@HansardSociety
researcher • Ex parli staffer • Fan of philosophy & F1 • Southender • LSE Political Theory 20-21 • Oxford PPE 17-20 • Tweets my own views
BRIEFING - Parliament goes 'Back to Business'
Hundreds of new MPs will be on their way to Parliament in the coming days. But what happens next, and how is a new Parliament set up?
Read our new guide on the start of a new Parliament:
🧵Ministers below Cabinet level are now being appointed. One important responsibility to look out for is who will be the Minister with responsibility for the 'Statutory Instrument' (SI) programme in each department. 1/
SIs are a form of legislation - delegated legislation - that's often used (when it shouldn’t be) to make very substantial policy changes. The last Govt promised to appoint a Minister in each Dept to co-ordinate the flow of departmental SIs & provide some quality control. 2/
Ultimately, better scrutiny of SIs can only come from wholesale reform of the scrutiny system itself.
At
@HansardSociety
, we've set out 13 draft proposals for reform, to ensure SIs receive a level of scrutiny that matches their importance. 5/
But only a few Depts ever really kept it up. The commitment fell victim to political chaos & reshuffles of recent years. Labour has said it wants to restore legislative standards. So an early test is whether they make SI standards the direct responsibility of a named Minister. 3/
In the meantime, when the ministerial ranks have been filled, journalists should be asking who will be responsible for SIs in each department. It’s a vital role to restore legislative standards and rebalance the relationship between Parliament and the executive.
The SI Minister is responsible for managing the production and scheduling of their departmental SIs and providing a quality control check, particularly of the explanatory documents accompanying the SI which are essential to support proper scrutiny by Parliament. 4/
How might changes to Winter Fuel Payment (WFP) be made? And what would Parliament's role be?
Details of the WFP are set out in regulations made under s.138 of the Social Security Contributions & Benefits Act 1992.
Regulations under s.138 are subject to the 'negative procedure'.
NEW: Legislation published today establishes the compensation scheme for Infected Blood Scandal victims, outlining the first tranche of eligible victims & what they're eligible for.
But it also has an interesting procedural & parliamentary background.🧵
Not completely accurate.
The court struck down *secondary* legislation on the basis of statutory requirements to consult contained in *primary* legislation. Parliamentary sovereignty in action.
I had assumed that Parliament is sovereign in the UK.
According to Mr Justice Swift, that’s not the case at all.
Instead, we now governed by the degree to which self selecting and unrepresentative consultations consider environmental well-being in their question wording.
🎂We have been celebrating a big birthday today - 80 years young! 🎉
Founded by MP Stephen King-Hall with initial financial support from Winston Churchill & Clement Attlee, the Society was established to spark interest in and spread knowledge about the proceedings of Parliament
I love adjournment debates. Whatever chaos or absurdity occurs during a sitting, it always has to end with a relatively calm speech on a relatively niche issue.
Statute says: Leader of Opposition is leader of the opposition *party* with the greatest numerical strength in the Commons.
Erskine May says: "largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office."
Genuine question for British Constitutional Convention Geeks - If it ended up with say 70 Tories & 68 Lib Dems - is there any mechanism that would allow, three Green MPs to take the Lib Dem whip in opposition, as a coalition?
As far as I'm aware, the motion allocating Select Committee chairs to each of the parties hasn't been tabled yet. The two-week period set out in Standing Orders ends on Wednesday 31 July.
Will we see the motion on tomorrow's Order Paper?
@JohnHoCLibrary
Once the allocation is agreed between the parties, they will jointly table a motion to approve the allocation of chairs. This should be done within two weeks of the King's Speech. 8/
Govt rejects Procedure Committee recommendation for the Foreign Secretary to be scrutinised at the Bar of the House of Commons.
The vast majority of backbench MPs will continue to have no mechanism to ask questions to the Foreign Secretary directly.
The Government has rejected our proposal for Lords Secretaries of State to be scrutinised in the Commons Chamber for the remainder of this Parliament.
