House of Commons Reform

Restoring the House of Commons — Version 5

Program origin

I did not begin with a desire to write a constitution for its own sake. It began with a practical constitutional observation: the House of Commons has become too much the machine by which government supervises the citizen, and too little the means by which the citizen supervises government. The purpose of this programme is to restore Parliament's primary constitutional work: scrutiny of executive power, control of public money, presentation of grievances, supervision of public bodies, and maintenance of the law. The Constitution has been produced to try to secure that restoration.

The modern constitutional problem has not come by deliberate tyranny, but by accumulation.

Statute has been used to increase power while liberty has been left to ancient custom.

Drafting note: headline numerical comparisons in this paper should be verified and footnoted before wider publication.

1. Introduction: From Supervising the Citizen to Supervising Government

The House of Commons was not originally conceived as a machine for governing the citizen. Its older constitutional purpose was to represent the people, control supply, present grievances, restrain arbitrary power, and hold the King’s ministers to account. It existed not to make government omnipresent, but to prevent government becoming overmighty.

That older understanding rested partly upon law, partly upon custom, and partly upon a constitutional temper that is now much weakened. For a long time the British constitution depended upon a form of public self-restraint. Ministers, judges, civil servants, Members of Parliament, and public officers were expected to understand that not every power which could technically be exercised ought to be exercised. Parliament was legally sovereign, but it was not expected to behave as though every inherited liberty, institution, practice, and restraint were merely raw material for political experiment.

That was the old gentlemen’s agreement of the constitution. It was never perfect. It excluded too many people, concealed too many abuses, and often relied too heavily upon class, habit, and deference. But it did contain one important assumption: public power should be restrained by inherited law, constitutional convention, personal honour, parliamentary accountability, and fear of public disgrace.

That assumption has largely broken down.

During the twentieth century, and especially in the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Parliament has been transformed. The growth of the administrative state, the expansion of delegated legislation, membership of the EEC and later the European Union, the rise of regulatory government, judicial and constitutional innovation, and the centralist ambitions of modern party government all changed the practical character of the House of Commons. Under Tony Blair in particular, Britain saw a deliberate programme of constitutional alteration: devolution, the Human Rights Act, reform of the House of Lords, changes to the office of Lord Chancellor, new public bodies, new legal frameworks, and a more managerial view of government itself.

Some of those reforms were presented as modernisation. Some were intended to disperse power. Some may have been supported by honourable motives. But taken together with the wider growth of statute, regulation, treaty obligation, judicial review, public administration, and permanent bureaucracy, they contributed to a profound constitutional change. The old restraints weakened, while the machinery of government grew stronger.

The result is that the House of Commons now too often serves as the instrument by which government extends its reach. It passes laws, authorises spending, creates bodies, grants powers, imposes duties, approves regulations, and responds to each failure or scandal with yet another scheme, offence, target, regulator, strategy, commissioner, or code. The citizen is supervised in ever greater detail, while the machinery doing the supervising is itself too rarely brought under serious, sustained, practical control.

These papers begin from the opposite proposition.

The modern constitutional problem has not usually come by tyranny, but by accumulation.

The Commons has become the machine by which government supervises the citizen. It should become once again the means by which the citizen supervises government.

This does not require a presidential system, proportional coalition politics, or the abolition of the Crown. It requires a restoration of parliamentary government in its older and better sense: ministers answerable to the Commons, the Commons answerable to the people, public money controlled by representatives, public power subject to scrutiny, and the citizen protected from arbitrary administration.

The task is not merely to rearrange institutions. It is to change what Parliament does every day.

A restored House of Commons would spend less time producing new laws and more time examining whether existing powers are lawful, necessary, proportionate, affordable, comprehensible, and just. It would treat legislation as a serious constitutional act, not as the normal measure of political energy. It would control expenditure rather than merely announce it. It would require every public body exercising public power to be answerable through a named minister. It would make committees the working engine of scrutiny. It would insist that where the state has power over the citizen, the citizen must have real redress against the state.

The purpose of this Commons Reform paper is therefore simple: to set out how the House of Commons can be restored from a legislative factory into the nation’s board of accountability.

Less bossing the people about. More minding the shop.

2. The Constitutional Purpose of the House of Commons

The House of Commons did not become important because it was a general committee for improving society. It became important because the executive could not govern indefinitely without money, and the raising of money required consent.

That is the root of the Commons’ constitutional power. Before Parliament became a modern legislature, before party manifestos, select committees, television debates, regulatory agencies, and professional politics, there was the central question of supply. Could the ruler tax the realm without consent, or must he come before the representatives of the people and answer for his conduct?

From Magna Carta onwards, the English constitution developed around the principle that taxation could not simply be treated as the ruler’s private resource. Magna Carta spoke of the common council of the realm, not the later House of Commons, but the constitutional seed was there. Extraordinary taxation required consent. The King’s revenue was therefore not merely a financial matter. It was the practical limit upon executive power.

A ruler who can raise money at will can maintain armies, reward favourites, multiply offices, pursue wars, and govern without restraint. A ruler who must ask for supply must face questions, complaints, conditions, and scrutiny. Control of taxation was therefore control of government.

That was the fundamental power which Parliament developed. The Commons became the guardian of supply because it represented those who paid. It could grant money, refuse money, delay money, attach grievances to money, and require ministers to justify the uses to which public funds were put. The great constitutional struggles of the seventeenth century were not remote technical disputes. They concerned the central issue of whether the executive could finance itself without Parliament.

Ship money made that issue plain. If the King could raise revenue by prerogative, outside the ordinary consent of Parliament, he possessed an independent stream of power. He could govern without coming to the representatives of the realm. The dispute was therefore not only about a tax. It was about whether the executive could escape the discipline of parliamentary supply.

The Civil War, the Restoration struggles, and the Revolution Settlement under William and Mary all formed part of the same constitutional movement. The Crown was not abolished. Britain did not become a republic. Instead, constitutional monarchy took shape: the Crown remained, but arbitrary government was restrained; ministers could govern, but taxation and standing armies required parliamentary authority; and the liberties of the subject were declared against executive abuse.

This history matters because it shows what the House of Commons was for. Its first purpose was not to provide a convenient majority for the government of the day. Its first purpose was to make government answerable.

The Commons therefore has four older constitutional duties.

First, it controls supply. Government should not be able to tax, borrow, or spend without parliamentary authority. This is not a formality. It is the Commons’ chief weapon against executive overreach.

Second, it presents grievances. The people’s representatives should bring before government the injuries, injustices, abuses, burdens, and failures suffered by the citizen. Historically, grievance and supply belonged together: before money was granted, wrongs could be raised.

Third, it scrutinises administration. Ministers, departments, officers, agencies, regulators, contractors, and public bodies should be examined by Parliament because they exercise power in the name of the Crown and over the people.

Fourth, it legislates where necessary. Law-making is a grave constitutional act, not a measure of political activity. The Commons should make law to preserve order, secure liberty, restrain wrongdoing, authorise necessary public action, and remedy real defects. It should not treat every social, economic, moral, or administrative problem as an invitation to expand the statute book.

The modern constitution has inverted much of this. The government now normally controls the Commons timetable. It initiates almost all taxation and expenditure. It commands the majority. It drafts the legislation. It creates the public bodies. It grants the powers. It proposes the regulations. It then relies upon party discipline to carry them through.

The result is that the Commons too often acts less as the restraint upon executive power and more as the channel through which executive power flows.

This paper’s purpose is to correct that inversion. The Commons must again become the place where government is made answerable before it is made more powerful. Its daily work should be scrutiny before expansion, supply before spending, grievance before legislation, and accountability before authority.

The constitutional purpose of the House of Commons is therefore simple:

to ensure that government cannot take the people’s money, restrict the people’s liberty, or exercise power over the people without being made answerable to the people’s representatives.

3. How Parliament Became a Machine for Government Expansion

The House of Commons acquired its authority in order to restrain government. Yet the modern House of Commons too often operates as the means by which government expands. This is one of the central inversions of the British constitution.

The old question was whether the King could govern without Parliament. The modern question is whether the executive can govern through Parliament without being meaningfully restrained by Parliament.

This change did not happen all at once. The Crown was restrained in 1689, but not extinguished. For a long time afterwards the monarch remained an active constitutional force. Even in the reign of Queen Victoria, the Crown could still exercise real influence over ministers, appointments, diplomacy, military affairs, and the general direction of government. The older constitution therefore depended upon a visible distinction between Crown and Parliament. The Crown embodied the executive; Parliament granted supply, presented grievances, made law, and restrained arbitrary power.

As the monarchy became increasingly ceremonial, the practical executive did not disappear. It migrated into Cabinet government and then increasingly into the office of Prime Minister. In the Hanoverian period, the Prime Minister was often the King’s principal parliamentary manager: the minister able to secure supply, manage the Commons, distribute patronage, hold together factions, and make royal government possible through Parliament. Over time that relationship was reversed. The Prime Minister ceased to be chiefly the Crown’s instrument for managing Parliament and became the head of the effective executive, commanding Parliament through party majority and discipline.

The nineteenth century brought the next great stage of parliamentary reform. The franchise was widened. Representation was altered. Rotten boroughs were swept away. The secret ballot weakened intimidation and patronage. Parliament became, in important respects, more representative of the nation it claimed to speak for.

