House of Commons procedure: why does it matter and how does it change?

By Hannah Kelly, Lisa James and Meg Russell, on 8 July 2025

House of Commons procedure combines formal rules with conventions and precedents, providing the framework for conducting business and making decisions. Hannah Kelly, Lisa James and Meg Russell explain why it matters, how it evolves, and what future changes have been proposed.

Background

Parliamentary procedure encompasses the generally accepted rules, precedents and practices of both Houses of parliament.

The House of Commons and House of Lords each have their own distinct way of working, with rules and precedents which have developed over time. This briefing focuses on the House of Commons.

Why does House of Commons procedure matter?

Commons procedure acts as the framework that governs how parliamentary business is conducted, how decisions are made, and what effects they have. Procedure which is accessible to MPs and the general public provides a degree of transparency and certainty about how things work, and a roadmap for understanding how decisions are made.

Procedure also helps to set the balance of power between different actors in parliament: government and opposition, the official opposition and other opposition parties, frontbenchers and backbenchers. It is therefore an important mechanism through which competing priorities for what the Commons does and how it organises itself are resolved; e.g. the government’s need to get its business through, versus the right of others to hold the government to account, or the need for open debate to be facilitated versus the need for that debate to remain relevant, structured and civil.

This means that procedure can have important implications for the big things that MPs care about – the extent to which they can get the topics that they (and their constituents) want discussed onto the Commons agenda, or the way that decisions on key policies are made.

Commons procedure encompasses a very broad range of topics and mechanisms. These include:

The legislative process: rules relating to the passage of primary and secondary legislation, including how legislation is presented, who can propose amendments, and how each stage of the process is conducted.

Time in the chamber: sitting times and timetabling arrangements, e.g. when the Commons chamber sits, how time is divided, who decides what issues are discussed. These arrangements help balance government business, opposition time, and backbench debates.

Conduct of debates: rules governing how debates are conducted, including speaking order and time limits. Given the limited time available for parliamentary business, these rules help keep discussions focused and ensure a degree of fairness between different opinions.

Select committee procedure: rules on committee elections, quoracy for meetings and reporting, and powers for committees to call witnesses, choose their own inquiry topics, and pursue joint working.

Where is House of Commons procedure written down?

The most fundamental aspects of Commons procedure are laid out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The Standing Orders are the formal rules under which Commons business is conducted, debates are organised, and decisions are reached. They are by default permanent, unless and until they are amended (though occasional time-limited changes are also made).

Procedure evolves in response to changing political circumstances and expectations. Consequently, the Standing Orders are amended by the House from time to time. In addition, procedure is governed not only by the Standing Orders, but also by a long-established body of convention and precedent. These conventions and precedents, and interpretations and explanations of the Standing Orders, are collected in Erskine May, a detailed specialist’s guide to parliamentary practice.

Two other key documents are the MPs’ Guide to Procedure, which summarises many of these arrangements in a more accessible way, and the Rules of Behaviour and Courtesies in the House of Commons, which provides a guide to expected behaviour in the chamber and in Westminster Hall.

Who ‘owns’ House of Commons procedure?

The Standing Orders are formally owned by the House of Commons. Any changes to them must be put to the House for approval. However, as explained in the next section, the government in practice has a significant gatekeeping role in procedural change.

Procedure is governed day-to-day by the Speaker; this includes making rulings in cases of ambiguity about how the Standing Orders or conventions ought to be applied or interpreted. The Speaker presides over debate, making decisions about who to call (often dictated by convention), and applying the conventions on acceptable speech in the chamber. House of Commons clerks act as custodians of procedure, and the Speaker and other chairs in the chamber and in committees can call on their expertise and knowledge of precedent to support decision-making.

Where do proposals for procedural change come from?

Groups inside and outside the Commons might develop or advocate for procedural changes.

The government can develop its own proposals for procedural reform, and put them directly to the House of Commons. Constitution Unit research shows that such changes tend to be minor and technical, with most (though not all) major changes coming through other routes.

Proposals from House of Commons committees are fairly common, with the Procedure and Modernisation Committees in particular currently considering procedural matters. The remit of the Procedure Committee covers ‘the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business’. The recently appointed Modernisation Committee intends to consider potential procedural reforms, in addition to topics relating to standards and working practices. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) also occasionally considers procedural topics – particularly as they relate to the balance of power between parliament and the executive (e.g. its report into parliamentary scrutiny during the Covid-19 pandemic), and the Liaison Committee may make proposals about select committees.

