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 / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 16-20 March 2026

The Defence Secretary, John Healey, will face questions from MPs. The Grenfell Tower (Memorial Expenditure) Bill and the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill will be fast-tracked through all their Commons stages in a single day. MPs will debate online safety, an e-petition calling for automatic by-elections when MPs defect to another party, and the Conservative Party will choose the Opposition Day debate. The Justice Committee will hear from the Victims’ Commissioner on the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Public Accounts Committee will question officials about the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster, and experts will give evidence on the Representation of the People Bill. In the Lords, Peers will continue scrutiny of the Crime and Policing, Pensions Schemes, and Finance (No. 2) Bills. Lord Arbuthnot will ask about Fujitsu contributing to compensation in the Post Office Horizon case, and Peers will debate terrorism, abortion, AI, and assisted dying.

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Briefings / Last-minute powers and limited scrutiny: Parliament and the risks of consigning online safety law to delegated legislation

Two late-stage government amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill would grant Ministers significant powers to reshape key parts of the Online Safety Act through delegated legislation. While the policy goals may attract support, the method raises serious constitutional concerns about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Using these amendments as a case study, this briefing explores the risks of relying on regulations to make policy and explains how the Hansard Society’s proposed reforms to the delegated legislation scrutiny system could better balance governmental flexibility with democratic oversight.

News / Is the assisted dying bill being filibustered? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 135

Debate over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been so slow in the House of Lords that opponents of the Bill are accused of deliberately running down the clock. Conservative Peer Lord Harper rejects claims of filibustering, arguing that Peers are undertaking necessary scrutiny of a flawed and complex bill. He contends the legislation lacks adequate safeguards and was unsuited to the Private Member’s Bill process and discusses whether MPs might attempt to revive it in a future parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Blog / The Backbench Business Committee 15 years on: Has it given backbench MPs a stronger voice in the House of Commons?

Fifteen years after its creation, the Backbench Business Committee has become an important mechanism through which MPs can secure debates and raise issues in the House of Commons. Drawing on new research analysing debate transcripts and interviews with MPs, Ministers and officials, this blogpost analyses the Committee’s impact on parliamentary agenda-setting and cross-party campaigning. It highlights how the Committee has transformed opportunities for backbenchers while identifying ongoing challenges around participation, transparency and the Committee’s potential role in representing backbench interests more broadly.