But representation and restraint are not the same thing. A wider franchise gave more citizens a voice in choosing Parliament, but it did not by itself prevent government becoming more administrative, more statutory, and more executive in operation. During the same broad period the state became more active, more technical, and more dependent upon rules made under powers granted by Parliament. The Rules Publication Act 1893 marked the regularisation of Statutory Rules and Orders. The significance is constitutional rather than technical: Parliament was increasingly authorising ministers and departments to make the detailed rules by which the citizen was governed.

The great watershed, however, was the Second World War. Under Churchill, Britain rightly mobilised the whole nation for survival. In such circumstances, extraordinary state powers were not merely convenient but necessary. The wartime government directed labour, controlled production, rationed food and fuel, regulated prices, issued permits, planned industry, managed imports, and organised national life on a scale previously unknown.

The wartime state was born from necessity. The post-war state turned necessity into method. The war was followed by a Socialist government for which many of the instruments of wartime direction were exactly suited to its political purpose. Controls over production, prices, housing, materials, imports, fuel, labour, building, consumption, and public administration did not appear merely as alien wartime remnants. They became the machinery through which reconstruction, nationalisation, welfare policy, planning, and economic management could be pursued.

However, the purpose of this section is not to give a blow-by-blow account of parliamentary procedure. We are not concerned here with the fine distinctions between one class of instrument, order, rule, regulation, code, circular, licence, or administrative direction and another. Those distinctions matter to specialists, but they are not the central constitutional point.

The central point is simpler. The main constituents of the modern administrative state emerged from the post-war settlement. The wartime state had demonstrated that government could direct national life in extraordinary detail. The post-war state retained much of that machinery and adapted it to peacetime purposes: planning, welfare, nationalisation, housing, health, education, economic management, regulation, subsidy, licensing, public bodies, and departmental rule-making.

The House of Commons did not cease to exist. Nor did Britain cease to be a parliamentary democracy. But Parliament increasingly became the means by which the administrative state was authorised, funded, extended, and normalised. It approved the powers, voted the money, created the bodies, enacted the schemes, and supplied democratic legitimacy to an executive and administrative machine that became ever harder for Parliament itself to supervise.

This changed the meaning of legislation. Law-making was once a serious constitutional act: the means by which enduring rules were declared, public powers authorised, wrongs remedied, and liberties protected. Modern government increasingly treats law-making as ordinary political activity. A minister announces a Bill to show action. A department proposes new powers to solve an administrative problem. A scandal produces a new regulator. A failure produces a new duty. A campaign produces a new offence. A crisis produces emergency powers which later become normal. Public anxiety is answered with statute.

In this way, Parliament becomes a law factory. The difficulty is not merely that too many laws are passed. It is that Parliament’s attention is drawn towards the creation of new powers and away from the examination of powers already granted. A Commons chamber occupied with new legislation has less time to ask whether existing legislation works. A Parliament absorbed by ministerial announcements has less time to examine departmental failure. A House consumed by new offences, duties, targets, and schemes has less time to hear grievances from citizens damaged by public administration.

The citizen experiences the result as law. The business owner, farmer, motorist, landlord, parent, parish council, charity, school, doctor, pensioner, or taxpayer is not much comforted by the distinction between an Act, a regulation, a code, a licence condition, or official guidance backed by enforcement. What matters to the citizen is that public power has arrived with instructions, penalties, costs, inspections, duties, and demands.

This is how the Commons becomes the machine by which government supervises the citizen: not usually by tyranny, but by accumulation. Each measure may be defended as reasonable. Each rule may have a policy justification. Each regulator may have a purpose. Each department may claim necessity. Each power may be said to apply only in defined circumstances. But the combined effect is a state that watches, directs, licences, taxes, records, inspects, manages, and disciplines ever more of ordinary life.

At the same time, accountability becomes more diffuse. When something goes wrong, responsibility is passed between ministers, departments, agencies, regulators, contractors, ombudsmen, local authorities, and independent bodies. The citizen is told to complain internally, then to an adjudicator, then to an ombudsman, then perhaps to a tribunal, and finally, if he can afford it, to the courts. The machinery of power is extensive; the machinery of redress is often narrow, slow, ineffective and, ultimately expensive.

This is the opposite of the constitutional promise of the House of Commons. The Commons was not meant to be merely the doorway through which new public powers enter the life of the citizen. It was meant to be the place where those powers are questioned, limited, justified, funded only with consent, and answered for when misused.

We can therefore identify the growth of legislative and administrative government as a constitutional problem, not merely an administrative inconvenience. The issue is not whether modern society requires laws. Of course it does. The issue is whether Parliament has lost the habit of asking a prior question: should government be doing this at all?

The executive once sought to escape Parliament. The modern executive governs through Parliament. The task is to make Parliament a restraint upon government again.

4. The Encroachment of Statute Law and the European Layer

The post-war settlement did not merely create new policies; it created the machinery of modern administrative government. The next stage was the steady encroachment of statute law into areas of life that had once been governed largely by common law, custom, private ordering, local discretion, professional judgment, and ordinary liberty.

I am not opposed to statute law as such, but Statute-law systems and common-law systems are different constitutional methods, each with strengths and weaknesses. A statute-law system can work where it has the structures proper to it: a clear written constitution, defined competences, separation of powers, entrenched rights, limits on executive authority, judicial review within a settled constitutional order, and democratic control over the making of law.

The problem is not statute law. The problem is constitutional muddle.

In the UK Statute law has been used for power while liberty was left to ancient custom.

Britain inherited a common-law constitution in which liberty was presumed, power required authority, precedent mattered, Parliament controlled supply, ministers were answerable, and government was restrained by custom, law, and convention. Onto that settlement were added statutory schemes, administrative rule-making, European legal supremacy, regulatory bodies, rights instruments, devolution arrangements, and managerial government. The result was not a clean statute-law constitution, nor a restored common-law constitution, but an unstable mixture of the two.

Common law and statute law can coexist in particular fields, but as constitutional systems they rest upon different assumptions. A common-law constitution begins with liberty and limits power unless law clearly authorises it. A statute-law constitution begins with a written allocation of powers and protects liberty by defined constitutional rules. What does not work is to import the machinery of statute-law government while retaining the loose conventions of an older common-law constitution.

The difference can be seen in ordinary life. Under a common-law instinct, the citizen may generally do what is not prohibited. The burden lies on authority to show why liberty must be restrained. Under an overgrown administrative system, the practical assumption is often reversed: the citizen, business, consumer, farmer, or professional waits for a rule, licence, scheme, permission, category, guidance note, or official approval before acting.

This is why statute-law systems require enumerated rights. If government is organised through written powers, statutory codes, administrative schemes, and public-law competences, then the citizen’s liberties must also be written, protected, and placed beyond ordinary administrative convenience. Without that structure, statute-law government becomes dangerously one-sided. Public power is written down, multiplied, organised, staffed, funded, and enforced; but liberty remains dependent upon convention, interpretation, discretion, or political goodwill. That is the worst of both worlds: statute for power, custom for liberty.

EEC membership mattered because it introduced a further and more profound layer. On 1 January 1973 the United Kingdom entered the European Economic Community under the European Communities Act 1972. The public presentation was largely economic: access to markets, trade, prosperity, and Britain’s place in Europe. But constitutionally the change was far greater. The United Kingdom was not merely joining a trading bloc. It was entering a different legal system, a Statute Law system.

From that point, in areas covered by Community law, the highest practical authority was no longer the House of Lords acting within the ordinary common-law constitution, but the European Court of Justice interpreting the Treaties and the law made under them. Domestic courts were required to give effect to directly effective Community law, and later cases confirmed that domestic legislation could be disapplied where it conflicted with European law.

This did not abolish the common law, nor did it mean that every question of domestic law went to Luxembourg. But it did introduce a superior legal order within its field: treaty-based, statute-mediated, purposive in method, and ultimately interpreted by a court outside the United Kingdom’s own constitutional structure. The common law remained, but it was no longer supreme wherever European law applied.

The significance was not fully explained to the electorate. Many voters were told, in effect, that Britain was joining a common market. Far less attention was given to the constitutional fact that, wherever Community law applied, British law would operate under an external legal authority. The full practical effect emerged gradually, but the constitutional threshold was crossed at entry.

This is not an anti-European argument. A federal statute-law union, if honestly proposed and democratically accepted, would require a proper federal constitution: a clear division of powers, a modern bill of rights, defined limits on central authority, genuine democratic control over the executive, and a legislature with real power over law, money, and administration. The difficulty with the European Union was that federal-style powers developed without a clear federal settlement and without sufficient candour about the intended destination.

EEC and later EU membership therefore prepared the ground for the next stage of constitutional change. It accustomed Britain to a statute-law and administrative model in which detailed rules, external obligations, judicial interpretation, regulatory schemes, and rights-based legal concepts increasingly displaced older common-law assumptions.

By the time Tony Blair came to office, much of the older constitutional instinct had already been weakened. The idea that Britain possessed a distinctive common-law settlement, resting upon parliamentary accountability, ministerial responsibility, inherited liberties, and restraint by convention, had lost much of its practical force. Government was increasingly understood as a process of managed reform through statute, public bodies, legal frameworks, regulators, rights instruments, and administrative design.