There is also a history of backbenchers organising to argue for procedural reforms. Cross-party groups have used mechanisms such as Early Day Motions, written questions and oral questions to make the case for reforms.

External groups such as the Constitution Unit, Hansard Society, Institute for Government and Study of Parliament Group also put forward proposals for reform (some of which are referred to below).

How is procedural change achieved?

Procedural change tends to happen under one of two sets of circumstances. The first is in response to a crisis – as in 2009, when the expenses scandal prompted the setting up of a temporary Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (the ‘Wright Committee’) to bring forward proposals. The second is when MPs are persuaded of the need for procedural reform to address changing expectations and demands. For example, proxy voting for MPs who are new parents was introduced after recommendations by the Procedure Committee and external experts and support in principle in the House (with the change eventually precipitated by media attention on a specific case).

Procedural change can take the form of formal change (i.e. through changes to Standing Orders), or more informal change (such as changes to convention). The convention of the Prime Minister appearing before the Liaison Committee, which began with Tony Blair, combines both. While a formal rule change empowered the committee to take evidence from the Prime Minister, it placed no obligation on the Prime Minister to agree to appear; however, every subsequent Prime Minister invited by the committee has done so.

Amendments to the Standing Orders must be approved by the House. This means that any formal rule change must be endorsed by MPs. However, the government has a great deal of influence.

Proposals must first reach the House of Commons agenda. Almost always, this in practice depends on the government providing time. Two other routes exist in theory but are rarely used:

Opposition days: requiring an opposition party to prioritise procedural topics.

Backbench business: the Backbench Business Committee can provide time for debates on changes to Standing Orders (with some exceptions). This is an appropriate route, in line with the original vision for the Backbench Business Committee, but has become less frequent over time.

Generally, proposals not endorsed by the government have struggled to secure the time for a debate and vote. For example, in 2024 the Procedure Committee was unable to get its report on Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords brought forward for debate, despite cross-party support for its recommendations.

Procedural changes are conventionally taken on unwhipped ‘free votes’, allowing each MP to make up their mind about the proposed changes. However, this has not always been the case; for example, the Johnson government explicitly whipped its MPs to support its proposed procedural changes during the Coronavirus pandemic. At other times the role of the whips is less explicit.

What concerns have been expressed about Commons procedure?

A number of people and organisations have expressed concerns about aspects of Commons procedure. These include MPs, parliamentary committees, and external organisations. Most agree that the government’s ability to get its business through must be preserved. But some suggest that procedure currently privileges the executive too far over the House as a whole, reducing the scope for meaningful scrutiny and blocking the avenues for MPs to express alternative viewpoints.

Topics of common concern include:

The inadequacy of scrutiny procedures for legislation. Reforms proposed to the scrutiny of primary legislation include changes to the operation of public bill committees, to enhance their effectiveness, as well as more significant roles for pre-legislative scrutiny and select committees. A recent major study of the scrutiny of secondary legislation by the Hansard Society proposed a number of procedural changes, including a stronger role for sifting.

The extent of government control over the allocation and scheduling of parliamentary time. A 2021 Constitution Unit report reiterated the Wright Committee’s proposal that the government’s proposed weekly agenda should be subject to a vote. Other recommendations relating to Commons time include moving backbench business from Thursday afternoons to make it easier for more MPs to participate, and requiring the number of opposition days to better reflect the length of sessions, and to be scheduled more regularly. Relatedly, the 2024 general election results prompted calls for a re-evaluation of the allocation of opposition time between parties.

The procedures surrounding Private Members’ Bills. The Procedure Committee has produced several reports on this, with recommendations aiming to improve the transparency of procedures, and facilitate debate and scrutiny of proposed legislation; but these have never been debated.

Other scrutiny topics, such as the procedures for scrutinising international agreements. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, various proposals have been made for giving the Commons greater input into this.

The functioning of the chamber, including for example proxy voting coverage, call lists, and voting arrangements. Various such topics, which can be hotly contested, are on the Modernisation Committee’s agenda, and the subject of current Procedure Committee inquiries.

There is also concern that procedure can be difficult to understand. A more fundamental aspect of procedural change could involve communicating procedure more effectively to MPs and the public, such as by revising the Standing Orders to make them more accessible.

This briefing arises from our ongoing work on House of Commons reform, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. It is part of a series designed to inform policy-makers and the public about key constitutional issues and democratic debates. It is an output from the Constitutional Principles and the Health of Democracy project. Every briefing is available to read on the Constitution Unit’s website, in both webpage and PDF format.

About the authors