Monitor 90

Labour and the constitution: one year on

Download a printable PDF

In this edition

Labour and the constitution: one year on

Labour and the constitution: one year on

This edition of Monitor coincides with the anniversary of Labour’s entry into government after the 2024 general election. Much has been written about that in the media – not all of it flattering.

The Constitution Unit’s annual conference in late June examined Labour’s record in office specifically on the constitution, as did a post on our blog by Unit researcher Lisa James. The conference (see below) featured an array of senior figures from across the party spectrum, with a keynote speech from Minister for the Constitution Nick Thomas-Symonds.

The government’s scorecard is mixed. There has been initial progress in many areas, while in others changes are still awaited. It is entirely reasonable only one year into a parliament that much remains to be done. But progress in some areas has been disappointing.

Action has been particularly limited on the regulation of constitutional standards. Despite initial positive moves to strengthen the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, action in other areas, even where there have been clear expert voices pressing for change, has been limited. The retiring chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has spoken out in frustration (see below), and a statement by the Prime Minister on appointments to the House of Lords (see below) contains no hints of action to strengthen the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Yet these would both have been simple and cost-free matters to address.

On Lords reform more broadly, the government’s bill to remove the hereditary peers has nearly completed its passage, but ministers have been fiercely resistant to amendments to take reform any further, notwithstanding pressure from the House of Lords (see below). A poll for the Constitution Unit published ahead of the bill’s report stage showed overwhelming support for limiting the Prime Minister’s power of appointment and the size of the chamber. This modest measure, and attempts by peers to force action on other elements of Labour’s manifesto pledges, was resisted. A select committee on next steps is promised, but further progress is doubtful.

In the House of Commons, the Modernisation Committee has started its work, but not yet made any firm recommendations (see below). Meanwhile, the government’s relationship with parliament has sometimes been tricky. Concerns have continued about the rushing through of some bills, and the overuse of delegated legislation. Nowhere was the first of these more true than on the government’s contentious welfare reform bill, which became subject to an extraordinary Labour backbench rebellion at its second reading (see below). This risks souring relations between the government and parliamentarians for some time to come.

The mood music from the government has generally been far more positive on rule of law matters (as discussed in a fascinating panel at our conference). These are issues close to the Prime Minister’s heart, and his Attorney General and Justice Secretary have both been vocal in defending such standards. However the Attorney General, Lord (Richard) Hermer, has faced an onslaught of criticism for his principled position, some of it apparently coming from inside the government machine. The Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, made headlines in June for a speech which was partially spun as critical of the European Convention on Human Rights (see below).

An elections white paper and elections bill are expected, but a commitment made in February to set out plans ‘before summer recess’ had by June shifted to ‘later this year’ (see below). An opportunity to show early progress by restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission has been missed. It is to be hoped that this will appear in the bill itself.

On devolution in England, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill was published on 10 July. It notably includes provision to restore the Supplementary Vote system for electing mayors and police and crime commissioners, reversing a decision made by the previous Conservative government. A new trade deal with the EU paves the way for easier passage of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reducing some sources of political tension. But severe problems in good governance at Stormont remain (see below). A Unit report published in March set out options for reform of Northern Ireland’s governing institutions. But there appears little chance of progress without external pressure, which ministers in London have so far opted not to provide.

Actors beyond the UK government have in some respects been bolder in pursuing political reforms. The Scottish government’s new programme includes measures to revive local democracy, while the Scottish Parliament agreed to regularise the use of ‘people’s panels’ in committee inquiries (see below). Westminster’s own Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) will convene a public deliberative forum to examine attitudes to MPs’ pay and expenses (see below). In Wales, ministers confirmed plans to introduce a system to recall Senedd members found guilty of misdemeanours (see below).

Yet such tinkering may prove too insubstantial to address growing voter disillusionment with the state of politics. The May local elections in England, and subsequent opinion polls, suggest that the UK’s party system could be going through a period of historic transition (see below). Labour’s decades-long dominance in Wales could end at next year’s Senedd elections, and fragmentation of the vote may make forming a stable government very hard in Scotland too. While Westminster elections are further away, they have the potential to be equally convulsive. This all plays out against the backdrop of an alarmingly unstable international environment.

