The process for getting House of Commons select committees re-established after the general election is so far broadly on track. However, government reorganisation and the Labour leadership contest could yet cause delays and disruption. And this time, there are particular reasons to get committees into place urgently.
Originally published in The Times Red Box on 20 January, 2020
Last Thursday the House of Commons agreed which party would get which elected select committee chairmanships, and the Speaker has set the elections for Wednesday January 29.
Despite speculation that it could be Easter before Commons select committees are fully re-established, so far the process is proceeding broadly in line with the timings seen at the start of other recent parliaments, at least in terms of sitting days. If these timings continue to be followed, select committees could be fully re-established in mid-to-late February.
But delay and disruption to the process also remain possible, with potentially damaging consequences for the new select committees’ early performance.
First, there’s the government’s promised Whitehall reorganisation, slated for the days or weeks after Brexit and thus also after the select committee chairs are elected. For some committees, an MP could run a campaign and be elected as chair, only to find that the committee is to be abolished because the department it shadows is also going.
A re-allocation of chairmanships so as to maintain party shares might also be needed. For example, the Department for International Trade reportedly might disappear in the reorganisation. This would presumably cause the International Trade Committee which shadows it to be abolished, but this is one of the two committees due to be chaired by the SNP.
The House has re-established the Brexit Committee, but some uncertainty remains over its fate given the government’s plans to abolish the Brexit department.
The Labour leadership contest is another factor that could disrupt the select committee re-establishment process. There are Labour figures, such as Yvette Cooper, who might run and win a committee chairmanship at the end of this month, but then be offered and accept a shadow front bench position once the new leader is in place in April.
So the chair elections might be followed by relatively speedy disruption, as the line-up of committees is changed or chairs only recently elected stand down. The disruption might last for weeks as a result of the Labour leadership contest, which could have an even greater impact on the appointment of members to committees. This stage of the process normally only takes place after the chair elections. Without members, there are limits to what elected chairs can do. But unlike the election of chairs, there is no deadline attached to this stage of the process, and the Speaker has no power to intervene. Instead, it’s up to the parties to get their committee members nominated.
The Labour Party might be so distracted by its leadership race that it fails to hold its elections for committee members in a timely way. Even if it does, the subsequent reorganisation of its front bench under the new leader could result in some members of select committees having to stand down shortly after being elected, in order to take up posts in the shadow cabinet.
The longer it takes to get select committees fully up and running, the greater the gap in scrutinising and holding ministers to account. And there are other good governance implications.
For example, select committees have been at the forefront of the House of Commons’s public engagement efforts and the e-petitions system is Parliament’s ‘front door’ for the public, but the door is shut as long as the petitions committee is in abeyance.
The Backbench Business Committee has a role in scheduling important debates nominated by backbench MPs rather than the two front benches, but it can’t fulfil this role until it is fully constituted. Other committees perform vital technical scrutiny of legislation, and will already face a backlog of work. These committees, such as the Statutory Instruments Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee, are among those that don’t have elected chairs, in order that they could be set up more speedily than those that do. But in practice, this has never happened.
This time, the European Scrutiny Committee has particular priority, because under the Withdrawal Agreement Bill it will have a new statutory role reviewing new EU law from February 1. Although the politics may make some disruption unavoidable, this year there are especially good reasons to get these committees into place urgently.
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?