The House of Commons Modernisation Committee is considering potential reforms to Commons procedures, standards and working practices, and recently ran a consultation exercise to establish its priorities. In this post, Dr Daniel Gover analyses flaws with the procedures for private members’ bills and opposition days, and makes the case for reform.
Continue readingTag Archives: private members’ bills
How to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the assisted dying bill
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has attracted considerable controversy, not just because of the subject matter of the bill, but because concern is growing that should the bill pass second reading, that there will be insufficient scrutiny. Dan Gover argues that parliament needs to take measures to ensure that this important subject gets the debate and scrutiny it deserves.
Continue readingWhat future for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill?
A Private Members’ Bill on assisted dying is set to have its second reading this month. The government has declared itself neutral on the passage of the bill. David Natzler argues that the issue is too important for the government to risk the possibility of MPs not fully debating and voting on it. He says ministers should therefore ensure that the Commons can come to a decision on second reading, be open about plans for a public consultation, involve Parliamentary Counsel in the drafting process and allow for submission of written evidence to a prospective public bill committee.
Kim Leadbeater, MP for Spen Valley, was drawn first in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills (PMBs), and her bill on assisted dying – the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – will be brought forward for second reading – the stage at which the House of Commons is asked to approve a bill in principle – on 29 November. The system at Westminster is such that any PMB opposed by a small but determined minority will not generally reach the Statute Book, exemplified recently by Rebecca Harris’ Daylight Saving Bill in 2010-12. The European Union (Referendum) Bill introduced by backbencher James Wharton in 2013 reached the Lords but perished there. The Leadbeater bill will be neither short nor simple, and it will evidently be controversial. If the bill does pass its second reading on 29 November, there will inevitably be demands that the government ensure that the bill does not perish for lack of parliamentary time at its later stages.
Past experience
Other comparably controversial PMBs have reached the statute book in living memory, particularly in the late 1960s on abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality and divorce reform. Their individual histories are fascinating and diverse but distinguished by one common factor: the provision of extra time by the Wilson government to the extent that they became PMBs in name only. The government generally favoured the policy being implemented, at first exercised a benevolent neutrality, and then found ‘government’ time for the bills to proceed. But the record of the 1960s does not mean that governments are obliged to find time for all high-profile PMBs which pass second reading.
What can be done now?
All that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has to date in terms of government support are repeated assurances from the Prime Minister that time would be found for a debate and decision on the general issue. That is now more or less certain to happen. If a PMB had not been presented as one of the seven ballot bills guaranteed a full day’s debate, the government might have felt obliged to bring forward a non-binding motion of its own to test the balance of opinion of the Commons, but outside the legislative process: and probably not in this first session of the parliament. It remains unclear if the Prime Minister or the government are committed to helping the bill if it passes second reading. The Cabinet is divided, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Health Secretary and the Justice Secretary all opposed to the bill. The larger parties seem similarly divided. If the bill does pass second reading, the crunch decision point will come at report stage. But there are four things that can and should be done now.
Continue readingParliamentary reform in the 2024 party manifestos
The main party manifestos have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this second post in a series on the manifestos, Meg Russell looks at the parties’ commitments on parliamentary reform. What are they promising, and what are the prospects for these proposed changes?
Yesterday on this blog, Lisa James reviewed the constitutional proposals presented by the political parties in their 2024 general election manifestos. Unsurprisingly, parliamentary reform is a key area that appears in several of them. Most parties include aspirations to reform the House of Lords, and some make other commitments on the House of Commons, or the overall power of parliament. This second post in the Constitution Unit’s manifesto series reviews these proposals, reflecting on their origins, merits, and prospects for implementation. It starts with the power of parliament as a whole, before moving to the Commons, and then the Lords.
The power of parliament
It is primarily the Liberal Democrats that give space to parliament’s overall place in the constitution – an area subject to significant recent controversy. The Brexit referendum of 2016 led to fierce clashes in parliament, and unusually high-profile arguments about both parliamentary procedure and the limits of the government’s prerogative power. Brexit also raised new questions about parliament’s powers over policy matters that returned to the UK following its exit from the European Union.
Continue readingWhat kind of democracy do people want, and how should policy-makers respond?
The Constitution Unit has published the final report from its three-year research project examining public attitudes to democracy in the UK. In this post, authors Alan Renwick, Meg Russell, and Ben Lauderdale summarise the report’s findings. The public care about democracy. They want high standards in public life, robust checks and balances, and better education and information about politics. The topics covered in this blog will be discussed in more detail at a webinar on Monday 27 November. Tickets are still available via the Unit’s website, and free of charge.
Public attitudes towards the democratic system matter. If people disengage, their views and interests go unrepresented. If they do not trust those in charge, that makes the careful trade-offs and compromises that are essential to effective policymaking harder.
Over the last three years, we have therefore conducted detailed research into the state of public attitudes towards the UK’s democratic system. The project – called Democracy in the UK after Brexit – has examined attitudes to the system as a whole and to its various components parts. In the wake of unusually intense debates about how the constitution ought to function – prompted by Brexit and a Prime Minister who appeared to reject many established constitutional norms – the project has explored what roles people think should be played by the central components of the system, including parliament, government, courts, and the public.
We have previously published three reports presenting the findings from different aspects of the research: two on large-scale surveys of public opinion, conducted by YouGov in 2021 and 2022; and the report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK, which met in late 2021. Today we are publishing the project’s final report, which draws these findings together, adds substantial new analysis, and reflects on key lessons for policy-makers.
Continue reading


