Tag Archives: parliamentary procedure

Delivering House of Commons reform after the general election 

Posted on by

How can House of Commons reform be delivered in the next parliament? A new Constitution Unit report explores past approaches to developing and delivering changes to the Commons’ procedures, and the implications for current advocates of reform. Tom Fleming and Hannah Kelly summarise the report’s findings and conclusions. 

Background 

House of Commons reform is likely to be on the political agenda in the next parliament. Recent years have seen a growing number of books and reports highlighting problems with how the Commons works, and arguing that at least part of the solution lies in reforming its internal procedures. These reform proposals come against a backdrop of deep public dissatisfaction with parliament that suggests a need for MPs to explore ways of enhancing their collective reputation. The election of a new parliament on 4 July may therefore open a window of opportunity for Commons reform. 

Given this context, there has been surprisingly little recent discussion of how such reforms might actually be delivered. This matters, because a number of different institutional vehicles can be used for developing and drafting proposals for procedural change. Moreover, past experience suggests that how the reform process is organised matters for the outcomes of that process. Politicians with an agenda for Commons reform should therefore be giving serious thought to the mechanisms for delivering that agenda. 

Goals of the report 

Our new report therefore provides an evidence-based assessment of four different previous approaches to developing and delivering proposals for Commons reform: 

  • Government initiative. Reform can come directly from government proposals, drawn up under the authority of ministers. Those ministers might respond to suggestions from elsewhere, and informally consult relevant MPs or select committees. But under this approach, the initiative for developing and bringing forward reform proposals lies wholly with the government. 
  • Permanent backbench select committee. Proposals can instead be developed by a permanent select committee of backbench MPs with an ongoing remit to investigate procedural questions. The primary past and current case of this approach, and the one we study in our report, is the House of Commons Procedure Committee, which has existed in more or less its current form since 1997. 
  • Temporary backbench select committee. The Commons can also appoint a backbench select committee with a temporary remit to report on a particular area or areas of procedure. We study the most recent such committee: the 2009–10 Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, better known as the ‘Wright Committee’ after its chair, the Labour MP Tony Wright. 
  • Government-chaired select committee. The final approach is something of a hybrid: appointing a select committee to review Commons procedures, but having it be chaired by a government minister. The key template for this is the Modernisation Committee which existed from 1997 to 2010 under the last Labour government. This committee combined backbench MPs with frontbench spokespeople from the three largest parties, and was chaired by the Leader of the House. Having a cabinet minister chair the committee was unusual, and sometimes controversial, given that Commons select committees usually only include backbench MPs. 
Continue reading →

The House of Commons row over opposition day amendments: procedural background and implications

Posted on by

Last week’s opposition day debate in the House of Commons about Gaza and Israel was overshadowed by a bitter procedural row over the Speaker’s selection of amendments. But the rules governing opposition days – and their role in allowing these arguments – are not straightforward. Tom Fleming discusses the procedural background and implications.

The background

Last week saw a House of Commons debate about a ceasefire in Gaza and Israel overshadowed by a bad-tempered row about the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, selecting an amendment from the Labour Party.

This debate came on an ‘opposition day’. There are 20 such days in each parliamentary session, when MPs can debate motions put forward by opposition parties rather than by the government. Of these, 17 are allocated to the largest opposition party in the Commons (currently Labour), and three to the next-largest, which is currently the Scottish National Party (SNP). Last Wednesday’s debate was on an SNP motion calling for ‘an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel’.

Usually when the House debates motions, MPs can propose amendments to them in advance, and the Speaker selects which of those amendments will be debated. MPs then vote on the selected amendments before voting on the final motion (incorporating any successful amendments).

If this usual practice were followed on opposition days, it could mean opposition parties’ proposals regularly not getting voted on. This is because any government amendment is highly likely to pass, after which MPs would only be able to vote on the amended motion, not the original proposal. In acknowledgement of this, government amendments on opposition days are voted on after the main motion. In contrast, any non-government amendment selected would be voted on before the main motion. But it is a long-established convention that when a government amendment has been selected, no further amendments are chosen.

