Erskine May is the House of Commons rulebook – but if you want to get a copy, it’ll cost you £268.40 from a commercial publisher, and Parliament has said no to a request for a free electronic copy from a member of the public.
The origins are typical of the British constitution. Erskine May started off as a unofficial guide written by an assistant librarian in the House of Commons. Over time it established itself as the reference work and is now treated just like an official rule book. But unlike Hansard – another Parliamentary publication which originated with an unofficial version that evolved into an official record – the Commons has not looked to make its contents available for free.
Imagine if a new set of Parliamentary rules were written this year (for, perhaps, a reformed and elected Upper House) and Parliament proposed not only that the rules must not be published online, but could only be available in book form for £268.40. There would be outrage. Why shouldn’t people be able to read the rules online? Why should people who want a hard copy be forced to pay out so much money?
Yet that’s the situation with Erskine May.
History explains why we’re in that situation, but it doesn’t excuse it continuing.
So how about cracking this one, Mr Bercow?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Daniel Walker
Andrew Tampion
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
21 Comments
There should be outrage? There is. When Mr Bercow has finished cracking this he must sack the jobsworth responsible.
To be perfectly honest, who would want to read the rules online? I assume the book is supplied to public/university libraries, but the expectation that it should be available for free reminds me of those militant ramblers who demanded access through a home-owner’s garden.
There are worse things going on with State transparency.
Mark, why do you think Bercow will sort it, do you think he’s f***ing royalty or something?
Sorry, couldn’t resist. I will now go and sit in the “Lame Corner”
Not sure I agree with you there, Alec. Access to the rules by which the Commons operates strikes me as something to which a citizen should be entitled, especially as things can be stuck on websites simply enough nowadays.
The reply to the FOI request also says though that you can get the copy from your local library.
At a time when libraries are being closed due to lack of funds/lack of users (delete depending on political persuasion), isn’t it a good thing that people are being encouraged to make us of their local facilities?
Stuart, access to Erskine May undeniable is open to all… as long as they have £268.40. This aint easy means to read what our representatives have said in Parliament (cf. Hansard) but a collation of esoteric rules all expressed in legalese.
Anyone who has a pressing reason to read these – e.g. they’re involved with a state/regional legislature, involved with political-based study – should have access to the text through their institution’s libraries, and I repeat my hope it is supplied free of charge to main public libraries.
But, anyone who gets their kicks out of reading this stuff with no professional or academic interest would be, imo, a bit freaky and best not encouraged.
The new edition coming in June, will be £1.40 cheaper. Guess we can all get one now!
Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice 24th edition
The eponymous guide to parliamentary practice and procedure, Erskine May provides accurate and detailed information on the constituent parts of Parliament.
£267.00 Standard Price
Publication Date: 30/06/2011
ISBN/ISSN: 9781405751063
@Alec Macph
“but the expectation that it should be available for free reminds me of those militant ramblers who demanded access through a home-owner’s garden.”
Except that, of course, the homowner may well own the land their garden is on, and may well own the right to prevent ramblers crossing it (although they don’t always have the right…many seem to be ignorant of the terms on which they buy their houses) in any case the homowner privately owns their house.
On the other hand the government is publically funded, and their publishing is publically funded… so it would seem reasonable to expect that books published with taxpayer’s money should be freely available to taxpayers.
I once called the parliamentary legal office to enquire as to how long transitional orders had to sit by. In the end, they just seemed to take my word for it [with a copy of Erskine May in front of me] that it was 40 days… How reassuring.
The reason, Alec, that people should have access to it is that a) it is not difficult to do and b) it forms the basic constitution of parliamentary process. Plus it is a riveting read… 🙂
The idea that all information should be free of charge is one of the malign influences of the Internet and Wiki.
Don’t get me wrong, I like talking about politics and current affairs as much as the next person, but there’s no-one on sites like this that I’d like to date.
How about we create our own online open source wiki based version, don’t get mad, get even.
Perhaps get mySociety involved?
So an MP can claim for a copy on their expenses? Surely having an open access website would:
1) save 175k per year in MP expenses
2) allow for changes to be made quickly and easily
3) add valuable tools allowing for contextual searching for rules
4) allow the public access to the rules of Parliament to allow explanation of some of the strangeness’ in Hansard (if we’re getting really clever you could auto link Hansard to EM…)
or am I just being too sensible?
Bringing down to a local level, the same is true about the bible for parish councils…Local Council Administration – Charles Arnold-Baker Current (eighth edition) £73.50.
“The idea that all information should be free of charge is one of the malign influences of the Internet and Wiki.”
Perhaps – but I think the constitutional basis for the rules which govern the lawmakers who can coerce you might be of a different category here…
Erskine May is available for free in public libraries, unless the Coalition government that you’re part of has forced your council to close them all. But given the fact that Butterworths have the copyright for Erskine May, making it free would mean paying them compensation for losing a source of income. If you think that’s a reasonable use of public money, then I have to say I don’t agree with you.
As taxpayers we’ve already paid for this, it should be online, and it is unacceptable to make excuses.
I wonder if @Alec Macpherson, not my favourite person, is being merely facetious, or undeniably socialist in thinking power should be held at the centre and the citizens held in the dark?
The commons is run in accordance with standing orders and tradition, not Erskine May. Erskine May is simply an explanation of how those standing orders and regulations and traditions work, minus a lot of the legalese.
The standing orders of the House of Commons are available freely online.
I’m intrigued by the implications of Alec’s comments – the dull but worthy nature of governance and open access would change dramatically if sexual attraction became one of the criteria for online services. Surely online dating is already catered to quite extensively, though?
I’m with David Boothroyd, although before simply agreeing that Butterworth’s deserve compensation for lost income, there are questions to be asked about the copyright of a work written over 150 years ago, with new editions written by public servants. The book is only relevant today because of its use in Parliament.
Given the significant and long standing subsidy the publisher has therefore received, should compensation extend any further than, say, a decade or two of exclusive rights to commercial, hardcopy publishing?
Ryan: It’s a fair point that the standing orders are available separately, but a lot of how the Commons is run is dependent not on those rules but on (for want of a better phrase) the ‘case law’ of how things have been done previously or what people have previously said about how things should be done. So without the rest of the information, the standing orders often do not in themselves provide the answers.
Wished the recently appointed Lords – Labour ex M.Ps- would have a read ! .
If you want to know how the Lords operates, don’t read Erskine May because you’ll be looking for a needle in a haystack and some of the more important agreements between the parties are not included. Read instead the Companion to the Standing Orders and Proceedings of the House of Lords: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/compso2010/compso.pdf