Letters | 18 April 2013

What to do about PMQs

Sir: Charles Moore (Notes, 6 April) is right to propose that Prime Minister’s Questions revert to the long-standing previous practice of two 15-minute sessions a week (on a Tuesday and Thursday) in place of the current 30-minute session. Tony Blair introduced the present arrangement at the beginning of his premiership for one of the reasons offered by Mr Moore: that it would reduce the time he would have to spend each week on preparation.

Whether Tony’s intention was also, as Mr Moore suggests, to reduce his exposure to attack, I doubt; in any case it certainly did not achieve this. The vulnerability of the Prime Minister to the opposition leader’s questions rises exponentially in relation to the number of questions that can be asked in one go. The six questions allowed in the single Wednesday sessions are potentially more dangerous than the two sets of three questions under the previous system. As a special adviser and then MP I’ve seen four prime ministers handle the two sessions a week; and I’ve witnessed the preparation that went into both Tony Blair’s and Gordon Brown’s single sessions. In my observation the single weekly session has not saved any preparation time at all. Ironically, neither has the new system enhanced Parliament’s role. It has turned PMQs into even more of a bear garden.

Bringing back the two sessions a week would have the added benefit of extending the parliamentary week and end the practice of the whips to try to pack members off to their constituencies on a Wednesday.

Tony was able to make the change because the rota for questions is in the hands of the PM, not the House of Commons. This may be an ancient arrangement but it is preposterous.