Read their full response➡️
But Erskine May does indicate that although the Government cannot be compelled to make time for a debate on a prayer motion, the Govt will usually make time if the motion is signed by Shadow Ministers.
With a July 4 election looking likely, this explainer from
@RuthFox01
about the legislative wash-up is crucial.
July 4 would mean dissolution on May 30, so the recess scheduled for tomorrow until June 3 would need to be cancelled.
🧵If a General Election is called there will have to be a legislative 'wash-up' - a process known as a squalid stitch up or a pragmatic solution for parliamentary business depending on your point view! 1/
Inspiring. If you get a zone-1 flat share, get a young person's travelcard, get help from mum and dad, work-from-home a few days a week, don't go out or enjoy any luxury, keep the heating off, and have no children, you too can avoid the foodbank.
Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.
Katy makes my point really well.
Such a debate would also need to take place within the 40-day scrutiny period that applies to negative SIs.
If the SI were laid tomorrow, the current recess schedule would mean the end of that scrutiny period falling in early November.
Keir Starmer’s personal pension is so special a law had to be passed with his name on it.
It’s literally one law for Labour and another for everyone else 👇
Such an SI would normally need to be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which drafts a report for the Minister, before the Minister signs it.
But there's an exception if the Minister thinks the SI is "urgent", or if the SSAC agrees it should not be referred.
What does the Labour manifesto have to say about parliamentary reform?
In short, much more about the House of Lords than the House of Commons (at least for now!).
1/🧵
NEW: The High Court declares the serious disruption regulations to be unlawful. Enacted last year, the regulations lowered the threshold for police intervention on protests to "more than minor" disruption.
However, there were two prayer motions towards the end of the last Parliament which were signed by Keir Starmer as Leader of the Opposition but which did not, as far as I can tell, receive a debate.
This first set of regulations is targeted mainly at those 'infected', rather than more broadly 'affected'.
A second set of regulations will be laid in a few months time to extend the scheme to others who were affected by the infected blood scandal. 2/
The requirement to set up a compensation scheme within three months came about because of the sole defeat suffered by Rishi Sunak's Government in the House of Commons. 8/
Great piece. Highlights the strange paradox that despite the Government repealing and reforming hundreds of items of REUL, more unchanged REUL has been identified than ever, because 1,700 additional items of REUL have been identified since the last update.
Any MP can table a motion to annul the SI, known as a 'prayer' motion. This takes the form of an Early Day Motion.
However, the Government is not required to make time for a prayer motion to be debated.
If it's not tabled by Wednesday (which only really leaves today or tomorrow to do so), then any MP can table a motion allocating the chairs and it will be given precedence on the next sitting day (the first day after recess).
Standing Order No. 16 of the House of Commons also imposes a limit on the length of debates on delegated legislation to just 90 minutes, including debates on prayer motions.
The reply from the
@CommonsProcCom
chair has been published. It reiterates that the committee will *not* be inquiring into the operation of standing orders with respect to Opposition Days.
Further to this part of the SNP opposition day (21 Feb) saga, the
@CommonsProcCom
has published an unusual letter from
@CommonsLeader
, Penny Mordaunt.
In her letter, she (in my view, correctly) suggests the committee is wrong not to take the matter up.
In December last year, the House of Commons approved an amendment proposed by
@DianaJohnsonMP
to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, by 246 to 242 votes, despite a three-line whip against it from the then Government. 9/
As
@nmdacosta
points out below, the Opposition Chief Whip probably ought to also inform the Government via the 'Usual Channels' that they want a debate on the SI.
Once made, the amending SI will be laid before Parliament.
Under the negative procedure, the SI remains in force if neither House actively approves a motion to annul it within 40 days (excluding adjournments of 4+ days. etc.). No debate or vote is needed. But will one happen?
The Govt also strengthened the scrutiny for the first set of regulations to the 'made affirmative' procedure.
This means the regulations won't remain in force unless both Houses approve them within 28 days (not counting recesses of more than 4 days), which is 22 October. 11/
This is quite a strange letter, and I'm not sure I fully understand the committee's point.
