Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. October 2020
  6. Opinion: Elaine Motion

Opinion: Elaine Motion

As efforts to contain the coronavirus pandemic continue, the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and accountability should be recognised by ministers introducing or extending emergency regulations
19th October 2020 | Elaine Motion

When the Coronavirus Act was passed by the UK Parliament without opposition in March, it gave ministers sweeping emergency powers to enforce lockdowns. In those confusing, troubling and unprecedented times, there was little dissent.

However, the Act required a vote by MPs after six months to stay in force, and September there was widespread concern across all parties about how those emergency powers had been used, particularly to enforce tight lockdowns in specific areas and impose fines for a range of violations. Concerns have also been voiced about ministers’ propensity to bypass Parliament by announcing new regulations on Twitter, or through their newspaper of choice – often with only hours or even minutes before they take effect.

Critics gathered around Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee. That committee of backbenchers is often described as “influential”, and it might be argued its apparent lack of influence in recent months was reflected in Sir Graham’s amendment to the renewal of the Coronavirus Act – insisting any new restrictions must first be approved by MPs.

This was vehemently opposed by Downing Street, who said ministers needed the ability to act fast in response to the pandemic. Few would argue with the need for speed when necessary, had we not gone far beyond this to a point where parliamentary sovereignty and accountability were being challenged, and possibly undermined.

With 50-odd Conservative backbenchers supporting the amendment, the Prime Minister’s apparently comfortable 80-seat majority suddenly looked shaky. In the end, the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, said legal advice prevented him taking the amendment – but he voiced the thoughts of many MPs by declaring that the Government had treated Parliament with “contempt” and shown a “total disregard for the House”.

Sir Graham had called for “a new modus operandi” in place of imposing new COVID-19 laws by decree without debates or votes. Although the vote was not taken, the Speaker’s comments were seen as a green light to MPs on all sides to assert their right to bring ministers regularly into the Commons to be questioned on new regulations.

It seemed appropriate that this latest dispute between executive and legislature bubbled to the surface in late September – exactly a year since Lady Hale delivered the dispassionate yet withering UK Supreme Court judgment that Boris Johnson and his Government had acted illegally in proroguing Parliament at the height of Brexit fever.

Part of the judgment that day, on parliamentary sovereignty and accountability, seems very relevant to current events. That sovereignty, it said, would be undermined as the foundational principle of our constitution “if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased”.

The second fundamental principle is parliamentary accountability. The court quoted these words of Lord Bingham, former senior Law Lord: “The conduct of Government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy”.

It is this sovereignty and accountability that has seen concerns coalesce in recent weeks. Back in March, most people seemed ready to accept restrictions to personal freedoms to tackle a novel virus which spread rapidly through human interaction and killed in its thousands.

Yet since then, many questions have been asked and there is far less unanimity now about what people are ready to live with. Many argue that personal freedoms and human rights have been curtailed far beyond what is reasonable, even in these circumstances.

There has been no debate at all in Parliament since March, of the ever-changing instructions to the population communicated by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet – albeit with little apparent sense of collective responsibility or uniform understanding. Only recently, the Prime Minister admitted he “mis-spoke” in answering a question on social contact rules in a specific region.

As cases rise and we face the prospect of a long, hard winter fighting a virus which thrives in colder weather, parliamentary frustration over new restrictions seems unlikely to subside.

Many MPs have spoken of the upset and frustration of being unable to speak up for their vulnerable constituents in Parliament, and the comments of the Speaker and unhappiness on the back benches suggest this issue will not go away. The Presiding Officer in Holyrood has raised similar concerns about the lack of debate in the Scottish Parliament.

It is a stark reminder that however unprecedented the times, we should all, whatever our political inclinations, be extremely vigilant about passing unprecedented powers into the hands of the executive. 

The Author

Elaine Motion is chairman of Balfour+Manson

Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

Regulars

  • People on the move: October 2020
  • Reading for pleasure: October 2020
  • Book reviews: October 2020

Perspectives

  • Opinion: Elaine Motion
  • Letters: October 2020
  • President's column: October 2020
  • Editorial: October 2020
  • Profile: Olivia Moore

Features

  • Lessons from the class of 2008
  • Children first, by rights
  • Tech wherever you turn
  • Skelping away
  • ADR: get one jump ahead
  • Law and wellbeing: how far at odds?

Briefings

  • Criminal court: The limits of Moorov
  • Licensing: Remote board hearings – the future?
  • Family: Clad with problems
  • Insolvency: Creditors lose interest
  • Tax: Changed VAT treatment – COVID-suitable?
  • Contracts: E-signatures: silos, concerns and top tips
  • Data protection: Year of disruption

In practice

  • The Word of Gold: Shaken and stirred?
  • A matter of opinion
  • Corporate and commercial risks: drafting and dabbling
  • Black history: Scottish history
  • Ask Ash: October 2020
  • Crime at an uncertain time
  • Trained to deliver

Online exclusive

  • An extension to an extension: pre-irritancy notices
  • Brexit, the UK Internal Market Bill and devolution
  • Remote working and employment rights
  • Article 14: the Strasbourg court's approach
  • “Go the Extra Mile” for Pro Bono Week

In this issue

  • 2020 hindsight: making good use of the lockdown
  • Help as you take the plunge
  • "Buy 'Scottish' land – they're not making it any more"
  • Royal Faculty building set for renovation work

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited