Panel: The Role of Parliaments in Crises and Emergencies

On Thursday, 22 January 2026, the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism (GCDC), along with the House of Commons’ Parliament, Public Administration, and Constitution Hub and the Institute for Government (IfG), held a panel event entitled ‘The Role of Parliaments in Crises and Emergencies: Before, During, and After’. The event was convened by Dr Paolo Sandro (House of Commons, University of Leeds), Professor Jeff King (UCL Laws, GCDC), Dr Hannah White (IfG), and Tim Durrant (IfG).

The event opened with remarks from Professor Ilan Kelman (UCL), who highlighted the increasing prevalence of disasters globally. Drawing on his book Disaster by Choice, he defined disaster as a situation requiring outside support for coping. He argued that disaster combines hazard and vulnerability, emphasising that parliaments must recognise the centrality of vulnerability to disasters. Professor Kelman cautioned against the use of terms such as ‘natural disaster’ and ‘disaster event’, noting that disasters are not natural phenomena but the result of human choices over the long term. Emergencies, he stressed, should be understood as processes rather than events. He urged participants to carry this understanding into the day’s discussions, reinforcing the idea that disasters are not natural and that it is up to us to make choices that avoid such disasters.

The first panel, ‘Preparing and Legislating’, saw contributions from Dr Thomas Muinzer (University of Aberdeen), Suzanne Raine (University of Cambridge), and Eve Samson (House of Commons). The panellists discussed how parliaments should legislate in the context of crises such as the climate emergency and the COVID-19 pandemic. They reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of statutes in the UK, such as the Climate Change Act 2008, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and the Coronavirus Act 2020. The discussion also emphasised the need to move away from attempts to predict the future and instead invest in well-resourced, coordinated early-warning systems, on the basis of which preventative action can be taken in order to avoid a crisis. The panel was chaired by Dr Hannah White (IfG).

The second panel, ‘Responsive Management and Scrutiny’, brought together Sarah Davies (House of Commons), Professor Jeff King (UCL Laws, GCDC), and Dr Jonathan Murphy (International IDEA). The discussion focused on parliamentary responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, both in the UK and from a comparative perspective. References were made to research outputs such as Professor King’s article ‘Law and Power in the Age of Emergencies’, International IDEA’s report Parliaments and Crisis: Challenges and Innovations, and the forthcoming book Comparing COVID Laws. These publications illustrate how different jurisdictions responded to the pandemic, including decisions on whether to postpone elections, close or suspend parliaments, and adopt hybrid or remote working arrangements. Sunset clauses were highlighted as a particularly important accountability mechanism in emergency legislation. Another emerging practice identified was the establishment of parliamentary committees for the future, which some parliaments around the world are doing to strengthen preparedness for future crises. The panel was chaired by Professor Erin Delaney (UCL Laws, GCDC).

The final panel, ‘Accountability and Lesson-Learning’, was chaired by Dr Rupavardhini Balakrishnan Raju (UCL Laws, GCDC), with panellists Sir Jack Beatson (24 Lincoln’s Inn Fields), Ben Connah (UK COVID-19 Inquiry), Kate Dewsnip (University of Liverpool), and Dr Cath Haddon (IfG). The discussion opened with reflections on the recommendations proposed by the Beatson-led Independent Commission on UK Public Health Emergency Powers and the UK COVID-19 Inquiry. These included proposals for a two-month sunset clause on emergency legislation, a six-month expiry period for legislation subject to the negative procedure, the regular conduct of pandemic preparedness exercises with published findings, and a strengthened parliamentary role in scrutinising emergency laws and regulations. One panellist, drawing on their doctoral thesis, Legislate in Haste and Repent at Leisure: The UK Constitution in Times of Emergency, highlighted the tendency of governments to legislate in haste during crises, often at the expense of effective parliamentary scrutiny. The point was illustrated through case studies from the COVID-19 pandemic, counter-terrorism legislation, and the global financial crisis of 2008. The discussion then turned to the role of both ministers and Parliament during and after crises. Particular attention was drawn to the capacity of select committees to follow up on certain public inquiry recommendations and monitor their implementation.

The event concluded with a general question-and-answer session with members of the audience, touching on the various themes explored during the day’s panels. At the event’s conclusion, participants were encouraged to engage with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s call for evidence on public inquiries.