Our ‘Lifting the Lid’ blog series aims to open up the delegated legislation process by revealing the stories behind some recently published Statutory Instruments. This week: The Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Joel Blackwell
Senior Researcher, Hansard Society
Joel conducts the Society’s continued research into the legislative process, the effectiveness of Parliament in scrutinising and holding the executive to account and the public’s engagement with politics.
He is co-author of 'The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation'. Prior to joining the Hansard Society in 2014, Joel was a Political Consultant for Dods Parliamentary Communications and has also worked at the Electoral Commission. He graduated from Bristol University in 2005 with a degree in Politics and Social Policy.
Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox
We will never share your data with any third-parties.
Share this and support our work
Monday’s regret motion debate in the House of Lords on the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 was the final act in this SI’s rather eventful journey through Parliament.
Introduced in December, these regulations seek to replace the current means-tested student maintenance grant available to lower income students with a new increased loan for living costs package for new full-time students starting their courses in the 2016/17 academic year.
The proposal, first announced in July’s Budget Statement, has been criticised by organisations such as the National Union of Students who claimed that the government was, “trying to sneak these proposals through without public consultation, scrutiny, and with no mention in their manifesto at the election”.
This instrument is subject to the negative procedure which means that it will become law on a stated date unless a ‘prayer’ motion is passed in either House within 40 days of the instrument being laid, annulling the instrument. A prayer motion was tabled by the Labour Party in early January.
In a previous blog post on the Prison and Young Offender Institution (Amendment) Rules 2015, I outlined the process by which MP’s table ‘prayer’ motions via Early Day Motion (EDM) and stated that whilst no fixed parliamentary time is allocated to EDMs, if the official opposition tables a prayer motion there is some chance that it will be debated.
In that particular case, the government did allocate time for debate but rather than debating the motion on the Floor of the House, the instrument was referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee. Labour’s prayer against the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 also secured time for debate, but again in committee rather than the Chamber.
In the 2014/15 session, nine negative instruments were prayed against in the House of Commons. Of those, only one, the Firefighters' Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014, secured debate and that was moved on the Floor of the House.
Already in this session, 12 prayer motions have been tabled by MPs via EDM, nine by the official opposition alone. Four of the opposition’s motions have secured debate thus far, all of which have taken place in a Delegated Legislation Committee.
It is not yet clear as to why we have had so many referrals already in this session. It may well be that the new Labour Party leadership has taken a new approach to the scrutiny of statutory instruments than the one taken by its predecessor. Following the 1997 general election, part of the opposition’s parliamentary strategy was to table prayer motions as a matter of course. Three hundred were tabled in just one session, 279 of them in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, William Hague.
What we do know is that referring a prayer motion to a Delegated Legislation Committee means that the debate can only be held on a non-fatal consideration motion. Even if the consideration is negatived, the instrument can only be rejected if a further substantive vote annulling the SI is held (without debate) on the Floor of the House. This almost never happens because there is no requirement for a subsequent motion to be tabled.
However, the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations provide an interesting exception to the rule. Having already been considered in committee on 14 January, the Labour Party decided to use an upcoming allocated opposition day debate on 19 January to table the formal vote to annul the instrument themselves. Opposition days have been used in the past to debate prayer motions but this appears to be the first in recent times to proceed a previous debate on the instrument in committee.
Labour also preceded the formal vote with a two and a half hour debate on the subject. Usually, any formal vote to annul an instrument must be put forthwith without debate if it has already been considered in a Delegated Legislation Committee. The opposition got around this by instead debating a related e-petition that had reached 1000,000 signatures, calling on Parliament to prevent the removal of the maintenance grant.
Last Thursday’s vote was also notable because it was first time that the double majority voting system, introduced through the English Vote for English Laws Standing Order changes, had been used in the Chamber on an SI. On this occasion the government secured the majorities of all Members and MPs for constituencies in England. If it had secured only one of these majorities, the instrument would have fallen.
Having avoided defeat on this particular regulation, the government now faces a further test in this policy area with Money Saving Expert founder Martin Lewis recently confirming his intention to legally challenge the government’s decision to freeze the student loan repayment threshold until at least April 2021.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
