Long-standing problems with how parliament works and
how MPs perform their duties have yet to be addressed, says a new
report from the Institute for Government.
Published today, Parliamentary Monitor
2020 is an-depth look at the so-called Brexit
parliament which ran from 2017 to 2019. The report finds that
Brexit, combined with minority government, had a profound and
detrimental effect on the relationship between the government and
parliament, and pushed parliamentary procedure to its
limit.
Battles over parliamentary rules highlighted the need
to update and clarify procedures. Questions remain about how much
control the government should have over parliament’s agenda, how
emergency debates and humble addresses should be used, the
meaning of certain parliamentary terms, and the role of the
Speaker. Worrying weaknesses in how parliament scrutinises
government legislation were exposed once
again. Despite the challenging
circumstances, parliament largely continued to fulfil its
functions beyond Brexit and spent most of its time considering
other issues.
The initial phase of the coronavirus crisis has seen
parliamentary consensus around radical, but temporary, changes in
how parliament works. Despite this, there is real risk that the
problems which defined the
2017–19
parliament could re-emerge without
proper reform.
As parliament addresses the problems exposed
over the past few years and grapples with the coronavirus crisis,
the report sets out three priorities for
parliament:
1. Ensure
there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the
government. This is particularly
pressing given the extraordinarily broad powers being exercised
by the government in response to coronavirus.
2. Improve
and maintain parliament’s technical capability and ability to
work remotely. Any moves to
return parliament to its usual ways of working following
coronavirus reforms should not disadvantage members unable to
attend in person.
3. Review
(and where necessary reform) the areas of parliamentary procedure
that proved most contentious during the
2017–19
parliament.
During the
2017–19
parliament, the report finds that:
· The cost of
MPs’ security assistance rose to almost
2000% above pre-2015 levels – as MPs faced unprecedented threats
to their safety.
· The
government used its control of
parliamentary time to avoid scheduling any
opposition-led debates over a five-month period between late 2018
and early 2019 – a key period in the Brexit
process.
· Parliament
approved extraordinarily broad powers to
make secondary legislation to prepare for
Brexit – in
exchange for only small improvements in parliamentary
oversight.
· Minority
government, Brexit and an amenable Speaker
gave backbench MPs more influence than
usual, which may have had a cultural impact that proves hard to
reverse.
· High
Brexit drama sparked public interest in
parliament, with a 150% increase in parliamentlive.tv
audiences between 2017 and 2019 and over six million signing an
e-petition to revoke Article 50 – the most popular petition
parliament has ever received.
Joe Marshall, senior researcher at the Institute for
Government and report author said:
“The coronavirus crisis has put the political turmoil
of the Brexit parliament into sharp perspective. However, the
events of the
2017–19
parliament will have a lasting impact. They raised questions
about where sovereignty lies in the UK constitution and
highlighted the need to update and clarify contentious
parliamentary procedures. If the scars of the last parliament are
not addressed, these problems may re-emerge in
future.”
Alice Lilly, senior researcher at the Institute for
Government and report author said:
“The
2017–19
parliament saw MPs and peers grapple with various important and
high-profile issues – including Brexit, allegations of bullying
and harassment and increased security concerns. Yet, at the same
time, the conditions for reaching consensus – majority government
and strong party loyalty – slipped away, making it more difficult
for parliament to function.”
