PMQs at 50 – Has the Experiment Worked?
Nigel Fletcher looks at the history of PMQs and wonders whether it needs reforming.
26 Oct 2011, 19:48
Cameron at PMQs
The ‘50th anniversary’ relates to the introduction of fixed 15-minute slots on Tuesdays and Thursdays for questions to the Prime Minister. This occurred on 24th October 1961, after an experiment in July of that year. This wasn’t of course the first time the Prime Minister had answered questions in the House – until then he had simply taken his turn along with other ministers, being available to answer questions (in theory) four days a week. A modification in 1881 to place those to the PM last (a courtesy to the ageing Gladstone), when combined with the introduction of time limits, meant they were often not reached at all. The 1961 innovation was therefore motivated by a desire for a more regular and predictable opportunity to quiz the PM.
This history and the developments since were covered in an excellent documentary by Dominic Sandbrook on Radio 4 at the weekend. ‘Mind your PMQs’ (available on i-Player until Saturday) had interviews with veteran combatants and commentators, as well as two Speakers – Bercow and Boothroyd. It makes for fascinating listening.
Some themes that emerge are familiar: PMQs has become a circus; more heat than light; Punch and Judy… and so on. But there is also the positive view – that there are few if any other countries where the chief executive has to come to Parliament weekly to be questioned by their critics. Some would say this fact on its own – whatever the quality of the questions and answers- is a profound statement of representative democracy. I tend to agree.
We shouldn’t underestimate the symbolism of this political endurance sport. However grand and ‘Presidential’ a Prime Minister may aspire to be, the weekly bear-pit of the Commons reminds them from where they draw their authority. The US President may be obstructed and defeated by Congress, but on the rare occasions he turns up to address them he is treated with the full courtesy, bordering on reverence, due to a Head of State. The fact that the British Prime Minister can have the leader of the main opposition party literally shouting in his face may not be pretty, but it is important.
If we want calmer and more effective Parliamentary scrutiny of the Prime Minister, it is unlikely we could gain it through reform to PMQs. Nor, perhaps, do we need to. The PM these days faces lengthy scrutiny from the Liaison Committee of senior MPs twice a year – a welcome innovation begun under Tony Blair, and one which doesn’t get the attention it should. There are also the many occasions when the Prime Minister makes a statement to the House, on which he answers detailed questions.
This all adds up. In the week of 5th September this year, David Cameron spoke and answered questions on Libya for nearly an hour and a half on Monday, faced an hour and a half before the Liaison Committee on Tueday, then half an hour of PMQs on Wednesday – a total of around three and a half hours answering questions by MPs. Even this week, we had an hour on Monday of him answering MPs’ questions on Libya and the EU Council to supplement PMQs. Perhaps if we want greater Prime Ministerial accountability, Parliament should seek to make these frequent other appearances the norm. And we can leave PMQs as it is.
Comments (2)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
It's rather ironic that this piece in defence of PMQs was published concurrently with Greenwich Council's meeting last night. For Nigel Fletcher is also Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Greenwich where last night's questioning of the Executive was so calm as to be non-existent.
True the Conservative Greoup submitted 14 questions prior to the meeting and written answers were tabled. Normally about two thirds of written questions generate an oral supplmentary at the meeting but last night the Council magreed nem con not to allow time for these. In addition ten minutes is set aside for additional oral questions but Conservative councillors sat in silnece when oral questions were reached. Neither did they table a motion for debate as they usually do.
The reason for this silence seems to be that councillors were desperate to finish the meeting as quickly as possible so that they could dash across the road to join a reception for former councilor Peter King who has been awarded the Freedom of the Borough.
Now Greenwich Council meets as infrequently as possible and last night was the first meeting for three months. A lot has happened since July. Nigel Fletcher played a blinder during riot week in August but last night he had nothing to say on the subject. The pubo
lic gallery was heaving mainloy with first-time attendees objecting to a proposed school closure. They must have been puzzled by the Trappist impersonations from the Tory benches.
The nearest Parliamentary equivalent would be if Labour MPs decided to mark Neil Kinnock's 70th birthday next March by asking to curtail PMQs that week so they could have more time to pay tribute to him.
Now Peter King throroughly deserves his Freedom and I hope that he enjoys it for many years but last night's display by his former colleagues was actually rather disrespectful to him.
As so often Greenwich Council stank last night, but this time it was not solely Labour's fault, Nigel and Tory colleagues must share the blame.
27/10/2011 13:59I recommend this take from the Daily Show on the PM answering questions compared to other countries (not that you're technically allowed to watch it in the UK thanks to some very stupid laws):
http://vimeo.com/26783438
27/10/2011 18:01