This week, Conservative MPs asked the Commons to “pray against” statutory instrument No 869, which exercises expedient regulatory powers under section (173)(a) of the 1992 Social Security Administration Act. What that means in practice is impenetrable to most people. Many MPs would have been mystified had the question not been translated into plain English – to cut or not to cut winter fuel payments.
On this occasion, parliamentary scrutiny was stimulated by controversy and, with ministerial permission, some legislative transparency was achieved. But the process itself – arcane and impenetrable – is wide open to abuse. The last Conservative government made a habit of passing rickety “skeleton” bills that awarded ministers sweeping powers to fill in gaps with future regulation, knowing most statutory instruments slip by uncontested.
They also had a penchant for “Henry VIII” clauses, so-called because they award ministers sweeping powers to make law with no meaningful parliamentary brake. Evasion of scrutiny became routine under the Tories. It was driven by the intensity of regulatory change required for Brexit, the expedient of pandemic lockdowns and a culture of contempt for due process.
Labour’s manifesto commitment to reverse that trend did not feature prominently in the election campaign, but that doesn’t make it insignificant. A vital first step was taken on Wednesday, when a new Commons modernisation committee convened. This cross-party body, chaired by Lucy Powell, the leader of the house, is tasked with “reforming procedures, driving up standards and improving working practices”. It is a sweeping remit that covers the technical mechanism of lawmaking, rules governing MPs’ second jobs, lobbying and grievances – how best to handle allegations of bullying and harassment. Essentially, Ms Powell’s committee is in charge of pre-empting whatever the next big scandal might be that could further damage parliament’s reputation.
No committee can foresee or prevent individual acts of corruption, but modernisation should bring some disinfectant into the dingier corners of the Palace of Westminster, where bad practice has been allowed to fester. It could diminish the risk of another systemic crisis of confidence in MPs, like the one triggered by the 2009 expenses scandal.
Reforms implemented in the aftermath of that furore did not magically repair parliament’s reputation, but they did improve its function in important ways. One innovation was the election of select committee chairs. Those ballots for posts in the new parliament, also held on Wednesday, facilitate more independent scrutiny of government business. Previously, the process was sewn up by whips.
Updating procedures does not automatically change a working culture, nor does it bestow integrity on politicians themselves. Making parliament more effective will not quickly redeem politics in the eyes of people who take a jaundiced view of it. But a better-functioning democracy is a precondition for that rehabilitation. Ms Powell’s committee may not have made headlines yet, but behind the scenes, its work matters, and there is much for it to do.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
