Ending of the hybrid House of Commons breached fundamental democratic principles

Posted on June 8, 2020 by The Constitution Unit

Last week Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg demanded the end of ‘hybrid’ arrangements allowing MPs to participate and vote remotely during the COVID-19 crisis. In this open letter, a group of senior democracy specialists point out this breached the fundamental democratic principle of equality in decision-making, because the MPs most benefiting from remote participation (e.g. due to ‘shielding’) were excluded from the vote. They urge the Leader of the House to reinstate procedures allowing all MPs to participate fully in all Commons business.

IMG_20200608_051657

MPs queue to vote on Tuesday. Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of parliament.

Dear Mr Rees-Mogg

We write to express our very grave concerns about the way in which the ‘hybrid’ House of Commons was suspended. As specialists in the principles and practice of democracy it is clear to us that these actions breached fundamental democratic principles.

The ‘hybrid’ arrangements, allowing for a mix of virtual and in-person participation in parliamentary proceedings were brought about by necessity, to enable the House of Commons to continue to fulfil its essential functions of scrutiny and representation during the coronavirus crisis. Parliamentary accountability is crucial at any time, but more crucial than ever when ministers have taken unprecedented emergency powers, and the broadest possible public consent for health measures, and restrictions on citizens’ usual freedoms, is needed.

At the initial stages of the crisis there were troubling suggestions that parliament might close down completely for up to five months (as reported in The Times on 5 March). Thankfully, attention soon moved on from this drastic (and fundamentally anti-democratic) suggestion, to exploring how parliament could keep working through the crisis.

Parliamentary staff have worked tirelessly to devise innovative technological solutions to allow MPs to contribute virtually, and online select committee meetings began during the Easter recess. The Speaker, and the House of Commons Commission, offered admirable leadership, with essential additional input from the Procedure Committee. At the early stages there was a clear commitment to working on a cross-party basis to ensure that the Commons could continue to function in a way which maintained essential representation and accountability, while protecting public health. The motions on 21 and 22 April to enable members to participate and vote remotely were warmly supported by opposition parties and unanimously agreed. This consultative, cross-party approach was exactly what was needed when bringing about such far-reaching changes to the functioning of our democratic process. It showed inclusivity and maximised the chances of maintaining public trust and support.

The attempt to dismantle the hybrid arrangements has, unfortunately, followed the reverse approach. Through a lack of consultation and cross-party decision-making it has sown unnecessary division. Furthermore, it has breached the fundamental democratic and parliamentary principle of equality in decision-making, excluding many MPs from the choice about how to run their own institution. It has done so to the detriment of some of those who are most vulnerable in this crisis. Continue reading →

Could a citizens’ assembly help the Brexit process?

Posted on January 24, 2019 by The Constitution Unit

With just two months until exit day, it remains unclear what form Brexit will take. Could citizens’ assemblies provide some of the answers to the questions politicians have yet to resolve? Alan Renwick outlines the scenarios in which a citizens’ assembly could take place, and what it would need to be a success.

The idea that a citizens’ assembly could help resolve the Brexit impasse is picking up wide support. A diverse group of notable figures proposed it just before Christmas. MPs including Labour’s Stella Creasy and Lisa Nandy and the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas have backed it. So too has the Guardian newspaper. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has put forward a plan for citizens’ assemblies as part of ‘a process of nationwide consultation and reflection’, which was endorsed in a post on this blog last week.

That citizens’ assemblies are gaining support as a way of reinvigorating our democracy is enormously welcome. A citizens’ assembly is a group of around 50–200 people who are randomly selected from the general public to reflect the make-up of the population as a whole. They meet over several weekends to learn about and deliberate on a policy question before reaching recommendations. As an excellent piece by Leo Benedictus in last week’s Guardian illustrates, such assemblies enable serious, informed reflection on important policy matters by members of the public. They foster conversations among people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives who normally wouldn’t even meet each other. If they are integrated effectively into the wider policy-making process, they can transform the quality of public debate and decision-making.

This was seen most potently last year, in Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly and subsequent referendum on abortion. The assembly shed fresh, clear light on what had been a highly divisive issue, enabling considered, informed debate during the referendum campaign. That assemblies can generate quality discussion and engagement has repeatedly been demonstrated here in the UK too – by two pilot assemblies held in Sheffield and Southampton in 2015, by the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit organised by the Constitution Unit and partners in 2017, and last year by the Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care – the UK’s first official assembly of this kind – and the Citizens’ Assembly for Northern Ireland. Continue reading →

Could a citizens’ assembly break the Brexit impasse?

Posted on December 18, 2018 by The Constitution Unit

With parliament deadlocked, people are looking for alternative ways to break the Brexit impasse. Many have been suggested, from the Queen intervening to the formation of a government of national unity. Among the options is a citizens’ assembly (or similar deliberative process). Tim Hughes discusses four potential ways in which a citizens’ assembly could help break the current deadlock.

A citizens’ assembly is a body of citizens – typically 50 to 250 – that learn about an issue and deliberate over possible options, before reaching a collective decision. Like jury service, citizens are chosen at random to take part in the citizens’ assembly. Unlike jury service, they’re often also selected to be demographically representative of the wider population, forming what is called a ‘mini-public’. The idea is that the citizens’ assembly looks and feels like a miniature version of the wider public.

Citizens’ assemblies are fantastic tools for addressing challenging issues. They enable members of the public – not weighed down by party political interests or aspirations – to learn in depth about an issue through hearing from expert witnesses and discussions with people from all walks of life. And after that learning and deliberation, they reach a collective decision.

There is no more challenging issue at the moment than Brexit, so it’s unsurprising that citizens’ assemblies have been proposed as a possible solution. But while citizens’ assemblies have been used to tackle some very controversial issues – including abortion in Ireland – one has never been attempted in a political and media environment quite as febrile as the current Brexit debate. Continue reading →