Close
Keir Starmer at Prime Minister's Questions (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Parliament.
Labour and the constitution: an uneven start for Starmer
Labour entered office in the summer pledging to do politics differently. It would, it had said, strengthen the system for upholding ethical standards, restore parliament’s role in scrutinising legislation, uphold the rule of law, revive democratic participation, and move towards more cooperative relations with the devolved administrations. There have been some notable steps forward since. But much remains to be done, and many opportunities for quick wins have not yet been taken.
Keir Starmer said on his first day as Prime Minister that he would ‘restore service and respect to politics’. Yet his early months in office were plagued by revelations about gifts and hospitality that he and other senior Labour figures had received that, though within the rules, did not match public expectations. Action to improve the standards system was slow in coming: only in November, four months after the election, was a revised Ministerial Code published (see below). This included several positive changes: notably, the Prime Minister’s adviser (renamed the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards) can now initiate investigations without Number 10’s approval. But much in the area of standards remains to be done. In June, the Constitution Unit, the Institute for Government, and the UK Governance Project issued a joint statement setting out seven steps for restoring trust in government ethics. Immediate action was possible on all of them. Yet the somewhat delayed Ministerial Code is the only area of significant progress so far.
The government also came to power committed to restoring parliamentary scrutiny. Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, had pledged in opposition not to use delegated legislation excessively and to improve scrutiny of primary legislation. These ideas were powerfully reaffirmed by the new Attorney General, Lord (Richard) Hermer, in a speech in October (see below). Yet the government’s actions have not yet lived up to these fine sentiments. Three important bills have been fast-tracked through the House of Commons with very limited scope for detailed scrutiny. And two bills have been widely criticised for providing only a broad framework of rules while empowering ministers to fill in the detail later (see below). A Modernisation Committee has been established to examine reforms to Commons rules (see below); but there are concerns that it may be subject to excessive top-down control – as explored in a Constitution Unit seminar in September.
Hermer’s speech highlighted parliamentary scrutiny as among the practices that can help to maintain a healthy rule of law culture. He also emphasised the importance of international law and the need to build public trust in the law and the institutions that protect it. Such interventions mark a decisive shift from the previous government’s rhetoric and may in themselves help to shift the tone of debate. There have been some concrete actions too, notably in the Attorney General’s revised guidance on legal risk, which emphasises the need for the government to prioritise compliance with domestic and international law (see below). Yet how these warm sentiments will fare when placed under day-to-day political stress is yet to be seen.
As regards democratic participation, Labour in opposition strongly criticised several of the previous government’s innovations, including the introduction of voter ID requirements, the curtailment of Electoral Commission independence, and the replacement of the preferential voting system for mayoral elections with First Past the Post. Some steps have been taken. The list of valid forms of ID has been slightly extended, and a wider review begun. Ministers are working towards lowering the voting age to 16 and improving the system of voter registration. But several steps that could have been taken by now have not been. Notably, though a minister said in July that the existence of a ‘strategy and policy statement’ written by government for the Electoral Commission is ‘inconsistent with the commission’s role as an independent regulator’, the statement issued by the previous government remains in place.
Labour has indicated that it intends to replace the House of Lords with a democratic second chamber. Wholesale reform is unlikely during the current parliament, but ministers have pledged interim measures to address the most problematic features of the status quo. Some progress has been made: a bill to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords has already passed the House of Commons and awaits scrutiny from peers, which will begin in December (see below). Yet there has been no movement on other matters that could have been addressed by now. The Prime Minister could immediately have strengthened the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and announced that he would follow its recommendations. These changes are also nervously awaited.
The intention of ministers in London to build more constructive relations with the devolved governments and with mayors and local leaders has been symbolised by the creation of a new Council of the Nations and Regions, which met for the first time in October (see below). Within England, a new Mayoral Council and a council for dialogue with local authority leaders have also convened (see below). Whether such innovations represent real change will, however, take longer to become clear. There are already concerns that parts of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill impinge upon devolved competences; and the implementation of the Internal Market Act continues to cause tensions.
Westminster and Whitehall do not, of course, operate in a vacuum. New administrations are also bedding down in Cardiff Bay, led by Eluned Morgan, and in Holyrood, under John Swinney. The Welsh government surprised many in September by withdrawing its predecessor’s plans to make Wales the first part of the UK to enforce electoral gender quotas in law (see below). The Scottish government has shifted its focus away from mobilisation for independence towards concentrating on delivering better public services (see below). It is too early, however, to say whether this shift – which has coincided with the sudden death of former First Minister and leading independence champion Alex Salmond – represents a decisive change in the dynamics of Scottish politics, or merely a pause in the ongoing struggle between competing constitutional visions.
Meanwhile, the devolved institutions continue to function in Northern Ireland, though they remain fragile (see below). They will be further tested in the coming weeks, when Stormont votes on whether to maintain the Northern Ireland Protocol, under which the open border on the island of Ireland is maintained.
Back at Westminster, Keir Starmer faces a new Leader of the Opposition, in Kemi Badenoch (see below). Unlike Robert Jenrick, her main rival in the Conservative leadership election, Badenoch resisted the temptation to turn the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights into a lever for winning party members’ votes – apparently recognising the significant difficulties that departure would bring, not least in Northern Ireland. Yet it remains far from clear whether the party under her leadership will return to traditional conservative values such as the rule of law and protection of strong institutions, or adopt the more populist course that became prominent under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. The challenges and opportunities of opposition were explored in a Constitution Unit seminar held in early November.
Whatever the intentions of politicians in the UK, the volatile international environment continues to pose significant constraints. Not least, the impending second presidency of Donald Trump in the United States will fundamentally change the context. The international rule of law is likely to face increasing challenges. Maintaining a respectful political discourse in which truth, careful deliberation, and pursuit of the long-term public good are valued can be expected to become harder. Elon Musk’s X – formerly Twitter – has increasingly become a channel for misinformation – in response, the Constitution Unit is one of many organisations to have shifted much of its social media activity to Bluesky. The alliance (for so long as it lasts) of the world’s most powerful elected officeholder and its wealthiest person raises grave concerns about the growth of plutocracy and the weakening of democratic equality.
