The Modernisation Committee: revisiting past experience 

September’s authorities reshuffle means that there’s a new Chief of the Commons, and subsequently a change to the management of the Home’s Modernisation Committee. The brand new chair, Alan Campbell, may usefully research the committee’s 1997–2010 predecessor. On this put up, Tom Fleming and Hannah Kelly summarise the important thing findings from a brand new article reviewing that earlier committee’s report. 

One of many lower-profile penalties of Keir Starmer’s current reshuffle is that the Home of Commons Modernisation Committee has a brand new chair. This new committee was arrange after final 12 months’s common election to evaluation the Commons’ procedures, requirements and dealing practices, and is chaired by whoever holds the put up of Chief of the Commons. Starmer’s first Chief of the Home, Lucy Powell, was the reshuffle’s highest-profile sacking, and she or he has been changed by the previous Chief Whip Alan Campbell. 

As Campbell will get up to the mark with the Modernisation Committee’s work to this point, he may usefully mirror on the expertise of the sooner Modernisation Committee that was established below the 1997–2010 Labour authorities (however not retained by subsequent Conservative-led administrations). Our current Parliamentary Affairs article revisits that earlier committee’s report, probing three frequent claims from earlier literature. The article attracts on (and extends) proof initially offered in an earlier Structure Unit report, and straight compares the unique Modernisation Committee to the Home’s ordinary automobile for discussing procedural reforms: the backbench Process Committee. 

The article presents new proof that largely confirms – with some further insights – three fundamental arguments concerning the report of the 1997–2010 Modernisation Committee. The rest of this blogpost discusses every of these arguments in flip. 

The committee efficiently delivered procedural change 

Previous work has argued that the Modernisation Committee was a profitable automobile for delivering procedural adjustments, as its suggestions tended to be adopted by the Home. This led to numerous – and typically vital – adjustments, together with the creation of Westminster Corridor debates, carry-over of payments, and larger use of evidence-taking within the legislative course of. This report of success has been contrasted favourably with that of the Process Committee, which extra typically faces obstacles to having its proposals adopted. It’s uncommon for ministers to take a seat on choose committees, not to mention chair them. However as ministers largely management the Commons’ agenda, being chaired by the Chief of the Home gave the Modernisation Committee extra probability of parliamentary time being allotted to discussing its proposals. In the meantime, the backbench Process Committee’s concepts typically languish undebated. 

Our article gives contemporary proof of this sample. We recognized 350 suggestions from the Modernisation Committee (1997–2008) and Process Committee (1997–2022) that advocated particular procedural adjustments, and explored whether or not or not they had been adopted. The ensuing knowledge exhibits the Modernisation Committee having fun with considerably extra success, with 69.9% of its proposals being carried out in comparison with a a lot smaller (although removed from negligible) 52.1% of the Process Committee’s proposals. Furthermore, our proof additionally confirms that the Modernisation Committee benefitted from larger entry to the parliamentary agenda. Solely 22.6% of its proposals weren’t put to the Home for a debate and/or choice, in comparison with 41.2% of these from the Process Committee.  

This latter determine could seem shocking, on condition that the introduction of ‘backbench enterprise’ in 2010 decreased ministers’ management of the Commons’ agenda and created time when backbench proposals – together with procedural adjustments – is perhaps debated. However even since 2010, many Process Committee studies have nonetheless gone undebated and unadopted. We thus explored how far backbench enterprise has been used for discussing procedural reform, and located a notable change over time. Within the 2010–15 parliament, a number of procedural suggestions from choose committees had been debated – and adopted – throughout backbench enterprise. For instance, in 2012 MPs agreed adjustments to their sitting hours by way of a course of designed by the Process Committee. Nonetheless, the three subsequent parliaments noticed nearly no try to make use of backbench enterprise on this manner. For quite a lot of causes that the paper explores in additional depth, backbench MPs now not seem to view this as a sensible or applicable route for adopting procedural reforms. 

