Monitor 89

The urgency of protecting democracy and the rule of law

Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.

Read Monitor 89 (pdf)

In this edition

The urgency of protecting democracy and the rule of law

The urgency of protecting democracy and the rule of law

In recent months domestic politics has often been overshadowed by events on the international stage. The longstanding assumption that democratic countries would work together to promote the values of democracy, self-determination, and international rule of law has been undermined to a sometimes shocking degree. Developments in the United States have highlighted the importance of maintaining healthy checks and balances, avoiding polarisation, and fostering open political discourse.

Here in the UK, debates over a wide range of constitutional and political topics are current – with some being livelier than others. The Constitution Unit has published a major new survey of these debates, highlighting the current situation and possible reforms across 31 different parts of the system (see below).

Among these are several issues on which the UK government has made progress since the promises presented in Labour’s manifesto last year. Most strikingly, a white paper on English devolution, published in December, promised a ‘devolution revolution’ (see below). It is proposed that ‘mayoral strategic authorities’ will be rolled out across the country, while local government will gradually be reorganised into larger, single-tier units. In parliament, scrutiny of legislation to remove the remaining hereditary peers has continued, with extensive debates ongoing in the Lords itself as Monitor went to press (see below). Ministers have also pledged to publish plans for electoral reforms by the summer, with the headline change likely to be the lowering of the voting age to 16 (see below). And they have launched a review of how the Internal Market Act is affecting devolved government (see below).

But in other areas highlighted in the Unit’s new report, progress has been slower. While ministers are intent on removing the hereditary peers, they show little enthusiasm for implementing other changes promised to the composition of the Lords. Meanwhile, membership of the chamber has grown further, with a fresh round of 38 appointments announced just before Christmas (see below). While small changes may yet come, more fundamental review of the second chamber appears very distant.

In the House of Commons, the Procedure Committee has announced five inquiries, and the Modernisation Committee – chaired by a Cabinet minister – has published its plans (see below). But there is little indication as yet that the latter committee will do anything to act on ministers’ pre-election pledge to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of legislation.

There has, likewise, been no sign of progress towards establishing the promised Ethics and Integrity Commission, which, it was understood, would combine and strengthen several of the watchdogs that oversee the work of ministers and senior civil servants.

Developments in the United States, combined with rumours before Christmas that the billionaire and Donald Trump ally Elon Musk might donate $100 million to a UK political party, sparked renewed concerns about the susceptibility of the UK’s democratic processes to the influence of ‘big money’ (see below). Ministers have reiterated their intention to close loopholes and tighten enforcement, to limit the foreign funds entering the system. But they appear disinclined to follow widespread calls for a general cap on political donations. A Constitution Unit seminar held as Monitor went to press explored these matters (see below).

Some saw echoes of Musk’s political ally, Donald Trump, in the comments by Keir Starmer in December that ‘too many in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline’. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, reaffirmed the commitment to public sector reform in March, when, most eye-catchingly, they announced that NHS England would be scrapped as an independent entity (see below). They appeared to recognise that the earlier rhetoric had harmed confidence among civil servants, however, and were keen to emphasise that the problems lay in structures, not people.

Since entering office last year, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, and the Attorney General, Lord (Richard) Hermer, have repeatedly voiced their commitment to the rule of law, including proper parliamentary processes on legislation. In recent months, however, Hermer has been subject to a series of public attacks – often apparently briefed anonymously from within the highest echelons of government (see below). He has been criticised for allegedly prioritising process over delivery. But events in the United States – where the Trump administration stands accused of trampling legal rules in pursuit of dramatic cuts to federal services, causing widespread distress and potential corruption – show the dangers of letting such standards slip.

Beyond the government’s own agenda, much of Westminster’s attention continues to be devoted to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – the private member’s bill that proposes to legalise assisted dying for some adults who are not expected to live for more than six months (see below). The measure passed second reading in the House of Commons in November and is now receiving detailed scrutiny in committee. Departing from the normal procedure for private members’ bills, the committee has taken evidence from external witnesses, though the process of selecting those witnesses proved somewhat controversial.

Away from Westminster, the Northern Ireland Executive finally agreed a Programme for Government in late February, more than a year after it had entered office (see below). The Assembly endorsed Northern Ireland’s current trade arrangements with Great Britain and the European Union in December – but only over the opposition of every unionist MLA who voted, with the result that a review is now underway. Holyrood and Cardiff Bay, meanwhile, continue to pursue democratic reforms. In Scotland, ministers confirmed their intention to pilot ‘more automated forms’ of electoral registration for young people (see below). They also introduced a new Scottish Ministerial Code (see below). In Wales, a Senedd committee set out proposals for recall of MSs and for action against politicians who make deliberately false statements (see below).

Notwithstanding all these domestic developments, the international sphere is likely to remain dominant in the coming months. Starmer is treading a fine line between seeking to remain the US’s strongest ally while upholding the core principles that have underpinned the transatlantic alliance since the Second World War. Whether he can maintain that stance or will be forced to acknowledge a deeper rift – as some of his European colleagues and his new Canadian counterpart, Mark Carney, appear to have done – remains to be seen. He has already been led into controversial territory – morally, pragmatically, and constitutionally – by raiding the international aid budget to finance new defence spending. He lost much trust – and a senior minister, Anneliese Dodds – as a result.

At this time, standing together in support of democracy, self-determination, and the rule of law appears more important than ever. Recent events have highlighted both the importance and the fragility of these principles. Vigilance about their protection should be a constant priority in relation to the UK constitution as much as the international order.

Back to top

Link

The hereditary peers bill

As noted in the last issue of Monitor, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in September, and completed all of its stages there in mid-November. Second reading in the House of Lords was on 11 December, and the Lords committee stage began on 3 March.

As anticipated, the bill – which seeks to remove all of the remaining hereditary peers from the chamber – has proved significantly more controversial in the Lords than in the Commons. By the start of the committee stage, 53 pages of amendments had been tabled to a bill which itself is only two pages long.

At the lengthy second reading, the attitude of the Conservative opposition frontbench was combative. Lord (Nick) True accused the government of ‘purging Parliament of 88 of its most effective Members’, warning that the bill would be ‘fiercely contested’. His predecessor as Conservative leader in the Lords (and now chair of the chamber’s Constitution Committee) Lord (Tom) Strathclyde referred to it as a ‘thoroughly nasty little Bill’. Various other contributions were more emollient, and focused on persuading the government to act on other key commitments, such as tackling the size of the chamber, the appointments process, possible introduction of a retirement age and/or term limits on membership, and peers’ attendance requirements.

These same issues featured in the numerous committee stage amendments proposed, alongside more oppositionalist attempts to water down the provisions in the bill – e.g. by delaying the hereditary peers’ expulsion, or guaranteeing these members life peerages. While the first type of amendment would hold the government to its manifesto commitments, the second would directly challenge these – so seems unlikely to gain peers’ numeric support.