These pressures remind us that upholding strong constitutional and democratic standards is difficult. A new Constitution Unit guide highlights that, within the UK’s governing system, MPs have especially large responsibilities in achieving that. For both ministers and backbenchers, the desire to achieve immediate gains will have to be balanced against the need to ensure that options are carefully considered, a wide diversity of voices are heard, and core standards are maintained.
Back to top
Parliamentary scrutiny of the government
After an initial hiatus as a result of the parliamentary summer recess and conference season, the government’s legislative agenda is well underway. Concerns are already emerging that the ambitions laid out by Leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell in May (when she was Shadow Leader) for a renewed commitment to parliamentary scrutiny are failing to be met.
The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill and the Employment Rights Bill caused particular concern. Both are framework bills (also known as ‘skeleton bills’): legislation which sets out only the broad principles for a policy without including detail on how it will be given effect. The first of the two bills has been criticised by both the House of Lords Constitution Committee and House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its wide powers delegated to the government to make detailed changes later, with the Constitution Committee concluding that ‘the general thrust of the Bill is to avoid substantive law-making, instead conferring broad secondary powers upon the executive’. The second bill was released in time to meet Labour’s pre-election pledge of publication within 100 days of taking office; but, as the Hansard Society has noted, it likewise achieved this only at the cost of leaving many key policy details to be set out in secondary legislation. Such framework bills seem out of step with Attorney General Lord (Richard) Hermer’s call at his swearing in – repeated in October at the Bingham Lecture (see below) – for an end to the excessive use of delegated legislation.
These are not the only government bills to have attracted criticism. A high number of government amendments were tabled to the Renters’ Rights Bill at committee stage; as noted by the Hansard Society, such late amendments can reflect a failure to prepare the legislation well. Three bills – the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, Budget Responsibility Bill and House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill (see below) – have now been rushed through the Commons in just two days each.
Beyond primary legislation, there has also been concern about the scrutiny of fiscal measures. It is not uncommon for post-election Main Estimates (the measures which approve departmental spending plans) to be passed at speed, especially soon after a general election. However, in July MPs were asked to approve the estimates without debate or a division – only for the announcement by Chancellor Rachel Reeves of a £22 billion ‘hole’ in the public finances a week later. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle later reprimanded the government for pre-briefing the contents of the Budget to the media, a warning repeated by Deputy Speaker Nusrat Ghani ahead of the debate on the Chancellor’s Budget statement.
Back to top
House of Lords reform: the end of the hereditary peers?
Labour’s manifesto promised ‘immediate’ action to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Consistent with this, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill was introduced to the Commons on 5 September, and had its second reading on 15 October. It then (with a remarkably fast timetable) had its remaining Commons stages on 12 November.
The bill simply seeks to remove hereditary peers’ automatic right to sit and vote in the chamber at the end of the current parliamentary session. Since 1999, when the great majority of hereditary peers were evicted, 92 such seats have been retained, with by-elections held when necessary to replace those who depart. The by-elections were suspended in the context of the bill and 88 such members now remain.
Despite being high profile, it is hard to imagine much real threat to the passage of the bill. At Commons second reading, the Conservative ‘reasoned amendment’ was defeated by 453 votes to 105. Conservative speakers seemed somewhat conflicted between saying that the bill went too far and not far enough. The most notable contribution came from former Conservative chief whip Gavin Williamson, who pledged to propose amendments to implement further reforms supported in the Labour manifesto, and to end the continued presence of the bishops in the House of Lords – which he subsequently did. At the committee stage, however, all of the amendments voted upon were heavily defeated, and the bill’s third reading was then approved by 435 votes to 73. Some of the more interesting amendments – which were not voted upon – concerned matters such as strengthening the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and limiting the size of the chamber. These questions may well be returned to when the bill reaches the Lords, where second reading is scheduled for 11 December.
The principle and detail of the bill will no doubt be strongly argued in that chamber, and might potentially be amended to include such points, but the Salisbury convention on manifesto bills means it is very unlikely to be blocked. An analysis by Lisa James on our blog shows that the measure will make the House of Lords not only smaller but also less Conservative, and less male – but these effects will actually be fairly slight. Unit Director Meg Russell has also answered ‘10 key questions’ about the reform on our blog.
Simultaneously, a smaller and less controversial measure has begun its passage via the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill, introduced into the Lords on 30 July and already in the Commons. This extends to 2030 the period during which female bishops will have precedence over male ones in taking seats in the chamber.
Action on Labour’s other proposed House of Lords reforms is still awaited. In particular, peers will keenly watch for news on the proposed reform to the appointments process, and the possibility of a fixed retirement age (which has very limited support in the Lords, as demonstrated in a debate on 12 November). It would be disappointing if the former were not in place before new members are added to the chamber, and indeed if they were added in too great a number – as some media outlets have suggested. There is widespread public support for a smaller chamber, and the need for this was emphasised by Leader of the House of Lords Baroness (Angela) Smith of Basildon in the 12 November debate.
Back to top
Hereditary peer Earl Attlee listens to a debate in the Lords chamber (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by ukhouseoflords.
The Modernisation Committee
A new Modernisation Committee – promised in Labour’s general election manifesto – was established in July with a remit to ‘consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices’. Its membership was then approved in September, when MPs also agreed that the Leader of the Commons, Lucy Powell, would serve as chair.
The committee has 14 members: nine Labour MPs, three Conservatives, and two Liberal Democrats. The members were chosen by party whips rather than through the internal party election process used for most other select committees (see below). Also unlike other select committees, only around half its members are backbenchers. In addition to Powell, the Labour members include her Parliamentary Private Secretary, Sarah Coombes, and Chris Elmore, a party whip. On the opposition side, before Badenoch’s reshuffle the Conservatives had nominated Shadow Leader of the House Chris Philp and Joy Morrissey, a party whip, although Philp was later replaced by Jesse Norman following the assembly of Kemi Badenoch’s Shadow Cabinet. The Liberal Democrats put forward their Chief Whip, Wendy Chamberlain, and a newly elected MP, Marie Goldman, who was appointed to serve as the party’s Shadow Leader of the House shortly afterwards.
