The problems of the Brexit Parliament will return without reform

The Brexit Parliament ran from 2017 to 2019. The change in political circumstances and tone of parliamentary debate, from the end of that period to today, could not be starker. Only a few months ago, the Commons was paralysed over Brexit, with trust between MPs and the government having broken down and its rules coming under immense pressure.  

In recent weeks, by contrast, the House of Commons has largely put aside its differences, adapting its procedures in order to facilitate and scrutinise the government’s response to the pandemic (at least until very recently). With a return to majority government and Brexit no longer centre-stage, events in parliament are fuelling fewer headlines.

But, as our new Parliamentary Monitor report shows, the turbulent events of the Brexit Parliament are likely to have a lasting impact: exposing long-standing problems that the general election has not erased and emphasising the need for reform.

The government should be more open to parliamentary scrutiny

The Brexit parliament severely strained relations between the government and legislature. Both the May and Johnson minority governments acted as if they had a majority - seeking to push through their respective Brexit plans and avoid scrutiny. Nevertheless, Parliament agreed to give the government exceptionally broad powers to prepare the UK statute book for Brexit, in exchange for only a marginal increase in its oversight of some legislation.

Concerns about weak scrutiny of legislation, which were prominent in the Brexit Parliament, have already resurfaced in the current parliament because of the limited role of MPs and peers in authorising the coronavirus lockdown and plans to bring the virtual hybrid parliament to a premature close. Yet the value of scrutiny in improving policy and maintaining public trust in government has already been demonstrated by amendments to the Coronavirus Act and probing questions from select committees, which have strengthened the government’s response to Covid-19.

Parliamentary procedures need reform to provide clarity and promote consensus

Almost all of parliament’s formal decision-making mechanisms are binary, which makes them poorly equipped to promote consensus – especially in the absence of a parliamentary majority and strong party loyalty. As these conditions slipped away during the last parliament, battles over parliamentary rules highlighted the need to update and clarify procedures.

Questions raised by the Brexit Parliament that still need to be addressed include: how much control the government should have over Parliament’s agenda; how emergency debates and humble addresses should be used; the meaning of certain parliamentary terms, like ‘forthwith’; and, whether MPs should have more opportunities to vote on multiple choice questions.

Backbenchers still expect to be able to influence events in Parliament

With a return to majority government, many of the options open to backbenchers to influence the government in the 2017–19 parliament are now closed. However, backbench MPs from all parties have grown accustomed to holding the government to account and debating issues of the day through urgent questions and emergency debates, the increased use of which began well before the 2017–19 parliament.

It is therefore unsurprising that backbenchers are pushing back against the limitations placed on their ability to initiate scrutiny by the new arrangements for a virtual Parliament.

Parliament needs to be a better place to work  

Away from the heat of Brexit debates, the last Parliament also exposed concerns about Westminster as a workplace. Three damning reports into bullying and harassment exposed widespread mistreatment of parliamentary staff, and it is regrettable that some recommendations have still not been implemented in full.

The decaying condition of the Houses of Parliament – which has experienced at least 66 fires since 2008 – became ever more apparent, even interrupting proceedings in the Commons when water flooded into the chamber in 2019. Yet, despite tentative progress towards restoration during the last parliament, since the election it has become increasingly clear that political appetite for the project has evaporated – leaving all those on the parliamentary estate at risk and increasing the eventual costs of repair.

The fractious politics of the last few years have also taken their toll on politicians. The cost of MPs’ security assistance rising to almost 2000% above 2015/16 levels during the last parliament – reflecting unprecedented threats to their safety. As parliament adopts new technologies in response to the coronavirus crisis, digital security is also taking on a new urgency.

With the return to majority government and attention appropriately focused on the coronavirus crisis, it would be easy to forget the turbulence of the last parliament. But this would be a mistake. Many of the problems exposed go to the heart of how effectively the legislature operates and how well it scrutinises government – issues that are as relevant now as they were during the Brexit Parliament.