The results of the 2024 General Election in the United Kingdom highlighted a significant shift in voter sentiment, as traditional parties faced a historic decline. A record thirteen parties and six independents secured seats in the House of Commons, leading to the most fragmented Parliament in British history. This trend continued with the recent Caerphilly byelection, where votes for both the Labour and Conservative parties diminished dramatically. Despite this change in the electoral landscape, Westminster’s internal operations remain largely unaffected, favoring the established parties.
Recent research published in The Political Quarterly by Dr. Louise Thompson from The University of Manchester reveals how outdated rules within the House of Commons effectively marginalise smaller parties. Dr. Thompson argues that the current parliamentary structure operates as if it were still dominated by the two major parties, which creates a significant democratic deficit.
Parliamentary Exclusion of Smaller Parties
Currently, only the government, the official opposition, and the third-largest party benefit from guaranteed speaking time, committee leadership, and the ability to hold the government accountable. In contrast, smaller parties such as the Greens, Reform UK, Plaid Cymru, and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) lack similar privileges. As a result, representatives from these parties can spend hours in the chamber waiting for an opportunity to speak, often without being called at all.
Dr. Thompson highlights the implications of this exclusion, noting that smaller parties, despite representing national movements and regional interests, find themselves sidelined in key legislative discussions. “All MPs are elected equally, but inside Westminster, some are definitely more equal than others,” she stated.
This inequity is not merely symbolic; it hampers the ability of smaller parties to scrutinise legislation effectively. Without representation on select committees, they cannot properly evaluate proposed laws. In Dr. Thompson’s view, this hinders meaningful debate on issues that matter to their constituents, as they struggle to secure time to voice their concerns.
Recommendations for Reform
At present, smaller parties depend on informal arrangements to have their voices heard. The Speaker occasionally allows for their questions, and larger parties may share debate time or committee positions, but these opportunities are inconsistent and can be withdrawn at any time. This patchwork approach disproportionately benefits parties that foster good relationships with the major players in Westminster, while others are left without recourse.
Dr. Thompson advocates for a modernisation of Westminster’s rules to reflect the realities of today’s multi-party politics. She proposes formal guarantees within the Commons’ Standing Orders to ensure fair speaking rights, committee representation, and access to debates for smaller parties.
Additionally, she suggests drawing inspiration from devolved parliaments, advocating for minimum thresholds for party rights and increased opportunities for smaller party MPs to contribute to committees based on their areas of expertise.
Dr. Thompson asserts that these reforms would enhance transparency, consistency, and fairness within the parliamentary system, benefiting all MPs regardless of party affiliation. As the political landscape continues to evolve, adapting Westminster’s rules to accommodate a broader range of voices could play a crucial role in restoring public faith in the democratic process.