Within a few days of its members being appointed, the committee met to endorse a memorandum submitted by Powell. This outlined three key goals for the committee: ‘driving up standards’, ‘improving culture and working practices’, and ‘reforming working procedures to make the House of Commons more effective’. The memorandum attracted some press coverage for its suggestion of potentially limiting MPs’ paid media work. This follows a change agreed by the Commons in July that tightened restrictions on MPs’ paid advisory work.
In October, the committee launched a ‘call for views’, seeking suggestions for topics to investigate within its three broad aims. The deadline for submissions is 16 December.
Back to top
Select committees return
After a post-election hiatus, the Commons has gradually re-established its select committees. MPs approved the distribution of elected committee chairs between parties before the summer recess. Labour was allocated the chairs of 18 committees, the Conservatives received five, and the Liberal Democrats were given three. This is broadly proportional to their size in the House, and provides a reminder of Labour’s formidable majority.
The elections for these positions were then held in September, with only candidates from the allocated party eligible to run in each contest, but MPs across the Commons able to vote. The elections saw very active campaigning by some candidates, and the smallest number of uncontested races since elections were introduced in 2010. However, there was also a notable preponderance of two-horse races over more crowded fields.
Among the many interesting results, there are new chairs for the three committees whose remits touch on parliamentary business. Cat Smith beat fellow Labour MPs Stella Creasy and Gareth Snell in the contest to chair the Procedure Committee. Conservative MP Simon Hoare is the new chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, defeating Bernard Jenkin’s bid to return to a role he held from 2010 to 2019. The Committee on Standards will be chaired by Alberto Costa, who was a member of the committee in the last parliament, and defeated former Conservative Attorney General Jeremy Wright. A list of results most likely to be of interest to Monitor readers can be found below.
After these elections, parties began choosing committees’ members through a mixture of within-party elections and nominations by whips. The parties’ choices need to be approved by the Commons, and this happened over several days, but with some knock-on effects of the appointment of a new Conservative frontbench ongoing as Monitor went to press.
Cat Smith, new chair of the Procedure Committee (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Parliament.
There have also been some changes to the House’s committees, of which the most notable is the decision to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee. This has led to some concern about parliament’s capacity to scrutinise the ongoing UK–EU relationship.
Back to top
Reports on the general election
The Electoral Commission reported in November on the conduct of the summer general election and May local elections. It found that 83% of respondents to a survey of the general public were confident that the elections had been run well – a marked increase from 69% in 2019. Satisfaction was lower, however, among young people, those from less privileged socio-economic grades and from ethnic minority backgrounds, and those who reported being ‘limited a lot’ by a disability or long-term health condition. The Commission recommended that steps should be taken to improve awareness of support available for disabled voters, to address weaknesses in the postal voting system, and to make it easier for overseas voters to cast their ballot in time. In a survey of candidates, it found that 55% of respondents reported experiencing harassment, intimidation, or abuse; it pledged to support the Speaker’s Conference on this issue (see below) and set out a number of policy options. It also called for a review of the candidate nomination procedure, reiterated concerns that election administrators are overstretched, and recommended improvements to the digital systems used for electoral registration and other matters.
The Commission had already in September published its findings on the operation of the new voter ID system. It found that one person in 1,200 who tried to vote at a polling station was refused a ballot paper because they lacked valid ID. This was a reduction from one in 400 at the May 2023 local elections, when voter ID rules in Great Britain were first applied. But it is likely that many more people without valid ID simply did not try to vote. Drawing on survey research, the Commission ‘found that 4% of people who said they did not vote at the general election gave an unprompted reason related to the ID rules’. Furthermore, ‘When people who didn’t vote were asked to choose from a list of reasons, the proportion of people giving an ID-related reason rose to 10%.’ Voters from lower socio-economic groups were more likely to be affected, and there was also some evidence that unemployed and disabled voters were particularly disadvantaged. The Commission recommended that the list of accepted forms of ID should be reviewed, that access to ‘voter authority certificates’ should be improved, and that a voter with ID should be able to ‘vouch’ for a voter without it.
The Association of Electoral Administrators also published an assessment of both elections, in the form of a letter to the new Deputy Prime Minister (and responsible Secretary of State), Angela Rayner. It said that elections were ‘running on crumbling foundations’ and that continuing on this basis ‘risks compromising the entire electoral system’. It repeated its longstanding call for a consolidation of electoral law. Acknowledging concerns around postal voting, it recommended an earlier deadline for applications, greater discretion for officials in replacing undelivered ballot papers, and greater access to emergency proxy votes. It highlighted problems with the voter authority certificate application website. And it said, ‘We are alarmed at rising levels of abuse and intimidation aimed at candidates, campaigners and electoral administrators.’
Democracy Club – a charity that collates key information on polling stations and candidates – reported on its activities during the campaign period. Its database received over 14 million postcode searches between the announcement of the election and polling day. The organisation has partnerships with the Electoral Commission and the BBC, and noted that 59% of local councils promoted the information it provides.
Back to top
Changes to rules on voter ID and political finance
Though the King’s Speech contained no legislation relating to elections, ministers have indicated that work on several matters – including lowering the voting age to 16 and reforming the system of electoral registration – has begun. In addition, two pieces of law-making have progressed.
One of these concerns is the vexed issue of voter ID (see above). There was controversy in the spring when it was realised that the list of forms of ID that voters could show at polling stations excluded the armed forces veteran card. Under secondary legislation tabled in October and passed in November, this omission was rectified. Critics said these changes did not go far enough, but ministers insisted that a wider review is under way.
The other matter relates to the regulation of the political donations of trade unions. Legislation passed in 1992 required that unions make donations to political parties only from a discrete ‘political fund’, and stipulated that union members should be able to opt out from contributing to that fund. The Trade Union Act 2016 switched that opt-out provision to an opt-in rule: union members had explicitly to agree to contribute to the political fund. Clause 48 of the Employment Rights Bill will, if passed, restore the earlier opt-out arrangements.