It would be unfair to say that Blair arrived in a perfectly functioning constitutional order and simply damaged it. By the late twentieth century, many people understood that constitutional reform was needed. The old settlement no longer worked as well as its defenders liked to pretend. It depended too heavily on convention, restraint, inherited habits, ministerial honour, parliamentary culture, and the assumption that those in office would observe limits because those limits were understood. As those assumptions weakened, the constitution became vulnerable.

The Blair government responded to real defects. Excessive centralisation, secrecy, weak regional representation, an unreformed House of Lords, limited access to official information, and inadequate protection for certain rights were not imaginary problems. There was a genuine public appetite for modernisation, openness, and accountability.

The difficulty was that the reforms were not made within a coherent constitutional design. They were introduced as individual improvements, each with its own justification, but without a settled account of the constitution as a whole. Devolution altered the unitary state. The Human Rights Act altered the relationship between courts, Parliament, ministers, and citizens. Reform of the House of Lords altered the revising chamber without settling its final purpose. Changes to the office of Lord Chancellor affected the old fusion of legal, judicial, and political authority. New public bodies, regulators, duties, standards, and rights-based frameworks further dispersed power.

Some of these reforms had merit. Some answered genuine weaknesses. But taken together, they moved Britain further away from its inherited common-law settlement without replacing it with a properly designed statute-law constitution. The result was neither one thing nor the other: more written rights, but not a full bill of rights entrenched in a clear constitution; more judicial power, but not a fully separated constitutional court; more devolved power, but not a settled federal structure; more public bodies, but not stronger ministerial accountability; more legal process, but not always more practical redress for the citizen.

This is why the Blair reforms matter in this argument. They were not simply wrong because they changed the constitution. The constitution did need repair. The mistake was trying to repair a common-law constitution with fragments of a statute-law constitution, without adopting the safeguards of either.

For the United Kingdom, I think that the more natural path is not to construct an entirely new statute-law state from first principles, but to recover and modernise the common-law settlement: government under law, Parliament as restraint, ministers answerable for public power, liberty as the ordinary condition of the citizen, and statute used sparingly to authorise what is necessary rather than continuously to redesign society.

Article 1 connection

Article 1 of my Common Law Constitution is the constitutional answer to this diagnosis. “The state must prove its authority. Citizens need not prove their freedom.”

5. Legislative Restraint and Executive Supervision

A larger executive needs more supervision, not more legislation.

The post-war settlement did not merely create new policies. It created the machinery of modern administrative government.

The wartime state had shown that government could direct national life in extraordinary detail. In war, that was necessary. Labour, production, food, fuel, prices, imports, housing, transport, and industry all became matters of national direction. The citizen accepted a degree of state control which would have been unthinkable in normal times, because national survival required it.

But the machinery did not disappear when the emergency ended. After 1945, the same habit of administrative direction was adapted to peace: reconstruction, welfare, nationalisation, planning, housing, health, subsidy, licensing, public boards, economic management, and departmental rule-making. The state did not simply become larger. It became more administrative.

The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 belongs to that story. It replaced the older system of Statutory Rules and Orders with the modern machinery of Statutory Instruments. That technical change should not be overstated, but neither should it be ignored. It formed part of a wider constitutional movement in which government increasingly acted not only through Acts of Parliament, but through rules, orders, regulations, schemes, codes, licences, directions, and delegated powers made under Acts.

Parliament still passed the parent legislation. Parliament still authorised the powers. But more and more of the practical detail by which the citizen was governed came afterwards, through executive rule-making. The citizen experienced those rules as law, but Parliament had often examined only the outline.

The figures show the change.

Evidence box: Acts became larger while executive rule-making expanded

Source note: pages and Acts from House of Commons Library briefing RP09-69, Parliamentary Trends, Table 2, as compiled in the working spreadsheet; Statutory Instrument figures added in the working spreadsheet. Figures are used here as an illustrative trend rather than a complete annual series.

The constitutional point is plain. Parliament did not stop legislating. Nor did the number of Acts simply explode. Instead, Acts became longer, denser, more technical, and more enabling, while the executive produced thousands of instruments beneath them.

In 1950, Parliament passed 50 public general Acts, occupying 720 pages. In 2006, Parliament passed 55 Acts, almost the same number. But those Acts occupied 4,609 pages. The average Act had grown from 14.4 pages to 83.8 pages. Over the same period, Statutory Instruments rose from 2,144 to 3,509.

This is the real story of legislative government. Parliament carries on passing Acts much as it has done for generations. Meanwhile, the executive governs through Statutory Instruments, agencies, regulators, codes, schemes, licences, guidance, conditions, and enforcement systems. The Commons has not switched its focus from creating the administrative machine to supervising it. It continues to feed the machine with powers, duties, money, and bodies, but has not developed a matching system for managing, auditing, restraining, and correcting what it has created.

At the same time, the executive state has spread beyond the traditional department. Modern government now acts through departments, executive agencies, non-ministerial departments, regulators, non-departmental public bodies, commissioners, ombudsmen, inspectorates, funding bodies, public corporations, statutory authorities, contractors, and arm’s-length bodies. Some deliver services. Some distribute money. Some regulate. Some inspect. Some enforce. Some advise. Some adjudicate complaints. Some issue guidance which is not formally law but is treated in practice as compulsory.

The growth of executive government is therefore not adequately measured by Civil Service headcount alone. Civil Service numbers may rise and fall, but the more important constitutional change is the dispersal of public power. The citizen may now be governed, licensed, investigated, inspected, funded, sanctioned, assessed, regulated, or refused by bodies which are not ordinary government departments, yet which exercise public power under authority granted by Parliament.

Many of the most important bodies through which the citizen now encounters the state did not exist in anything like their present form fifty years ago. NHS England, Ofwat, Ofgem, Ofcom, the Environment Agency, Natural England, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Information Commissioner, the Electoral Commission, Homes England, UK Research and Innovation, the Rural Payments Agency, and many others are products of the later administrative state. Some replaced predecessor functions, but the modern pattern is unmistakable: public power has spread outward from departments into a vast arm’s-length executive machine.

This creates a serious constitutional problem. The House of Commons has authorised that machine, funded it, empowered it, and extended it, but has not developed a matching machinery of supervision.

Modern Parliament still spends too much of its time making more law. Ministers bring forward Bills. Departments ask for wider powers. Regulators ask for larger remits. Scandals produce new offences. Administrative failures produce new duties. Public anxiety produces new schemes. Each measure may be defended as useful, limited, or necessary. But the cumulative effect is continuous expansion.

The answer to every failure of government should not be another Act, another duty, another offence, another regulator, another target, another strategy, or another statutory body. Often the proper answer is scrutiny. Who was responsible? What power was used? What money was spent? What harm was done? What warning signs were missed? What remedy was available to the citizen? Which minister answered for it? Which committee examined it? Why did Parliament not know sooner?

A larger executive needs more supervision, not more legislation.

This paper does not propose weak government. Nor does it propose that Parliament should never legislate. A free country requires law. Statute is necessary to authorise public expenditure, define public offices, restrain wrongdoing, protect the vulnerable, maintain order, collect taxation, regulate genuinely dangerous activity, and provide remedies where the common law is insufficient.

But statute should not be treated as the normal language of government ambition. Legislation is a grave constitutional act. Every Act changes the relationship between citizen and state. Every new public power must be justified. Every new burden on the citizen, business, farmer, charity, school, doctor, parent, landlord, employer, or parish council must be necessary, proportionate, intelligible, affordable, enforceable, and subject to redress.

The Commons should therefore recover the habit of legislative restraint.

The first question for any proposed law should be: why is this law needed at all?

That question should be asked and ensure that the reason isn’t just departmental convenience, campaign pressure, media demand, party loyalty, or ministerial desire to appear active. Parliament should not only ask whether the purpose of a Bill is attractive, It should ask whether existing law is already sufficient. It should ask whether the proposed powers are properly focused, whether the drafting is clear, whether enforcement will be fair, whether citizens can afford to comply, and whether remedies exist when the state gets it wrong.

The aim is not narrower powers, but refocused powers. Executive Government should have the powers it genuinely needs, directed to proper public purposes, bounded by law, supervised by Parliament, answerable through ministers, and matched by real redress. Powers should not sprawl into general administrative convenience. They should be clear enough for Parliament to understand, citizens to obey, courts to interpret, and ministers to defend.

The Commons should be especially wary of framework legislation. Modern Bills often set out broad intentions while leaving the practical detail to ministers, departments, regulators, or Statutory Instruments. This allows governments to obtain parliamentary approval for a policy while postponing the real rules until later. Broad delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, skeleton Bills, and vague duties to “have regard to” ministerial priorities should be treated as constitutional danger signs.

Where Parliament grants power, it should know what power it is granting, who will exercise it, against whom, under what safeguards, and with what remedies.

Every Bill should therefore be accompanied by a serious constitutional statement. This should not be a token ministerial certificate. It should answer plain questions. What problem does the Bill address? Why is existing law insufficient? What new powers are created? What public bodies are empowered? What burdens are imposed? What delegated powers are granted? What costs fall on the citizen? What rights of appeal or redress exist? What provisions expire unless renewed? Which parliamentary committee will review the Act after implementation?

There should also be a presumption against permanent law for temporary problems. Emergency powers should expire unless expressly renewed. Experimental schemes should be time-limited. Major regulatory powers should be reviewed. New criminal offences should be justified against existing offences. Public bodies created by statute should be subject to periodic parliamentary examination. Where a law has failed, Parliament should repeal or amend it rather than simply adding another layer.