Unhappiness over the bill has been linked to various other delays and difficulties in the chamber during its passage, causing government frustration – and some threats of retribution. More positively, there have been rumours that ministers could strike a deal with peers to make progress on issues such as appointments and the size of the chamber. If they do not move on such issues, related amendments could possibly find majority support among peers.

Matters currently seem finely balanced. This bill provides a possible once-in-a-generation opportunity to make progress on other small-scale Lords reforms. But obstructive opposition tactics could play into the government’s hands, resulting in peers coming away with nothing.

Back to top

Lords appointments

Labour’s manifesto pledged to ‘reform the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments’ to the Lords, and noted that the chamber ‘has become too big’. Limited progress has yet been made against these commitments.

In terms of reforming the process, the only change so far has been a commitment to publish citations provided by political parties in support of members’ appointment to the chamber. Guidance from the House of Lords Appointments Commission suggests that such citations should be ‘no more than 150 words’. Within weeks, this policy was applied in late December (when parliament was no longer sitting) to Keir Starmer’s announcement of 38 new peers. These comprised 30 Labour nominees, six Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. The Labour name attracting most attention was Sue Gray, former civil servant and Chief of Staff to Starmer, but others included several former MPs, former leader of the Scottish Labour Party Wendy Alexander, and senior trade unionists Kay Carberry and Brendan Barber. The citations were linked from the official announcement. Sadly, coming before larger-scale appointments reform, or the passage of the hereditary peers bill (see the previous article), these appointments pushed the size of the chamber to a new post-1999 record. In late February, the Lords comprised 832 eligible members, or 857 when including those on temporarily on leave of absence, disqualified or suspended.

Also in December, journalist and freedom of information campaigner Martin Rosenbaum won an appeal in the Information Tribunal against a decision of the Information Commissioner that the House of Lords Appointments Commission need not release previously unpublished citations for some of Boris Johnson’s peerage nominees. Much media attention had focused on Baroness (Charlotte) Owen of Alderley Edge, an adviser to Johnson in Downing Street, and rather less on Lord (Ross) Kempsell, Director of the Conservative Research Department, both of whom were nominated to the Lords when aged no more than 31. Rosenbaum said in a blogpost publishing the citations that the words on Owen in particular ‘leave her peerage as a mystery rather than properly justifying and explaining it’.

Back to top

Scrutiny of the ‘assisted dying’ bill

The most prominent piece of legislation at Westminster in recent months has been a private member’s bill: Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Commonly dubbed the ‘assisted dying’ bill, it passed its second reading in November by 330 votes to 275, and is now undergoing its committee stage in a public bill committee.

Kim Leadbeater speaking in the House of Commons.

Kim Leadbeater (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK House of Commons.

Unusually for a private member’s bill, the House voted to give the public bill committee power to take oral and written evidence. The committee’s first meeting saw disagreements about whom it should take oral evidence from, over what time period, and whether the witness list should be debated in private. The committee then spent three days in late January taking evidence from a range of people with relevant expertise and experience, and began ‘line-by-line’ scrutiny of the bill itself on 11 February.

There has been much discussion about how to ensure a bill of such importance receives adequate scrutiny (including pieces on our blog from Daniel Gover and former Clerk of the Commons David Natzler). Various concerns have been raised, including the initial lack of an Impact Assessment or Delegated Powers Memorandum, the potential shortage of time for the bill’s ‘report stage’, and a major amendment being announced in a newspaper column before it had been formally tabled for committee members to consider. Nonetheless – as discussed at a Unit webinar in February – many of these same problems apply to government bills. There has also been some debate about the role of the two ministers on the committee, as they are simultaneously speaking for the government (which is neutral on the bill’s substance while supporting various technical amendments) yet also voting according to their personal position.

The Hansard Society is providing rolling coverage of the bill’s passage through parliament.

Back to top

Parliamentary standards

The House of Lords Conduct Committee published a review of the Lords Code of Conduct, and the accompanying Guide to the Code of Conduct, in January. The review – the first of its kind since the Code’s adoption in 2009 – sought to clarify and streamline both documents. The committee noted two underlying goals to the revisions: to inform peers about the standards expected of them; and to uphold public trust in the House of Lords.

The revised Code will distinguish clearly between principles and rules, while material on enforcement has been split out from the rest of the Guide. One key change is the removal of the requirement to register or declare non-financial interests, on the basis that the category is too broad to be helpful, and that public confidence depends primarily on disclosure of financial interests. The committee has also invited the Procedure and Privileges Committee to review whether the general three-year membership rotation rule for committee membership is appropriate for the Conduct Committee. It argued that, as it meets on an ad hoc basis, short terms can make it difficult for members to develop expertise, and that lay members (non-peers who sit on the committee) have six-year terms for this reason.

The report was debated by the House of Lords on 5 March. Proposed amendments to the motion that advocated establishing an independent tribunal for complaints and preventing members of both Houses from making harassment complaints against peers were not pushed to a vote, and the report was approved without a division. The revised Code and Guide will come into force on 5 April.

In the House of Commons, the Standards Committee has opened a new inquiry into MPs’ outside employment and interests – a move welcomed by Leader of the House and Modernisation Committee chair Lucy Powell (see below). Labour’s general election manifesto had pledged to task the Modernisation Committee with work on this topic.

The Standards Committee has also published the government response to its predecessor committee’s pre-election report on the standards landscape for MPs. The government has indicated general agreement with some recommendations (including the proposal that Independent Expert Panel recommendations should be put to the House without first requiring endorsement by the Standards Committee). It has sought further information on various others and, notably, rejected a recommendation that new MPs should be required to make a public declaration of commitment to the Seven Principles of Public Life (known as the ‘Nolan Principles’). The Standards Committee commented that the government response was ‘positive in seeking discussions and actions to improve the standards landscape’ but had not committed to ‘explicit action’ on any front.

Back to top

Committee inquiries into Commons procedure

The House of Commons Procedure Committee has announced five inquiries: into proxy voting, electronic voting, call lists for debates, elections within the House, and the status of independent MPs. It has also published its usual report on the timeliness of answers to written parliamentary questions in the previous (2023–24) session. That report highlighted an improvement in government departments’ performance, and a drop in the number of questions being tabled.

In December, the committee took evidence from the Leader of the House, Lucy Powell. Members’ questions focused on the government’s priorities for procedural reform, and on the planned role of the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs.

Powell also provided further insight into the Modernisation Committee’s work during a January appearance before the Committee on Standards, which focused on the possible further regulation of MPs’ outside employment and interests. She indicated her support for a ‘principles-based’ approach, rather than an exhaustive list of permitted and prohibited activities.

