Report
Rules on use of hand-held electronic
devices
1. The current rules for the use of electronic devices
by Members in the Chamber were approved by the House on 25 October
2007 and permit the use of mobile phones and other hand-held devices
"to keep up to date with emails [...] provided that it causes
no disturbance".[1]
Very soon after the rules were agreed, the Speaker was required
to make a further statement, clarifying that:
It remains unacceptable for a Member speaking in
the Chamber to be prompted by information on the screen, or for
a device to be used as a prompt by a Member—or a Minister
for that matter—participating in proceedings.[2]
2. Since 2007 the availability of new technology
and the use of that technology both within and outside Parliament
have increased dramatically. There are many new devices, including
portable "tablet" computers such as iPads or smartphones,
which were not known to the Modernisation Committee which drew
up the report which led to the House's resolution. There are also
new uses of technology, for example Twitter, which were similarly
unknown but on which the Speaker and the Chair of any committee
may be expected to rule, using the existing resolution as a guideline.
We are aware that the Speaker, and other Members, receive a good
deal of correspondence commenting on the use by Members of hand-held
devices in the Chamber. In the circumstances, when asked by the
Speaker and the Administration Committee to consider whether the
rules should be changed, we agreed to conduct this short inquiry.
Views of Members
3. We sought the views of all Members. The response
was very poor but we know from other evidence that Members differ
in their enthusiasm for change of the rules. The Chair of the
Administration Committee, on the one hand, told us that that "there
is evidence of over-reliance" on mobile phones or BlackBerries
by Members waiting to speak in the Chamber and that the previous
ruling might be redefined "in a more restrictive way",
although the Administration Committee also considered that "more
leeway" could be given to Members in committees.[3]
On the other hand, we understand that there are around 225 Members
who tweet, coming from all parties in the House. The number of
occasions on which the Speaker is asked to rule on cases where
Members appear to be using devices while in the Chamber is a clear
indication both that some Members wish to use electronic devices
in these circumstances and that others object to them sufficiently
strongly to raise points of order.
Practice in other legislatures
4. Practice in other legislatures varies widely as
to what is or is not permissible in terms of the use of hand-held
electronic devices in plenary sessions. In Austria, for example,
members are provided with electronic notebooks and may also use
their own mobile devices (except mobile phones). Similarly, members
may use laptops, netbooks and tablet PCs in the Chamber in most
other European countries, although there may be restrictions:
for example, in the French National Assembly such devices may
not be used during question time. In Greece, no electronic devices
are allowed in the plenary hall out of respect to the member who
is speaking, whilst in other countries such as Finland and Ireland,
there have been frequent discussions about the use of devices.
Despite these discussions laptops remain prohibited in the Finnish
Chamber as do all electronic devices of any kind in the case of
Ireland.
5. In other anglophone countries, there has been
a gradual move towards an easing of restrictions, providing that
discretion is practised. In Canada members may not use mobile
phones or cameras but since 1994 they have been permitted to use
laptop computers in the Chamber provided that their use does not
cause disorder or distract the member who has the floor. Similarly,
in New Zealand the Speaker has discretion to permit electronic
devices and has permitted members to use laptop computers provided
they are used silently and unobtrusively. Mobile phones are not
permitted and must be turned off within hearing of the Chamber,
although a number of telephones are installed in the Chamber for
the use of leaders and Whips, subject to the Speaker's discretion.
