MPs are back in the driving seat — so start the engine

If the expenses scandal last year was a dark cloud over parliament, then the reforms that have taken place since represent a significant — and so far largely overlooked — silver lining.

The changes made so far and the commitments made by Sir George Young in his 16 June speech (see page 18-20) are a veritable wish-list for those involved and interested in parliamentary reform. More power for select committees and a committee to manage the business of the Commons chamber have been recommendations of the Hansard Society for many years — and in some cases, decades.

But there are still significant challenges ahead. The coalition government has to deliver on its laudable commitment to give parliament adequate time to scrutinise legislation properly. The management of time in public bill committees (formerly standing committees) and at report stage have been contentious for at least 30 years — the use of guillotine motions under the last Conservative government, and programme motions by Labour, coming in for considerable criticism. Achieving anything like consensus on the adequacy of legislative scrutiny will be immensely difficult, as it will necessarily involve a significant element of subjectivity.

To meet its promise the government will necessarily have to accept a slower process. This sacrifice may not be all that hard to accept, as it is rare that time is of the essence when legislating. Indeed legislation is often brought forward with much media-seeking fanfare at the beginning of the parliamentary process, with much less attention during and after its passage through the Commons and Lords.

However more time and better scrutiny will lead to more amendments being debated and voted upon, and more opportunities for the government to be defeated. In the current coalition scenario, where the detail of legislation will be agreed by the coalition partners in advance of coming to parliament, the flexibility to react productively to scrutiny and the process of amendments may prove tricky. This may be ameliorated by the longer, more drawn-out process — during which internal coalition negotiations can take place to respond to proposed amendments — but it adds an additional burden to government management of legislation.

The other big test for the government will be the establishment of a business committee to oversee the timetabling of legislation in the House of Commons. A business committee to manage backbench business — general and topical debates, consideration of select committee reports — is currently being set up, but the coalition has committed to implementing a full House Business Committee within three years.

How it will be composed, its interaction with the backbench business committee and the strength of the voice of the backbenchers upon it will determine whether it represents a significant reform that strengthens parliament or just a minor increase in the transparency of the ‘usual channels’.

However, as Sir George explained, there are challenges for parliament as well. It is incumbent upon the backbenchers to take ownership of the new processes and make the most of the greater powers and profile they will afford.

The newly-elected select committee chairs have a greater mandate to challenge the government and articulate the concerns of the backbenches in parliament and in the media. Increased scrutiny powers for select committees, particularly of government spending and appointments, and more time to debate their reports are opportunities that need to be utilised.

Restoring the Commons chamber to its position as cockpit of the nation will be the task of the new backbench business committee, which will determine the topics and timings of debates. While government legislation — and therefore government control of the timetable — will still predominate, it gives the backbenches unprecedented control of the agenda on the floor of the Commons. It must focus on leading timely debates on current issues, scrutinising the government on topics it would rather avoid, and involve both backbench MPs and the public in deciding the topics for discussion.

Parliament will benefit massively from these reforms if they are implemented correctly and embraced by backbenchers. They have the potential to improve the quality of legislative scrutiny and the ability of parliament to hold government to account. But crucially they offer the chance to engage the public with parliament and the work of MPs and repair some of the reputational damage of the expenses scandal.

Proposals for a ‘public reading day’, where the public’s comments on a bill are debated in committee, and selecting well-supported petitions to be the topics of debates in the chamber should help demonstrate that parliament is listening to the public and that they can have a say in the democratic process outside of elections.

Parliament and government will both need to go further to improve their public consultation and develop effective deliberative engagement models, but these reforms, if implemented, adopted and their virtues extolled to the public, represent a big opportunity to win over a sceptical public and an intransigent media. And it is on this they will ultimately be judged.

Matt Korris is research fellow at the  Parliament in Government programme, Hansard Society.