Following public consultation, the Modernisation Committee published a memorandum in February summarising its work so far, and outlining its planned next steps. These will involve three strands: improving the accessibility of parliament’s estate, procedures, and language; ensuring MPs’ time is spent in a way that allows effective scrutiny of legislation; and providing more certainty about ‘the nature and timing of parliamentary business’. The committee indicated that it had received nearly 400 pieces of written evidence to its call for views, and nearly 270 responses to its online form for internal stakeholders. But only 49 pieces of evidence – restricted to those from organisations, rather than named individuals – were published. This means that MPs’ views are not publicly known, and neither are those of some experts who submitted to the committee. No reasoning was provided for this decision, but submitters were told that they could publish their own evidence. The Unit’s evidence was published by the committee.

Back to top

Elections, referendums and democratic engagement.

Link

Debates about changing the voting system

In the wake of last year’s general election – which saw near-record low turnout and record disproportionality in the translation of parties’ votes shares into shares of seats – advocates of electoral reform have been pressing their case. The website of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections – which argues for proportional representation and other reforms – lists 111 MPs among its members.

In November, the House of Commons unexpectedly voted to support introduction of a private member’s bill that would introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and for local government elections in England. The proposal – by Liberal Democrat frontbencher Sarah Olney – was made under the ‘10 minute rule’ procedure, and the bill has no chance of passing without government support. It was notable, nevertheless, that 59 Labour MPs voted for its introduction (out of a total of 138 MPs who backed this) while only 50 voted against (of 135 opponents in total).

The Commons returned to the subject in January, debating a backbench business motion to consider the use of proportional representation for general elections. Multiple Labour backbenchers again voiced support for the proposal, as did speakers from the Liberal Democrats, Reform, and the Green Party. On the other hand, no Conservative MP spoke in favour, and the frontbench spokespeople of the two main parties both spoke against. The minister, Rushanara Ali, confirmed that ‘at this time the Government have no plans to change the voting system for elections to the House of Commons’.

The government’s support for retaining First Past the Post in Westminster elections was already well known. More surprisingly, ministers indicated in the same January debate and, previously, in a written answer in December, that they have ‘no plans’ to change the voting system for electing mayors or police and crime commissioners. Labour opposed the substitution of First Past the Post in place of the previous Supplementary Vote system in the last parliament, and Constitution Unit analysis has shown that that switch strongly benefited the Conservatives in the May 2024 local elections.

Back to top

Party funding

An issue that had slipped down the political agenda in recent years but that has gained renewed prominence since Monitor was last published is the funding of political parties. Transparency International UK published a report in December that highlighted growing threats to democracy from ‘big money’ and argued for ‘donation caps of £10,000 per year for individuals and organisations’. Weeks later, rumours emerged that Elon Musk might donate as much as $100 million to Reform UK – a sum vastly greater than any previous donation in UK politics. Calls for change rapidly mounted – including from the Electoral Commission, government anti-corruption champion Baroness (Margaret) Hodge of Barking, and the current and former chairs of CSPL.

Rushanara Ali speaks at the dispatch box.

Rushanara Ali (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK House of Commons.

In January, CSPL’s chair, Doug Chalmers, wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, highlighting the recommendations for reform made by the committee in its 2021 report on Regulating Election Finance. Rushanara Ali replied to Chalmers in February, confirming that the government intended both to tighten up rules on foreign donations and to enforce existing rules more robustly. She did not, however, mention the idea of introducing a general cap on donations; and, speaking in the House of Lords in January, another minister, Baroness (Sharon) Taylor of Stevenage, said that capping donations was ‘not a current priority for the Government’.

Back to top

Reforms to other aspects of elections

Rushanara Ali also confirmed – in response to a written question in February – that the government would set out its ‘approach to elections and electoral reform for this Parliament in a published document before summer recess’. She added, ‘This will include our approach to the delivery of our manifesto commitments and the outcomes of our review of electoral registration and conduct, in which we are consulting with various sector stakeholders.’

Meanwhile, the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) published a report in February reiterating its longstanding concerns about the fragility of the UK’s electoral arrangements and setting out 57 recommendations for change. Responding to evidence that postal votes sometimes arrive too late, it proposed changes to the electoral timetable, and a provision allowing voters whose postal ballots have not arrived to switch to voting in person or by proxy. It also suggested similar changes in relation to overseas voting.

The AEA also supported allowing at least some digital forms of ID, abolition of the open electoral register, and a range of changes to candidate nomination procedures. It advocated ‘a full review of current polling provision, including polling hours, weekend voting, voting hubs and how technology could benefit polling processes’ and ‘an independent Royal or Parliamentary Commission review of core election delivery processes’.

Perhaps most surprisingly, the AEA proposed that recall petitions – which enable constituents to oust an MP found guilty of misconduct – should be abolished, and that the circumstances that currently trigger a petition should instead lead directly to a by-election.

Back to top

Electoral reforms in Wales and Scotland

In Wales, the Senedd’s Standards of Conduct Committee published two reports relating to aspects of the individual accountability of MSs. The first, published in January, recommended the introduction of a system of recall of MSs found guilty of misdemeanours. It proposed that, as at Westminster, a prison sentence should trigger this mechanism; but that, unlike at Westminster, the process should not be automatically triggered where an MS was suspended for a certain number of days. Instead it proposed that recall should be a ‘standalone sanction’ available at the discretion of the Senedd. In another departure from the arrangements for MPs, the committee argued against the use of recall petitions and by-elections. Rather, with the Senedd to be elected from 2026 through a closed-list form of proportional representation, an MS to whom the sanction was applied would be subject to a special ‘remove and replace ballot’ in which voters would be asked whether the MS should be retained or replaced with the next candidate from their party’s list at the previous Senedd election.

In its second report, published in February, the committee examined rules around deliberately false statements by politicians – an issue it had agreed to examine following a Senedd debate last summer (see Monitor 87). Expert witnesses to the inquiry expressed a range of views as to whether broad prohibitions on such deliberate deception would be desirable, and the committee evidently wrestled with different considerations. It recommended different arrangements for MSs and for election candidates. For the former, it argued against using the criminal or civil law, and proposed instead that the Senedd’s Code of Conduct be amended, the powers of the Commissioner for Standards be strengthened, and other reforms to internal procedures be made. For candidates, it suggested broadening the existing legal prohibition on false statements about a ‘candidate’s personal character or conduct’ to cover any deliberately deceptive statement intended to affect the election result.

In Scotland, meanwhile, the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act received royal assent in January. Among other changes, this extends the range of foreign nationals who can stand for election to people with any form of leave to remain, prevents anyone found guilty of electoral intimidation or a range of criminal offences from standing, and enables increased funding for activities to support democratic engagement. During the final debate on the bill in December, the minister, Jamie Hepburn, confirmed that, using the new powers it confers, the government would pilot ‘more automated forms’ of electoral registration for young people.

