The House Article | Let’s open up Parliament to Britain’s campaigning organisations

4 min read1 min

They see this not only from their own perspective but from the perspective of campaigners who come to them asking for help.

These might be campaigners seeking redress after an injustice, or who are championing a proposal to improve legislation in a particular policy area.

These campaigners are often well-informed and highly motivated. They also have a genuine representative function. After all, many people are more interested in political issues than in political parties. Such people often find that their principal engagement with politics is through an issue-based campaign group. Campaigning groups are a vital part of our democracy. They want to influence parliamentary and public debate, and they want parliamentarians to assist them. MPs and peers will often do what they can. Unfortunately, however, the current system is stacked against them.

The struggles faced by the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance prove the point. The subpostmasters battled hard. They had support from various parliamentarians. Their efforts, however, only met with success after ITV1 aired Mr Bates vs The Post Office. It cannot be right that you need to get a national broadcaster on board in order to make an important political argument. We should make it easier for campaigners to influence parliamentary and public debate.

This could be done by building on the existing parliamentary e-petitions system. Current arrangements allow the subject of a popular petition to be debated in the House of Commons – but instead of having MPs debate the issue, we could allow campaigners to speak for themselves in a House of Campaigns.

The House of Campaigns would be a new chamber in Parliament. It would have no permanent membership. Rather, it would be open to Britain’s campaigning organisations. It would meet on one Friday each month. Each day would have six half-hour sessions.

Campaigns wanting to speak in the chamber would apply online. The sessions would be allocated by a House of Campaigns committee made up of representatives from across the political spectrum. The House of Campaigns committee would have a responsibility to ensure that a wide range of campaigners was invited to speak.

Instead of having MPs debate the issue, we could allow campaigners to speak for themselves in a House of Campaigns

Advertisement

A participating campaign would have 30 minutes in which to make a full and persuasive argument. It would conclude with a ‘Request for Action’ asking a government department to take a specific action. While the government would not need to comply with the Request for Action, it would be obliged to respond promptly and in detail. If the government decided not to act, it would need to engage with the arguments and explain its decision. The House of Campaigns would give campaigners direct access to ministers. Importantly, however, the new house could also put campaigns on the national news agenda.

The fact that it would meet on a Friday (when the House of Commons and the House of Lords rarely sit) would give the House of Campaigns a monopoly on parliamentary reporting. Only having six sessions a month should give them a novelty value that might enable them to win media coverage. The press attention following Mr Bates vs The Post Office was transformative for the subpostmasters. The House of Campaigns may not be able to have the same impact on every occasion – but you do not need to spend much time with Britain’s campaigners to know that many could make headlines and change minds, if only they were given the opportunity. The House of Campaigns would give them their chance.

Our campaigners deserve a better deal. It is time for a House of Campaigns. 

Richard Ellis is the founder of Campaigners in Parliament