The Constitution Unit celebrated its thirtieth birthday in June (see below). The Unit was founded in an earlier era of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Its mission was to respond to perceived failings of the established political order by working up plans for constitutional renewal by a new government. By the time the government of Tony Blair was elected in May 1997, the Unit had published a dozen reports, often working closely with incoming ministers. These helped lay foundations for many subsequent reforms, including devolution, freedom of information, the Human Rights Act, and the creation of the Electoral Commission. Following the 2009 scandal over MPs’ expenses, similarly, Unit research was crucial in the establishment of a Backbench Business Committee, and the publication of the Cabinet Manual.

Today, the Unit continues to conduct practical research into options for change, producing a dozen reports in the last two years, and maintaining close contacts with ministers, officials, and parliamentarians. Yet political will to improve the working of politics now appears in much shorter supply. The latest British Social Attitudes survey, published in June, shows today’s crisis of faith in democracy as running much deeper than that of the mid-1990s. But ministers appear not yet to recognise that addressing this requires a shift not just in government’s capacity to deliver – though that is undoubtedly important – but also in how politics is conducted.

As recent Unit publications have argued, this shift must renew the culture of politics, with more honest, listening dialogue between citizens and their representatives at its heart. While the days of Boris Johnson’s egregious lying may have passed, people too often feel spun at, manipulated, and not listened to. The sooner a more honest dialogue is realised, the better – both for ministers and for us all.

Back to top

The hereditary peers bill and opportunity for more reform

The long drawn out passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill continues. The bill reached its Lords report stage on 2 and 9 July, having been introduced into the Commons last September. Its five-day Lords committee stage ended on 1 April.

Committee stage proceedings were summarised on the Unit blog by Director Meg Russell. Well over 120 amendments were proposed, and debates were lengthy, but no changes were made (which is not unusual at this stage). Various Conservative proposals addressed the future of the hereditary peers, but many amendments focussed on the further commitments in Labour’s manifesto – for example introduction of a retirement age, participation requirements, and consultation on large-scale reform.

In a second blogpost, Meg argued that the bill offered a ‘once in a generation opportunity’ to achieve key changes such as introducing a limit on the size of the chamber, or strengthening the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC). Then shortly before report stage she proposed ‘10 reasons why the hereditary peers bill should be amended to constrain Prime Ministerial patronage and the size of the House of Lords’.

These issues, which had also received attention at committee stage, seemed key for decision at report. But ministers resisted all amendments, and no sensible progress was made. A Liberal Democrat proposal to strengthen HOLAC was defeated, as was another to move towards an elected chamber. A key proposal from Crossbencher Lord (Terry) Burns, who chaired the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, was not put to the vote, seemingly in part because the Liberal Democrats declined to support it. There were three defeats on Conservative amendments, including one to retain the current hereditary peers, but all seem certain to be overturned in the Commons.

Back to top

House of Lords appointments

While the effect of the hereditary peers bill in making the House of Lords smaller is still awaited, the membership of the chamber currently continues to grow. One block of new appointees resulted from Rishi Sunak’s resignation honours list, published on 11 April. This included seven new Conservative peers, five of them MPs who departed the Commons in 2024. While a relatively small group, they tilted the chamber further in existing directions: as of 13 June it had 286 Conservative members to Labour’s 212, and 573 men to 261 women (in a chamber whose overall size had reached 859 – 834 of whom were eligible to attend). In June, Downing Street announced a further block of four new Crossbench peers, including former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case. As reported in the previous edition of Monitor, a 38-strong list (30 of them Labour) was published by Starmer in December.

In total, nearly 80 new members have entered the House of Lords since last year’s general election – nearly enough to wipe out any size gains made by removing all hereditary peers (and possibly not enough, if some of those peers are granted life peerages). On 19 June Keir Starmer issued a written statement to the House of Commons on practice regarding Lords appointments. This appeared to result from unhappiness by the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), which has been granted no new nominations since the election, despite this wider influx. Six new Crossbenchers have now been appointed in total (itself a somewhat paltry proportion), and all were appointed directly by the Prime Minister. Previously the understanding was that prime ministers would appoint no more than 10 such members per parliament, though recent analysis demonstrates how these limits have in fact been breached. Starmer’s statement pointedly did not mention the number, and did not return to the previous relatively narrow requirements for appointment initially set by Tony Blair, and subsequently extended by David Cameron. The Prime Minister also pointedly did not state that he would abide by the propriety recommendations of HOLAC. The statement appeared unlikely to offer reassurance to anyone, making it an odd move amidst parliamentary controversy over the limits of the government’s bill.