Legislative time should be more limited. A government should not be judged by the number of Bills it passes. A Parliament drowning in legislation has less time to scrutinise administration, examine expenditure, hear grievances, audit public bodies, and hold ministers to account. Fewer legislative days should therefore be matched by more scrutiny days. Fewer new schemes should be matched by more examination of existing schemes. Fewer broad powers should be matched by clearer accountability.

This would change the daily culture of Parliament. Ministers would know that new powers require serious justification. Departments would know that broad regulation-making powers will be resisted. Regulators would know that Parliament will not automatically enlarge their remit. Public bodies would know that their performance will be examined. Citizens would know that the Commons sees liberty as the starting point, not the residue left after regulation.

This paper's aim is not a do-nothing Parliament. It is a Parliament that understands the difference between necessary law and political law-making.

The House of Commons should make fewer laws, examine them more carefully, delegate less casually, review them more rigorously, and supervise the executive more continuously. It should treat statute as a tool of constitutional necessity, not as the ordinary expression of government activity.

The test should be simple:

6. The Proper Constitutional Role of Government

A constitutional test for public power

Before Parliament grants power, money, or authority to the executive, it should ask a prior question: is this properly a function of government?

This question is not the same as asking whether a policy is popular, compassionate, efficient, modern, or well intentioned. Nor is it the same as asking whether the public would like government to do more. The constitutional question is prior to the policy question. It asks whether the use of public power is necessary, whether it belongs properly to government, and what safeguards must accompany it if Parliament decides to authorise it.

The genuinely irreducible functions of the state are fewer than modern governments usually admit.

The clearest is defence. Defence cannot be privatised without contradiction. A private army capable of defending a territory is, in substance, a state. The defence of the realm therefore belongs to government because only government can exercise it legitimately on behalf of the political community as a whole.

The second is the monopoly of legitimate force. Courts, police, prisons, and the machinery of binding legal authority cannot safely be reduced to voluntary private arrangements. A system of dispute resolution which the losing party may simply decline to obey is not a system of final justice. Someone must have the final word, backed by lawful coercive authority. If that power is fragmented among private bodies, the result is not liberty but feudalism.

From defence and lawful coercive authority follows the third function: sovereignty and foreign affairs. Only the state can represent the people as a political community, make treaties, enter alliances, recognise other states, conduct diplomacy, and bear responsibility in international law.

A fourth irreducible function is maintaining the conditions for free competition. In a capitalist economy, the state should not normally be a player in the market, but it must be the referee. A market cannot reliably protect itself against monopoly once monopoly is established, because the monopolist can begin to control the rules of the game. The state must therefore prevent any private actor from owning the pitch.

These are the core constitutional functions of government: defence, lawful force, sovereignty, and the maintenance of fair conditions for economic and perhaps civil life.

Many other things may be done by government, but they are not irreducible in the same way. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, welfare, housing, culture, transport, and economic development may in principle be provided by markets, families, churches, charities, professions, mutual associations, local communities, or private enterprise. Whether government should provide, fund, regulate, guarantee, or supplement them is a legitimate policy question. But it is not the same kind of constitutional question.

Irreducible state functions

This is not an argument for or against any particular size of state. I am not here deciding whether healthcare should be public or private, whether welfare should be larger or smaller, whether infrastructure should be national or local, or whether particular services should be delivered by government, market, charity, family, profession, or community.

Those are political and policy questions. They belong to democratic debate.

The constitutional question is different. It asks what only government can do, what government may choose to do, and what safeguards are required when government moves beyond its irreducible functions into the management, funding, regulation, or direction of wider social and economic life.

My concern is not that government sometimes acts beyond defence, justice, sovereignty, and market order. Modern government plainly does, and the electorate may want it to do so. The concern is that when government takes on wider managerial functions, Parliament must consciously authorise them, fund them, supervise them, and provide redress when they harm the citizen.

The distinction is therefore not between large government and small government. It is between constitutional government and unmanaged government.

Whatever Parliament chooses to make the state responsible for, the Commons must remain capable of holding that responsibility to account.

This paper therefore distinguishes between what only government can do and what government has chosen to do. The first category requires firm constitutional authority. The second requires constant parliamentary supervision.

The larger the second category becomes, the more important Commons supervision becomes. If Parliament allows government to move beyond its irreducible functions into welfare, health, education, infrastructure, housing, subsidy, regulation, industrial strategy, cultural policy, and economic management, then Parliament must also supervise the powers, money, bodies, duties, schemes, and consequences that follow.

A larger executive needs more supervision, not more legislation.

The Constitution should not become a list of positive government duties. The Constitution is to government what legislation is to citizens: it defines prohibited acts and limits of authority. What is not prohibited remains politically open.

7. The Commons as the Nation’s Supervisory Board

The House of Commons cannot properly supervise the executive unless the executive is organised in a form capable of supervision.

This paper uses the phrase “the nation’s supervisory board” deliberately. Parliament is not a company, the people are not shareholders in the commercial sense, and government is not a private business. But the language is useful because it makes the constitutional problem visible. In any serious organisation, those who exercise executive power must be supervised by those to whom they are answerable. The same discipline should apply with even greater force to the public sector, because it spends money raised by compulsion and exercises powers backed by law.

Public power is held on trust. Delegation is permitted. Orphan power is not.

Modern government acts through departments, agencies, regulators, inspectorates, grant-making bodies, public corporations, commissioners, ombudsmen, contractors, statutory authorities and arm’s-length bodies. Some deliver services. Some regulate. Some enforce. Some distribute money. Some make decisions affecting rights, property, liberty, livelihoods, businesses and obligations. The problem is not that such bodies exist. The problem is that responsibility for them is often unclear, dispersed, partial, or practically invisible.

Every public function should therefore have a clear constitutional owner; in almost all cases, this should be a government minister. If a body exercises public power, spends public money, regulates citizens, imposes obligations, grants or refuses permissions, distributes funds, investigates, enforces, inspects, adjudicates, licenses, cancels, suspends, or otherwise affects rights and livelihoods, it must be clear who owns the power, who accounts for the money, who supervises the body, what its lawful purpose is, what risks it carries, what complaints it receives, what redress it provides, and which government minister answers when something fails.

There should be no orphan children in the constitution.

This paper therefore proposes a Public Trust Governance-type model for executive government. Every ministerial department should publish a Departmental Family Map showing every body within its sphere of responsibility. This should include executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies, non-ministerial departments, regulators, commissioners, inspectorates, ombudsmen, grant-making bodies, public corporations, statutory offices, contractors exercising public functions, and any other authority exercising public power or spending public money.

For each body, the map should identify its legal basis, public purpose, powers, responsible minister, accounting officer, budget, staff numbers, reporting line, complaints route, redress route, principal risks, and any protected function. Of course, this is not to suggest that none of this is already happening. Some of it is. But the quality varies greatly between departments, and there is little consistency in how things are done.

The purpose is not bureaucratic tidiness. The purpose is constitutional visibility.

This paper also rejects the loose use of “independence” where it obscures responsibility. Some functions do need protection. A minister should not improperly direct an individual prosecution, adjudication, audit finding, ombudsman decision, inspection report, licensing case, or scientific conclusion. But protected judgment must not become independent irresponsibility. A body may have a protected function while still remaining answerable for accounts, governance, appointments, service standards, risk management, complaints, redress, legal costs, performance, and use of public money.

Each department should have a strengthened Departmental Supervisory Board responsible for the governance of the department and its whole public-body family. This would not replace ministerial responsibility. It would make ministerial responsibility real. The board should ensure that the department knows what bodies belong to it, what powers they exercise, what money they spend, what risks they carry, what complaints they receive, what failures have occurred, what redress has been provided, and what corrective action is required.

No minister, board, or Commons committee can supervise an unlimited flat list of public bodies. As a normal rule, no department should present more than a dozen major public-body groups to its Commons committee without explaining why a wider structure is necessary. A structure that is too wide becomes unmanageable; a structure that is too deep conceals responsibility.

Public body → reporting group → Departmental Supervisory Board → minister and accounting officer → Commons departmental committee → House of Commons → people.

The Commons departmental committee should not manage the department. Its task is to supervise whether the structure is lawful, solvent, intelligible, effective, accountable, and capable of correcting failure. Each committee should receive standardised reports: Departmental Family Maps, annual governance returns, management accounts, consolidated accounts, risk reports, serious incident reports, audit findings, major procurement and grant reports, enforcement data, complaints data, redress and compensation data, litigation and legal costs data, and ministerial statements of corrective action.

This would move Parliament from occasional scandal management to continuous supervision.

The state already has many of the necessary tools: ministerial responsibility, departmental boards, accounting officers, select committees, public accounts, audit, public finance rules, and the Nolan principles of public life. The reform would connect them into a visible constitutional chain.

The principle is simple:

8. Financial Stewardship and the Chancellor as Finance Director

The House of Commons cannot control public money properly unless government itself is subject to financial discipline before money reaches Parliament.

In any serious organisation, the finance function is not merely a bookkeeper. It is a guardian of solvency, risk, propriety, commitments, cash, liabilities and future exposure. It asks whether money exists, whether the expenditure is authorised, whether the commitment is affordable, whether the risk is understood, whether the figures are honest, and whether the organisation is living within its means.

