The House of Commons Modernisation Committee: Who Needs It?
| Date | 01 February 2007 |
| Author | Alexandra Kelso |
| Published date | 01 February 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-856x.2007.00241.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The House of Commons Modernisation
Committee: Who Needs It?
Alexandra Kelso
Modernisation has been rhetorically important for the Labour government since 1997, and it found
a dedicated outlet through the House of Commons Modernisation Committee. This committee has
pursued a particular type of modernisation, which this article seeks to explore. It does this by
focusing on three issues. First, it examines the role of the Leader of the House of Commons in the
chair of the Modernisation Committee. Second, it looks at the work of the Modernisation Committee
in comparison to that of the Procedure Committee. Finally, it contextualises the discussion of
modernisation with reference to the distinction between efficiency reforms and effectivenessreforms,
and explores what this reveals about the complexity of executive–legislative relations at Westmin-
ster, and about the course of the modernisation debate since 1997.
Introduction
New Labour came to power in 1997 committed to a modernising agenda informed
by its adherence to the so-called Third Way, and its promise of renewing social
democracy (Giddens 1998 and 2000; Clift 2001). The discourse of the Third Way
signified a ‘reconfiguration of relationships between economy and state, public and
private, government and people’, in which ‘modernisation was a label attached to
a wide-range of institutional reforms, including those of government, party and the
political process itself’ (Newman 2001, 40). Although there is much debate about
the extent of Labour’s ‘newness’ (Fielding 2003, 3–5), Labour’s commitment to
modernisation and renewal was clear. What is more doubtful is the success enjoyed
by the government in securing this modernisation. This is particularly relevant with
respect to the party’s pledges on constitutional change and modernisation. Labour
came to power with a broad set of proposals, most notably on devolution, freedom
of information, human rights legislation, and the reform of parliament. However,
since its election, the government has been criticised for not understanding how
these reforms related to each other and impacted upon the Westminster model
(Richards and Smith 2001, 164), which has resulted in the failure to reform the
constitution in the way that Labour originally promised (Flinders 2004, 126).
This article seeks to examine the strand of the Labour government’s modernisation
programme directed towards the House of Commons. The select committee on
Modernisation of the House of Commons was established within weeks of the
Labour Party coming to power in 1997. Its task was ‘to consider how the practices
and procedures of the House should be modernised’ (HC 190, 1997–98). Attempts
to enhance the procedural efficacy of the chamber have a long-standing pedigree,
and procedural adaptation has been most pronounced in response to government
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856x.2007.00241.x BJPIR: 2007 VOL 9, 138–157
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
complaints about the legislative obstacle course that is the House of Commons.
Procedural changes stretch back to the 19th century, culminating in the reforms
secured in 1902, which involved substantial alterations to Commons procedure in
order to increase the occasions on which government business took precedence
(Redlich 1908, vol. 1; Chester 1977; Borthwick 1979). Other notable moments of
procedural modernisation include 1906–07 and 1945–46, when procedure com-
mittees were appointed to bring forward proposals for ensuring the expeditious
dispatch of government business (Redlich 1908, vol. 2; Morrison 1964; Walkland
1979; Seaward and Silk 2004), and 1978–79, when the Procedure Committee
recommended the creation of departmental select committees.
However, the creation of the Modernisation Committee in 1997 marked a new
phase in the debate over House procedure, and there are three central issues that
this article will explore. First, the Modernisation Committee, although a select
committee, is chaired by the Leader of the House of Commons. This role for the
cabinet member who is also in charge of securing the government’s legislative
programme is a significant institutional innovation. Second, the Modernisation
Committee has engaged with many of the issues that have in the past been the
focus for the Procedure Committee, and the latter committee has, to a degree, been
sidelined in the debate over procedural matters. Both these issues raise questions
about who has been driving modernisation in the House of Commons and for what
purposes. This leads to the third point, that in order to understand fully the nature
of the Modernisation Committee and its work, it is necessary to make a distinction
between ‘modernisation’ of the House, which is largely concerned with creating an
efficient chamber, and ‘reform’ of the House, which is focused more upon creating
an effective chamber. The distinction between these two terms has profound
implications. The rhetoric and practice of modernisation since 1997 underlines
the complex role of the House of Commons in terms of its relationship with the
government. The modernisation project also illuminates the imbalance in
executive–legislative relations at Westminster, and the ease with which govern-
ment can use its position as the dominant actor at Westminster to secure changes
that primarily serve its own purposes. Simultaneously, the analysis also highlights
the complexity and subtlety of executive–legislative relations at Westminster,which
are not necessarily a zero-sum game. The pursuit of particular kinds of efficiency
reform may contribute to an increase in the effectiveness of the chamber, and vice
versa. The categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The two different
perspectives on reform are nevertheless useful indicators of how different actors
perceive the role and purpose of the House of Commons.
The Role of the Leader of the House
One of the most intriguing aspects of the Modernisation Committee has been the
role of the Leader of the House of Commons as its chair, the minister who is charged
with securing the government’s legislative agenda (see Table 1). Of particular inter-
est is the way in which different Leaders have adapted the institutional capabilities
of the office. Some have moulded their position inside the Modernisation Commit-
tee in order to secure procedural change that largely favours the executive, while
others have used the position to promote change that favours the legislature. The
HOUSE OF COMMONS MODERNISATION COMMITTEE 139
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Political Studies Association
BJPIR, 2007, 9(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial