP and Plaid Cymru (who have not fielded candidates during this whole period), have average percentages of 18.4% and 13.4% respectively. The average percentage for all other parties is 18% (2,842 women out of a total of 15,758 candidates). The overall average for the period for all candidates is 13.8%. Out of 63,621 candidates since 1918, 8,780 have been women. Women candidates becoming MPs The increase in women candidates is an important and significant trend in recent general elections. However, it’s also important to consider whether, and to what extent, the increase in women candidates has led to increased representation of women MPs in the House of Commons itself. All other things being equal, we might expect the proportion of women candidates to be broadly the same as the proportion of women MPs elected. If, however, women were more acutely underrepresented as MPs than among candidates, this may indicate other factors contributing to under-representation. For example, it may indicate that parties were or are selecting men as candidates in seats that they are better placed to win and selecting women candidates in seats in which the party is less competitive. The chart below shows the difference between the percentage of women elected compared to the percentage of women candidates. In the 2019 General Election this “conversion gap” was zero. Both 33.8% of all the candidates and 33.8% of the MPs elected to Parliament were women. Most of the period analysed has seen a smaller percentage of women elected compared to the percentage of candidates who were women. However, there have only been four elections where the ‘conversion gap’ exceeded 5% (1979-92), i.e. over 5% more women stood compared to the percentage elected. In four of the six elections from 1997 onwards, women formed a higher percentage of MPs than they did candidates. This reversal of the historical trend peaked in 2015 when there were 3.4% more women elected than the percentage of women candidates (191 women elected out of 1,033 candidates). 68 House of Commons trends
Women candidates becoming MPs Difference between % women MPs elected compared to % candidates
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20% 1918 1924 1935 1951 1964 1974(F) 1983 1997 2010 2019
Source: House of Commons Library General Election research papers; Rallings and Thrasher, British Electoral Facts 1832-2012
Women candidates and MPs by party The majority of the women elected to Parliament have been MPs in either the Labour or Conservative Party. The chart below uses the same methodology as in the section above but compares the proportion of women candidates and MPs by party. The chart looks at general elections from 1979 onwards. Prior to 1997, the trend for the two major parties was broadly the same as the overall picture: the proportion of women MPs elected was generally either lower than or equal to the proportion of women candidates selected by the parties. The Conservatives have never returned a higher proportion of women to Parliament than its proportion of women candidates. By contrast, the Labour party has done so on four occasions. The largest positive difference for the Labour Party came in 2015 (8.8%) whereas the largest negative difference for the Conservatives was in 2005 (-10.8%). Neither party returned a greater percentage of women MPs at the 2019 compared to the percentage of women candidates (Conservatives: - 6.7%; Labour: -1.6%). 69 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
Women candidates becoming MPs by party Difference between % women MPs elected compared to % candidates
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20% 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017 2019
Source: House of Commons Library General Election research papers; Rallings and Thrasher, British Electoral Facts 1832-2012
More information on candidates can be found in the Library’s general election briefing papers, for example, General Election 2019: full results and analysis. 15.5 Turnover of MPs The turnover of MPs in the House of Commons is the movement of MPs in and out of Parliament. In the chart below, ‘new MPs’ does not include those who were re-entering the House after a period of not being an MP (commonly referred to as ‘re-treads’).
% New MPs elected at general elections
60% % of MPs who are new Average 40%
20%
0% 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017 2019
Source: Members' Names Information Service, House of Commons Notes: Excludes former MPs returning to the House of Commons after time away.
Turnover results from two main factors. Firstly, parties win and lose seats previously held by other parties at a general election. Secondly, incumbent MPs may choose not to stand at a subsequent election, leading to a new MP even if the seat is held by the same party as before. 70 House of Commons trends
The highest turnover in this period came in 1997 with 259 new MPs elected, almost 36.9% of the House, with 183 new Labour MPs taking their seats. Turnover tends to be highest at elections where the governing party changes. After 1997, the highest turnover came in 2010. Of the members returned in that election, 34.9% of MPs had never previously been MPs. The average turnover across all the General Elections in the period was 22.3%. This is close to the 2019 General Election turnover (21.5%). The lowest turnovers in the period analysed were at the 2017 and 2001 General Elections. They had turnover rates of 13.4% and 14% respectively. 15.6 Elevation to the House of Lords The term ‘elevation’ refers to Members of the House of Commons that are subsequently made Peers in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Library has compiled a list of Peers who were previously MPs in the Commons. As of September 2019, 354 MPs have subsequently been elevated to the House of Lords since the beginning of 1979. This figure excludes former MPs who inherited hereditary titles and joined the House of Lords following a hereditary by-election. This number is likely to be very small. Out of these 354 ex-Commons Peers since 1979, the Lords Library calculates that 45 of them have been women. This equates to 12.7% of the former MPs who have been elevated to the Lords since the beginning of 1979. The calculations made by the House of Lords Library also allows us to look at the rate of elevation of all MPs in the period. Compared to all the MPs that have served in the House of Commons since 1979, approximately 15.6% have been elevated to the Lords.