Government should be no different.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer should therefore be understood not merely as a political tax-and-spend minister, but as the finance director of the executive. His duty is not simply to fund the promises of the Prime Minister, colleagues, departments, agencies and public bodies. His duty is to protect the financial integrity of government as a whole.

This does not mean the Chancellor should govern the country alone, nor that Treasury control should become a substitute for parliamentary control. The Chancellor is not a president, and the Treasury is not Parliament. But before public money is requested, promised, borrowed, allocated, guaranteed or spent, there must be a serious internal discipline within the executive.

This paper therefore proposes that financial stewardship should be treated as a constitutional duty of government.

Every department should have clear financial responsibility. Every minister should know the cost, authority, risk, liability and purpose of the schemes under his control. Every accounting officer should be able to certify regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility. Every department should produce usable management accounts. Every major commitment should be visible. Every significant liability should be recorded. Every public body within the departmental family should be included in the financial picture.

The Chancellor should stand at the centre of this system as the executive's chief financial steward.

He should ensure that departments do not treat public money as ownerless money; that spending commitments are not hidden in agencies, public bodies, long contracts, guarantees, schemes, off-balance-sheet devices, unfunded promises, or optimistic assumptions; that the cost of regulation and enforcement is not ignored merely because it falls on citizens or businesses rather than departmental budgets; and that Parliament is not asked to vote supply on incomplete, misleading or unusable information.

The Treasury should therefore be required to present the Commons with a clear annual statement of the financial condition of government. That statement should not be limited to headline taxation, borrowing and spending. It should include the principal commitments, contingent liabilities, long-term obligations, guarantees, major procurement risks, compensation exposures, litigation risks, write-offs, fraud losses, departmental overspends, ministerial directions, and major pressures within the public-body system.

The question should not be merely, "Can the government announce this?" The question should be, "Can the government afford this, account for this, justify this, and carry the risk of this honestly before Parliament and the public?"

This matters because the executive has a natural tendency to spend now and explain later. Ministers gain credit for promises, programmes, grants, new bodies, compensation schemes, subsidies, targets and interventions. The costs often fall later, elsewhere, or invisibly. A government may promise with one hand, borrow with another, regulate with a third, and leave the final bill to future taxpayers.

That is not stewardship. It is political consumption on public credit.

This paper is not arguing for any fixed level of public spending. A democratic Parliament may choose higher spending or lower spending. It may choose a larger state or a smaller state. Those are political choices. The constitutional point is that whatever level of spending is chosen, it must be honestly authorised, properly accounted for, financially disciplined, answerable to the Commons, and visible to the public.

Public money is not the government's money. It is the people's money, taken by law and held on trust for lawful public purposes. The Chancellor should be guardian of that trust within government; the Commons should be guardian of that trust over government; and the taxpayer should be able to see how that trust is being kept.

The Chancellor should therefore have a duty to say no where expenditure is unaffordable, unlawful, unsupported by proper authority, unsupported by evidence, or dangerous to the financial integrity of the state. He should also have a duty to say clearly when spending is being authorised despite serious risk, so that Parliament can see what is being done.

Financial stewardship also requires control of commitments before they become unavoidable. Governments increasingly bind the future through long contracts, guarantees, public-private arrangements, statutory entitlements, subsidies, international obligations, procurement frameworks, regulatory schemes and compensation promises. These may not always appear as immediate expenditure, but they are real claims on the public.

The Commons should not discover them only when escape is impossible.

This paper would therefore require departments and the Treasury to report material commitments early and clearly. A spending promise should not be treated as responsible simply because the bill does not fall this year. A liability should not be treated as harmless because it is contingent. A scheme should not be treated as cheap because its costs fall on citizens, businesses, councils, regulators or future taxpayers.

The Chancellor should be guardian of that trust within government. The Commons should be guardian of that trust over government.

Together, they should ensure that the executive cannot behave as a spendthrift monarch with Parliament reduced to paying the bills.

The principle is simple:

Departmental Family Maps and financial visibility

The Chancellor’s stewardship duty depends on visibility across the whole departmental family. Departments cannot present their finances honestly if agencies, regulators, public bodies, contracts, guarantees, liabilities and delegated spending are hidden outside the main account. Departmental Family Maps are therefore not merely administrative tools. They are part of the financial constitution of government, allowing the Chancellor, the Commons and the taxpayer to see where power, money, risk and responsibility actually lie.

This section gives practical effect to Article 2 of the Common Law Constitution. Any later Fiscal Framework may add detailed limits, but the constitutional foundation is honest authority, disclosure, stewardship, parliamentary answerability and public visibility.

9. Reclaiming Commons Time

The House of Commons cannot become the nation’s supervisory board unless it controls enough of its own time to do the job.

At present, too much parliamentary time is organised around the needs of government. The executive controls the legislative programme, dominates the timetable, announces policy, introduces Bills, drafts delegated powers, commands the payroll vote, and often treats parliamentary scrutiny as an obstacle to be managed rather than as the central purpose of representative government.

This has inverted the old constitutional settlement. Parliament once controlled supply and presented grievances before granting money. The executive could not govern indefinitely without Parliament. Today the executive largely decides what Parliament discusses, when it discusses it, how long it discusses it for, and what information is made available before decisions are taken.

This paper proposes a different settlement. The Commons should divide its work clearly between legislation and supervision.

Legislation is necessary, but it should not consume the House. A healthy Parliament is not one that passes the largest number of laws. It is one that ensures government is lawful, competent, economical, accountable, and capable of correcting failure. The test of a good Commons is not how many new powers it has created, but how well it has supervised the powers already granted.

A protected scrutiny calendar

The first reform should be a protected scrutiny calendar. A defined part of each parliamentary year should be reserved for supervisory work: departmental hearings, public-body reviews, accounts, estimates, statutory instruments, complaints and redress, audit findings, regulator performance, major procurement, ministerial directions, failures of administration, and review of existing laws.

These days should not be treated as spare parliamentary time, to be swallowed by urgent legislation, party manoeuvre, or government convenience. They should be the constitutional working days of the Commons.

A stricter legislative calendar

The second reform should be a stricter legislative calendar. Government should, of course, still be able to introduce Bills, but legislative time should be subsidiary to scrutiny. New laws should not be the automatic answer to every situation.

Before a Bill receives time, ministers should carefully consider why existing law is insufficient, what new powers are being created, what burdens will fall on citizens or businesses, which bodies will administer or enforce the law, what delegated powers are requested, what redress exists, and which Commons committee will review the Act after implementation. Skeleton and omnibus Bills should both be discouraged, and reliance on Statutory Instruments should be substantially curtailed

Proper control of delegated legislation

The third reform should be proper control of delegated legislation. Statutory Instruments are now one of the main means by which the executive governs. Yet they often receive far less parliamentary attention than primary legislation, even where they alter practical rights and obligations, create offences, impose duties, change schemes, regulate businesses, or affect daily life.

A standing committee on delegated powers and statutory instruments should examine whether delegated legislation is necessary, proportionate, within the authority granted by Parliament, intelligible to those affected, and accompanied by proper routes of appeal and redress. Where an instrument imposes significant burdens, creates serious enforcement powers, or affects constitutional rights, it should be capable of being sent to the relevant departmental committee for fuller examination before approval.

Post-legislative review

The fourth reform should be systematic post-legislative review. Parliament should not pass Acts and then forget them. Every significant Act should identify the committee responsible for reviewing its operation.

The review should examine whether the Act achieved its stated purpose, what costs it imposed, what delegated powers were used, what enforcement action followed, what complaints arose, what litigation resulted, what errors occurred, and whether the Act should be amended, consolidated, simplified, sunsetted, or repealed. This would change the culture of law-making. Ministers would know that the House would not merely vote on the promise, but later examine the result.

The modern grievance

The fifth reform should be to restore the connection between grievance and supply. Complaints, ombudsman findings, tribunal losses, judicial review defeats, compensation payments, enforcement errors, administrative delays, and legal costs incurred against citizens should all be treated as constitutional evidence. They show where public power is failing.

Each departmental committee should receive annual complaints and redress data from the department and its public-body family. It should examine complaints received, complaints upheld, average time to resolve, compensation paid, court and tribunal losses, ombudsman findings, legal costs spent fighting citizens, and whether citizens were able to recover their costs when the state was wrong.

This is not administrative trivia. It is the modern form of the ancient grievance.

Stronger committee powers and support

The sixth reform should be stronger committee powers and support. A Commons committee cannot supervise a department properly if it lacks time, staff, expertise, documents, accounts, or power to require answers.

Committees should be supported by financial analysts, auditors, lawyers, statisticians, investigators, procurement specialists and administrative experts. They should be able to require documents, summon responsible officers, call regulators and public bodies, follow money through contracts and grant schemes, and require ministers to respond formally to findings. The aim is not to turn MPs into civil servants. It is to make Parliament a serious customer of information.

Annual departmental accountability sessions

The seventh reform should be annual departmental accountability sessions. Every department should face a structured annual hearing before its Commons committee. The minister and accounting officer should answer for the department’s annual report, accounts, public bodies, major risks, failures, complaints, redress, statutory instruments, procurement, grants, ministerial directions and implementation of previous committee recommendations. The committee should then report to the House.

This would turn scrutiny from a series of disconnected inquiries into a regular constitutional discipline.