Back to top
Speaker’s Conference to investigate electoral intimidation
In the wake of widespread concerns over growing intimidation of candidates, campaigners, and election staff (see Monitor 87), the House of Commons agreed in October to establish a Speaker’s Conference – a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker – to examine the issue. The Conference will ‘consider the factors influencing the threat levels against candidates and MPs and the effectiveness of the response to such threats, and make recommendations about the arrangements necessary to secure free and fair elections and the appropriate protection of candidates at future UK-wide parliamentary elections and of elected representatives thereafter’.
Back to top
Electoral reform discussions in Wales and Scotland
Following passage of legislation in July that, from 2026, will expand the Senedd from 60 to 96 members and change its voting system, MSs expected to move on to a bill introducing gender quotas. In September, however, the minister responsible announced that that measure – the Senedd Cymru (Electoral Candidate Lists) Bill – would be withdrawn. In neither her original written statement announcing the change, nor in a subsequent Senedd debate, did she provide any detailed explanation. She said merely that the government – under new First Minister Eluned Morgan – assessed its priorities over the summer and would not proceed. Doubts had been expressed – not least by the Llywydd (the chamber’s presiding officer) and the committee that examined the bill – as to whether the provisions lay within the Senedd’s legislative competence: while electoral law is devolved, matters relating to equality are not. But many MSs had hoped that such concerns could be resolved. In particular, several suggested in the Senedd debate that they had expected a new Labour government in Westminster to be willing to grant a ‘section 109’ order under the Government of Wales Act 2006, which would have provided the necessary extension of competence.
Three of the 22 councils in Wales have considered whether to change the voting system for local elections from First Past the Post (FPTP) to the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. Legislation passed in 2021 allows them to make this change, following consultations, if two thirds of councillors vote in favour. Powys County Council reported that 60.5% of consultation respondents supported the change, but only 21 of 68 councillors voted for it at a meeting in October. In Gwynedd, where 72% of respondents were in favour, the councillors’ ballot fell just one vote short, with 45 of 68 voting in favour. The third consultation, in Ceredigion, found 67% support for change. A slim majority (18 to 17) voted in line with the public view but the margin in favour was too small for the measure to pass.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament continued its examination of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. This bill would, if passed, extend the range of foreign nationals who can stand for election, prevent anyone found guilty of electoral intimidation or a range of criminal offences from standing, enable increased funding for activities to support democratic engagement, and introduce several other measures.
Back to top
Developments in deliberative democracy
A number of developments took place in the area of participatory and deliberative democracy. In July, the think tank Demos and the public participation charity Involve set out proposals for how participatory and deliberative processes might be embedded in the work of central government. Its suggestions included ‘a central hub of participatory policy making expertise in government’, citizens’ panels to work alongside each of the government’s five ‘mission boards’, and ‘at least three national Citizens’ Assemblies in the first term to tackle knotty politically and publicly salient issues’.
In September, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics published initial findings from its citizens’ jury on assisted dying, which met over eight weeks, earlier in the year. With a Commons vote on legislation for assisted dying expected in late November, there were also calls in the press for public deliberation on the matter to be enabled through an official citizens’ assembly. There has likewise been prominent support for a citizens’ assembly on Lords reform.
Back to top
Downing Street Chief of Staff and government appointments
On 6 October, the government announced that Sue Gray had stepped down as Downing Street Chief of Staff, to be replaced by Morgan McSweeney, who left his role as Joint Head of Political Strategy. The announcement followed persistent media headlines about infighting in Number 10, with reported frustration at Gray’s tight control of information going to the Prime Minister, and her reportedly blocking and delaying appointments, restricting special adviser numbers, and setting limits on their pay. However, others reported that she was a ‘team player’, that establishing the ‘architecture of government’ after the election would have taken far longer without her, and that decisions on pay for special advisers were made by others. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner came out strongly to defend Gray, suggesting that some criticisms may have stemmed from the misogyny of ‘entitled men’. Following her resignation, Gray was appointed to a new role as the Prime Minister’s envoy for the nations and regions, but she did not attend the inaugural meeting of the new Council of the Nations and Regions chaired by Keir Starmer on 11 October (see below) and it was later announced that she would not be taking on the position after all.
The new government has also been criticised for some controversial appointments to the civil service. Following the appointment of former staff from Labour Together and party donors to senior positions in the Treasury, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and Cabinet Office, Keir Starmer defended the government against charges of cronyism, saying it needed the right people in the right places to get on with the job. But on 30 August the Civil Service Commission launched an inquiry, writing to permanent secretaries to ask for details of any appointments since 1 July that were made without going through the normal civil service recruitment processes.
A new Cabinet Secretary must also be appointed, after the incumbent, Simon Case, announced his resignation on health grounds, which will take effect at the end of the year. First Civil Service Commissioner Baroness (Gisela) Stuart of Edgbaston will chair the panel to select Case’s successor, together with Brian McBride, lead non-executive director at the Ministry of Defence, Lord (Gus) O’Donnell, a former Cabinet Secretary, and Sharon White, former Second Permanent Secretary at the Treasury. The job description requires the new Cabinet Secretary to ‘deliver the government’s mission-driven programme; pursue reforms that make government work better; create a more united democracy; and strengthen and secure the United Kingdom at home and abroad’.
Outgoing Cabinet Secretary Simon Case (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.
Ethics and standards in public life
The government has been heavily criticised not just for cronyism but also for accepting free gifts from party donors. The ‘freebies’ row dominated the government’s early months in office, with a series of disclosures revealing that Keir Starmer had received £107,000 in gifts since 2019, more than any other MP. The gifts included seats at football matches, clothing for Starmer and his wife, and tickets to concerts. Almost all the gifts had been declared in the MPs’ register of interests, but on 2 October Starmer agreed to pay back £6,000 in an attempt to draw a line under the issue.
Following – but not because of – these controversies, the government published an updated version of the Ministerial Code. It is usually revised shortly after a change in Prime Minister, but Keir Starmer’s version of the Code was not published until 6 November, four months after he took office. The delay was criticised, but the finished product included welcome and important changes.
The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) have been reincorporated into the body of the Code following their removal by Boris Johnson. How ministers should handle gifts and hospitality has changed, by requiring disclosure on a monthly basis (rather than quarterly), and a value to be specified where possible.