There seems to be a clear procedural issue about the conduct of public business for them to look into: how Standing Order 31 deals with non-government amendments on Opposition Days.
📝 The Committee has replied to
@CommonsSpeaker
and
@CommonsLeader
on their request for the Committee to conduct an inquiry into how amendments are dealt with on Opposition Days.
Read the response from the Chair ⬇
Another very useful thread about the new Parliament's first week.
This time, it covers the election (or re-election) of the Speaker, and their approval by the Monarch.
🧵What will the new MPs be doing today? If you missed the 1st part of our guide to MPs induction check out yesterday’s thread. (It’s been viewed by over 1m people so don’t miss out! ). But today’s the day they elect the Speaker - so be sure to read on👇 1/
Want to keep up with legislative changes like this one? Our SI Tracker® service allows subscribers to receive daily updates about SIs and track their progress.
See below how some major SIs published this week appear on our Tracker.
Find out more here:
The Government indicated during debate in the House of Lords that there would be practical difficulties if the dissolution occurred during the three-month period, as indeed it did, which may go some way to explaining why the regs have been published so close to the deadline. 7/
If Govt is able to use this power, it will probably make (i.e., sign into law) a Statutory Instrument soon, which may take the form of an amendment to the central set of regulations governing the Winter Fuel Payment: The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2000.
But as is common, in the House of Lords the Government replaced her clause with ten more precisely worded new clauses of its own, though they kept to the spirit of Dame Diana Johnson's amendment to get the scheme up and running within three months. 10/
@CommonsSpeaker
selects both Govt and Labour amendments. Procedurally very unusual.
Indicates he will call a Labour member to move their amendment first to avoid problem below.
Letter from the Clerk to the Speaker is to be published ASAP.
Interesting potential precedent on whether Labour amendment will be selected (see final paragraph).
With the caveat that the Speaker could call a Labour member to move their amendment first. Then SNP motion voted on (if Lab amdt rejected), and then Govt amendment voted on.
Summary: Three things need to happen for "double insistence" to occur.
1. The Commons votes to disagree with a Lords amendment.
2. The Lords then votes to insist on its amendment.
3. The Commons then votes to insist on its disagreement (rather than offering an amendment in lieu).
Here is Erskine May on double insistence aka three shots at the same target, when a disagreement between the two Houses causes a bill to be lost.
Spoiler: it’s extremely unlikely this will happen to the Rwanda bill.
Further to this part of the SNP opposition day (21 Feb) saga, the
@CommonsProcCom
has published an unusual letter from
@CommonsLeader
, Penny Mordaunt.
In her letter, she (in my view, correctly) suggests the committee is wrong not to take the matter up.
This is quite a strange letter, and I'm not sure I fully understand the committee's point.
There seems to be a clear procedural issue about the conduct of public business for them to look into: how Standing Order 31 deals with non-government amendments on Opposition Days.
But wherever the debate is held, the Standing Orders limit the time for debate on 'proceedings under an Act' - which includes debates on Statutory Instruments - to just 90 minutes. 13/
The regulations also need to be debated in either the Commons chamber or a 'Delegated Legislation Committee'. which we may see before the conference recess. The choice of location is up to the Government. 12/
Letter from the Clerk of the House to the Speaker says his decision to allow Labour to move their amendment to the SNP motion first "represents a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments on Opposition Days".
Taking the projection in the replies for granted, this is how our electoral system would convert these vote shares into seats:
Vote% --> Seat%
LAB: 38% -> 72.5% (471)
CON: 18% -> 9.4% (61)
REF: 17% -> 0.8% (5)
LIB: 15% -> 11.2% (73)
The Act imposed a duty on the Government to set up a compensation scheme within three months of the Act's passage. That deadline is tomorrow (24 August) and the regulations come into force at 11:00pm today, just about meeting the deadline. 6/
Another key point here: there is no procedural guarantee that Opposition Day motions are voted on as originally tabled. Many things - especially amendments to which SO 31(2) does not apply - can get in the way.
That said, existing procedures never guarantee that the opposition motion is voted on.