6. The US House of Representatives has previously
banned the use of mobile phones and computers on the floor of
the House. However, on 5 January this year the new Congress agreed
to a revised rule which states that "A person on the floor
of the House may not smoke or use a mobile electronic device that
impairs decorum". This is designed to give discretion to
the Speaker to decide what sort of technology can be used by referring
to attributes or how the device is used, rather than the type
of device as in the past. The change was brought in following
the informal use of electronic-tablet devices in the previous
Congress. The section-by-section analysis of the changes to the
rules explains that:
As the popularity of electronic-tablet devices increases,
the House has observed how Members use them and their effect on
decorum and has evaluated whether the use of electronic-tablet
devices poses either audible or visual impairments to decorum
in the chamber. Unlike bulkier notebook and laptop computers,
electronic-tablet devices can be used without obscuring the Member
behind a screen or creating the visual of a sea of screens across
the chamber. In addition, these devices are implemented with silent
keyboards that limit audible disruptions.[4]
Practice in the House of Lords
7. The House of Lords has recently re-examined its
practice with regard to the regulation of electronic devices in
that House. In a report published on 31 January,[5]
the Administration and Works Committee recommended that the House
adopt the following new rules:
| 1. Hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber and Grand Committee provided that they are silent, but repeated use of such devices is discouraged. Members making speeches may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes, subject to the existing rule against reading speeches.
2. Electronic devices may not be used to send or receive messages for use in proceedings. They may be used to access Parliamentary papers and other documents which are clearly and closely relevant to the business before the House or Grand Committee, but not to search the Web for information for use in debate which is not generally available to participants by other means.
3. Electronic devices may be used silently in select committee meetings, subject to the discretion of the Chairman of the committee on a meeting-by-meeting basis.
4. In the following areas of the House, electronic devices must be silent and may not be used to hold conversations:
(i) Prince's Chamber
(ii) Peers' Lobby
(iii) Division lobbies during divisions
(iv) Library
(v) Salisbury Room
(vi) Bars and restaurants.
|
8. The report was agreed by the House on 10 March
and the Lords Procedure Committee will now amend the Companion
to the Standing Orders to incorporate the new rules.
Arguments for and against the
use of electronic devices
9. There is a respectable argument that electronic
devices should not be used in the Chamber or committees at all.
Those Members present should be attending to the debate and not
undertaking other activities, and their use of electronic devices
might distract others, either visually or audibly. There is also
some evidence in letters received from the public that the sight
of Members concentrating on hand-held devices rather than the
debate creates a negative impression of the House of Commons.
Finally, there is a concern that transmitting messages in and
out of the Chamber might allow others to influence the course
of a debate which could constitute interference in parliamentary
proceedings. This lies behind the proposed retention of the existing
rule in the House of Lords that electronic devices must not be
used to send or receive messages for use in proceedings[6]
and is reflected in the current rule in the Commons that Members
should not use devices as an aide memoire whilst speaking.
10. The arguments in favour of permitting the use
of electronic devices are largely pragmatic. The Modernisation
Committee originally recommended the lifting of the restriction
on using hand-held devices at least as far as emails were concerned
because of the possibility that allowing multi-tasking in the
Chamber might increase the number of Members present in a debate.
In a report specifically aimed at "revitalising the Chamber",
the Committee argued that "Members might be more willing
to spend time in the Chamber listening to debates or waiting to
be called if they were able to do other work at the same time,
either dealing with correspondence or perhaps even using a handheld
computer or laptop to deal with e-mails."[7]
There is also a question of consistency: written notes, as well
as books, newspapers, letters and research papers, may all be
used as an aide memoire in a speech. There would seem no difference
in degree in allowing a Member to consult his or her speaking
notes or necessary documents either in hard copy or on an electronic
device. Indeed, as more and more material is published in electronic
form only, it may be the only way in which some documents may
be consulted. Finally, it has to be acknowledged that electronic
devices are ubiquitous now in a way that even four years ago was
not the case. Banning them from the Chamber might make the House
appear out of touch with modern life and would mean that those
in the Chamber would be the last to know of breaking news widely
available on the internet.
Our conclusions and recommendations
11. We have weighed these arguments and examined
the possible use of electronic devices from three different aspects:
for what purpose a device may be used, how it may be used and
what type of device may be used. We have taken the existing rules
as our starting point but have also had regard to the new rules
agreed by the House of Lords and those recently adopted by the
US Congress.
