Behind the scenes at Westminster

The usual channels help the Commons run smoothly

by Jackie Storer BBC News Online political staff

To detectives Starsky and Hutch the "word on the street" from their informant, the ubiquitous Huggy Bear was paramount to their investigations into shady deals during the 1970s cop show.

The streetwise dude brought vital nuggets of information to the hip American cops, which helped them solve umpteen crimes and bring order to the streets of California.

The usual channels have long been one of the most mysterious and unknown parts of the Westminster Parliament

Clare Ettinghausen

In the Westminster corridors of power, the euphemism for Huggy's "word on the street" is "the usual channels".

These are the secret negotiations that take place between controversial "fixers" from all political parties that are designed to ensure the smooth running of the House of Commons and its counterpart the House of Lords.

Ford Torino

They also take the temperature of backbenchers on controversial issues and relay those opinions back to ministers.

And unlike Detective Sergeants Dave Starsky and Ken Hutchinson, they don't get to ride round in a red and white Ford Torino.

But while individuals involved in the usual channels exercise a huge amount of power and influence, few people know what they are and what exactly they do.

Sgt Ken Hutchinson - 'Hutch' - relied on Huggy Bear's tips to solve crimes

It is with this in mind that the non-partisan Hansard Society has compiled a report, entitled "Opening Up The Usual Channels" in an attempt to explain their importance and argue whether they are an appropriate mechanism for a large organisation in the 21st Century.

Its authors are Michael Rush, professor of politics at the University of Essex and Clare Ettinghausen, director of the Hansard Society Parliament and Government Programme.

Together they have interviewed many of the dramatis personae who have been involved in the usual channels.

'Obscure procedures'

Interestingly, none of those quizzed wanted their thoughts to go on the record.

The report looks at whether the operation should be replaced by a more open "business committee" which has been adopted by administrations in Scotland and Wales, where those involved meet together round a table to discuss issues.

Should there be someone, who is a go between, rule for many years when there is no check on that power?

Clare Ettinghausen

It concludes that a "more transparent" system of people management would empower backbenchers to scrutinise Parliament more effectively.

Ms Ettinghausen explains: "The usual channels have long been one of the most mysterious and unknown parts of the Westminster Parliament.

"Few parliamentarians ever get to be part of these secretive negotiations and for those outside of the usual channels, little is known about who is involved, what is up for discussion and how decisions are made.

"If parliamentarians find the operation of the usual channels obscure and complex, how can other participants in the democratic process - voters, lobby groups, citizen bodies - work out what's going on?"

Secret 'go-between'

The characters involved in the usual channels include: the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and parliamentary personnel in both the Commons and the Lords.

But crucially, the post that wields the most influence is the private secretary to the Chief Whip in the Commons, who acts as a non-partisan deal broker between government and opposition parties.

"This post is held by a civil servant who has generally kept his position for around 30 years at a time," said Ms Ettinghausen.

"The last one was for 32 years. Should there be someone, who is a go between, rule for many years when there is no check on that power?"

The usual channels are also involved in the allocation of chair people to parliamentary select committee and decide how many members should come from each party.

'Powerless' backbenchers

The usual channels "broke down" when Prime Minister's questions moved from two 15 minute slots to one half hour session on a Wednesday.

"That was decided by the government where it would normally be something discussed in the usual channels," said Ms Ettinghausen.

While the Hansard Society is not advocating reform of the Whip system, acknowledging that all organisations need to be able to manage their representatives, Ms Ettinghausen argues that backbenchers have little chance to influence the political agenda while these secret negotiations continue.

"Our argument is that should we, in the 21st Century, in this massive organisation have this secrecy with meetings between people and decisions made where no records are kept?

"It leaves the backbenchers in both Houses powerless to get things on to the parliamentary agenda.

"All groups from all parties and commissions have been calling for a business committee, a more formalised way of deciding business.

"We have set out the arguments for a business committee and against and we've looked at other legislatures.

"Our conclusions is definitely that more transparency is needed. We are not saying that everything should be public and everything anyone says should be minuted - that's not realistic.

"But a more transparent system would not damage the usual channels, it would empower backbenchers to more effectively scrutinise the executive."