Back to top

Lords committee report on The Future of News

In November, the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee published a report on The Future of News. It highlighted several grave concerns about the state of the news industry: the decline of journalism, especially at local level; growing numbers of people turning away from mainstream news; the ‘consolidation of power among the world’s pre-eminent tech firms’, ‘leading to unprecedented influence over the information we see’; a widening ‘gap between those consuming professional journalism and those who do not’. It suggested that such trends could undermine the foundations of democracy: ‘Our inquiry left us with no illusions about the stakes: the period of having informed citizens with a shared understanding of facts is not inevitable and may not endure.’

The committee concluded that, while government should be wary of intervening too far in the media, its ‘task is to establish the conditions that enable UK media to stand on its own feet and ensure that public service broadcasters are able to thrive’. It recommended a series of measures to improve the financial health of local media outlets, expansion of the licence-fee-funded Local Democracy Reporting Service, stronger regulation of tech platforms – including ‘to align content moderation policies with Ofcom’s broadcasting codes’ – and measures to strengthen ‘long-term resilience’ to dis- and misinformation, notably through promotion of greater media literacy. On the last of these points, it said, ‘We are not yet convinced that the Government has a good plan.’

Responding to the report, the government said that it is working on a Local Media Strategy and highlighted aspects of the Online Safety Act that, once in force, will strengthen online regulation. It acknowledged ‘the importance of media literacy in today’s digital age’, agreed that ‘media literacy education in schools is critical’, and noted that the ongoing school curriculum review in England ‘provides an opportunity to give media literacy greater prominence within the curriculum’.

Ofcom also responded, setting out its role under the Online Safety Act, but also noting that it is not empowered to apply the broadcasting code to online services. In December, it published a series of codes of practice for tech companies that will allow parts of the Online Safety Act to come into effect.

Back to top

Link

Ministerial standards

Ethical standards in government have continued to make headlines, with three ministers resigning due to misconduct or ethical concerns in recent months. Transport Secretary Louise Haigh resigned in November after it emerged that she had pleaded guilty to a fraud offence in 2013, relating to the alleged theft of a mobile phone. Reports of the precise events – and how far these were disclosed on her appointment to the Shadow Cabinet and Cabinet – have varied. She was replaced as Transport Secretary by Heidi Alexander, who previously served as a Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice.

This was followed in January by the resignation of Economic Secretary to the Treasury Tulip Siddiq, who is the niece of former Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina. Siddiq had previously referred herself to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Laurie Magnus, following claims that she had been named in an anti-corruption investigation in Bangladesh (relating to the sale of a nuclear power plant to Russia), and that she had benefited from the use of London properties owned by associates of the Hasina government. Magnus advised that the Ministerial Code had not been broken, but suggested that Siddiq should have been ‘more alert to the potential reputational risks – both to herself and to the government – arising from her close family’s association with Bangladesh’ and that the Prime Minister would ‘want to consider her ongoing responsibilities in light of this’. Siddiq then resigned and was replaced by pensions minister Emma Reynolds.

A third ministerial sacking took place in February, after health minister Andrew Gwynne was found to have made inappropriate comments about constituents and fellow MPs in a WhatsApp group. The Commons Commissioner for Standards is also investigating Gwynne’s conduct, and Labour has removed the whip from Gwynne and another MP, Oliver Ryan, who was also a member of the WhatsApp group. Ashley Dalton – who was first elected as an MP in February 2023 – joined the government from the backbenches to replace Gwynne.

Separately, the Conservative Party has accused two ministers of breaching the Ministerial Code in relation to speeches publicised via government channels. The party claimed that speeches by Foreign Secretary David Lammy, streamed via the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office, and by Environment Secretary Steve Reed, published on the government website, contained party political material. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that the wrong copy of Reed’s speech had been uploaded in error.

Back to top

The executive’s role in protecting the constitution

The House of Lords Constitution Committee has published the report of an inquiry into ‘Executive oversight and responsibility for the UK constitution’. The inquiry set out to consider ‘the extent to which the structures and processes within the executive which ensure that the constitution is respected and safeguarded are effective’ and to make recommendations for their improvement. Unit founder Robert Hazell submitted written evidence to the committee.

The report proposed several changes to better support the Prime Minister in fulfilling their responsibility to safeguard the constitution. These include: making the provision of such support part of the Cabinet Secretary’s official responsibilities; designating a senior minister to support the Prime Minister in this task (potentially, but not necessarily, the Lord Chancellor); and further developing the Cabinet Office Propriety and Constitution Group as a centre of expertise. Other recommendations included amending the Attorney General’s oath to ‘reflect the primacy of their duty to the rule of law’, clarifying responsibility for the Council of Nations and Regions (and its expected role), and an annual meeting between the Constitution Committee and the Deputy Chair of the Cabinet Committee on the Union and Constitution. The report also suggested that the government should consider putting ‘advisory constitutional bodies’ such as the House of Lords Appointments Commission onto a statutory basis – a move long called for by various external bodies.

Back to top

Civil service reform

A major speech delivered by Keir Starmer in March laid out the government’s ambitions for reforming Whitehall.

A group of people (mostly women) are stood around Prime Minister Keir Starmer, looking at him as he gives a speech.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives speech (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.

The speech followed controversial comments in December, in which Starmer argued that too many civil servants were comfortable in the ‘tepid bath of managed decline’. These remarks were soon largely walked back by Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, and Starmer’s March speech struck a more constructive tone than his effort in December, praising civil service staff and focusing his criticism on structures and systems.

Key among the speech’s pledges was a reduction in the role of arm’s-length bodies (ALBs). ALBs are public organisations that deliver services via government funding. They can be executive agencies (such as the DVLA and Met Office), non-departmental public bodies (such as the British Council and the Environment Agency), or non-ministerial government departments (such as HMRC and the Food Standards Agency).

Starmer framed the proposed reduction as an opportunity to support growth by reducing regulatory hurdles. In a subsequent podcast appearance, he argued that the creation of ALBs has also allowed ministers to outsource accountability for policy areas under their purview.

The speech’s most significant concrete announcement was the abolition of the largest ALB, NHS England. Created by the coalition government, it is responsible for the operational oversight and budget of the NHS in England, with health service strategy developed in the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The structure has been criticised for creating duplication, and confusing lines of accountability. NHS England’s merger into DHSC will, as well as involving significant headcount reductions in both bodies, return responsibility for the running of the NHS to the Health Secretary, currently Wes Streeting.

Another theme in recent government announcements relates to civil service capability, particularly in digital skills. Starmer’s speech committed to investigate the potential role of AI in government; Pat McFadden had earlier used a broadcast interview to pledge that 10% of civil servants (double the current proportion) would be working in digital or data roles by 2030. In relation to broader capability, McFadden indicated plans to reduce the size of the civil service, including by introducing more robust systems to tackle poor performance. Experts noted that, despite these policy announcements, comprehensive plans to support the government’s ambitions for system-wide reform have yet to be developed.

