The five legacies of the Brexit parliament

The coronavirus crisis has put the political turmoil of the “Brexit parliament” into sharp perspective. MPs have—until recently at least—largely set aside their differences and worked collegiately to respond to the pandemic. Yet only a few months ago, parliament was gridlocked over Brexit. Without the combination of majority government and strong party loyalty that usually smooth parliamentary business in Westminster, trust between government and parliament evaporated and the parliamentary rules were stretched to breaking point.

With the return of majority government and Brexit no longer top of the agenda, it would be easy to dismiss the last parliament as exceptional. This would be a mistake. Many of the problems it exposed have not yet been addressed, and have taken on a new urgency in light of the Covid-19 crisis.

Ensuring effective parliamentary remains a concern

The Brexit parliament laid bare long-standing concerns about the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. Both the May and Johnson governments acted as if they had a majority, often painting parliament as an obstacle to be overcome. Both administrations sought to evade interrogation: the May government failed to hold any opposition day debates for a five-month period at the height of the Brexit gridlock and the Johnson government risked stymying parliamentary debate by unlawfully proroguing parliament in the run up to the October 2019 Brexit deadline.

There are worrying signs that the current government continues to shirk parliamentary scrutiny. In January, the government insisted on pushing the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through parliament to the same timeframe MPs had rejected previously for providing insufficient time for debate. The government has now brought the hybrid virtual parliament, implemented in response to the pandemic, to a premature end. This is despite concerns that this could effectively disenfranchise some MPs and the clear benefits of recent constructive scrutiny of the coronavirus response. The government has also been criticised for parachuting in its preferred chair of the influential liaison committee. Holding the government to account clearly remains a challenge—and priority—for parliament.

Parliamentary procedures remain vulnerable

During the Brexit parliament, parliamentary rules became an unlikely staple of political headlines. As almost all of parliament’s formal decision-making mechanisms are binary, they were poorly equipped to promote consensus over Brexit—especially in the absence of a majority or firm party loyalty. Backbench MPs took advantage of their vulnerability, by reviving old procedures and seeking novel interpretation of standing orders.

These battles over opaque and widely-misunderstood parliamentary rules show the need to update and clarify procedures. Yet key issues such as 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 and whether MPs should have more opportunities to vote on multiple-choice questions remain unaddressed.

Aspects of the speaker’s role are still controversial

Many controversial episodes of the 2017–19 parliament hinged on decisions taken by the then speaker, John Bercow. These highlighted the powerful role the speaker plays, prompting Harriet Harman to describe the role as “one of the last unreformed areas of power in the UK constitution.” The new Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, has sought to distance himself from some of his predecessor’s actions—including by imposing stricter time limits on Prime Minister’s Questions. Hoyle looks set to maintain other aspects of Bercow’s legacy, such as efforts to empower backbenchers and modernise working practices—a matter now given greater urgency by the coronavirus pandemic. But when it comes to testing the limits of procedure, it remains unclear which of the precedents set during the Brexit parliament will be sustained.

The role expected of MPs is not always clear

Throughout the Brexit parliament, MPs continued to represent their constituents on local issues—asking parliamentary questions, holding backbench and adjournment debates, and lobbying ministers. But divisions over Brexit raised questions about the role of MPs and whether they should be acting as representatives or delegates for their constituents. For some, efforts to improve scrutiny or avoid a no-deal Brexit were seen as an attempt to undermine the 2016 referendum. For others, such steps were about doing what was in the best interests of their constituents and respecting the close nature of the result.

While debate about whether the UK should leave the EU is now over, what role MPs should play and how they can best represent their constituents remain live questions. The inability to hold normal constituency surgeries or take part in parliamentary business as usual during the outbreak has made it harder for MPs to engage with their constituents and raise issues of concern on their behalf. MPs have also had to tread a fine line between facilitating and scrutinising the government’s response to the pandemic—with different figures expressing different views on how to strike the appropriate balance. Now that the hybrid virtual proceedings have come to an end, some MPs in remote constituencies, or whose age or health means they are at a higher risk from the virus, may find it difficult to contribute in person—risking unequal representation in Westminster and potentially raising questions about the democratic legitimacy of parliament’s decisions.

Parliament needs to get its House in order

The last parliament also laid bare concerns about the Palace of Westminster as a workplace. Three damning independent inquiries demonstrated the scale of bullying and harassment in parliament—with some recommendations still to be implemented in full.

The toxic politics took their toll on MPs too, with the cost of providing MPs’ security assistance increasing 2,000 per cent from pre-2015 levels by 2018/19.

The perilous state of the parliamentary estate also remains a concern, forcing MPs to abandon proceedings in the Commons last year as water flooded into the chamber. Despite some limited progress towards much-needed restoration work in the last parliament, it is clear that political appetite for large-scale renovation is waning—increasing the risks to all those on the parliamentary estate and likely increasing the eventual costs of repair.

While the events of the Brexit parliament may appear a distant memory, they are likely to cast a long shadow. Many problems exposed in the last parliament—from the weakness of scrutiny to the need to improve parliament as a workplace—are as relevant now as they were under a minority government. Leaving the battered rulebook unreformed only invites trouble in future. Many in Westminster may wish to forget the events of the last parliament, but they should heed its warnings.

Joe Marshall is a senior researcher at the Institute for Government and co-author of Parliamentary Monitor 2020