This paper's aim is not to make Parliament busier for its own sake. The Commons is already busy. The problem is that it is often busy with the wrong work. It spends too much energy on passing new powers and too little on supervising the powers already in existence.

The House of Commons does not need to become noisier. It needs to become more serious.

A restored Commons would have fewer theatrical announcements and more sustained examination; fewer laws made in haste and more laws reviewed after experience; fewer powers granted without thought and more powers traced to their consequences; fewer public bodies operating in fog and more ministers made to answer for the machinery of government.

Legislative time should be more limited. Scrutiny time should be protected. Executive power should be continuously supervised.

10. Committees as the Working Machinery of Accountability

If the House of Commons is to supervise government seriously, the work cannot be done mainly by set-piece debates in the Chamber.

The Chamber matters. It is the public forum of the nation. It is where ministers answer urgent questions, where major matters are debated, where legislation is approved, where confidence is tested, and where the government is confronted before the country. But the detailed supervision of the modern executive cannot be done by speeches alone.

Modern government is too large, too technical, too continuous, and too dispersed for occasional debate to be enough. Departments spend billions, run schemes, issue guidance, sign contracts, administer benefits, regulate industries, enforce standards, manage risks, and act through public bodies whose work rarely reaches the floor of the House unless something has already gone badly wrong.

The real working machinery of parliamentary accountability must therefore be the committee system.

This paper proposes that every major department should have a strengthened Commons departmental committee responsible for supervising the whole departmental family. Its task should not be to manage the department. Ministers govern; officials administer; public bodies perform their lawful functions. The committee’s task is to supervise, examine, challenge, report, and require answers.

A committee should ask the questions that ordinary debate often misses. What powers does the department exercise? What bodies act under it? What money has it spent? What did it achieve? What risks were known? What warnings were ignored? What complaints were made? What redress was provided? What legal costs were incurred? What statutory instruments were used? What contracts were signed? What grants were awarded? What failures occurred? What has been corrected? Which minister is responsible?

Each departmental committee should therefore become a permanent board of accountability for its department. It should receive regular accounts, risk reports, audit findings, complaints data, redress data, serious incident reports, public-body reviews, procurement reports, ministerial directions, and implementation updates. It should not wait for scandal. It should examine government as a matter of routine.

Committees should have guaranteed access to information, serious specialist support, the power to follow money and public authority through the whole departmental family, and a disciplined system for following up recommendations. The purpose is not to replace political judgment with technocracy. It is to give elected representatives the tools needed to ask informed questions.

A restored Commons would therefore shift weight from performance politics to practical accountability. The Chamber would remain the public forum of national debate. Committees would become the workshop of constitutional supervision.

The Chamber should confront government. Committees should examine government. The Commons should require government to answer.

11. Control of Money: Supply, Accounts and Public Expenditure

The oldest practical power of the House of Commons is the control of money.

The constitutional struggle between Crown and Parliament was not an abstract argument about procedure. It was about whether the executive could raise and spend money without the consent of the people’s representatives. Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the struggle over ship money, the Civil War, the Bill of Rights, and the settlement of constitutional monarchy all turned, in one form or another, on the same question: who controls the money?

The answer was supposed to be Parliament.

No taxation without consent. No standing army without parliamentary authority. No government without supply.

But the modern constitution has inverted this settlement. Parliament has become both purse-keeper and spendthrift monarch. It grants money on a vast scale, authorises departments, funds agencies, creates entitlements, supports regulators, approves schemes, underwrites liabilities, and permits long chains of public expenditure. Yet once money has been voted, the Commons too often loses sight of where it goes, who spends it, what it achieves, what risks it creates, and what harm it causes when wrongly used.

Control of supply must therefore mean more than voting money at the beginning. It must mean following money to the end.

This paper proposes that the Commons recover its financial function as a continuous constitutional discipline. Parliament should not merely ask whether expenditure was authorised. It should ask whether it was lawful, proper, economical, effective, intelligible, accountable, and capable of correction.

Every department should therefore account annually for the whole departmental family: core department, agencies, regulators, public bodies, grant schemes, procurement, contractors exercising public functions, public corporations, special funds, liabilities, guarantees, and delegated spending. Public money should not disappear into administrative fog.

The basic questions should be simple:

Who authorised the spending? Under what legal power? Which minister owns it? Which accounting officer is responsible? Which body spent it? What was it meant to achieve? What did it actually achieve? What risks were known? What waste occurred? What complaints arose? What redress was paid? What liabilities remain?

A private business that did not know where its money had gone would not survive. A charity that could not account for funds entrusted to it would face serious consequences. A small parish council is expected to keep accounts, minute decisions, justify expenditure, and submit to audit. There is no reason why central government should be held to a lower standard than the businesses, charities, councils and citizens it regulates.

Indeed, the standard should be higher. Government spends money raised by compulsion. Tax is not a voluntary subscription. It is taken from the citizen by law. That gives public expenditure a moral and constitutional character different from private spending. Waste is not merely inefficiency. Unlawful or reckless expenditure is a misuse of compulsory power.

The Commons should therefore reconnect supply with scrutiny.

Each departmental committee should receive regular financial information in a usable form: monthly or quarterly management accounts, annual consolidated accounts for the departmental family, major procurement reports, grant reports, liabilities, write-offs, fraud losses, compensation payments, litigation costs, ministerial directions, audit findings, and significant changes in financial risk. These reports should be written for parliamentary supervision, not buried in technical documents intelligible only to specialists.

The Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office already perform vital work. This proposal would not weaken them. It would make their discipline central to the whole Commons. Departmental committees should work alongside the Public Accounts Committee, using audit findings to examine ministers, accounting officers, public bodies and contractors. Financial accountability should not be a specialist corner of parliamentary life. It should be one of the central purposes of the House.

Control of money must also include control of commitments. Governments often bind the future through long contracts, guarantees, schemes, liabilities, compensation arrangements, public-private partnerships, subsidies, procurement frameworks, international undertakings, and statutory entitlements. Parliament should not discover these obligations only after they have become unavoidable. Departments should report material future commitments clearly, so that the Commons can see not only what has been spent, but what has already been promised.

The same applies to failure. When public money is wasted, when contracts collapse, when fraud is tolerated, when compensation is paid, when enforcement is unlawful, when litigation is pursued against citizens, or when a department requires a ministerial direction because expenditure is doubtful, the matter should return to the Commons committee responsible for that department. The question should not be lost in administrative process. It should be made visible.

This would restore the ancient link between grievance and supply. The Commons should not vote money while ignoring the grievances caused by the machinery that money funds. If a department spends public money enforcing unjustly, regulating incompetently, delaying unlawfully, or fighting citizens who were right, that is not merely a service failure. It is a constitutional failure.

This proposal is not austerity by another name. It is not an argument for any predetermined level of public spending. A democratic Parliament may choose high spending or low spending, generous provision or limited provision, public delivery or private delivery. Those are political choices.

The constitutional point is different: whatever government spends, Parliament must be able to see it, trace it, test it, and hold someone responsible for it.

The House of Commons was not created to become the executive’s cheque-signing machine. It exists to ensure that government cannot take money from the people and then spend it beyond effective control.

The principle is simple:

12. Grievance, Redress and the Citizen

The House of Commons was never meant only to vote money and pass laws. It was also the place where grievances against power could be brought before the nation.

That older function has been neglected. Modern citizens are often told that if a public body harms them, delays them, overcharges them, wrongly enforces against them, refuses them, licenses them, penalises them, investigates them, or destroys their livelihood, they must first complain to the body itself, then to an internal review, then perhaps to an ombudsman or adjudicator with limited powers, and finally, if they can afford it, to court.

For many citizens, that is not redress. It is exhaustion.

The modern state has become very good at exercising power and very poor at correcting itself. Departments, agencies, regulators, local authorities, inspectors, tax authorities, grant bodies, licensing bodies, enforcement bodies and ombudsmen may all have complaints procedures, but procedure is not the same as remedy. A complaint that takes years, changes nothing, pays nothing, admits nothing, and leaves the citizen to bear the loss is not justice.

The principle is simple:

Where the state has power over the citizen, the citizen must have an effective means of correction when that power is misused. This is especially important where public bodies can act first and prove later: freezing assets, imposing penalties, cancelling licences, withholding payments, stopping grants, seizing property, closing businesses, issuing notices, publishing adverse findings, or taking enforcement action before the citizen has had a practical chance to defend himself.

The greater the coercive power, the stronger the redress should be.

Redress should not depend on whether the citizen is rich enough to bring judicial review or brave enough to fight a department funded by the taxpayer. The state should not be able to spend public money defending its own mistakes while the citizen risks ruin to prove that he was right. A constitutional system that requires the citizen to defeat the state in expensive litigation before obtaining justice is not a fair system of redress. It is a test of endurance.

The law should always recognise the unequal strength of the parties. A citizen, family, farm, small business, charity, or local community is rarely equal in power to a government department, regulator, agency, council, inspectorate, tax authority, or publicly funded enforcement body.

The state has lawyers, officials, records, statutory powers, enforcement machinery, institutional memory, public funding, and time. The citizen often has limited money, limited knowledge, limited documents, limited energy, and one life being disrupted while the process unfolds. Even when the citizen is right, the struggle itself may destroy the thing he is trying to save.