Back to top

Link

The Crown Estate Act

The Crown Estate is a major landowner with a £14 billion portfolio including buildings, shoreline, seabed, forestry, agriculture and common land. Established as a public corporation under the Crown Estate Act 1961, it is managed by a board appointed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister. Its profits (£1.1billion in 2023–24) can be used for any government spending. The sovereign grant – by which the monarchy receives public funding – is linked to, but not paid directly out of, the profits of the Estate.

The Crown Estate Bill was introduced in July, completed its Lords stages in November (see Monitor 88), and then passed to the Commons. As had occurred in the Lords, an attempt was made at both the Commons committee and report stage to add a new clause – proposed by Plaid Cymru – that would have devolved the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh government, as is already the case in Scotland. A separate Plaid amendment sought to require Crown Estate commissioners to transfer all profits generated by the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh government on an annual basis. Both proposals were defeated, as was a proposed new clause that sought to devolve the Estate in Northern Ireland. The bill received royal assent on 11 March.

The resultant Act removes several existing limitations on the Crown Estate’s borrowing and investment powers. As part of a new partnership with Great British Energy, it also enables the Crown Estate to invest in capital intensive projects like offshore wind developments.

Back to top

Process of appointing new Archbishop of Canterbury continues

Following the resignation of Justin Welby in November (see Monitor 88), the process of appointing a new Archbishop of Canterbury is continuing slowly, in line with what the Church of England calls ‘a prayerful and carefully structured process’. The exercise is led by the Crown Nominations Commission, the role of which is to ‘discern whom God may be calling to this vital ministry’. No one applies to be the Archbishop; instead, candidates are ‘invited into a months-long process of prayerful discernment’.

Lord (Jonathan) Evans of Weardale is to chair the Nominations Commission, which will have 20 members, including the Archbishop of York, a Bishop elected by the House of Bishops, three representatives from the Diocese of Canterbury, six representatives elected by General Synod, and five representatives from other churches in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Three secretaries will guide the process as non-voting members: Stephen Knott, the Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments; Jonathan Hellewell, the Prime Minister’s Appointments Secretary; and William Nye, Secretary General to the General Synod.

The Commission will meet three times – in May, July and September. Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed at the final meeting, and a name submitted to the Prime Minister, for formal appointment by the King as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

The Church has invited the public to participate in the process via an open consultation. Those who take part are invited to nominate candidates, to express their ‘hopes’ for the next Archbishop’s ministry, and indicate what qualities and skills they would like the successful candidate to have. The deadline for submissions is 28 March.

Back to top

Courts, human rights and the rule of law.

Link

The Attorney General

Lord (Richard) Hermer was a surprise appointment as Attorney General for England and Wales after the general election in July: long-standing frontbencher Emily Thornberry had been shadowing the role since 2021 and there had been no public indication before the election that she would not take it on when Labour took office. It was also a surprise when it was revealed that Sarah Sackman – elected for the first time in 2024 – would serve as Solicitor General, although she has since moved to the Ministry of Justice. Sackman’s successor, Lucy Rigby, was also a newly elected MP. Since the general election, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has therefore been without an experienced politician in either of its top two posts for the first time in many years.

This lack of experience may have contributed to what has been portrayed as widespread discontent within government at the role of the AGO – and the Attorney General in particular – in the policy process. One media story reported some ministers and aides as claiming that AGO stood for ‘Anti-Government Office’, on the basis that its supposedly overly legalistic approach was gumming up the works of government. However, two ministers contacted by the Sunday Times for a story on Hermer’s role in government defended him, with one saying that he was ‘pragmatic’ and had not blocked any policies, but was essentially a scapegoat for ministerial failures. A letter to the Times signed by Unit Director Meg Russell argued that Hermer was working to reinstate rule of law and parliamentary scrutiny norms damaged during the Johnson government, and that those outside government with concern for constitutional standards supported those efforts.

Concerns have also been raised – including by former Attorney General Suella Braverman – that Hermer’s previous work for clients such as former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams could lead to a conflict of interest (for example, when it comes to legal analysis of the Northern Ireland Legacy Act). The Commons Justice Committee took evidence from Hermer and Lucy Rigby in January, and one of its Conservative members asked the Attorney General about this. Hermer stated that his work for Adams was unconnected to legacy issues, and criticised attacks on lawyers based on who they represented as damaging to the rule of law, comments echoed by two former chairs of the Bar Council, as well as the current postholder, Barbara Mills. Hermer has also said in the House of Lords that he has recused himself from advising on certain (undisclosed) matters to avoid the risk of an apparent conflict of interest, and that the AGO takes a ‘cautious and “beyond reproach” threshold’ to potential conflicts.

Back to top

Lady Chief Justice criticises Starmer and Badenoch

The Lady Chief Justice, Lady Carr, spoke out against comments made by Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch in relation to the decision of an immigration judge. At Prime Minister’s Questions on 12 February, both said that the judicial decision in question was wrong, with Badenoch calling it ‘crazy’ and urging the government to appeal it, and Starmer saying, ‘[I]t should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration; it should be the government who make the policy’.

At her annual press conference, Lady Carr said that both the question and answer were ‘unacceptable’ and contrary to the duty of the government and MPs to respect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. She also confirmed that she had voiced these concerns in a letter to the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood. When asked about her remarks during her annual appearance before the Lords Constitution Committee on 26 February, Carr denied that there was ‘tension’ between her and the Prime Minister, but repeated that she thought the comments made at PMQs were wrong.

Lady Chief Justice Carr stands in a law library, with stacks of blue books in the background. She is shown from the waist up, dressed all in black.

Lady Chief Justice Carr (Open Government Licence 3.0).

Back to top

Link

The Union

A significant development has been the appointment of Douglas Alexander as a Cabinet Office minister dealing with devolution, on top of his existing duties on international trade. Alexander announced in December that he will be overseeing a review of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, commencing the process earlier than the legal deadline to do so. This was widely welcomed in Scotland and Wales, both the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd having refused legislative consent to the Act during its passage through the UK parliament. The Scottish government did, however – perhaps predictably – criticise its UK counterpart for not going far enough. An open consultation began in February and will run until April.

A sign of a shift towards a less strict approach came when it was announced in December that the previous government’s policy of a uniform UK market in glue traps for rodents would be reversed, with the Scottish government being offered an exemption. This may seem a minor issue, but the Scottish government had said that the previous plans constituted evidence that the Internal Market Act was being used not simply to regulate internal trade, but to restrict the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Back to top

England

The government published a white paper on English devolution on 16 December with the aim of launching what Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has called a ‘devolution revolution’. The white paper proposed a new structure of ‘mayoral strategic authorities’ that is intended, in time, to cover the whole of England. These authorities will have access to a standard set of competences set out in the white paper’s revised devolution framework.