Back to top

Reviews of House of Commons procedure

The Modernisation Committee has begun its first standalone inquiry since its initial ‘call for views’, investigating the accessibility of the House of Commons and its procedures. Unit researchers have submitted two pieces of written evidence about how the Commons presents itself online and potential changes to the House’s procedural language.

The Procedure Committee has also launched two new inquiries. The first is the latest of the committee’s routine reviews of government departments’ performance in answering written parliamentary questions, which will focus on the current 2024–25 session. The second new inquiry will explore the House of Commons’ sub judice resolution, which prohibits MPs from referring to matters awaiting adjudication by a court. The inquiry will consider whether the resolution strikes the right balance of allowing free discussion in parliament without adversely affecting the outcome of court proceedings. The review was requested by Speaker Lindsay Hoyle and is accepting written evidence until 31 July.

When the Modernisation Committee was first established last year, questions were raised about how it would relate to the government – given that it is chaired by a minister, Leader of the House Lucy Powell – and to other select committees – because its remit overlaps with several of them. We have now seen some interesting early signs, as two Procedure Committee inquiries – on call lists and electronic voting – received separate written evidence from the government and from Powell, in her capacity as chair. In each case, the government expressed a clear view, opposing any use of remote voting for Commons divisions, and expressing qualified support for some form of ‘indicative’ call list. The Modernisation Committee instead stuck to summarising the views it had received from MPs. This might allay some fears that the committee will simply act as a mouthpiece for ministers’ views, or that it will seek to pre-empt the work of other committees.

Back to top

The ‘assisted dying’ bill passes to the Lords

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a private member’s bill often referred to as the ‘assisted dying bill’, has completed its Commons stages, having received very extensive scrutiny by MPs, including compared to many government bills.

The bill had its committee stage in a public bill committee between January and March and was reported back to the Commons with a number of amendments. Some of these were technical adjustments to the bill’s drafting, but others made more significant changes to its substance. The most high-profile change removed a requirement for the High Court to approve applications for an ‘assisted death’ and instead provided for new ‘Assisted Dying Review Panels’ overseen by a ‘Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner’. The bill then underwent its report stage in May and June (after a brief delay instigated by the bill’s sponsor, backbench Labour MP Kim Leadbeater), where MPs passed various further amendments. It passed its third reading on 20 June by 314 votes to 291. This represents a majority of 23, which is down from 55 at the bill’s second reading.

The bill will now be considered by the House of Lords, with questions both about the timing and its likely treatment in that chamber. Officially, the final private members’ bill Friday in the House of Commons was 11 July, but a date has not even been set for the Lords to debate second reading of the bill. This means that additional time will have to be made to consider any Lords amendments (which is not unprecedented). A bigger question is whether the Lords will seek to make major changes or will take a more light-touch approach given the extensive consideration that it has already had in the Commons, where MPs clearly thought very carefully about their decision. Some opponents have suggested that the Lords should block the bill, and one respected commentator has emphasised that it would be within its constitutional rights to give it thorough scrutiny. Unit honorary researcher Daniel Gover has outlined how these arguments are finely balanced and the outcome somewhat unpredictable. One thing which is not known is how long this parliamentary session will run, as this remains (for right or wrong) wholly in the control of the government. Many now anticipate that this will run into the autumn, or even next spring, allowing time for Lords consideration and the bill to reach the statute book.

Back to top

The relationship between government and parliament

The government’s management of parliament has led to numerous tensions with peers and MPs, as well as the Speaker of the Commons, Lindsay Hoyle.