Occasionally, a non-government amendment is voted on. Or a government amendment is moved that does not meet the criteria in the standing orders. In both cases, these are decided upon *first*.
Note: The previous Government had already committed to the same approach in May, in response to a written parliamentary question:
No amendments to the bill had been tabled, however.
An interesting snippet from the
#KingsSpeech
on HS2 up North
Labour won't reverse the decision to axe the Northern leg but will repurpose the legislation to build better rail links between east and west (in the North)
Will be interesting to see what that means in practice...
So, the Criminal Justice Bill, which is part way through Report stage, and the Sentencing Bill, which has stalled since receiving 2nd reading in December, are potentially the Bills most at risk.
SO24 debates are normally held on a general motion that the House has "considered" a particular matter. Not clear whether it could be used to initiate a vote on something like the SNP's motion yesterday.
Speaker is offering an SO24 - which is an immediate debate. It's not clear if that would be on whether he ought to remain in the chair or on the ceasefire issue which the SNP says it should have had a full chance to debate and vote on.
"That points to another problem with the project: the way Parliament legislated for it."
And despite all the parliamentary time spent on it (1300+ hrs), the northern section could still be cancelled by just a few people in a back room.
@DanielGover
@HLLibResearch
I am watching intermittently, but the Leader just said in response to a question that wash-up negotiations are still ongoing.
Six public Bills have been introduced to the House of Commons but haven't yet been sent to the House of Lords (quite far behind in the process). They are:
1. Criminal Justice Bill
2. Sentencing Bill
3. Tobacco & Vapes Bill
4. Football Governance Bill
5. Finance (No. 2) Bill
The level of compensation is determined by a number of factors including the severity of the infection, the 'social impact' of infection, the impact on 'autonomy', and the scale of any medical, care or financial costs incurred as a result of the infection. 4/
🧵What do newly-elected MPs do to get set up in this first week in Parliament? The eagle-eyed among you may have seen new MPs receiving a white envelope from the Returning Officer after their victory was announced. Pictured is
@YuanfenYang
with hers. It contains a letter....1/
Some updates about wash-up of bills in the House of Lords.
Today, peers will (attempt to) finish proceedings on:
• Digital Markets, Competition & Consumers Bill
• Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill
• Victims & Prisoners Bill
• Media Bill
Interesting potential precedent on whether Labour amendment will be selected (see final paragraph).
With the caveat that the Speaker could call a Labour member to move their amendment first. Then SNP motion voted on (if Lab amdt rejected), and then Govt amendment voted on.
In the past, this has been interpreted as meaning that, if a government amendment is moved, 'it is not possible for a second amendment... to be put'.
This was from 2015, when a Labour backbencher attempted to amend a Labour opposition day motion.
The article below says the Equality Act regulations were "driven through Parliament without fanfare".
This is largely true. The committee debate for the regulations lasted just 49 minutes.
But this lack of "fanfare" is far from uncommon for SIs...
Announcing the stupid policy in the first place was when it fell apart. But I suppose this is good spin if you want to salvage any credibility at all for the useless libertarians in govt.
The Speaker cannot change the Standing Orders himself.
Arguably possible within the existing Standing Orders though? But *if* it's possible, it could mean Lab amendment voted on first (and, if Govt abstains & amendment is successful, no vote held on the original SNP motion).
Rumours the Speaker is looking at changing standing orders so he can call Labour amendment as well as the government amendment on todays Palestine ceasefire vote
But if they needed to formally defect, that might raise a further question about entitlement to the three Opposition Days allotted to the 2nd largest opposition party under Standing Order No. 14.
And indeed the 17 Opposition Days allotted to the Leader of the Opposition.
Today demonstrates one of the key disadvantages of using secondary legislation in this way: unlike Acts of Parliament, regulations are open to judicial review by the courts.
Today's decision is a direct consequence of the Government's own poor choice of legislative vehicle.