12. The purpose to which hand-held electronic devices
might be used is clearly the starting point and was rightly identified
by the Lords Administration and Works Committee as the "main
consideration" in determining the new rules.[8]
The Lords Committee concluded that electronic devices could be
used "for any purpose not related to the proceedings before
the House or Grand Committee". The new rules singled out
for prohibition sending or receiving messages for use in proceedings
and also searching the Web for material for use in debate. The
latter point attracted most comment in the debate on the report,
with several peers arguing that a ban on searching the internet
was impractical as well as misconceived since such searches could
lead to better informed debate.[9]
13. We have reservations on three fronts about basing
any reformulation of the rules on what activities are either permissible
or forbidden. First, the inadequacy of the reference in the current
rules to checking emails shows how rapidly the range of applications
available on hand-held devices could outstrip any attempt at defining
acceptable usage.
14. Secondly, we agree with the concerns expressed
in the Lords that it is difficult to police activity on an electronic
device in a proportionate way. The Lords Administration and Works
Committee considered that the convention of self-regulation in
the House of Lords would make it feasible to experiment with a
one-year trial of banning the use of electronic devices to search
the internet for material that might be used in the course of
proceedings but which is not generally available. There is no
such convention in the Commons and it would be invidious to expect
the Speaker to rule on whether a Member had been using his device
for a proper purpose following a complaint from another Member
or the public.
15. Thirdly, we are persuaded by the argument that
it is illogical to prevent Members from using electronic devices
in the way that they would use paper notes and documents for speaking
notes or for research purposes. Nor would we wish to prevent Members
from checking facts or consulting material by means of an internet
search in the course of proceedings in the Chamber.
16. We therefore conclude that Members should be
allowed to use electronic hand-held devices for any purpose when
in the Chamber whilst not speaking, and that the current ban on
the use of hand-held electronic devices as an aide memoire, whilst
speaking in a debate, should be ended. We understand that Hansard
would be happy to accept notes for speeches electronically, rather
than requiring a hard copy print-out of a Member's speech.
17. We have given special consideration to the example
set by the Lords in their reinforcement of the rule that electronic
devices must not be used to send or receive messages for use in
proceedings. At its most extreme, allowing messages to be passed
in and out of the Chamber in this way could result in Prime Minister's
Question Time being conducted by instant rebuttal teams briefing
the principals on what they should say, whilst all other Members
were bombarded with messages from the public and others commenting
on and attempting to offer contributions to the debate. We believe
that it is a fundamental principle, to which all Members should
agree, that direct interference in proceedings should not be permitted.
However, at present notes are passed from officials to Ministers
during debates and Members may choose to consult others in the
margins of committees. We see no reason why such messages should
not equally be transmitted electronically as by hand.
18. The next issue of importance is how devices may
be used. The link between the rules formulated by many different
legislatures is that devices must be used with discretion and
with due regard to decorum. For us, that is the central principle
on which the House should agree. The current rules refer to not
causing disturbance. This covers distracting other Members by
sight or sound but we feel that it does not convey quite the right
message that Members using hand-held devices should have constantly
in mind that they are in the Chamber and should behave accordingly.
We are therefore attracted to the inclusion in the rules of a
condition that hand-held devices may be used only where they do
not "impair decorum". It would then be a matter for
the occupant of the Chair to judge in specific circumstances when
this rule had been breached, which is in keeping with the general
conventions on behaviour in the Chamber. The decorum rule should
be understood to mean that all devices should be used silently
and unobtrusively, without disturbing other Members, and that
excessive use should not be tolerated.
19. On the type of devices which may be used, it
is a certainty that any attempt to be prescriptive would soon
be out of date. It is therefore preferable for the House to define
in general terms what is acceptable. We believe that the House
would wish to maintain its current prohibition on using mobile
phones, except in silent mode, in the Chamber or in Committee
and we also consider that there is no case for the use of laptops
in the Chamber, partly on grounds of lack of space since Members
do not have their own desks or even their own seats. We see no
logical reason to distinguish between other types of hand-held
devices, provided that they are of reasonably small dimensions.
A good rule of thumb would be a device no bigger than an A4 sheet
of paper in width and length which did not obscure the Member's
face when in use. We believe that all devices fitting this description
should be permissible.
