Call lists

Status / emerging findings

• Smaller parties and disabled MPs support call lists for enabling participation; SNP, Green Party, and SDLP cited accessibility and planning benefits, with evidence that smaller parties currently self-limit debate submissions due to uncertainty about being called.
• Concerns raised that call lists could reduce Chamber attendance (as happened with televising), truncate speeches further (already down to 2–3 minutes from 10+ minutes pre-2008), and remove Speaker discretion to respond to emerging issues.
• Fundamental unresolved tension: committee could not agree whether Parliament should prioritise giving every MP who wishes to speak a slot (very short speeches) or fewer speakers with substantive time allocations.
• Government accepted committee's recommendation against introducing call lists, but committed to exploring 'greater certainty' about parliamentary timing through the Modernisation Committee—outcome punts the decision beyond Procedure Committee.

Why it matters

This determines whether Parliament remains an unpredictable chamber where spontaneous debate and seniority matter, or becomes more accessible and certain for MPs with disabilities, caring roles, or geographic distance—affecting who can realistically participate in Westminster.

Tone arc

Inquiry opened with genuine procedural tension; by final sessions, became clearer that call lists are proxy for deeper disagreement about what House of Commons debate should be—inclusive but rushed, or selective but substantive. Government response deflected rather than resolved.

Key witnesses

Kirsty Blackman MP (SNP Chief Whip), Dr Ruth Fox (Hansard Society), Dr Ellie Chowns MP (Green Party), Claire Hanna MP (SDLP), Dr Sarabajaya Kumar (Centenary Action), Robin Swann MP (Ulster Unionist), Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Senior Deputy Speaker)