These competences will cover transport; skills and employment support; housing and strategic planning; economic development and regeneration; environment and climate change; health, wellbeing and public service reform; and police, fire and probation. ‘Established mayoral strategic authorities’ will have an ‘integrated settlement’ allowing enhanced financial flexibility: this will be available initially to Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. The white paper also included extensive commitments to joint working between government departments and mayors, especially in the economic sphere.

The white paper also indicated a desire to restructure local government by eliminating the two-tier arrangements still used in some parts of the country. This would mean replacing county and district councils with single-tier unitary authorities. The white paper also stated an intention to reorganise existing unitary councils ‘where there is evidence of failure or where their size or boundaries may be hindering their ability to deliver… services’. It invited localities to apply to be on a ‘devolution priority programme’, as part of which they would be expected to submit restructuring proposals.

The government formally invited all of the remaining two-tier areas in England, together with small neighbouring unitary councils, to make interim proposals for new unitary councils by 21 March, followed by full proposals no later than 28 November. New unitary councils would generally be expected to cover a population of at least 500,000, though the government has said it would accept smaller authorities in ‘certain scenarios’.

The government then announced on 6 February that six areas had been selected for the devolution priority programme. These were Norfolk and Suffolk; Greater Essex; Sussex and Brighton; Hampshire and Solent; Cheshire and Warrington; and Cumbria. Lancashire may be included later in 2025. These areas are expected to elect a mayor in May 2026.

The first four areas listed above had elections scheduled for May. The government has stated that it will postpone these in advance of decisions on local government restructuring in those areas. The terms of office of sitting councillors will be extended, initially by 12 months. This news prompted strong criticism from some politicians. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage used the decision to compare Keir Starmer to Robert Mugabe, and his Liberal Democrat counterpart, Ed Davey, called it a Labour–Conservative ‘stitch-up’. The District Councils Network was also opposed to the delay, calling it a ‘cancellation of local democracy’ that prevents voters from having their say on the planned reorganisation of councils. On the other hand, local elections have been postponed before when council reorganisations were impending. The alternative would be that voters were asked to go to the polls twice in quick succession, and extra expense incurred.

Back to top

Northern Ireland

As the devolved institutions passed the first anniversary of their restoration in February, no immediate threats to stability were obvious. While tensions remain under the surface, leading figures continue to emphasise working together. The Executive leadership has claimed that it has made ‘huge advances’, but others have been more sceptical. Only in late February – more than a year after entering office – did it agree a final version of its Programme for Government, which was subsequently backed by the Assembly in early March. Disagreements between Sinn Féin and the DUP were blamed for the delay. The Alliance Party reproached the DUP for repeatedly blocking decisions.

Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn said in an anniversary speech that he regretted the failures of earlier Executives to take difficult decisions, referencing the ‘frankly shocking’ state of the NHS. He urged the Executive to now make those decisions and played down any thought that further money would be coming from London. Both main parties in Northern Ireland – Sinn Féin and the DUP – took umbrage at his comments.

Brexit continues to cause problems, which may explain the decision to establish a Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords. Tasked specifically with considering the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework, it is to be chaired by Lord (Alexander) Carlile of Berriew, a Crossbencher who previously sat in both the Commons and Lords as a Liberal Democrat.

The Assembly voted in December by 48 to 36 to keep in place the trade arrangements embodied in the Protocol. Unionists voted against. The arrangements will continue for another four years. Former Labour Secretary of State Lord (Paul) Murphy of Torfaen – who also sits on the Lords Constitution Committee – has been appointed to review them, as prescribed in the elaborate set of withdrawal safeguards.

The DUP, backed by other unionists, recently invoked another of the safeguards, the Stormont Brake, by which 30 members of the Assembly can seek to block the application of new EU laws to Northern Ireland. The regulation involved, concerning labelling of hazardous substances, would take Northern Ireland out of line with rules applicable in Great Britain, creating potential difficulties for trade within the UK. Hilary Benn concluded that the proposed changes would not have a ‘significant impact’, and that he therefore could not lawfully block the new regulation. He instead announced a consultation on alignment of Great Britain with the new EU rules, reducing potential inhibitions on intra-UK trade.

Meanwhile, the Irish general election in November resulted in a government not very different from the last, centred around a coalition of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, but this time supported by independents. Sinn Féin, seen as frontrunners 18 months ago, performed relatively poorly. The post of Taoiseach will again rotate between the two main parties, and was taken initially by Fianna Fáil’s leader, Micheál Martin.

The new Programme for Government in Dublin lays much emphasis on the ‘Shared Island’ programme, with more money for ‘investment in reconciliation’ between North and South. It also commits to strengthening Irish–British relations – where improvements last year were reflected in the first annual UK–Ireland summit, held on 6 March.

The UK–Ireland summit (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.

Despite arguments before the election for increased planning for Irish unity, however, there are no commitments of that kind. The most recent polling indicates a continuing clear majority in Northern Ireland for remaining within the UK, although support for unity in the North appears, slowly, to be growing.

Some way from the top of the agenda at present are questions of reform of the devolved institutions – but they may again become topical if the current stability is threatened, or the Executive’s delivery record is further challenged. The Constitution Unit will publish a report on them shortly after Monitor goes to press.

Back to top

Scotland

First Minister John Swinney continues to be cautious in his rhetoric on independence. While not resiling from his commitment to an independent Scotland, he is not currently demanding an early referendum, for which there is little public support. Instead, he advises supporters to develop the case for independence and not, like Nicola Sturgeon, focus on the process for achieving it. He has publicly said that her referendum demand after Brexit was a mistake.

With devolved elections just over a year away, the change of tone on independence may be tested. Opinion polling remains volatile, but currently favours the SNP, with Scottish Labour support appearing to suffer from negative opinion of the Labour government in London. The potential effect of Reform UK on Scottish politics currently exercises all the major parties, with Swinney recently calling on politicians to unite against the far right.

A budget was successfully passed by the Scottish Parliament on 25 February, after the SNP secured the support of the Greens, Liberal Democrats and Alba, and Labour abstained. The independent Scottish Fiscal Commission has raised serious concerns about long-term commitments, notably in devolved social security.

A new Scottish Ministerial Code was published in December, as is customary following a change in First Minister. After the UK and Scottish COVID inquiries’ exposure of policy discussions conducted on WhatsApp, the new version of the Code includes a provision that Scottish ministers are now obliged to use government communication channels to conduct official business. Following recent allegations about use of a ministerial car to attend football matches, the new Code contains clear guidance on how ministers should make use of the Government Car Service.