20. So far our discussion of the rules has concentrated
on the use of devices in the Chamber. We accept that a different
regime may be appropriate in committees where the use of laptops
is a practical possibility because each Member has his or her
own space in which to work. Select committees already circulate
non-confidential papers electronically and there are plans in
place for a pilot to test the use of electronic devices for the
provision of some House papers, including those for a particular
select committee.[10]
We see no reason to restrict the devices on which committee papers
may be accessed. As in the Chamber, we believe that the key principle
to follow is that any device should be used with due decorum,
without unnecessary noise and without disturbance to others. For
this reason, we believe that other, smaller and more discreet
electronic devices are preferable to the use of laptops in committees
although we do not consider it necessary to prohibit their use
at this stage.
21. We recommend
that the House agree the following resolution to replace that
of 25 October 2007 on the use of electronic hand-held devices
in the Chamber and committees:
That hand-held electronic devices
(not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are
silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members
making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic
devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic
devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee
meetings, including select committees.
22. We stress that agreeing this resolution would
not imply any relaxation in other rules or conventions about behaviour
in the Chamber, for example the restrictions on reading speeches,
displaying objects in support of speeches or using cameras or
recording equipment whether or not the camera or recording equipment
is part of the permitted device.
23. The House of Lords have agreed their new rules
on the basis of a one year trial. We recognise that this is a
sensitive issue and agree that it would be desirable to set a
date now on which the impact of any change in the rules can be
reviewed. We therefore undertake to conduct a review a year into
the operation of the rules, should the House agree a new resolution
relating to the use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber
or committees.
Tweeting from the Chamber or committee
24. As an example of a practice which could not have
been predicted by the Modernisation Committee in 2007, tweeting
could hardly be bettered. The use of Twitter by Members is very
popular and its use in the Chamber or Westminster Hall has caused
comment from Members themselves and from the public. Many different
views have been expressed, from those who believe that it is a
threat to the dignity of parliamentary proceedings to those who
argue that it brings Parliament to a whole new audience.
25. Tweeting about proceedings from the galleries
is in our view no different in degree from presenters commenting
on live broadcasts of proceedings or indeed from tweeting or blogging
about proceedings when watched from outside the Chamber. Whilst
tweeting from inside the Chamber is clearly a more sensitive matter,
we consider that it would be inconsistent to ban this one practice
whilst advocating the approach based on decorum rather than activity
which we advocate in this report. We also recognise that it would
be impossible for the Chair to police tweeting by Members and
that the Chair should not be expected to rule on allegations that
inappropriate tweeting is taking or has taken place. Instead,
we urge all Members to use their good sense and behave with courtesy,
particularly in not tweeting messages which would be disorderly
if said in the House.
26. We feel that the same rules should apply to tweeting
in committee meetings that are held in public as we recommend
should apply in the House. However, tweeting in select committee
meetings may raise sensitive matters should Members wish to comment
on ongoing proceedings. We would deprecate as discourteous and
a breach of the decorum rule any comments on the evidence being
taken by a committee whilst the session was in progress. Disclosing
private proceedings of a committee by tweeting would of course
be a breach of privilege in the same way as disclosure by any
other means and should not take place at all when a committee
is sitting in private.
1 Resolution, based on First Report from the Select
Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session
2006-07, HC 337, Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the
back bencher Back
2
HC Debates, 7 November 2007, col 130 Back
3
Ev p 13 Back
4
H.Res. 5 Adopting Rules for the 112th Congress:
Section-by-section analysis, http://www.rules.house.gov/RulesRepMedia/file/PDF/HRes%205%20Sec-by-Sec.pdf Back
5
First Report from the Administration and Works Committee, Session
2010-11, HL Paper 92, Use of electronic devices in the House
Back
6
HL Paper 92, Session 2010-11, para 5 Back
7
HC 337, Session 2006-07, para 100 Back
8
HL Paper 92, Session 2010-11, para 4 Back
9
HL Debates, 10 March 2011, cc 1758-1767 Back
10
Ev p 13 Back
| 