That is, FPTP could simultaneously:
• Give a party with <40% of votes 70%+ of seats
• Make the 4th place party into the Official Opposition
• Make the 2nd place party into the 3rd party
• Give the 3rd place party less than 1% of seats (despite more votes than official opp)
Lords business tomorrow
- Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill – Consideration of Commons Amendment
- Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill – Committee and Remaining Stages
- Victims and Prisoners Bill – Third Reading
- Media Bill – Report and Third Reading
1) A few months ago that number was 2,400; the estimate is still changing.
2) We shouldn't leave the task of deciding if we keep or change 18 laws a day to junior staff.
3) If we're going to change EU law, what is the value in rushing it? Not much difference between 2023 & 2024.
Every single argument I have heard about the civil service being physically unable to go through ~4,000 laws over a period of seven months sounds incredibly Cheems.
Eighteen laws a day. Surely a well resourced team can manage that?
The regulations are made using powers in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, one of the Acts passed during the pre-election 'wash-up'. It gives ministers the power to set out which victims are eligible, the amount & form of compensation, and the procedure for applications. 5/
I think the motion will be an instruction to the committee to amend the Bill.
As I understand it, an amendment is likely to take the form of an "Additional Provision", which needs supplementary environmental information & allows a right to petition similar to the Bill itself.
Technical or uncontroversial SIs are often needlessly put through DLCs, while SIs of great importance get no debate at all.
That is why the
@HansardSociety
Delegated Legislation Review is proposing a more consistent & tailored system for SI scrutiny:
MPs, SpAds and Ministers should not be taking long summer holidays in June when they have such generous recess periods in Easter, July, August and September.
Also, on the "but we've booked our holidays" point, this isn't as trivial as it sounds.
It's not just journos but MPs, spads, MINISTERS who got the green light from No10 that the summer was safe.
That's a lot of ill will to kick of a campaign with. From those on your own side
The High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill Select Committee is due to meet in private next Thursday, likely to discuss whatever proposal the Government puts forward.
The Govt seems to have decided what to do with the HS2 Bill currently before Parliament.
Despite the 2b section being scrapped, it looks like the Bill will be adapted to a new purpose.
Uncertainty about the Bill was something we highlighted last year.
If the three Greens defected to LDs (and the LDs remained the LDs), then the Lib Dems would still be the non-govt party with the 2nd largest number of MPs elected as Lib Dems (70 v 68)?
But they would also be the Official Opposition? Do they get all 20 Opposition Days?
For Bills that have made it to the Lords, the Renters' Reform Bill and the Public Bodies Bill could be most problematic.
The latter hasn't had Report Stage, & the former hasn't even started committee stage; crucially it's at these stages where most amendments are considered.
It will be interesting to see how their commitment to improving the "balance" in the Lords, introducing a retirement age and removing hereditaries, but also the need to appoint new Lab Peers/Ministers, will ultimately be reflected in the size of the House.
The membership of this committee will be very important. If the election produces a high number of new MPs, then that will affect the balance between longstanding members who are socialised in the ways of Westminster and new members who aren't familiar with the procedures.
@TJEHunter
Go for the main part imo
Like Starmer, I'm sure the show is something bland, uninspiring, and not especially fond of change. Is it Eastenders?
Graph showing that just 20 years ago, only around 7% of first-time buyer (FTB) mortgages had a term longer than 30 years. Now it is over 55%, with a rapidly rising number over 35 years.
Busy diary for the Prime Minister on Tuesday, meeting with metro mayors before heading off to Washington.
But will he also attend the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons at 2:30pm?
Despite Parliament rejecting them, however, the Government decided to use Henry VIII powers in the Public Order Act 1986 to enact the provisions via secondary legislation just weeks later. This was an unprecedented use of secondary legislation.
@AskThePatrick
@RhonddaBryant
Not necessarily a Conservative MP. Could be anyone from the opposition benches. And the Lib Dems have a better-than-normal case for getting one of their own. But not many long-serving MPs from the Lib Dems available.
Whether you agree with the decision, the legal problem was that the Home Secretary did not use the powers that Parliament had given him in the required way.
The Bill was lost in the wash-up, so will need to be re-introduced or revive in some way.
But if it has to be reintroduced, I don't see much logic at all in giving the Bill the same name!