What does the decision to leave the EU mean for Parliament? What role will MPs and Peers want in relation to the exit negotiations and what will it mean for the legislative and scrutiny process?

Listen to the event in full

Speakers

Paul Evans
Clerk of the Journals, House of Commons

Seema Malhotra MP
Member for Feltham and Heston

Professor the Lord Norton of Louth
Member of the House of Lords Constitution Committee and Professor of Government and Director of the Centre for Legislative Studies, University of Hull

About

At this event, involving leading parliamentary and constitutional experts, we will be debating the key questions now facing Parliament over the next few years:

  • What reforms – in the Chamber and Committees – might be needed to ensure the scrutiny process is fit for purpose to deal with the scale of the challenge ahead?
  • Should there be a move towards greater joint working with the House of Lords? What are the pros and cons of this approach?
  • Do we need a super-committee, for example modelled on the Banking Commission inquiry?
  • Given the volume of legislation and regulation that will need to be sorted out, how might this be done most effectively?
  • Does Parliament have sufficient capacity and expertise to support MPs and Peers and if not, what might be needed?

Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it

Latest

Liz Truss, UK Government Foreign Secretary
blog / 21.01.22

Back to the future? House of Commons scrutiny of EU affairs after Lord Frost’s exit

The recent rearrangement of responsibilities for the government’s handling of EU-related affairs raises questions about future parliamentary scrutiny of these issues. In some respects pre-2016 institutional arrangements are restored, but the post-Brexit landscape presents new scrutiny challenges which thus far MPs have not confronted.

Back to the future? House of Commons scrutiny of EU affairs after Lord Frost’s exit
Palace of Westminster, Houses of Parliament, at dusk
blog / 14.01.22

Living on a prayer (motion): How do parliamentarians debate ‘made negative’ Statutory Instruments?

A recent House of Lords debate on a ‘made negative’ Statutory Instrument highlights Peers’ greater appetite and ability to secure such debates compared to MPs. Data on debate lengths suggests parliamentarians are more likely to give more meaningful scrutiny to SIs they wish to debate than those on which they are obliged to spend time by current procedures.

Living on a prayer (motion): How do parliamentarians debate ‘made negative’ Statutory Instruments?
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, making a statement to the House of Commons updating Members on Covid-19, 8 December 2021 (©) House of Commons / Jessica Taylor
publications / briefings / 2021

What Covid Regulations might MPs be asked to debate on 14 December and how will the Regulations be approved?

What Covid Regulations will the House of Commons debate on 14 December, and how? Amid backbench unrest, the occasion will be shaped by the interplay between delegated legislation scrutiny, parliamentary procedures, and raw politics. The outcome could have profound consequences for both public health policy and the Prime Minister’s position.

What Covid Regulations might MPs be asked to debate on 14 December and how will the Regulations be approved?
Photo of an HGV
blog / 03.12.21

In it for the long haul: HGV driver shortage Statutory Instruments show scrutiny system shortcomings

Statutory Instruments (SIs) have been a key tool in the government’s response to shortages of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) drivers. These SIs showcase the usefulness of this type of law-making but also highlight again some of the longstanding problems with its parliamentary scrutiny.

In it for the long haul: HGV driver shortage Statutory Instruments show scrutiny system shortcomings
Prev
Next