Reviews of the 2015 standing orders

27.9Since their introduction in October 2015, the standing order changes have been the subject of much review and analysis. The Speaker has described his intended approach to his new responsibilities, but stressed that the House was in ‘experimental territory’.1 The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons published a critical report of the standing orders in February 2016.2 In November 2016, the House of Lords Constitution Committee proposed a fuller review by a joint committee examining the constitutional implications of the changes.3 The Procedure Committee published a report of a technical evaluation in December 2016, recommending changes to Legislative Grand Committee procedure and steps towards simplification of the Standing Orders.4 The Government published its own review in March 2017, which concluded that the new procedures had ‘worked well’ and did not propose any substantive changes.5

Footnotes

  1. HC Deb (26 October 2015) 601, c 23.
  2. Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2015–16, The future of the union, part one: English votes for English laws, HC 523.
  3. House of Lords Constitution Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2016–17, English votes for English laws, HL 61. An academic analysis was published soon thereafter, with proposals for reducing complexity: Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny, Finding the good in EVEL: An evaluation of ‘English Votes for English Laws’ in the House of Commons (Centre on Constitutional Change, November 2016).
  4. House of Commons Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2016–17, English votes for English laws Standing Orders: report of the Committee's technical evaluation, HC 189.
  5. Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, Cm 9430, March 2017, foreword and para 49. Some changes to the standing orders were agreed on 7 March 2017 which are considered at para 27.26. For the Procedure Committee's response to the technical review, see House of Commons Procedure Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2017 Parliament, HC 1091, paras 27–28.