The most significant changes are arguably those that affect the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests. Relabelled the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, the postholder has been given new powers: crucially, the Code enables them to initiate an investigation into allegations against a minister without the Prime Minister’s consent and requires ministers to provide the Adviser with all ‘reasonably necessary’ information. Although the Adviser can recommend a sanction in the event of a breach of the Code, the final decision on whether and how to punish an offender remains with the Prime Minister.
Publication of the Code is nonetheless not in itself a solution to the problem of continuing public mistrust in politicians. As Peter Riddell has argued on our blog, it will be most effective if it is the start of a broad programme of standards reform. Yet many questions about the government’s detailed plans remain unanswered, including whether its promised new Ethics and Integrity Commission will supplant or sit alongside existing ethics regulators, such as the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Back to top
New Cabinet committees
On 10 October, three months after taking office, the government belatedly announced a new Cabinet committee structure. The Prime Minister now chairs five of the 10 committees: including that on the Union and Constitution. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden sits on seven committees, and chairs two of them. Two committees are chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Foreign Secretary David Lammy, respectively, while Leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell chairs the committee dedicated to Parliamentary Business and Legislation. The Minister for the Constitution and EU Relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, is another central player, sitting on five committees.
There are also to be five Mission Boards on growth; clean energy; safer streets; opportunities; and health. They are chaired by the relevant Secretary of State; but Pat McFadden sits on all of them as deputy chair, illustrating the centrality of his role within government.
Back to top
Lords Committee on Statutory Inquiries
Public inquiries into the Grenfell Tower fire, the infected blood scandal, Post Office Horizon IT scandal, and Covid-19 have all been much in the news, but these are only four out of the 18 public inquiries currently taking place. There is frequent criticism about the cost, duration, remit and effectiveness of such inquiries. The report of the Lords Committee on Statutory Inquiries, published in September, made a series of recommendations to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.
The report concluded that ministers should be more willing to consider appointing chairs who are not judges, or naming a panel of co-chairs, to encourage more subject-area expertise. To expedite the inquiry’s work and reduce costs, ministers were encouraged by the committee to include a deadline in the terms of reference, and mandate a modular structure with interim reports, enabling recommendations to be implemented more quickly. Finally, the committee recommended the formation of a new parliamentary committee to conduct oversight of public inquiries, monitor the government response, and ensure that the recommendations accepted by government are implemented.
Back to top
King Charles visits Australia and Samoa
King Charles paid a five-day visit to Australia in October, where he was heckled by Lidia Thorpe, an independent member of the Australian Senate, who called on him to instruct the country’s parliament to negotiate a treaty with the First Nations people of Australia. Thorpe was censured by the Senate for her behaviour. The King then went on to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa, where the final communiqué included a paragraph about reparations for slavery, despite Keir Starmer’s attempts to keep the issue off the agenda. The joint statement acknowledged calls for ‘discussions on reparatory justice’ for the transatlantic slave trade, saying that ‘the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity’. Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have both said firmly that the UK will not pay reparations, but the issue is likely to surface again at the UK–Caribbean forum in 2025.
Back to top
Royal finances and the Crown Estate
In September the House of Commons Library published a research briefing about the royal finances. This shows that the Sovereign Grant, a payment from the government to fund the monarchy’s official duties, will increase to £132.1 million in 2025/26: a rise of £45.8 million on the previous year. Following a review in 2023, the Grant was reduced from 25% to 12% of the profits of the Crown Estate, which is a commercial business, independent from government and the monarch. Despite the 2023 reduction in the percentage going to the monarch, an increase in the actual money paid is the result of a significant rise in profits of the Crown Estate, thanks to offshore wind farms – as it owns the seabed and most of the foreshore around England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The increased grant attracted little press attention, save for an article in Prospect magazine.
Prospective changes to the Crown Estate will also affect how much money goes to the Sovereign Grant in the future. Parliament is currently scrutinising the Crown Estate Bill, which the government claims is designed to bring the law on the estate ‘into the twenty-first century’, 63 years after it was created by statute.
At the bill’s second reading in the Lords, its general principles were not particularly controversial, but the role of the Crown Estate in Wales was a subject of much discussion. Plaid Cymru’s Lord (Dafydd) Wigley was one of those who spoke in support of devolving the Crown Estate to Wales (as happened in Scotland in 2016), so that Welsh ministers could decide what to do with the proceeds of profits made in Wales. Proposed amendments to that effect did not make it into the bill. But a new clause proposed by Labour’s Lord (Peter) Hain was accepted which provides for the creation of a team of three commissioners to ‘give advice’ to the Estate on behalf of England, Northern Ireland and Wales (with one commissioner per nation). The bill completed its Lords stages on 18 November and will now go to the Commons.
Back to top
Resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, announced his resignation on 12 November, several days after a report found he had failed to take adequate action after becoming aware of prolific child abuse perpetrated by a church youth worker. Welby had initially said that he intended to stay on, but a growing backlash forced his hand.
Although the King has absolute discretion on who to appoint as a matter of law, in practice the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) selects the nominee. A church-based body, the CNC will nominate a candidate who has the support of two-thirds of the voting members following a secret ballot. The Prime Minister will then ask the nominee if they are willing to accept the position and ask the CNC for a second name if the answer is no. If the answer is yes, the CNC’s recommendation will be passed to the King, who will grant a licence to the Canterbury College of Canons to elect a bishop and issue a letter naming the person to be elected. A Confirmation of Election ceremony should then take place at St Paul’s Cathedral. Once confirmed, the new Archbishop will be sworn in as a member of the Privy Council, if they are not already a member, and introduced to the House of Lords. This is usually a slow process, with a full year passing between the resignation of the last Archbishop, Rowan Williams, and Welby’s enthronement in 2013.
A former Archbishop of Canterbury is usually appointed a life peer following their resignation, but whether this will be the case for Welby remains to be seen.
Back to top
The rule of law
Attorney General Lord (Richard) Hermer gave a speech to the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law in October on the topic of upholding the rule of law in an ‘age of populism’. He said that crises and instability in recent years have resulted in the UK committing several ‘constitutional heresies’ that have ‘stretched the fabric of our constitution to its limit’ and caused the UK’s ability to provide leadership on the rule of law to be questioned at home and abroad.
