A Conga Line of Democracy

 
 
 

Good afternoon, 

This week we have seen the return of many MPs to Westminster and a trial of voting with social distancing. Brexit continues: with the 4th round of negotiations, a motion for scrutiny in parliament, and continued pressure for an extension to the transition period. As always we end with some recommended reading for you. 

With a lot going on at the moment, we hope you are staying safe and well. 

Kathryn 

IN POLITICS

Brexit Negotiations Update

  • The 4th round of negotiations focussed on fishing rights with no agreement in sight. 

  • A motion by the European Scrutiny Committee calls for greater involvement of parliament in the future relationship negotiations. 

  • Northern Ireland Assembly and Scotland call for an extension but it remains unlikely. 

This week the final round of planned negotiations with the EU is taking place, with fishing dominating the agenda. There are two principle issues to be agreed on: access to and the amount of fishing in waters shared between the EU and the UK; and the definition of and access to UK waters. Until agreement can be reached on this seemingly intractable issue, it seems unlikely that agreement can be reached on the other elements of the future relationship: the level playing field, environmental protections, trade, and security to name a few. With it seemingly unlikely that a deal on fishing will be made this week, and considering the uncertainty from Barnier’s own senior advisor, discussions are likely to continue at a political summit between Boris Johnson and Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president later this month (dates to be announced).    

Meanwhile in Westminster on 4 June a debate took place on the EU’s Mandate for Negotiating a New Partnership with the UK, in which the European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) put forward a motion urging the Government to:

  • Be transparent in negotiating with the EU including increased parliamentary scrutiny;

  • Provide updates as to the consultation on the future relationship

  • Address the issues set out in their report of 30 April as matters of national importance.

The motion was supported by the government, with Michael Gove leading the debate. Whilst it is not legally binding on the government’s future action, it is important in several respects. Firstly, the debate itself gave opposition parties and backbench MPs the opportunity to formally comment on the future relationship negotiations. Secondly, the passing of the motion was a mechanism to bring the comments of select committees directly to the attention of the government. The ESC report referenced in the motion was published after consultation with a broad range of select committees. It highlighted a number of substantive comments from the committees in relation to the negotiations, the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, and the need for engagement with the large variety of stakeholders whose interests will be affected by the outcome of negotiations. Finally, it is also worth noting that the power used by the ESC in bringing forward this motion, is aimed at promoting scrutiny of EU legislation which impacts the UK during the transition period, not necessarily scrutiny of the government’s own position. However it should be remembered that the desire for parliamentarians to have input does not denote what their political views are. The full text of the motion and the debate can be found here.    

Finally, there are continued calls for an extension to the transition period, following a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly and economic modelling released by Scottish Government showing that their economy is likely to lose over £1 billion without a delay. Recent analysis from the House of Commons library explains that with the Government at Westminster refusing to consider an extension, the need to pass primary legislation to do so, and the deadline of 30 June rapidly approaching, it seems unlikely these calls will be answered. An alternative to a full extension is a further implementation period of the new agreement, in which measures are adopted in stages. However the political likelihood of this being agreed to is low as the parliament of each member state would need to scrutinise and approve the agreement. We can expect to see future disagreement between the devolved governments, furthering the gap already established during the Brexit process and their responses to Covid-19. 

IN POLICY 

MPs Return to Westminster - What Next for Parliamentary Democracy?

  • Return of MPs to Westminster amongst uncertain participation and voting arrangements.

  • Voters in rural and Devolved nations, and those whose MPs are shielding or have caring responsibilities, risk losing full and equal representation.

  • Scrutiny likely to be reduced of the Brexit negotiations, response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and legislation such as the Domestic Abuse and Immigration and Social Security Coordination Bills. 

This week saw the end of the hybrid parliament and the return of the majority of MPs to Westminster. In order to maintain social distancing between MPs, only 50 can sit in the House of Commons chamber at any time and voting is done by Members queueing to enter the Chamber and give their vote individually to the Speaker. This led to the sight on Monday of a 1km queue of MPs snaking through Westminster to cast their votes, a process which took between 30 and 60 minutes per vote, rather than the usual 15 minutes without social distancing measures.

The return to Westminster has been met with significant criticism, with complaints that MPs living in the devolved nations, with caring responsibilities, or shielding due to their or their family’s age or health will be unable to participate. 

As a result we have seen a series of u-turns by the government, first putting forward measures to allow for some virtual participation for Members who have self-certified as shielding alongside pairing and then to allow a limited extension of proxy voting. However with new arrangements barely agreed on, the safety of returning to Westminster has been quickly questioned as the Business Secretary Alok Sharma fell ill whilst in the House of Commons. He is now self-isolating having been tested for Covid-19.

The new arrangements for participation and voting at Westminster matter significantly. Even in their latest iteration, these proposals are likely to exclude certain Members and therefore effectively remove the representation of their constituents. Virtual participation as currently proposed is limited to Questions and Statements, excluding debates on legislation. Further, it will only be allowed for those MPs who have self-certified that they are unable to attend at Westminster for medical or public health reasons, excluding those MPs unable to return due to distance or caring responsibilities. With only 50 MPs allowed in the Chamber at a time, it would appear that even those who can be physically present will be excluded from debate unless they are allowed to participate virtually from within the Estate.

Scrutiny will not only be impacted by the limitation on participants: the time required to vote will inevitably eat into the time usually made available for debate. The Procedure Committee has warned that this will disproportionately impact backbench MPs who will be under pressure not to pursue points of principle. Away from the Chamber, select committees will also have less time to carry out their work due to the additional voting time. 

Despite the focus on the pandemic, there is a lot of important work being done in Parliament at the moment. Both the Domestic Abuse Bill and the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, for example, are currently being scrutinised by specialist Bill Committees and are expected back in parliament for the report stage and third readings later this month. Brexit negotiations are ongoing and the Government is weaving a careful path to take the population through and out of lockdown. Whilst there is some suggestion that the Government’s hold on the House might be weakened by the new arrangements as there will be more opportunities for Conservative backbenchers to rebel, there will be an inevitable impact on the quality of policy made during this period.

RECOMMENDED READING