71 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
16. Public viewing of Parliament
This section looks at public engagement with Parliament, based on viewing figures of BBC Parliament. It looks at the estimated viewing figures of BBC Parliament, which mostly shows the House of Commons Chamber when both Houses are sitting. However, depending on public interest, select committee evidence sessions or House of Lords debates may be shown instead. BBC Parliament also provides footage of proceedings in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments/Assemblies. BBC Parliament is not the only way to watch business taking place in Parliament. Parliament TV allows viewers to watch a wide variety of business from both Houses online, whether live or after the fact. Since February 2020, Parliament TV also facilitates live British Sign Language interpreters for some proceedings, e.g. PMQs. The data for this section has been taken from Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB). BARB is responsible for delivering the UK’s television audience measurement currency. They commission research companies Ipsos MORI, Kantar Media and RSMB to collect data that represent the viewing behaviour of the UK’s 28 million TV and broadband-only households. 29 For more information about the BARB data, please see the notes below or its website.30 2019 was popular with viewers The chart below shows the estimated weekly reach of BBC Parliament according to BARB. Barring a few spikes, the weekly reach between the beginning of 2010 until 2016 was fairly consistent. 2016 had some spikes but these turned out to be small compared to those during the 2017-19 Parliament. The top seven weeks in the period were all recorded in 2019 and were the only times when the weekly reach went above 1.7 million. The highest peak was on the week commencing 2 September 2019, when the weekly reach was 2.74 million. The heightened levels of interest can be attributed to the business transacted that week. This included a number of contentious debates about leaving the European Union: emergency debate in the name of Sir Oliver Letwin; the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill moved by the Exiting the European Union Select Committee Chair, Hilary Benn;
29 BARB, How we do what we do, accessed Oct 2020 30 BARB has two sources of data; people-based data: the BARB panel and device-based census data for online TV viewing. For the purposes of this section, we are looking at the weekly reach in the ‘Weekly TV set viewing summary’ from Jan 2010- Jan 2020 and the Weekly viewing summary from Jan 2020. There are two definitions available in this second dataset. The ‘C7 TV set (As Broadcast)’ shows the figures based on the old definition (pre 2020) used by BARB. This is the definition we have used although we cannot be sure it is directly comparable and so comparing figures pre and post Jan 2020 should be done so with caution. The other definition (the new definition) is the ‘Total Three Screen Viewing (As Viewed)’. More information on the BARB panel and the definitions can be found on their website. 72 House of Commons trends
and a motion from the Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) for an early general election (which did not achieve the supermajority required under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011).
Estimated BBC Parliament weekly reach 000's
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 Jan 10 Jan 12 Jan 14 Jan 16 Jan 18 Jan 20 Sources: Broadcasters' Audience Research Board, TV set viewing summary (Jan 2010 – Jan 2020), Weekly viewing summary (from Jan 2020), C7 TV set (As Broadcast). Notes: Estimates of reach based on Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) panel. Data before and after Jan 2020 may not be directly comparable.
