The House of Commons Some Procedural Problems

Abstract

The increasing responsibilities of the Executive would seem to lead to the conclusion that its greater power has been achieved by a reduction in the power of the Legislature. The situation, therefore, could be represented as a simple sum in subtraction. This would be a false simplification, for Parliament works harder than it did before the war, and there has been no formal decree depriving it of its ancient rights. It is possible, alternatively, that the extension in the powers of the Executive has been matched by an extension in the powers of the Legislature; in other words, both branches of government have greater responsibilities. The basis for this belief is that, though governmental control has widened, Parliamentary control, already supposedly strong through the use of questions and open debate, has been tightened still further by new committees, such as those on Statutory Instruments and on Nationalised Industries. It has already been indicated that some procedures, such as Question-time and those involving control of the issue of Statutory Instruments and of Special Orders, can leave loopholes which should be closed.

Shortage of time and the specialisation of knowledge are obstacles to full Parliamentary control. An analysis of legislative procedure suggests that there is little chance of time-saving. This is reinforced by a study of the Select Committee on Procedure proposals of 1958. The inability to adapt procedure to modern conditions has reduced the influence of the House of Commons. Financial procedure is the most conspicuous example of this weakness. Value of a specialist Finance Committee.

theme: The existing machinery for Parliamentary control is imperfect. Bolder use of Parliamentary committees is a possible solution.