A fair system of redress must therefore take account of that imbalance. It should not require the individual to fight the state on equal terms when the terms are plainly unequal. Where public authority is used against the citizen, the burden should be on the state to act lawfully, explain itself clearly, correct error promptly, and avoid using delay, cost, complexity, or procedural exhaustion as weapons.

The stronger party should carry the heavier duty.

This paper therefore proposes that Parliament should treat grievance and redress as central evidence of government performance.

Every department and public-body family should report annually on complaints and remedies. The relevant Commons committee should examine complaints received, complaints upheld, average time to resolve, compensation paid, ombudsman findings, tribunal losses, court defeats, enforcement errors, unlawful decisions, maladministration findings, legal costs spent resisting citizens, and whether citizens recovered their costs when the state was wrong.

This information should not be buried in scattered reports. It should be presented to Parliament in a standard form. The Commons should be able to see which departments correct mistakes quickly, which bodies fight citizens for years, which regulators over-enforce, which schemes generate repeated injustice, which ombudsmen lack teeth, and which laws create recurring grievances.

A restored Commons should ask not only, “Was the department within budget?” but also, “Did the department use power justly?”

That question changes the culture of government. It reminds ministers and officials that administration is not an abstract machine. Every wrongful decision has a human consequence: a business closed, a home lost, a benefit withheld, a licence removed, a reputation damaged, a farm payment delayed, a pension miscalculated, a family broken, a livelihood destroyed.

Public bodies must therefore be expected to correct error promptly and fairly. Where the state has made a serious mistake, it should admit it. Where it has caused loss, it should compensate it. Where it has acted unlawfully, it should reverse the decision. Where it has imposed costs on a citizen wrongly, it should pay them. Where it has used enforcement powers recklessly, Parliament should know.

The aim is not to encourage endless litigation or to make public administration timid. Government must be able to act. Regulators must regulate. Tax must be collected. Dangerous conduct must be stopped. Fraud must be pursued. Public money must be protected. But lawful firmness is not the same as administrative impunity.

Operational independence should never mean remedial immunity.

Some functions may need protected judgment. Ministers should not improperly direct individual prosecutions, tribunal decisions, audit findings, ombudsman conclusions, inspection reports, licensing cases, or scientific judgments. But no public body should be independent of accountability for delay, cost, error, governance, complaints, compensation, service standards, legal expenditure, or failure to correct injustice.

The Commons should also examine whether existing redress routes are affordable, timely, intelligible, and effective. A remedy that arrives after the citizen is ruined is not a remedy. A complaints system that merely asks the offending body whether it thinks it acted properly is not independent redress. An ombudsman without effective power to secure correction may become only a constitutional figleaf. A court route that costs more than the loss suffered is not practical justice.

Every exercise of public power should be matched by a visible route of appeal, complaint, correction, compensation, and parliamentary reporting. When Parliament creates a power, it should ask at the same time: what happens if this power is used wrongly?

That question should be built into legislation. Every Bill creating enforcement powers, regulatory powers, licensing powers, inspection powers, penalties, sanctions, grant conditions, or coercive administrative action should include a redress statement. Ministers should explain how citizens may challenge decisions, how quickly complaints must be handled, what compensation is available, who pays costs when the state is wrong, and which committee will review the operation of the scheme.

This would restore the ancient connection between grievance and representation. The citizen should not be left alone before the administrative state. The Commons should be the institution through which repeated grievances are seen, measured, investigated, and corrected.

A Parliament that passes laws but ignores the grievances those laws create is not supervising government. It is merely empowering it.

The principle is simple:

13. Ministers, Responsibility and Executive Office

Parliamentary privilege must remain. Members of Parliament must be free to speak, vote, question, debate and represent constituents in parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action. Without that protection, Parliament could not hold power to account.

But ministerial office is not the same as parliamentary speech.

A minister exercising executive power is not merely taking part in debate. He is directing administration, spending public money, approving regulations, making appointments, signing instruments, authorising enforcement, issuing guidance, taking decisions, and affecting the rights, property, liberty, livelihoods and obligations of citizens.

That distinction matters.

Parliament has imposed personal duties on many people entrusted with other people’s affairs. Company directors, charity trustees, lawyers, accountants, doctors, public officers, councillors and many others are expected to act with propriety, reasonable care, honesty, loyalty, conflict avoidance, lawful authority, and respect for the purposes of their office.

It cannot be equitable for Parliament to set standards for others while ministers exercise greater powers under lower personal duties.

Taking ministerial office is a choice. It is a choice made willingly, and often for ambition, advancement, reputation, influence, or personal political gain. A minister is not conscripted into office. He accepts power, status, salary, staff, authority, and command over public resources.

The public is therefore entitled to expect high standards of competence, professionalism, honesty, diligence and care.

This paper therefore proposes that ministerial office should carry clear duties in the exercise of executive power. These duties should not punish honest policy failure, ordinary political judgment, good-faith error, or decisions taken lawfully after proper process. Government must be able to govern. Ministers must be able to choose between difficult options.

But where a minister knowingly, recklessly, dishonestly, or with gross negligence misuses public power, acts outside lawful authority, ignores material warnings, misleads Parliament or public auditors, conceals serious risk, acts in conflict of interest, protects institutional wrongdoing, or causes serious public loss or injustice, personal responsibility should follow.

The relevant standard should be serious breach, not mere disagreement.

Possible consequences should include parliamentary censure, loss of ministerial severance, disqualification from ministerial office, loss of public indemnity, personal costs orders, contribution to public loss, civil liability in serious cases, and criminal liability where the ordinary criminal law is engaged.

This is not an argument for making ministers timid or for converting political disagreement into legal action. It is an argument for the ordinary principle that public power should be exercised with care, honesty, lawful authority and personal responsibility. Those who accept the privileges of executive office should accept the duties that go with them.

Ministerial responsibility should not be a phrase used only when the press demands a resignation. It should be a working constitutional standard. A minister should know that he is responsible not only for announcing policy, but for the lawful, competent and honest use of the machinery through which that policy is carried out.

The principle is simple:

Parliamentary privilege protects the Member in Parliament. It should not absolve the Minister in office. Those who accept power must accept responsibility.

14. The Nolan Principles as Tests of Government Design

The standards of public life should not be treated merely as personal aspirations. They should also be used as tests of government design.

The Seven Nolan Principles — selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership — are already accepted as the standards expected of those who hold public office. This paper does not need to invent new ethical language for public life. The words already exist. The failure is that they are too often applied to individuals while the structures around them are allowed to remain opaque, evasive, fragmented, and unaccountable.

A system can defeat virtue. Even honourable people struggle to act well inside structures that hide responsibility, obscure information, reward evasion, punish candour, bury complaints, diffuse blame, and separate power from consequence. This paper therefore proposes that the Nolan Principles should be applied not only to office-holders, but to departments, public bodies, procedures, reporting lines, complaints systems, financial controls, regulatory structures, and ministerial responsibility.

Selflessness requires public power to be exercised for public purposes, not for party advantage, administrative convenience, institutional self-protection, patronage, lobbying pressure, private advancement, or the comfort of officials. A public body that exists primarily to preserve itself has lost sight of its purpose.

Integrity requires conflicts of interest, lobbying capture, revolving-door influence, improper obligations, hidden relationships, procurement conflicts, regulatory capture, and personal advantage to be declared, examined and resolved. It is not enough for individuals to say they acted properly. The structure must make improper influence difficult, visible, and correctable.

Objectivity requires significant decisions to be made by reference to evidence, lawful criteria, fairness, merit, and recorded reasons. Public bodies should not be able to act on unpublished preferences, fashionable assumptions, political pressure, institutional habit, or unexplained discretion. Where a citizen is refused, penalised, licensed, inspected, investigated, funded, or sanctioned, the reasons should be intelligible.

Accountability requires every public function to have a ministerial owner, an accounting officer, a reporting line, a Commons committee, a complaints route, and a redress route. A structure that hides responsibility cannot satisfy accountability. If no one can say who is answerable, the system is defective.

Openness requires departments to publish the information needed for supervision: departmental family maps, governance returns, accounts, risks, serious incidents, complaints data, redress data, ministerial directions, audit findings, and the use of delegated powers. Openness does not mean publishing everything regardless of security, privacy, or lawful confidentiality. It means that secrecy must be justified, not assumed.

Honesty requires ministers, departments and public bodies not to mislead Parliament, courts, auditors, inspectors, ombudsmen, committees or citizens. It also requires serious errors to be corrected once known. A government that quietly allows a false impression to continue is not acting honestly merely because no single sentence can be prosecuted as a lie.

Leadership requires ministers and senior officials to uphold these standards across the whole departmental family. A minister should not be permitted to claim credit for policy while denying responsibility for the machinery through which that policy is carried out. Leadership is not press management. It is stewardship of public power.

These principles should become practical tests for Parliament.

When a department reports to its Commons committee, the committee should be able to ask: Does this structure serve the public interest? Are conflicts visible? Are decisions evidence-based? Is someone answerable? Is enough information published? Have errors been corrected? Has the minister led the department towards higher standards, or merely defended it from criticism?

When Parliament considers a Bill, it should ask the same questions. Does the proposed law create powers without accountability? Does it allow discretion without reasons? Does it create enforcement without redress? Does it permit hidden influence? Does it add bodies to the constitution without a clear ministerial owner? Does it make government more open, or more obscure?