The most publicised split between Downing Street and parliament has been over planned changes to disability benefits contained in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which sparked widespread dissent on the Labour backbenches. Former minister Meg Hillier, who chairs the Commons Treasury Select Committee and the Liaison Committee made up of committee chairs, tabled a ‘reasoned amendment’ that set out the objections of rebel backbenchers. This was withdrawn after the government made several concessions. Even so, with many backbenchers remaining unpersuaded, ministers were forced into a further round of concessions while the second reading debate was taking place. While the government did win the vote, the bill had been gutted of much of its intended content and 49 Labour MPs still rebelled: 47 also did so at third reading. The government’s relationship with its backbenchers appears fraught with tension, which could pose significant future problems for Keir Starmer if he does not act to improve the situation.

Liz Kendall stands hunched over the dispatch box in the House of Commons, speaking into a microphone. — Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall during a debate on welfare reform (© House of Commons).

The Data (Use and Access) Act, received royal assent after a lengthy bout of ping pong between the Commons and the Lords. This legislation covered a wide range of areas, but the most high-profile point of contention was an attempt by peers – backed by a number of celebrities – to require greater transparency about technology companies’ use of copyright material in training AI models. Ministers resisted this change, with peers eventually backing down only after the Commons rejected it five times.

Another bill – the Employment Rights Bill – has been criticised by two Lords committees. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee both raised concerns about the breadth of delegated powers the bill would grant to ministers, and the limiting effect of this on parliamentary scrutiny. The latter committee has also criticised the use of a fast-tracked procedure for the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act (see below). The committee was more positive about ministers’ commitments to further post-legislative scrutiny of another fast-tracked law: the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.

The government’s recent flurry of announcements about trade deals revived discussion of whether such deals receive adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Negotiations with Donald Trump’s administration have proved especially controversial, with senior select committee chairs and the Liberal Democrats calling for a parliamentary vote on any UK–US agreement.

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle has shown mounting frustration at ministers’ habit of making major announcements outside parliament, allowing two Urgent Questions on the matter in rapid succession. At Hoyle’s instigation, the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has announced an inquiry into whether the Ministerial Code sets out adequate expectations for ministers on this issue, and whether those that exist are being met.

Back to top

The work of the Intelligence and Security Committee

In May, the chair of parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, Lord Beamish (Kevan Jones), issued a very strongly worded statement about his committee’s role and future.

The statement ostensibly aimed to summarise the work done by the committee before it was dissolved ahead of the 2024 general election (during which period he was an MP and member of the committee, though not yet its chair). But it was notable for the strength of its complaints about the committee’s ability to carry out effective oversight of the government’s intelligence and security activities.

The statement warned that the committee’s scrutiny was being ‘undermined by continued interference by the Cabinet Office’ in its staffing and resourcing, with previously agreed safeguards having been ‘comprehensively dismantled’, and a risk that without increased resources the committee ‘will not be able to keep its doors open’. It also claimed that developments in intelligence and security since 2014 mean the committee’s remit ‘remains significantly out of date and urgently needs to be updated to address… serious gaps in oversight’.

This intervention received surprisingly little public coverage, given the importance of the issues involved and the tone of the criticisms. Beamish subsequently discussed the committee’s situation – and plans to bolster its independence by moving it out of the Cabinet Office – on the Hansard Society’s Parliament Matters podcast.

Back to top

Parliamentary standards

The House of Commons Committee on Standards has launched an inquiry into the ‘outside employment and interests’ of MPs. The inquiry, which intends among other things to explore a ‘qualified prohibition on outside interests’, was set up at the request of the Modernisation Committee. Establishing further limitations on MPs’ outside employment had been one of the Modernisation Committee’s stated priorities, following its inclusion in Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto. An initial rule change in July last year prohibited MPs from providing paid advice on the workings of parliament or on ‘public policy or current affairs’.

Changes to the governance of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) were approved by the House of Commons on 16 June, after Conservative members of the House of Commons Commission insisted that they be put to the whole House. The government motion replaced four existing policy and procedure documents with a single policy framework and a single process roadmap, and created a new Assurance Board to approve ICGS processes – reflecting the conclusions of the 2024 Kernaghan review.

Back to top

Appointment of Parliamentary Ombudsman

After a very long delay, a new Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) – who investigates complaints about UK government departments, other public organisations, and the NHS in England – has finally been appointed. Paula Sussex had her pre-appointment scrutiny hearing before the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) on 23 April. PACAC’s subsequent report endorsed her appointment, saying that she has ‘the personal independence and professional skills necessary to fulfil the high profile, demanding and varied role’. But its questioning was not particularly probing, and Sussex has been criticised for her largely technocratic answers.