The speech focused on three themes, which Hermer said were essential to maintaining the rule of law. The first was that the UK needed to rebuild its reputation as a global leader on respect for international law. To accomplish this, he committed the government to ‘unequivocally’ support the European Convention on Human Rights and to comply with judgments that find the UK to be in breach of it. His second theme was the need to defend and improve parliament’s ability to uphold the rule of law. He said it was incumbent on the government to ensure that select committees can perform their scrutiny role effectively and spoke of the need to reconsider the appropriate balance between primary and secondary legislation, which he argued is currently leaning too heavily in favour of delegated powers. The third theme focused on the need to promote a rule of law culture in an environment where the law is often framed as being part of the problem. Hermer spoke of the need to explain to the public how a country that respects the rule of law provides a stable and predictable environment for people to plan their lives, and for businesses to flourish. He also called for a public education campaign to spread this message throughout the country.
Back to top
New guidance on legal risk
Lord Hermer’s speech on the rule of law (see the previous article) was swiftly followed by publication of a revised version of the Attorney General’s guidance on legal risk, designed to assist lawyers advising the government. Originally created by members of the Government Legal Department, it was revised and relabelled by then Attorney General Suella Braverman in July 2022. She said at the time that she was trying to prevent lawyers exercising too much caution when giving advice to ministers, which she believed had ‘hampered ministerial objectives needlessly’. The revisions were made at a time when the future of the Rwanda asylum scheme was being challenged in the courts, and the government was extremely critical of the legal profession.
Attorney General Lord (Richard) Hermer (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.
The new guidance appears designed to reverse Braverman’s changes. It states clearly the government’s obligation to comply with domestic and international legal obligations, something that is also included in the revised version of the Ministerial Code (see above). It is more explicit than the previous version that relying on an argument that is weak enough to be merely ‘tenable’ is generally to be avoided, as it indicates that the relevant minister is likely to lose any subsequent court case. It also makes clear that there will be occasions when something is obviously unlawful, and that lawyers must advise as such, if that is their honest assessment.
Back to top
Council of Europe Convention on Artificial Intelligence
In September, the Council of Europe agreed a Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. The convention – which the Council hailed as ‘the first-ever international legally binding treaty’ on AI – obligates signatories to ensure, through legislation and other measures, that AI shall not be used in ways that violate human rights, democracy, or the rule of law. AI must not ‘undermine the integrity, independence and effectiveness of democratic institutions and processes, including the principle of the separation of powers, respect for judicial independence and access to justice’, and also ‘including individuals’ fair access to and participation in public debate, as well as their ability to freely form opinions’.
Welcoming the convention on behalf of the UK government, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, said it represented ‘a major step to ensuring that these new technologies can be harnessed without eroding our oldest values, like human rights and the rule of law.’
The House of Lords held a short debate on the convention in October. The UK is a signatory, but the convention has not yet been laid before parliament, as will need to happen ahead of formal ratification.
Back to top
Conservative leadership contest
Immediately following the Conservative Party’s election defeat, Rishi Sunak announced his intention to step down as its leader. A process began to select his successor, which ended on 2 November. Since the late 1990s, the Conservatives have officially used a two-stage process, starting with elimination ballots among the party’s MPs, with the final two candidates then put to a vote of the whole party membership (though this latter stage has been skipped on several occasions – including in the choice of Sunak).
The 2024 contest was full of twists and turns. Initially, candidates needed 10 MP nominations to reach the ballot, and six achieved this. The first ballot on 4 September saw the lowest ranked candidate, Priti Patel, eliminated on 14 votes. Six days later, the next candidate knocked out was Mel Stride, on 16 votes. This left four candidates – Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick and Tom Tugendhat – who were given several weeks to drum up support, including at the party conference, where all gave a speech. Conservatives were hoping for the ‘wow’ factor which had propelled David Cameron to the leadership in 2005 following an impressive conference performance. It was Cleverly who was seen as achieving this, and he went on to top the third MP ballot on 8 October, when Tugendhat was eliminated. Cleverly’s place in the member ballot was widely seen as secure, since many of Tugendhat’s supporters were expected to switch to him, as a relatively centrist candidate, in the final MP ballot the next day. But in a shock result, believed to be caused by misplaced tactical voting, Cleverly was knocked out. It was thus the two right-wingers, Badenoch and Jenrick, who went to the member ballot. The winner was announced on 2 November: Badenoch won by 56% to 44%. She is the first black woman to lead a major UK party and is now the Leader of the Opposition in parliament. In appointing her Shadow Cabinet, Badenoch gave senior positions to Stride, Patel and Jenrick, but Cleverly and Tugendhat declined to serve.
Kemi Badenoch is elected as Conservative" (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by The Conservative Party.
There had already been calls before the contest, including from senior figures, to reform how Conservative leaders are chosen, possibly removing the member ballot stage. These may become louder following MPs’ apparent mishandled attempt to game who reached that ballot.
Back to top
The Independent Alliance
Jeremy Corbyn and four other independent MPs elected on a pro-Palestinian platform in July have formed a new political grouping called the Independent Alliance. It has no official leader and is not a formal political party, but the group said that its MPs banded together so that they could receive more parliamentary time to ask questions and speak in debates. The alliance will not qualify for Short Money, the funding that opposition parties can receive for parliamentary work.
Back to top
The governance of the Union
As promised in Labour’s general election manifesto, the government has established a new Council of the Nations and Regions. Such a body was proposed in the final report of the Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Its members include representatives of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the metro-mayors in England, and the Mayor of London. It is chaired by the Prime Minister, will meet twice per year, and has a standing secretariat provided by the UK government. It held its first meeting on 11 October.
Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told the media that the Council will ‘bring responsibility for intergovernmental relations back into the centre of government’. In a recent written statement, the Prime Minister also announced that responsibility for devolution policy outside of England would move from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (headed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner) to the Cabinet Office, where Pat McFadden has the title of Minister for Intergovernmental Relations.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee published a new report on 27 September, titled The Governance of the Union: Consultation, Cooperation and Legislative Consent. The committee welcomed the new government’s appointment of a Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, and the establishment of the Council of the Nations and Regions, which had yet to meet at the time of the report’s publication.