The next highest peaks came in the weeks commencing 23 Sept 2019 Events included: (2.36 million), 14 Jan 2019 (2.26 million) and 25 March 2019 (2.08 million). All of the business for these weeks can be found in Hansard. w/c 14 Jan 2019 - The three lowest figures for weekly reach since 2010 came in Theresa May’s first consecutive weeks; week commencing 30 Jul 2012 (147,000), 6 Aug attempt to get approval for her 2012 (193,000) and 23 Jul 2012 (269,000). These all occurred in deal and a no- summer recess where we might expect a dip as the Commons does not confidence motion 31 sit. However, this was not a pattern seen in other summer recesses debate across the period. Other notable spikes in viewership include: May 2010, following the w/c 25 Mar 2019 - general election and the subsequent coalition negotiations; summer Theresa May’s third attempt to get 2011 with the phone hacking evidence session in July and the response approval for her to the riots in August; the week commencing 30 Nov 2015 with deal before the first debates on ISIL in Syria and junior doctor contracts; and the last two extension of Article weeks of June 2016 which saw the Commons meet to pay tribute to Jo 50 Cox MP, the EU referendum and the subsequent reaction to the result. w/c 23 Sept 2019 - Brexit fatigue? The Supreme Court Despite high average weekly viewing figures in the aftermath of the prorogation 2016 EU referendum, the chart shows a gradual decline in figures until judgment and resumption of 2019. Could this have been evidence of the so-called ‘Brexit fatigue’?32 Parliament sitting
31 Although there are no live Commons proceedings to show during recesses, BBC Parliament still schedules programming. These may include proceedings from devolved nations, highlights of previous select committee evidence sessions and re- runs of historical general elections. 32 YouGov, Poll conducted on Oct 29 2019, “Do you think you have ‘Brexit fatigue’?” 73 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
The following chart, which looks at the average weekly reach of BBC Parliament by year, accounts for the number of weeks in each year of data (2020 has 39 weeks of data). This backs up the evidence that there was a drop of in public engagement with Parliament after the highs of 2016, 2017 and 2018 before it rose rapidly in 2019. However, an alternative explanation is that 2017 and 2018 simply saw viewing figures return to ‘normal’ as opposed to there being any substantial disengagement. The combined average weekly reach for the years 2010-2015 was approximately 691,000 viewers. The equivalent average for 2017 and 2018 was 701,000.
Average weekly reach on BBC Parliament 000's
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Sources: Broadcasters' Audience Research Board, TV set viewing summary (Jan 2010 – Jan 2020), Weekly viewing summary (from Jan 2020), C7 TV set (As Broadcast). Notes: Estimates of reach based on Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) panel. Data before and after Jan 2020 may not be directly comparable.
For more information on public engagement, the Hansard Society publish an annual Audit of Political Engagement. The 2019 version can be found here. 74 House of Commons trends
17. MPs and staffing 17.1 MPs’ Salaries The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is responsible for determining and paying MPs’ salaries. It is also responsible for preparing, regularly reviewing and revising a scheme under which allowances are paid. It also pays those allowances. This means MPs no longer have the ability to determine if and when they are given a pay rise. The latest salary increase for MPs came in April 2020. The current salary of an MP (excluding any additional ministerial salaries) is £81,932. MPs were first paid a salary of £400 in 1911. After the Second World War, this rose to £1,000 and in 1979, MPs earned £9,450, which is the equivalent of £37,147 in today’s money when adjusted for inflation (real terms). MPs who are ministers may also receive an additional ministerial salary. There are limitations on the number of paid ministers, set out in the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. 33
MPs’ expenses Since the 2010 General Election, responsibility for devising a scheme for and paying MPs’ expenses has rested with IPSA.
More information about pay and expenses can be found in the Library’s briefing: Members' pay and expenses and ministerial salaries 2019/20.
33 For more information, see our House of Commons Library Briefing paper, Limitations on the number of Ministers; SN03378 75 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
The chart below shows MPs’ basic salary in real terms since June 1975 as well as the average Great Britain (GB) salary. More information on the data and methodology can be found in the notes. 34
MPs' salary Basic MP annual salary and average GB salary (Apr 2020 prices)
£100,000
£80,000
£60,000 MP basic annual salary
£40,000 Average GB salary
£20,000
£0 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 Sources: House of Commons, IPSA; Wages 2000-2020, ONS, Average Weekly Earnings Series, Wages 1963-2009, ONS backdating of the Average Weekly Earnings series. ONS, Consumer price inflation tables, May 2019, table 57, series D7BT [Jan 1988 - Apr 2019]; Thomas, R and Dimsdale, N (2017) "A Millennium of UK Data", Bank of England OBRA dataset, table M6 based on (2b) ONS (2014), Modelling a Back Series for the Consumer Price Index, 1950 - 2011 [Jan 1949 - Dec 1987]
The average nominal salary for GB in 1975 was approximately £2,085, (£12,633 in real terms). At this time, MPs earned £5,750 (£34,842 in real terms). After initially falling to its lowest amount in the period in real terms in 1977 (£28,714), MPs’ salary steadily grew. It rose sharply in 1996 to £54,545 and continued to its real terms peak of £82,337 in 2005. It has stayed around the £80,000 mark in real terms except in the aftermath of the recession in the late 2000s. The real terms figure fell to £73,000 before the May 2015 increase restored it back to around £80,000. The average earnings are smoother but they also show a steady increase across the period and slight falls in the late 1970s and 2000s. The average annual salary in Great Britain in April 2020 was £27,520. For a better understanding of how the difference between MPs and average salaries changed over time, the following chart looks at the difference between MPs’ salaries and the average GB salary in percentage terms since 1975. This again uses both weekly earnings series, which are overlapped and adjusted for inflation. The data shows a slightly increasing trend in the difference between an MP’s pay and the average salary, but this is less pronounced than the chart above.