The earlier Modernisation Committee subsequently had a extra constant report of delivering procedural reforms than the Process Committee had then or since. This can be necessary context for understanding the federal government’s choice to nominate a brand new Modernisation Committee in 2024, given Lucy Powell’s rationalization of that call to the Committee on Requirements: 

Having been a Member for 12 years, I’ve seen on many events … superb suggestions and studies of Committees go nowhere quick. The Home of Commons has typically an inclination to work at glacial tempo. If the Authorities of the day don’t wish to take the suggestions ahead, they don’t proceed to the Flooring of the Home or past, so that is about making me as Chief of the Home extra accountable to the Home for suggestions that come from Committees like this, chivvying them alongside and ensuring that they do get taken ahead. 

Nonetheless, it must be famous that ministers may clear up that drawback one other manner: by merely allocating time for MPs to debate Process Committee suggestions, no matter whether or not these suggestions have authorities help. 

The committee didn’t prioritise making the Commons extra ‘efficient’ 

A second frequent declare concerning the Modernisation Committee – and one typically meant as a criticism – is that it paid too little consideration to questions of constructing the Commons extra ‘efficient’, i.e. enhancing MPs’ potential to scrutinise the federal government. This was typically linked to the Chief of the Home’s uncommon function as chair, on the idea that ministers will usually favour reforms that facilitate the swift passage of enterprise over those who open them to extra scrutiny and problem. 

Our proof partly confirms this image. We discovered that solely a minority of the Modernisation Committee’s suggestions for procedural reform – 45% – emphasised the aim of accelerating effectiveness. Some may view this determine as proof of the committee neglecting such points. However, it’s larger than the equal Process Committee determine of 29%. Furthermore, the share of Modernisation Committee suggestions addressing effectiveness elevated over time, from 28% in 1997–2001, to 49% in 2001–05 after which 60% in 2005–10. This variation partly mirrored variations within the priorities of successive Leaders of the Home throughout their time as chair. 

It might subsequently be a mistake to imagine {that a} government-chaired committee is an inherent impediment to procedural adjustments that intention to strengthen the Commons’ capability for efficient scrutiny. Likewise, there is no such thing as a assure {that a} wholly backbench committee will search such adjustments. 

The committee was controversial 

Lastly, previous analyses have typically urged that the unique Modernisation Committee grew to become a spotlight of controversy (particularly between the federal government and opposition) and that it did not construct broad help for its suggestions. This pertains to the previous argument, since a lot of the controversy arose from accusations that the committee pursued the pursuits of ministers over these of the Commons as an entire. 

We probed this argument by analysing how typically the Modernisation Committee and Process Committee held formal votes (‘divisions’) when agreeing their studies, and the way typically their studies sparked divisions within the wider chamber. Our proof strongly helps the present view of the committees’ respective information on this space. The Modernisation Committee held divisions on 28.6% of its studies, and 53.6% of them triggered divisions within the Home. The equal figures for the Process Committee are a lot decrease, with 11.2% dealing with every sort of division. 

Nonetheless, as we highlighted above, many studies from the Process Committee merely go undebated within the Home, that means there’s not even a chance for them to be voted on. Certainly, the shortage of debates is itself proof of controversy, because it displays an absence of presidency backing for the committee’s proposals. Given this, it’s nonetheless affordable to view the Modernisation Committee as extra internally divided than the Process Committee. However by way of wider help and disagreement, it is perhaps extra helpful to view the committees as sparking totally different sorts of battle. The Modernisation Committee’s entry to the agenda meant it may set off overt battle that confirmed up in rows and votes on the ground of the Home. In the meantime, the Process Committee has typically confronted a subtler and fewer seen opposition on the earlier agenda-setting stage of the method. 

This put up is a abstract of a way more detailed article in Parliamentary Affairs, which is freely out there to learn and obtain right here. The analysis was funded by the Financial and Social Analysis Council (ESRC), as a part of the Unit’s ongoing undertaking ‘The Politics of Parliamentary Process’. 

Concerning the authors 

Tom Fleming is an Affiliate Professor within the UCL Division of Political Science. He’s at present main the Structure Unit’s ESRC-funded undertaking ‘The Politics of Parliamentary Process’. 

Hannah Kelly is a Analysis Fellow on the Structure Unit, and was previously a Analysis Assistant on the ‘The Politics of Parliamentary Process’ undertaking. 

Featured picture: “Committee Hall” (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Home of Commons.