Keir Starmer with mayors and leaders of devolved governments (CC BY 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.
The Constitution Committee’s report was critical of the knowledge base within government and repeated previously expressed concerns that civil servants lacked sufficient knowledge of devolution. It urged the new government to ensure that every department has ‘a properly equipped team — and a Ministerial lead — with the knowledge and skills necessary to address, anticipate and engage with devolution matters as they arise’.
On the Sewel convention, which dictates that the UK government should not normally legislate on areas of devolved competence without seeking consent, the committee rejected calls to replace the convention with an express legal duty not to legislate in areas of devolved competence without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature. The committee concluded that to do so would risk involving the courts in what is ‘fundamentally a political matter’. Instead it recommend that, when a bill is introduced to the Lords that might engage the convention, ministers should submit a memorandum explaining what engagement has taken place with the relevant devolved administrations.
On secondary legislation, the committee recommended that the government develop and publish ‘a clear set of criteria’ regarding the use of delegated powers in areas of devolved competence, which should include details as to the circumstances in which it would ‘not normally’ exercise a delegated power without consent.
Back to top
England
The government has stated its intention to publish a white paper on English devolution, which will include an updated devolution framework. Indications have also emerged that the government is considering a unitary restructuring of local government. The 2024 Budget, published on 30 October, stated that the white paper would set out plans for ‘working with councils to move to simpler structures that make sense for their local areas, with efficiency savings from council reorganisation helping to meet the needs of local people’. An ‘English Devolution Bill’ is expected in the early part of next year.
Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, invited localities to submit new bids for devolution deals in a letter to local leaders on 16 July. The government had not published details of the responses to this invitation at the time of writing, but the Local Government Chronicle published a map of the ‘state of play’ at the end of September. This suggests that most localities without a devolution deal have submitted a request for devolved powers, or expressed an interest in doing so, but that many of them are not willing to establish a mayoralty.
The government has also announced three new intergovernmental bodies involving England. In addition to the Council of the Nations and Regions (see above), the government has also established a Mayoral Council, consisting of all the metro-mayors and the Mayor of London, which met for the first time on 10 October. This is separate from the metro-mayors’ self-organised group, recently rebranded ‘Mayors UK’. Additionally, Angela Rayner announced a Leaders’ Council, for local authority leaders, on 24 October.
The Conservative government had committed to creating two new mayoral combined authorities (Hull and East Yorkshire, and Greater Lincolnshire), two ‘level 2’ non-mayoral deals (Devon and Torbay, and Lancashire) and two mayoral county deals (Norfolk and Suffolk). The new government committed to progressing the first four of these on 22 September. Hull and East Yorkshire will elect its first mayor in May 2025, as will Greater Lincolnshire. A further press release stated that the government was ‘minded to progress’ four further non-mayoral deals, in Cornwall, Surrey, Buckinghamshire and Warwickshire. But ministers decided to scrap the Norfolk and Suffolk devolution deals.
Back to top
Northern Ireland
The devolved institutions continue to function smoothly, if not always productively, following their resumption in February (see Monitor 86). In September, the Northern Ireland Executive approved a draft Programme for Government – though some questioned why it had taken over six months to do so, and criticised the lack of specifics.
There have been notable personnel changes in Northern Ireland politics. Doug Beattie resigned as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, citing ‘irreconcilable differences’ with some of his colleagues, to be replaced by Mike Nesbitt, who had led the party before and stood unopposed. Colum Eastwood gave up the leadership of the SDLP, and, as Claire Hanna was the only candidate, she was confirmed as his replacement on 6 September. And Stephen Farry, deputy leader of the Alliance party, who lost his parliamentary seat in July, left politics for academia.
Sinn Féin faced questions over a former employee convicted of child sex offences; and other issues related to inappropriate conduct by a senior officer of the party. The Democratic Unionist Party encountered criticism, meanwhile, over its ministers’ meetings with representatives of loyalist paramilitarism. Neither issue seems likely to disrupt the institutions.
Since its election in July, the new government in London has continued to make much of its commitment to a reset of British–Irish relations, notably with a visit by the Prime Minister to Dublin in September. However, legacy issues continue to cause controversy. Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn backed the investigatory commission established by the last government’s much-contested ‘Legacy Act’. That was despite his commitment to repeal much of that legislation, particularly the provisions related to the ending of civil and criminal proceedings, and inquests, for Troubles deaths. The Court of Appeal upheld a judgment that disapplied large parts of the legislation on the basis that they were inconsistent with rights guarantees in the Northern Ireland Protocol to the EU Withdrawal Agreement (see Monitor 87). The government has since sought leave to appeal, raising the prospect of a Supreme Court ruling on the extent of the disapplication power under the Protocol. Despite the ban on investigations into Troubles cases, Benn did agree to establish a public inquiry into the 1989 killing of the lawyer Pat Finucane, following a campaign lasting several decades.
The debate on Irish unity continues, with former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar stating recently that a future Irish government should regard it as an ‘objective’ rather than an ‘aspiration’. The present Taoiseach, Simon Harris, has however said that the issue does not ‘arise currently’. And Benn has reiterated that he sees no evidence at present of a majority for unity, which would oblige him by law to call a border poll. Public opinion surveys continue to confirm that position for the moment.
Looking forward, the Northern Ireland Assembly must vote before the end of the year on the Northern Ireland Protocol that was agreed as part of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Although the vote seems very likely to favour continuation of the Windsor Framework negotiated in February 2023 (see Monitor 83), political tensions could still arise.
Back to top
Scotland
The sudden death of former First Minister Alex Salmond in October prompted a moment of reflection in Scottish politics. Salmond led the SNP’s minority government, elected in 2007, and won a parliamentary majority in 2011, before heading an ultimately unsuccessful independence referendum campaign in 2014. Following allegations of sexual misconduct and disputes over how these were handled, he later left the SNP and formed a new party, Alba, which he led until his death.
Salmond's successors as First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf, spent more than 10 years pursuing a second referendum on independence that never came. John Swinney, since being elected as First Minister in May, has instead put greater emphasis on running an effective devolved government, implicitly sidelining demands for another referendum for now.