34 The Annual Weekly Earnings series comes from the Monthly Wages and Salaries Survey and started in 2000. The ONS backdated this as far as 1963, the methodology can be found here. This backdated data goes as far as 2009, so we’ve overlapped the two series’ on the chart to account for any differences. This data is for the mean weekly wage, multiplied by 52 to calculate annual salary. The mean is affected by outliers. 76 House of Commons trends
Since 1975, MPs have been paid 177% more on average than the annual salary in Great Britain in real terms. The lowest percentage came in 1977 (121%) whereas the biggest differences occurred in the late 1990s/early 2000s when it was over 200%.
MPs’ salary as % of average earnings % difference in real terms (Apr 2020 prices)
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0% 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019 Sources: House of Commons, IPSA; Wages 2000-2020, ONS, Average Weekly Earnings Series, Wages 1963-2009, ONS backdating of the Average Weekly Earnings series. ONS, Consumer price inflation tables, May 2019, table 57, series D7BT [Jan 1988 - Apr 2019]; Thomas, R and Dimsdale, N (2017) "A Millennium of UK Data", Bank of England OBRA dataset, table M6 based on (2b) ONS (2014), Modelling a Back Series for the Consumer Price Index, 1950 - 2011 [Jan 1949 - Dec 1987] Notes: Adjusted for real terms (CPI, April 2020 Prices). AWE series' overlapped.
17.2 MP and MPs’ staff pay and expenses IPSA publishes MP and MPs’ staff pay and expenses costs in its annual report and accounts. In the latest published annual report, 2018/19, the cost of MP and staff wages to IPSA was over £149m. The cost of expenses was just over £34m. In real terms (2019/20 prices), this was £153m and £35m respectively. Comparative real terms figures in 2010/11 were £116m for wages and £23m for expenses.35
35 IPSA annual reports and accounts from 2009/10 can be found here. 77 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
MP and MP's staff pay and expenses cost Real terms (2019/20 financial year prices), £ millions
240 MP and MP Staff expenses 200 MP and MP Staff pay costs 160
120
80
40
0 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19
Source: IPSA Annual Reports and Accounts; GDP deflators at market prices, and money GDP September 2020 (Quarterly National Accounts), Financial year, 2019/20 prices = 100
The chart above shows the cost of MP and MP staff pay to IPSA in real terms. Real terms are calculated using the GDP deflator (2019/20 financial year prices). Despite rising nominally in 2018/19, MP and MP’s staff pay and expenses decreased in real terms compared to 2017/18. Across the whole period, MP and staff expenses accounted for an average of 17% of the cost. 17.3 MPs’ staff IPSA assumed responsibility for MPs' staff pay on 6 May 2010. Figures for MP’s staff numbers from 2010/11 to 2017/18 are taken from its annual reports. Before that, the number of MPs’ staff was provided in the House of Commons Commission annual report. The latest figure for the total number of MPs’ staff is provided as of February 2019 and has been taken from IPSA’s Policy review: Funding for MPs’ staff, published in March 2020. Consequently, as historic data uses different sources, caution must be taken when looking at trends over time. There was a steady increase in the number of staff working for MPs between 2010/11 and 2013/14. The figure has since remained fairly steady, peaking in 2016/17, at approximately 3,250. By comparison, the number of staff on MPs’ payroll recorded in 2000/01 was 1,850. 78 House of Commons trends
MPs staff
5,000 February 2018 figure from IPSA "Policy review: Funding for MPs’ staff", March 2020 Average monthly payroll run of Members' staff over the year (rounded) 4,000 Number of Members' staff on payroll at financial year end
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 00/01 03/04 06/07 09/10 12/13 15/16 18/19 Sources: House of Commons Commission Annual Reports, 2000/01 - 2009/10; IPSA, Annual Report and Accounts, 2010/11 - 2016/17; IPSA "Policy review: Funding for MPs’ staff", March 2020; House of Commons Library correspondence
17.4 House of Commons Staff Numbers Data on the number of staff employed by the House of Commons can be found in the Annual Reports. The latest to be published was the House of Commons Annual Report and Accounts 2019/20. Information on the different Teams that make up these numbers can be found in the latest annual report. P.108-9 lists each Team and briefly describes the work they do. The average number of full-time equivalent (FTE) 36 people employed during the year, including those staff involved in delivering shared services funded by the House of Lords, was 2,817. This was up from the previous year’s average of 2,609. There were also 66 agency staff in 2019/20, down from 73 in 2018/19. Only permanent staff are included in the table below. The table shows that the number of staff working for the House of Commons has increased in all bar four of the 19 years where data is available.
