ABSTRACT
The simple overriding fact about parliamentary representation in Britain is that it is based upon territory. This statement might seem to fly in the face of earlier pronouncements in this book that representation is not unidimensional and that MPs in practice may represent different foci of representation-‘party’, ‘organised interests’, ‘social identities’ and ‘the nation’—serially or even simultaneously. Nonetheless, the primary basis of representation remains territorial. A Member of Parliament is formally the representative of a designated geographical area and by convention can expect, if not a minister or other office holder, to be addressed in debate in the House of Commons simply as the Honourable Member for Tatton or wherever. The Committee examining the modernisation of the House of Commons had cause to explain the contemporary importance of this convention:
There are some who feel that the need to refer to other Members by their constituencies is both difficult and unnecessary, and that use of names would be more fitting in a modern Parliament…. Quite apart from the practicalities there is, however, a much more important point of principle. Members do not sit in the House as individual citizens, they are there as representatives of their constituencies: and it is in that capacity that they should be addressed.