The revised Code will be overseen by a new three-person team of independent advisers. The new postholders are Claire Loftus, a former Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland, John Manzoni, former Permanent Secretary at the UK Cabinet Office, and Ernest Ryder, a former Court of Appeal judge. These new advisers have been armed with an additional power lacked by their predecessors: the ability to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct. This power was also recently granted to their UK counterpart, Laurie Magnus (see Monitor 88).

Back to top

Wales

The 2026 Senedd election, when an expanded Senedd of 96 MSs will be elected on a closed-list system from 16 constituencies, is increasingly the focus of all parties in Wales. A December opinion poll put Plaid Cymru on 24%, Labour and Reform on 23% each and the Conservatives on 19%. A Reform spokesperson claimed in January that it was ‘well within the realms of feasibility’ for the party to form the next government. Reform won its first Welsh council seat in January in a by-election in Torfaen.

The Welsh government’s draft budget was published on 10 December. No major increases in devolved taxes were proposed (a separate bill to impose a levy on overnight visitors is progressing through the Senedd). Additional funding from the UK government allowed headroom for the budget to increase spending on the NHS and to support local government (which includes spending for schools).

The draft budget was debated in the Senedd on 4 February and the final proposal was passed on 4 March. The Labour government secured the necessary support of the lone Liberal Democrat MS, Jane Dodds, to ensure the budget was not defeated. Some concessions (including a ban on greyhound racing) were made to Dodds, but there is concern inside her party that the Liberal Democrats will suffer in the 2026 elections if they are perceived to have propped up an unpopular Labour administration.

Tensions between Cardiff and London are much less obvious than they were before last year’s general election. However, Welsh ministers have not secured recategorisation of HS2. The line has been deemed an ‘England and Wales project’ despite none of the planned track reaching Wales, with the result that it carries no ‘Barnett consequentials’, in terms of increased funding for the Welsh government. First Minister Eluned Morgan has welcomed a statement by Wales Secretary Jo Stevens that investment in Welsh rail under the Conservatives had been insufficient. Stevens told the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee that she had agreed a ‘direction of travel’ on rail investment with the Welsh government.

One sign of disharmony between Cardiff and London is the defeat of a Plaid Cymru amendment to the Crown Estate Bill in the UK parliament that sought to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales (see above). UK ministers resisted the measure despite it being the official policy of the Welsh government.

Two reports from the Senedd Standards Committee were of constitutional interest: in January it recommended that MSs should be subject to recall provisions, and in February it reported on ways of combatting deception in politics (see above for more detail on both reports).

Internal dissent in the Conservative group in the Senedd culminated in a vote of confidence in leader Andrew RT Davies on 3 December. Although Davies won by nine votes to seven, he decided his position was untenable and resigned. Two days later, Darren Millar, the MS for Clwyd West since 2007, was elected unopposed as his successor. Millar’s election was as leader of the Senedd group of Conservatives, and the long-running issue of who leads the party in Wales was resurrected in February, with Millar quoted as saying he was de facto leader. Mims Davies, the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, has argued that she is ‘ultimately’ leader. Leadership is formally shared by the two of them and the party’s Chair in Wales, Bernard Gentry. An internal party group reportedly recommended that the Senedd group leader should become party leader, but Davies said that making structural changes ahead of the 2026 elections would be ‘completely nuts’.

Back to top

Link

New PM calls election in Canada

On 6 January, Justin Trudeau announced his resignation after almost a decade as Prime Minister of Canada. He had been under growing pressure before Christmas. In September, the New Democratic Party withdrew from its supply and confidence agreement with Trudeau’s Liberal Party, making him the head of a minority government. Then in December Trudeau’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, abruptly resigned hours before she was due to table the Fall Economic Statement. She subsequently became one of the candidates to replace him.

At the same time, Trudeau announced that the Governor General, Mary Simon, had granted his request to prorogue the Canadian parliament until 24 March, after the contest to replace him has concluded. The House of Commons had previously been adjourned since 17 December but was due to return on 27 January. Prorogations are much less common in Canada than in the UK: the last prorogation, which was also controversial, was in 2020.

In response to questions, Trudeau justified the prorogation by saying: ‘It’s time for the temperature to come down, for the people to have a fresh start in Parliament, to be able to navigate through these complex times, both domestically and internationally, and the reset that we have is actually two parts: one is the prorogation, but the other part is recognising that removing me from the equation as the leader who will fight the next election for the Liberal party should also decrease the level of polarization that we’re seeing right now’.

The prorogation was challenged in the courts on multiple grounds, including that it stopped parliament from carrying out its constitutional role without reasonable justification, and stopped the House of Commons from bringing a motion of no confidence in the government. As many legal experts predicted, the Federal Court decision rejected the government’s argument that the court should have no role in deciding the matter, but ruled in its favour on the main issue, finding the prorogation to be lawful.

Voting in the election to replace Trudeau as party leader opened at the end of February and ran until 9 March. Members had to vote online and verify their identity using an app. There were reports of widespread problems with this process, with the verification procedure criticised as overly complex.

Mark Carney, a former governor of the central banks of both Canada and the UK, emerged victorious from the leadership contest on 9 March with 85.9% of the vote, and was sworn in as Prime Minister on 14 March.

Carney is not a parliamentarian and has never held elected office before. However, not being in parliament when appointed Prime Minister is not as extraordinary in Canada as it would be in the UK: when Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, resigned in 1984, he was succeeded by John Turner, who had to wait until the federal election later that year to become an MP (although, unlike Carney, he had served in parliament before). A federal election must be held before the end of October, but Carney opted not to wait, calling a snap election that will take place on 28 April.

Keir Starmer and Mark Carney in Downing Street.

Keir Starmer and Mark Carney (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.

Back to top

People on the move

Chris Wormald was appointed to serve as Cabinet Secretary following the resignation of Simon Case.

Heidi Alexander was named Transport Secretary in November after Louise Haigh resigned from the government (see above). Alexander’s role as Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice was taken on by Sarah Sackman, and Lucy Rigby was appointed to serve as Solicitor General in Sackman’s place.

Douglas Alexander was appointed to serve as a Minister of State at the Cabinet Office in February. He will perform this role in addition to his duties as Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security at the Department for Business and Trade.

Meg Hillier took over as chair of the Commons Liaison Committee in December.

Nick Smith was appointed chair of the Commons Administration Committee in December.

Lord (Alexander) Carlile of Berriew was appointed to chair a new House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which was established in January to consider matters related to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Windsor Framework (see above).

Membership of most House of Lords committees is subject to a three-year term limit. As a consequence, numerous committees now have new chairs. Lord (Tom) Strathclyde has replaced Baroness (Jeannie) Drake as chair of the Constitution Committee. Baroness (Jane) Ramsey of Wall Heath replaced Lord (Patrick) McLoughlin as chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lord (Michael) Watson of Invergowrie became chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, replacing Lord (David) Hunt of Wirral. Lord (Terence) Etherton replaced Baroness (Eliza) Manningham-Buller as chair of the Conduct Committee.