The Scottish government has been facing major budgetary challenges, leading to emergency spending reductions in the current financial year. The immediate occasion for action was the knock-on effect of UK public sector pay rises, but the underlying problem has accumulated over a series of recent one-year spending rounds. The additional spending announced in the UK budget will likely address immediate pressures. Significant longer-term pressures remain, notably the cost of devolved welfare policy which, according to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, will reach £1.5 billion a year, and for which there is no funding.
De-emphasising referendum demands should ease relations with London. Thorny issues nevertheless remain, notably the status of the Sewel convention (see above). Discussions have begun on the future of the Internal Market Act, which governs the trading relationship between the nations of the UK.
With the UK general election complete, political attention moves to the next Scottish parliamentary election in 2026. Polling shows party popularity to have been volatile, with Labour swiftly shedding some of its UK general election support, and Reform UK gaining ground, despite not campaigning in Scotland over the summer.
Back to top
Wales
Eluned Morgan was formally elected to serve as First Minister at a specially convened session of the Senedd on 6 August, after standing unopposed in the Welsh Labour leadership contest in July (see Monitor 87). Nominated by predecessor Vaughan Gething, she was supported by 28 of the 60 Members of the Senedd (MS). The leaders of Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives also stood in the election, receiving 27 votes between them
Morgan announced her new ministerial team, the majority of whom are women, on 11 September. The position of Deputy First Minister was revived – having lapsed in 2011 – and given to Huw Irranca-Davies. This is the first time that the role has been held by a member of the same party as the First Minister, having previously been reserved for the leader of the smaller party in coalition governments. Former First Minister Mark Drakeford was brought back into the government as Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Welsh Language.
Though Labour lacks a majority in the Senedd, speculation over whether the Welsh government would be able to pass its budget has lessened since Morgan’s election. Public services in Wales, especially local government and the NHS, are under severe financial pressure, while issues like the funding of rail and the continued designation of HS2 as an England and Wales project – which means Wales will receive no additional money to support it – remain contentious.
Nevertheless, having Labour in power in both Cardiff and London has meant that relations between the two governments have radically improved. The UK government has pledged to ensure ‘genuine, meaningful and focused partnership’ with devolved governments and to strengthen the Sewel convention (see above).
Even when relations between London and Cardiff are harmonious, there can be difficulties. For example, the Welsh government has raised concerns about the effect on devolved competences of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill (see above), and there continue to be disagreements between Cardiff and London arising from the curtailment of devolved powers under the UK Internal Market Act. Furthermore, there is no appetite in London for the devolution of policing and justice, a long-held aspiration of the Welsh government.
MSs are increasingly starting to think about the next Senedd election in May 2026, the first to take place after the planned expansion of the Senedd to 96 members (see Monitor 87). The Boundary Commission proposed a temporary map in September for that election under the new list system, in which 16 seats will each return six MSs, and each party is now considering how its candidates should be chosen. With the prospect of Reform UK performing well, October saw reports that the Conservative Party in Wales was contemplating a policy of abolishing the Senedd, but Welsh Conservatives leader Andrew RT Davies has ruled out such a move.
Back to top
Prime Minister's Questions in France
Since 2019, the French National Assembly has been experimenting with its questioning format in an attempt to address low attendance and an apparent lack of interest among MPs (and, presumably, people watching on television). The latest attempt was the introduction of a Prime Minister's Question Time, loosely inspired by the session which runs in the UK House of Commons. For 45 minutes on Wednesdays, the French Prime Minister would answer 10 questions, one from each party group, on any subject, and from any MP. A separate session of 1 hour and 15 minutes on Tuesdays would remain, as before, for questions to the government as a whole.
The hope was that the opportunity to question the Prime Minister directly, rather than junior ministers, would raise the political stakes of the session, making it more worthwhile for MPs to attend and more compelling for citizens to watch. The proposal, put forward by the main governing party, Renaissance, was supported by conservative, far-right and independent MPs. Left-wing MPs, however, feared that the quality and accuracy of answers would decline and saw the experiment as a tactic to boost the Prime Minister's popularity at the expense of the parliament's oversight function. The government's minority parties, Modem and Horizons, expressed concern that the Prime Minister's reputation could be damaged by frequent questioning. As a result, it was agreed that it would only be an experiment, running from April to June.
The dissolution of the National Assembly in June for a snap election delayed the evaluation of the trial, but it was ultimately decided not to continue the experiment. The new questioning process lacked strong support from parliamentary party leaders, but it also failed to increase the attendance of MPs and was not considered convincing in terms of content. Incoming Prime Minister Michel Barnier also showed no interest in continuing the new practice, and so the experiment was terminated.
Back to top
Back to top
MPs’ role in the constitution
In October the Unit published MPs’ Role in the Constitution: A Practical Guide. This short document, authored by Meg Russell and Lisa James, is an output from the Unit’s Constitutional Principles and the Health of Democracy project, and was supported by the Institute for Government and Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. It was circulated directly to all MPs, with its key messages summarised on our blog.
The central point made in the guide is that MPs have broad constitutional responsibilities which may sometimes be obscured by their busy lives and short-term focus on political party and constituency demands. This is true in all democracies, but even more so in the UK, given our tradition of parliamentary sovereignty. The guide points to various roles and responsibilities, including holding the government to account, protecting the devolution settlement, upholding relations between parliament and the courts, and maintaining the quality of political debate and reputation of parliament itself.
Back to top
Staff news
The Unit was sad to say goodbye at the end of October to Senior Research Fellow Dr Patrick Thomas, who had been with us on secondment from the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee since January. Patrick did very valuable work in fleshing out various reform proposals in a deliberately practical way. This included work on a key report on the constitutional landscape, which is due for publication soon. Patrick returns to parliament with our gratitude and appreciation, and we look forward to continuing to work with him in that role.
Back to top
Research volunteers
The Unit is, as always, grateful for the excellent work done by its research volunteers. A big thank you to former volunteers Matthieu Dinh, Annabel Iyengar, Katherine Macdonald-Smith, James Martin and Tom Oxley.
Back to top
