In the rush to prepare for Brexit, parliamentary scrutiny will suffer

Publications / Articles

In the rush to prepare for Brexit, parliamentary scrutiny will suffer

18 Feb 2019

The cancellation of this week's House of Commons recess provided the government with an extra few days to hold debates on affirmative Brexit SIs. But the low number of debates makes it a wasted opportunity. The government can get its Brexit SIs into force by 29 March, but probably only at the expense of what limited scrutiny already takes place for SIs.

,
Senior Researcher, Hansard Society

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Share this and support our work

Originally published in The Times Red Box on 18 February 2019 and reproduced with permission

There has been much speculation over the past few weeks that the government is running out of time to ensure that all the statutory instruments (SIs) it says it needs to prepare the statute book for exit day can come into force when required.

SIs are the most common type of delegated legislation, and are used to add detail, update or sometimes even amend primary legislation (Acts of Parliament) without Parliament having to pass a new Act.

As of this morning, the government has laid 442 Brexit SIs before Parliament, and is now 74 per cent of the way towards its estimate of approximately 600 Brexit SIs. However, with six weeks to go, the biggest challenge facing the government in delivering its Brexit SI programme in time for exit day is the sheer number of debates it needs to schedule.

The vast majority of SIs laid before Parliament will be subject to one of two types of scrutiny procedure. SIs that are subject to the negative scrutiny procedure do not require a debate or vote in both Houses before they can become law. Negative SIs are subject to a 40-calendar-day scrutiny period during which either House can, in theory, object to them. However, negative SIs can and routinely do come into force before their 40-day scrutiny period expires. As a result, as long as these SIs can be 'made' (signed off) on or before exit day, the government can get them on to the statute book in time.

In contrast, SIs that are subject to the affirmative scrutiny procedure must be debated and formally approved by both Houses before they can become law. For affirmative SIs, in the House of Commons, delegated legislation committees (DLCs) of usually 17 MPs normally debate an SI before the approval vote is held in the chamber on a subsequent day. SIs can also be debated in the chamber, with the approval vote taking place immediately after the debate. The House of Lords must also debate affirmative SIs.

In normal parliamentary sessions, negative SIs constitute about 75 per cent of all SIs laid before Parliament. But, in contrast to this pattern, the majority — 55 per cent — of Brexit SIs laid so far are subject to the affirmative procedure.

As of this morning, that equates to 245 of the 442 Brexit SIs being affirmative instruments. But only just over half of these (52 per cent) have been debated or scheduled for debate in the House of Commons so far. This leaves a backlog of 118 debates of up to 90 minutes each that have yet to be organised.

The cancellation of the February House of Commons recess, due to start last Friday, provided the government with an extra few days to schedule debates on affirmative SIs and make a serious dent in the backlog. However, even given that the vast majority of the main business scheduled in the Commons this week is for debating SIs, only 17 Brexit affirmative instruments will be debated in the next four days. That’s just five more debates than last week, and four more than the week before that.

This means, from next week, an average of 24 Commons debates on affirmative Brexit SIs need to be held each week through to exit day on 29 March. Furthermore, if a majority of the up to 158 Brexit SIs that have not yet been laid before Parliament are also subject to the affirmative procedure, the number of debates needed will rise proportionately. The government could be required to schedule an average of 39 affirmative debates each week.

To help, the government could group related SIs in a particular policy area for consideration together, thus reducing the number of DLCs that need to be set up. And ultimately, if the government is running out of time, it can initiate the urgent case procedure set out in the EU (Withdrawal) Act. Under this procedure, ministers can make SIs that come into immediate effect having been made by the minister. 'Made affirmatives' then require both Houses to approve them within 28 days to remain in force.

The government can, therefore, get its Brexit SIs into force by 29 March, but probably only at the expense of what limited scrutiny already takes place for SIs. It is hard not to view this week then as a wasted opportunity.

Latest / Highlights

News / Assisted dying bill: Special series #10 - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 89

Having cleared detailed scrutiny in a Public Bill Committee, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill faces its next crucial test when it returns to the House of Commons for Report Stage on 16 May. This stage is often where Private Members' Bills falter. Will opponents of Kim Leadbeater’s proposals to legalise assisted dying win enough support to amend the Bill? Can supporters of the Bill fend off attempts to change it? And could the Bill be lost altogether, because of the procedural hurdles that still stand in its way?

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 28 April - 2 May 2025

MPs will debate the Football Governance Bill for the first time and consider controversial proposals to give government access to benefit recipients’ bank data in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. The Great British Energy Bill faces a further hurdle over modern slavery concerns in solar panel supply chains. Orders on extended VE Day pub hours and banning ‘ninja swords’ will be considered. David Lammy and Shabana Mahmood face committee scrutiny, while Richard Foord seeks to require parliamentary approval for a UK–US trade deal. Mayors Andy Burnham and Kim McGuinness will give evidence on industrial strategy, and Dr Fiona Hill will speak about social mobility and education.

News / Should Parliament roll out the red carpet for Donald Trump? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 88

After Parliament’s rare Saturday sitting to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill with minimal scrutiny, we explore concerns about rushed legislation and unchecked ministerial powers. The Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle faces criticism for allegedly protecting Keir Starmer at PMQs. Meanwhile, as MPs and Peers move to block a possible Trump address to Parliament during his second UK State Visit, we discuss who controls invitations to speak and where on the parliamentary estate.

Submissions / Evidence to the House of Commons Modernisation Committee: Priorities and strategic aims

In response to the Modernisation Committee's call for views on 17 October 2024, we submitted evidence outlining key areas we believe the Committee should prioritise. Our submission recommended a focus on: strengthening legislative scrutiny, with particular emphasis on reforming the delegated legislation system; enhancing financial scrutiny, especially in relation to the Budget and the Estimates; addressing strategic gaps in parliamentary scrutiny; making more effective use of parliamentary time; and reviewing the Standing Orders, language and rituals of the House of Commons.

Briefings / The Assisted Dying Bill: A guide to the Private Member's Bill process

This briefing explains what to watch for during the Second Reading debate of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. It outlines the procedural and legislative issues that will come into play: the role of the Chair in managing the debate and how procedures such as the 'closure' and 'reasoned amendments' work. It looks ahead to the Committee and Report stage procedures that will apply if the Bill progresses beyond Second Reading. It also examines the government's responsibilities, such as providing a money resolution for the Bill and preparing an Impact Assessment, while addressing broader concerns about the adequacy of Private Members’ Bill procedures for scrutinising controversial issues.