Continue reading →

The personal side of parliamentary reform

Posted on by

The view that Westminster is not functioning as it should, and that reform would be beneficial, has become increasingly widespread in recent years. Greg Power argues that it is not sufficient to focus on technical details and process: reform efforts must instead understand what politicians believe to be important and offer them ways of dealing with those issues better.

There have been a number of good books in the last couple of years about what is wrong with Westminster and what needs to change. They all set out a compelling case and numerous ideas for reform. But most tend to focus more on the ‘why’ and the ‘what’, than on the ‘how’. There remains very little on which reformers can draw as to how we might engineer these sorts of sensible changes and how parliaments actually get overhauled.

This question of how to reform complex parliamentary institutions is at the heart of my new book, Inside the Political Mind, which draws partly on my own personal experience of working on such change: initially at Westminster as a Special Adviser to successive Leaders of the Commons, Robin Cook and Peter Hain, and since 2005 with parliaments and MPs in more than 60 countries around the world.

Every one of those institutions is different, and they each have their own peculiar problems. But there are common themes to the challenge of reform everywhere. And one of them is that parliamentary reform is hard. Really hard.

There are three standout reasons for this – all to do with the very way in which parliaments are composed and constructed.

Continue reading →

Why the UK should have a Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution

Posted on by

Last year, the Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy published a Review of the UK Constitution. One recommendation in that review was that parliament create a joint committee on the constitution. Steph Coulter sets out the case for such a body.

As part of our recently completed Review of the UK Constitution, the Institute for Government and Bennett Institute for Public Policy outlined the key issues with the UK’s current constitutional arrangements and made recommendations for reform. We highlighted the lack of clarity within a system underpinned by an uncodified constitution and the failure of existing political checks to deter constitutional impropriety.

Given the UK system’s reliance on parliamentary sovereignty as its central constitutional principle, we believe that parliament should be central to addressing these issues. Therefore, one of our key recommendations was the establishment of a new Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, comprised of members from both the House of Commons and House of Lords. By acting as a central and authoritative constitutional guardian, such a body would go some way to improving constitutional clarity and would provide a more effective check on unconstitutional behaviour than existing arrangements.

Continue reading →

Parliamentary scrutiny: what is it, and why does it matter?

Posted on by

This is the first edition of this briefing. It has since been updated. Read the most up-to-date version and other briefings on the Constitution Unit’s website.

Parliamentary scrutiny is at the heart of UK politics. In this post, Meg Russell and Lisa James examine the four key methods of parliamentary scrutiny, and offer proposals on how to strengthen it, calling for better behaviour by government and strong engagement from backbenchers.

Background

Parliament lies at the heart of UK politics. The legislature is a core institution in any democracy, but is particularly important in the UK, due to our tradition of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. The government is dependent on the confidence of the House of Commons, which can potentially remove it from office. Parliamentary consent is required for primary legislation, and parliament is a particularly central and important body in holding ministers to account day-to-day.

This makes scrutiny – the detailed examination of policy proposals, actions and plans – one of the essential roles of parliament. Other functions include representation, and serving as a space for national debate – which in turn feed into parliament’s scrutiny function.

This briefing summarises why parliamentary scrutiny matters, what different kinds of parliamentary scrutiny exist at Westminster, some recent concerns about the decline of scrutiny, and ways in which it can be protected and strengthened.

Why does parliamentary scrutiny matter?

The government is responsible for much day-to-day decision-making, in terms of national policy formulation and implementation. But the government itself is not directly elected, and depends for its survival on the continued confidence of the House of Commons. This makes parliament one of the central checks and balances in the constitution – arguably the most central one of all. To provide government accountability, one of the core functions of parliament is scrutiny.

Continue reading →