When a public body fails, the Nolan Principles should help identify whether the failure was merely individual or structural. Was the failure caused by a bad decision, or by a system that made bad decisions likely? Were warnings ignored? Were complaints buried? Were conflicts tolerated? Were reasons withheld? Were ministers shielded? Was responsibility passed around until it disappeared?

This paper's use of Nolan is therefore not ornamental. It is constitutional. The principles of public life should be built into the machinery of public power.

This also gives Parliament a common language for scrutiny. Instead of treating every scandal as a separate outrage, the Commons should ask which public principle failed and what structural correction is needed. If accountability failed, who must now own the power? If openness failed, what must now be published? If integrity failed, what conflicts must now be prevented? If honesty failed, who allowed Parliament or the citizen to be misled? If leadership failed, why did the minister not correct the system?

The Nolan Principles were designed for public life. They should be applied to public power.

The principle is simple:

15. First Past the Post, Strong Government, and Parliamentary Government

This paper does not propose to turn Britain into a presidential republic, nor to weaken government for the sake of permanent paralysis.

The British constitution has traditionally worked through parliamentary government. Ministers govern because they command the confidence of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is not a president elected directly by the people. He is the first minister of a parliamentary administration, exercising executive power only while able to maintain the confidence of the Commons.

That distinction matters.

In a presidential system, the executive may claim a separate personal mandate from the legislature. In the British system, the executive is supposed to be drawn from Parliament, answerable to Parliament, funded by Parliament, and removable by Parliament. Government is strong because it can command a majority in the Commons. It is legitimate because that majority rests on parliamentary confidence. It is restrained because Parliament is supposed to supervise it.

First past the post has usually reinforced this model. It tends to produce clear results, single-party government, and administrations capable of acting without constant coalition bargaining. This paper is not arguing for or against electoral reform. That is a separate question. The point here is constitutional: if first past the post gives Britain strong government, it must not also produce a weak Parliament.

A strong executive requires stronger scrutiny, not weaker scrutiny.

The danger is that a large Commons majority can blur the distinction between Parliament and government. When the executive controls the timetable, commands the payroll vote, dominates legislation, controls information, and treats its majority as permission to govern with little resistance, parliamentary government begins to resemble elective executive rule. The Prime Minister is then spoken of as though he had a personal national mandate, while the Commons is treated as the instrument through which that mandate is delivered.

That is not the British constitution.

The people elect Members of Parliament. The Commons sustains or dismisses governments. Ministers hold office because they can answer to the House. The Prime Minister is first among ministers, not a temporary monarch, elected president, or personal embodiment of the national will.

Constitutional monarchy helps preserve this distinction. Executive authority is exercised in the name of the Crown, but the Crown is not a personal political actor. The Monarch does not govern day by day, does not lead a party, does not claim an electoral mandate, and does not stand above Parliament as a competing democratic authority. This prevents the executive from being personalised in the way a presidency is personalised.

The danger in modern Britain is not that the Monarch governs too much. It is that the Prime Minister increasingly appears to govern as though the majority in the Commons were a personal mandate rather than a continuing relationship of confidence and accountability.

This paper therefore rejects presidentialism in both form and habit.

It rejects the idea that the Prime Minister should be treated as a directly elected national executive. It rejects the habit of treating general elections as personal contests between would-be presidents. It rejects the notion that a parliamentary majority should reduce the Commons to an electoral college which installs a government and then submits to it until the next election.

A parliamentary majority gives a government the right to govern. It does not give it the right to escape supervision.

This is why strong scrutiny is not a threat to strong government. It is the condition that makes strong government constitutionally safe. A government with a majority should be able to pass necessary laws, raise supply, conduct foreign affairs, administer the state, and act decisively where action is required. But it should also have to explain itself, account for expenditure, justify delegated powers, answer for public bodies, correct injustice, publish information, and submit to committee supervision.

The alternative is not strong government. It is unchecked government.

This paper's reforms are therefore designed to preserve the strengths of parliamentary government while correcting its modern weakness. First past the post may produce decisive government. Constitutional monarchy prevents the executive from becoming a separate elected presidency. The Commons must then provide the missing discipline: continuous scrutiny of the executive by the representatives of the people.

This also explains why This paper does not seek to move executive power outside Parliament. The answer to executive dominance is not to create a presidential office with a separate mandate. Nor is it to turn the Monarch back into a governing authority. The answer is to restore the Commons to its proper function.

Government should remain parliamentary. Ministers should remain answerable to the House. The Prime Minister should remain first minister, not president. The Crown should remain constitutional, not partisan. The Commons should remain the place where supply is granted, grievances are heard, laws are scrutinised, public money is followed, and executive power is made to answer.

The principle is simple:

16. Implementation: From Reform Paper to Constitutional Reform

This paper’s reforms should be implemented through a constitutional package rather than scattered administrative changes. The Constitution should state the principles; Enabling Legislation should supply the machinery; Standing Orders should provide the parliamentary working detail.

The Commons Reform identifies the practical reforms needed to restore Parliament’s supervisory function. The Common Law Constitution secures the principles. The House of Lords Reform Paper provides the longer-view chamber needed for constitutional restraint. The Tax and Economics Paper develops the policy framework within those limits.

Implementation should proceed in stages. First, the origin and purpose of the programme should be stated consistently across the documents. Second, the Common Law Constitution and House of Lords Reform should proceed together, so that the Constitution does not accidentally entrench the unreformed second chamber. Third, Commons Standing Orders and Enabling Legislation should protect scrutiny time, strengthen committees, regulate delegated legislation, require Departmental Family Maps, and make public money and redress visible.

Fourth, executive financial stewardship should be implemented through Treasury duties, departmental accounts, accounting officer responsibilities, and public reporting. Fifth, the burden-of-proof and redress reforms should be given practical effect in courts, tribunals, ombudsmen and complaints systems. Sixth, the programme should be reviewed against the controlling test: does it strengthen the citizen’s ability to supervise government through Parliament?

Principle in the Constitution. Machinery in Enabling Legislation. Practice in Standing Orders.

17. Conclusion: Restoring the Commons

This Commons Reform paper began with a simple proposition: the House of Commons has become too much the machine by which government supervises the citizen, and too little the means by which the citizen supervises government.

This paper proposes to reverse that settlement.

This does not require Parliament to abandon its history. It requires Parliament to recover it. The Commons became central to the constitution because government could not raise money indefinitely without consent, because grievances could be brought before supply, because ministers had to answer, and because arbitrary power had to be restrained by law.

The modern state is vastly larger, more technical, more expensive and more intrusive than the government of earlier centuries. It acts through departments, agencies, regulators, inspectors, public bodies, statutory schemes, delegated legislation, contracts, guidance, grants, licences, penalties, databases, ombudsmen and enforcement powers.

Much of this may be necessary. Some of it may be beneficial. Some of it may be demanded by the electorate. The argument is not for or against any predetermined size of state. It is constitutional.

If government is larger, Parliament must be stronger. If public power is more dispersed, responsibility must be clearer. If more money is taken from the citizen, expenditure must be more visible. If more decisions are made by administrative bodies, redress must be more effective. If more law is made through delegated powers, scrutiny must be more serious. If ministers command the machinery of the state, ministerial responsibility must be real.

A larger executive needs more supervision, not more legislation.

This paper therefore proposes a House of Commons refocused on its constitutional purpose: controlling supply, presenting grievances, supervising administration, limiting unnecessary law, examining delegated power, following public money, requiring redress, and making ministers answer for the executive machine they command.

The Commons should not run the government day by day. Ministers must govern. Officials must administer. Courts must judge. Regulators must perform lawful functions. Professional judgment must sometimes be protected from improper political interference.

But no public power should be constitutionally orphaned. No public money should disappear into administrative fog. No public body should be too independent to account for its failures. No citizen should be left alone before the state without practical remedy. No minister should enjoy power without responsibility.

The practical reforms proposed in this paper are restorative rather than revolutionary:

legislative time should be limited and scrutiny time protected;

every new law should justify its necessity, powers, burdens, delegated authority and redress;

statutory instruments should be treated as a central part of executive supervision;

every department should account for its whole public-body family;

Commons committees should become the working machinery of accountability;

public expenditure should be traced from authorisation to outcome;

complaints, court defeats, ombudsman findings, compensation and legal costs should be treated as constitutional evidence;

ministerial office should carry real duties in the exercise of executive power;

the Nolan Principles should be applied to structures, not merely speeches;

strong government should be matched by strong scrutiny.

None of this weakens democracy. It strengthens it.

Democracy is not merely the right to vote every few years for a party that then commands the machinery of government with little effective supervision. Democracy also requires continuous answerability: visible power, traceable money, lawful administration, honest reporting, effective redress, and ministers who must explain what has been done in the name of the people.

The House of Commons does not need to become noisier. It needs to become more serious.

It should be less a theatre of government announcements and more a boardroom of national accountability. Less a factory for new powers and more a workshop for examining the powers already granted. Less a servant of the executive timetable and more the guardian of the people’s consent.

The old constitutional question was whether the King could tax and govern without Parliament.

The modern question is whether the executive can tax, spend, regulate, direct, enforce, delegate and administer through Parliament while escaping serious supervision by Parliament.

The answer is no.

The Commons should not be a rubber stamp for the Crown in its modern executive form. It should be the institution through which public power is made visible, public money is accounted for, public grievance is heard, and public authority is restrained by law.

The proposal can be stated plainly:

Back to top