36 One FTE is equivalent to one employee working full-time. 79 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
House of Commons staff Average number of full-time equivalent persons employed during the year
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
- 00/01 03/04 06/07 09/10 12/13 15/16 18/19
Source: House of Commons Annual Accounts Notes: Permanent staff only. Includes those staff involved in delivering shared services funded by the House of Lords. The figure for 2012-13 represents the position at 31 March 2013 rather than the average for the year as a whole.
The biggest increase came in 2016/17 when the average number of staff increased by 436. The 2016-17 House of Commons annual report says this was partly a result of the transfer of a contract for security officers with the Metropolitan Police to “part of the House’s staff costs and headcount.” At the beginning of the year, the House of Commons transferred the Security Officers from the Metropolitan Police Service after a review of their contract, with nearly 300 staff becoming House employees from 1 April 2016. The costs of the Security Officers are shared with the House of Lords in line with other security costs, but the staff are House of Commons employees.37 In contrast, 2017/18 saw the lowest increase in average Commons staff over the year (53) since 2014-15. All three of the annual reports between 2011/12 and 2013/14 saw a decrease in the average number of staff. The annual reports also give information on staffing numbers by gender. The figures in the chart below do not include those members of staff who declared a non-binary gender, as explained in the annual report: The House holds information of the number of people who have declared a non-binary gender; the figures are too low to publish as it may be possible to identify individuals. The following table analyses the number of people in each of the two main genders. 38
37 House of Commons, Annual Reports and Accounts 2016-17, P.63 38 House of Commons, Annual Reports and Accounts 2019-20, P.72 80 House of Commons trends
House of Commons staff by gender As at March 2020
% point change on proportion of Men Women % Women women on 18/19
Commons Executive Board (CEB) 4 6 60.0% 15.6% Senior Commons Structure (SCS) 55 38 40.9% -0.6% Other Employees 1,615 1,342 45.4% 0.6%
Source: House of Commons Annual Reports
The 2019/20 annual report shows that 45.4% of House of Commons employees were women, this was up from 44.7% on the previous financial year. Although the percentage of women in SCS graded roles saw a small decrease since 2018/19, the gender split on the Commons Executive Board (CEB) changed significantly. Four of nine roles were held by women in 2018/19 (44.4%) whereas six of ten roles (60%) are now held by women (2019/20 report). Costs The House of Commons staff cost for 2019/20 as reported in the annual report was £145 million. This was an increase on the staffing costs for 2018/19 which was £129 million. The annual report states: The increase in staff costs when compared to the prior year can be explained by additional security staff and an increase in staff resources to deliver large capital projects and programmes. 39 The chart below shows the staff costs for the House of Commons in real terms since 2000/01 (using April 2020 prices).
39 House of Commons, Annual Reports and Accounts 2019-20, P.70 81 Commons Library Briefing, 2 November 2020
House of Commons staff cost Real terms (2019/20 financial year prices), £ millions
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 00/01 03/04 06/07 09/10 12/13 15/16 18/19 Source: House of Commons Annual Accounts; GDP deflators at market prices, and money GDP September 2020 (Quarterly National Accounts), financial year, 2019/20 = 100 Notes: Includes both capital and revenue budgets.
As the chart shows, the cost of staffing has increased over the period. In 2000/01, the House of Commons spent £62 million in real terms on staff costs). In four of the last twenty financial years there has been a fall in staffing costs. Those years all fell within the five-year period 2011 to 2016 (with costs only rising in 2013/14). The large increase in staffing costs in the 2016/17 annual report came from the transfer of security staff, noted above. All House of Commons Annual Reports in this period can be found on the Parliamentary website.
About the Library The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents. As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing papers, which are available on the Parliament website. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes. If you have any comments on our briefings please email [email protected]. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members and their staff. If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons you can email [email protected]. Disclaimer This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice. The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links to, BRIEFING PAPER or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information is Number CBP 9042 provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence. 2 November 2020