Parliamentary sovereignty is the great cry of Eurosceptics. Yet this anti-EU argument is actually rather weak, given that the British Parliament has rarely, if ever, exerted proper control over our Government. The biggest threat to British democracy is actually not the EU, but the supine nature of MPs.

Take the core historic role of Parliament – scrutiny of the budget. MPs have been so assiduous and powerful in carrying out this function, that the last time they rejected a Government request for cash was 1919.

Eighty-one years ago, the key spending decision involved a vote on the budget for the Royal Palaces. The spending item in dispute was the money for a second bathroom for the then Lord Chancellor. Presumably the then MPs were indignant at such extravagance. Just as today’s MPs, earlier in this Parliament, were outraged at the expensive wallpaper the current Lord Chancellor wanted. The difference was, however, that in the 1920s the MPs did something about it.

Unfortunately, today’s MPs don’t work hard enough for our money. Even diligent MPs are thwarted from examining the budget properly by outdated procedures and insufficient resources, that allow the Government of the day to ride roughshod over the Commons. A chasm has appeared between Parliament’s "formal" process of approving a budget, and the reality.

Formally, there is a detailed set of budget "Estimates" proposed by Ministers, which MPs can debate and vote on. Yet this so-called budget scrutiny is a total charade: MPs are only allowed to debate these Estimates, detailing billions of pounds, for just three days in the whole year. Moreover, MPs are restricted on amendments to these Estimates and the convention has grown up that an amendment to an Estimate is tantamount to a "vote of no confidence". As a result, debates on Estimates almost entirely ignore the expenditure figures and there are rarely any amendments, let alone votes.

The reality of budget scrutiny is that the Chancellor, Ministers and officials carve up the budget in secret and announce a fait accompli to the Commons. Select Committees sometimes look at the budget figures and make worthy reports. MPs may swap spending statistics across the Floor of the House in general debates on the economy and budget. Yet this process appears to achieve little beyond accentuating the "Ya, Boo" image of the Commons.

Is it any wonder that respect for MPs is rock bottom, when Parliament rarely debates and almost never votes on the billions of pounds spent by Ministers every year?

Worst still for the Eurosceptics and their proud boasts of British Parliamentary sovereignty, MPs in other countries stand up for their electors rather more effectively when it comes to the wallet.

A recent OECD survey of 27 legislatures reveals that in all of the key tests of a Parliament’s ability to challenge a Government’s budget, the British House of Commons fares badly. While UK MPs have, for example, severe restrictions on their ability to modify the budget, MPs in countries such as Denmark, Germany, Japan and the USA face no such obstacles. In only 6 out of the 27 countries surveyed was it found that the legislature generally approves the budget as presented by the Government with no changes. Britain was one.

If such historical and international comparisons show the House of Commons in such bad light, isn’t it time for reform?

Labour have of course set up the Select Committee of Modernisation of the House of Commons. This has met for many hours and deliberated long and hard. MPs have debated passionately about whether or not we should all be allowed home earlier. Or about whether the timing of votes should be re-arranged so as not to interfere with dinner. Already we have seen great Parliamentary traditions broken, such as whether or not the Speaker wears a wig. Now, if a MP wants to make a point of order during a vote, they no longer need put on a top hat.

Sir Reginald Palgrave, a Clerk of the House in the late nineteenth century, wrote,"The House conducts both its business and manners according to chance remarks, or casual rules, recorded in the Journals of about three centuries ago; which rules were, in their turn, founded upon custom and usage of immemorial antiquity." With the rate and profundity of change under Labour, it will take another few centuries before anything meaningful is accomplished.

It is not lack of ideas that is preventing the reform of Parliament. Select Committees in this Parliament have put forward radical ideas for reviving Parliament, and in particular in reinvigorating the role of MPs in budget scrutiny..

In a pamphlet published this week by the Centre for Reform, "Making MPs Work For Our Money", I have put forward my own ten recommendations for reform. Having served on Finance Bill Standing Committees and the Treasury Select Committee, I feel particularly concerned that Parliament’s role in budget scrutiny needs drastic reform.

A key proposal is the creation of "The Office for the Taxpayer" – OfTax. This would provide the backup analysis, which MPs sorely lack today.

OfTax would be modelled on the National Audit Office, in terms of its independence, authority and access to Government papers. Headed by a new officer of the House, the "Taxpayers’ Investigator General", it would advise all MPs and Committees as they considered government spending and taxation proposals and would have the capacity to model alternative proposals.

A second proposal is to give MPs new powers and duties to analyse and amend the Budget. For reform to work, MPs like everyone else must be sensibly motivated by carrots and sticks to do their job properly. The only incentives now – promotion up the greasy pole of party preferment – works against proper budget scrutiny.

MPs would be able to propose revenue neutral "switches" of expenditures within and between budgets. Borrowing an idea from New Zealand, MPs would also be able to propose budget increases, subject only to a "Financial Veto", where Ministers, in certain cases, could simply veto such a proposal, without a vote, on the grounds that it might undermine overall financial or macroeconomic stability. Select Committees would be required to report to the House on the budget plans of the Departments they shadow, using OfTax’s resources.

Such seemingly obscure sounding reforms I believe relate to some of today’s key political debates – Europe and political reform. This Government has started the process of constitutional change and at the same time it is seeking to promote a positive agenda in Europe. Radical reform of the House of Commons could bring these two themes together, giving back some substantive meaning to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

Return to main page

Home | How to contact me | Advice sessions | Parliament | Constituency | Liberal Democrats