The Constitution Committee has several new members in addition to its chair: Lord (Christopher) Bellamy, Baroness (Sally) Hamwee, Baroness (Eleanor) Laing of Elderslie, Lord (William) Waldegrave of North Hill and Lord (Paul) Murphy of Torfaen. Lord (Charlie) Falconer of Thoroton, Baroness (Simone) Finn, Baroness (Annabel) Goldie and Lord (Richard) Keen of Elie have all departed.

Margaret Obi was appointed to serve as one of the two Commissioners for Standards for the House of Lords in February. Her predecessor, Akbar Khan, resigned in September.

Andrew RT Davies resigned as Leader of the Welsh Conservatives in December. Darren Millar was named as his successor later that month (see above).

Anwen Elias was appointed to chair the Welsh government’s Innovating Democracy Advisory Group.

Marsha de Cordova MP was appointed as leader and co-chair of the UK delegation to the UK–EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly.

Sharon Hodgson MP was named leader of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE.

Claire Loftus, John Manzoni and Ernest Ryder have been appointed to serve as independent advisers on the Scottish Ministerial Code (see above).

Baroness (Margaret) Hodge of Barking was announced as the UK’s new Anti-Corruption Champion in December.

Back to top

Link

Constitutional landscape report

In March, the Constitution Unit published a new report, The Constitutional Landscape: Options for Reform. Written by Lisa James, Patrick Thomas (recently a secondee to the Unit), Alan Renwick and Meg Russell, the report delivers a succinct overview of numerous topics relating to parliament, government, the royal prerogative, devolution, elections and the courts. It focuses on areas where reform has been pledged by the government, or where there is substantial external pressure for change in this parliament.

Further information on the background to the report can be found on the Unit’s blog.

Back to top

New article on the decline of parliamentary scrutiny

Constitution Unit Director Meg Russell has published a new analysis exploring claims about the decline of parliamentary scrutiny at Westminster. In an article in the journal Public Law, she analyses various kinds of data to show that scrutiny standards have declined, finding that this was not just an isolated phenomenon during the difficult years of Brexit and Covid, but continued to worsen under the Sunak government. Substantially more government bills were rushed through parliament, with a greater number of late government amendments, and there are concerns about the decline of evidence taking on bills, and government late responses to select committee reports. The article ends with a call to action, for improvement in the current parliament, and for routine collection of better parliamentary data.

It has been summarised on our blog, and Meg Russell discussed it at a recent Unit event on legislative scrutiny, alongside Daniel Gover and David Natzler.

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 Tom Barrington, Ruhi Kaur and Crawford Sawyer.

Back to top

Link

Unit events recently made available

Recordings of all Unit events are available via the Unit’s podcast and YouTube channel. To be notified of upcoming events, subscribe to the Unit’s mailing list. Seminars are free and open to all.

Are the UK’s party funding regulations fit for purpose?

Professor Justin Fisher, Professor of Political Science at Brunel University of London, Dr Jess Garland, Director of Research and Policy at the Electoral Reform Society, Jackie Killeen, Director of Electoral Administration and Regulation at the Electoral Commission, Lord (Mark) Pack, President of the Liberal Democrats.

Chair: Professor Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit.

Recorded 24 March.

Improving parliamentary scrutiny of legislation

Dr Daniel Gover, Senior Lecturer in British Politics, Queen Mary University of London, David Natzler, former Clerk of the House of Commons, Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit.

Chair: Lisa James, Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit.

Recorded on 24 February.

Making a success of votes at 16

Marcus Flucker, Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament for Angus South, Dr Christine Huebner, Lecturer in Quantitative Social Sciences, University of Sheffield, Liz Moorse, CEO of the Association for Citizenship Teaching.

Chair: Professor Alan Renwick.

Recorded on 28 January.

Improving election discourse in the UK

Chris Morris, CEO of Full Fact, Michela Palese, Head of Policy at the Electoral Commission, Hannah Phillips, Research and Policy Manager at the Jo Cox Civility Commission.

Chair: Professor Alan Renwick.

Recorded on 12 December.

Priorities for the new UK government: accountability in British politics

Rob Behrens, former Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Greg Clark, former Conservative Cabinet minister, Kitty Donaldson, Chief Political Commentator at the i newspaper.

Chair: Robert Hazell, Professor of Government and the Constitution at UCL.

Recorded 28 November.

Unit in the news

Robert Hazell appeared on Talkback on Radio Ulster to talk about the monarchy’s finances (5 November).

Peter Riddell’s blogpost on reforming government standards was cited in a Guardian editorial (7 November).

Meg Russell was cited on House of Lords reform in El Confidencial (17 November).

David Natzler’s Unit blogpost on the assisted dying bill was mentioned in the Guardian (26 November).

Meg Russell was interviewed by the Economist about removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords (12 December).

Robert Hazell’s 2006 book The English Question was quoted in Yorkshire Bylines (19 December).

Alan Renwick was interviewed by the Guardian about using citizenship education to increase voter turnout (1 January).

Meg Russell joined the Prospect Podcast to discuss whether House of Lords reform would be Starmer’s legacy (15 January).

Meg Russell spoke to Kurier about House of Lords reform (29 January).

Tom Fleming appeared on the UCL Uncovering Politics podcast to discuss the politics of parliamentary reform (30 January).

Robert Hazell was interviewed by Andrew Marr on LBC about the implications for the King of a US–Canada ‘trade war’ (3 February). This was picked up in the Independent (10 February), Toronto Sun and Toronto Star (both 12 February).

An interview with Bob Morris about the Regency Acts was quoted in the Metro (5 February).

Robert Hazell had a letter published in the Times about a speech by J D Vance, in which the US Vice President claimed that freedom of speech in Europe was under threat (18 February).

Meg Russell signed a joint letter to the Times along with the Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law defending the role of the Attorney General, following reports (see above) of discontent with his role among ministers (23 February).

Unit publications

Lisa James, Patrick Thomas, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick, The Constitutional Landscape: Options for Reform (Constitution Unit, March).

Meg Russell, ‘Should We Be Worried About the Decline of Parliamentary Scrutiny?’ (Public Law, January).

Meg Russell, ‘The Role of Parliament in the Brexit Process’, in The Brexit Files: From Referendum to Reset (UK in a Changing Europe, January).

Contributors to Monitor 89

Dave Busfield-Birch, Tom Fleming, Jim Gallagher, Robert Hazell, Rowan Hall, Lisa James, Hannah Kelly, Alan Renwick, Meg Russell, Mark Sandford, Paul Silk and Alan Whysall.

The issue was edited by Dave Busfield-Birch.