Lucy Powell, Leader of the House of Commons (Photography by Louise Haywood-Schiefer)

9 min read19 min

“You are going into a bear pit. Yes, it is a bit of a bear pit,” Lucy Powell admits, reflecting on the two-sided, “adversarial” nature of the House of Commons Chamber.

“Some people think it’s just a bit shouty… but equally, when you look at First Minister’s Questions or other parliaments around Europe, it can be the opposite – just quite anodyne.”

The Leader of the House, who has tasked herself with overseeing the modernisation of the Commons, has had no shortage of suggestions for radical overhaul.

The idea of replacing the Chamber altogether with a European-style hemicycle – touted by Green MP Ellie Chowns last year – is not one she entertains. That could lead to “less robust” scrutiny between government and opposition, she says.

“The history, the meaning and the way our Chamber works is something people hold very dear.”

But Powell, 50, Labour and Co-operative MP for Manchester Central, is eager to acknowledge that aspects of Parliament and its processes are no longer fit for purpose and has made reform a priority.

“The reason I wanted to set up the Modernisation Committee, and chair it is because I think we need to change as a Parliament,” she explains. “We need to change how we do some things and make sure we’re as relevant as we can be to the public, but also as effective as we can be.”

Politics itself has changed, and so Parliament needs to change to keep up with that

The role of an MP has evolved – even in the span of her career since being elected in 2012, she says. “We’re in a much more multi-party world now as well. Politics itself has changed, and so Parliament needs to change to keep up with that.”

It’s an issue that provokes strong feelings, as attempts at modernising Parliament often encounter resistance from those who fear the loss of centuries-old traditions.

“I’m all for our traditions, customs and pageantry,” says Powell. “But I think we do have to ask ourselves: which traditions serve a purpose in the modern age?”

Opening a new front in the battle to modernise, she tells The House that elements of parliamentary language – such as ‘bills’ and ‘divisions’ – should be reviewed, as they can be confusing.

“One thing that we’ve heard quite strongly is where things have got a name or are given a title that doesn’t actually speak to what it is,” she says.

“I think people actually don’t even understand the term ‘bill’, let alone all the myriad of different versions of that. We all get emails every day about a Ten-Minute Rule Bill. What is a Ten-Minute Rule Bill? The public don’t know that… It’s a bill that’s not actually a bill. It’s not really going anywhere – it’s a title.”

“Or the way that we call things divisions and not just votes. Do people understand what they actually mean?” she asks.

Powell is also willing to argue that there should be reform to procedures themselves and not just what they are called, particularly to enable the widest possible participation.

Having multiple votes in quick succession is “just incredibly hard for people with any kind of disability and impairment, who are unable to maybe do that”. There are “ways that we can look at multiple divisions on the same topic – and looking at how we can reduce that”.

She also backs the introduction of call-lists in debates, which would replace the obligation on MPs to catch the Speaker’s eye. Her support for this reform stems from similar concerns over accessibility.

“We’ve heard former and current disabled MPs, and those with other impairments, disabled members of staff from across the House, peers. Overwhelmingly, you cannot have sat through those sessions without coming to the conclusion that we need to change the way we do some things to make ourselves more inclusive.

“Simple things like having more certainty about when you’re going to speak in a debate is really a no-brainer for a more inclusive House of Commons.”

Powell is less convinced by a suggestion from her Labour colleague Sam Carling, who says hours of MPs’ time could be saved if they used electronic terminals. Having MPs voting in one place, the minister argues, creates a sense of all being “in it together”, while also enabling whips to manage their parties effectively.

A submission to her committee from the National Secular Society, calling for prayers to be removed from formal parliamentary business, is similarly dismissed, as Parliament remains “attached to the Church of England, and that’s sort of important, so we’re not looking at prayers”. She says a secular alternative to prayer cards, in order to reserve seats in the Chamber, already exists.

Powell suggests that providing MPs with a formal system of parental leave could prove problematic, as parliamentarians are officeholders rather than employees. The Cabinet member stresses, however, the need for a more “family-friendly” Commons, building on the progress brought about by proxy votes – which she has extended to cover absence for fertility treatment and complications in pregnancy, as well as baby leave and baby loss.

“I was pregnant when I got elected, with my youngest child,” she says. “My whole parliamentary career has been juggling my own children, who for most of that time have lived in Manchester.

“But also, my daughter was in the first cohort at the nursery, when it opened. I’m very committed to the nursery and we need to do more there. We have had a huge amount of progress on that, even in my time as an MP.”

How else has Parliament changed? Have MPs become less witty than they once were? Powell seems to find it a strange question.

“I think the times that we’re in, they are a lot more serious, aren’t they? There’s a lot more big stuff going on – difficult, big stuff – both domestically and internationally, and these are very serious issues,” she says, speaking on the day that Iran warned it would meet any form of US military intervention with “irreparable harm”.

There is also the matter of the poor state of repair of the Palace of Westminster, and the long-awaited restoration and renewal programme. The Leader of the House insists the issue is a “matter for Parliament”, which she points out is in charge of its own finances.

“It is something that has been around for a long time, and I think people are frustrated with that,” she admits. “The evidence is clear that there are potentially big risks to us doing nothing for the safety of the building, for the future of the whole estate.”

Value for money, she adds, will be a key factor, as well as length of time and the ability to continue with government business.

“But it is a matter for MPs, not for the government. It wouldn’t be a whipped vote or anything like that.”

While Labour moved quickly to tighten the rules on second jobs for MPs, Powell argues that the rules on gifts and hospitality are already sufficient, though she says she is “not afraid of continuing to look at these things”.

Do MPs earn enough for the work they do? Yes, she says emphatically, calling the annual salary of £93,904 “a lot of money”, and adding that she is thankful parliamentarians no longer set their own pay. In that case, why has she felt the need to accept hundreds of pounds’ worth of free tickets to high-profile sporting events?

Many of the sport-related items on her register of interests over the last few years, she explains, were accepted in her capacity as shadow culture secretary between 2021 and 2023 – and involved being taken backstage to better understand their operations and the contribution each makes to their community.

She tells The House she was not offered tickets to watch Oasis in Manchester but has bought her own “very expensive” tickets.

There’s not a fibre in my body that thinks we should not address the grooming gangs issue

Our interview takes place days after the Prime Minister confirmed a national inquiry into grooming gangs. A month previously, on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions, Powell had sparked a backlash from opponents after appearing to describe the gangs as a “dog-whistle” issue. She is adamant her words were taken out of context.

“When I could see how that was being seen, I said very quickly that I was sorry about that, that’s not what I was saying,” she says, later adding that she has met victims of grooming gangs “many times” and has pursued the issue as a constituency MP.

What she was objecting to, she claims, was the subject being abruptly raised in the midst of a discussion about a separate topic.

“What I was trying to call out, clumsily and incorrectly, was it being used as a political device in a political conversation – not the issue itself. There’s not a fibre in my body that thinks we should not address the grooming gangs issue, that we should not talk or hear about it; that it should not be a matter for great discussion and attention.”

It’s a moment Powell wants to leave in the past, but what of her future? She laughs and looks bewildered when asked if there is any truth in rumours she has her eye on replacing Andy Burnham as Greater Manchester mayor. 

“Me? Oh, right, no. Absolutely no. There’s no vacancy, and I’m very happy with the job I’m doing.”

Happy she may be. Yet with a crumbling parliamentary estate, age-old traditions to wrestle with, and increasing pressure to show the government is delivering on its legislative agenda, she has her work cut out for her.