The long delay since Rob Behrens retired as PHSO on 31 March 2024 raises questions about the appointment process. It is led by the House of Commons, in close cooperation with the government. The post was first advertised in October 2023, and the then chair of PACAC, William Wragg, sat on the interview panel. After a thorough selection process, in January 2024 the panel recommended Nick Hardwick (former chair of the Parole Board), but it gradually emerged that Rishi Sunak had refused to approve the appointment. The general election then caused further delay, and the post was not readvertised until January 2025. With the PHSO being an Officer of Parliament, it must be asked whether it is still appropriate for the Prime Minister to be involved at all, given the long delays caused by Number 10 in this case.

Back to top

Elections, referendums and democratic engagement.

Local elections in May

The results of the local elections held in England in May were potentially the most mould-breaking of any set of elections since 1945.

There were contests for 1,637 seats across 23 councils – mainly in shire areas traditionally favourable to the Conservatives – as well as six mayoral ballots and a parliamentary by-election in Runcorn and Helsby. Overall, the Reform party easily won. It secured 41% of the council seats available and gained outright control of 10 councils, based on 31% of the votes cast. It also won two mayoralties, and it defeated Labour in Runcorn and Helsby by a margin of six votes – the tightest result in a parliamentary by-election since the 19th century. The Liberal Democrats came second on council seats and councils won, while the Conservatives were second in terms of votes cast.

A woman in a white suit stands in the middle of a group of seated MPs in the House of Commons chamber. — Sarah Pochin, the newly elected MP for Runcorn and Helsby ©House of Commons.

Given that each year’s round of local elections includes votes only in some parts of the country, projections are needed to estimate what the results would have been in a nationwide contest. Two such projections are widely cited, one published by the BBC, the other by Sky News. Both put Reform well ahead – on 30% and 32% of the votes cast respectively. Both had Labour second, on 20% and 19% respectively. The BBC estimates had the Liberal Democrats in third, on 17%, followed by the Conservatives on 15% and the Greens on 11%. The Sky projections put the Conservatives third, on 18%, followed by the Liberal Democrats on 16% and the Greens on 8%.

On neither the BBC nor the Sky projections of national voting patterns had the combined share of Labour and the Conservatives previously fallen below 50%; in these elections, it fell to 35% and 37%. In consequence – and reflecting also the patterns in opinion polls – speculation over whether the post-1945 party duopoly may be coming to an end is rife.

The six mayoral elections were the third set to use First Past the Post following the abolition of the previous Supplementary Vote system (under which voters could register first and second preferences) in the Elections Act 2022. In 2024, as shown by analysis by Unit Deputy Director Alan Renwick, there were multiple contests in which the Conservatives held off Labour or Liberal Democrat challenges only because of this rule change. Shifting voting patterns meant that was no longer the case in 2025. Indeed, the split on the right between Reform and the Conservatives allowed Labour to hold on in Doncaster and North Tyneside under First Past the Post – battles it would probably have lost under Supplementary Vote. There is a principled case for reversing the 2022 reform and a clear indication the government intends to do so (see next article).

Back to top

The government’s electoral reform plans

As reported in the previous Monitor, ministers said in February that they would set out ‘the Government’s approach to elections and electoral reform for this Parliament in a published document before summer recess’. It appears that this timetable may now have slipped. A ministerial written answer in June said the government would set out ‘its approach to elections and electoral reform for this Parliament in an overall Government Strategy for Elections’ that would be published ‘later this year’.

On the other hand, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill – published on 10 July, as Monitor went to press – includes provision to restore the Supplementary Vote system for electing mayors and police and crime commissioners. If passed, this will reverse the switch to First Past the Post made in the Elections Act 2022.

Back to top

Developments at the Electoral Commission

The four-year term of the Chair of the Electoral Commission, John Pullinger, expired at the end of April. Earlier in the month, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission – the cross-party committee of MPs that oversees the Commission’s work – recommended his reappointment for a second term. This was confirmed in June.

Also in April, following approval by the Speaker’s Committee, the Commission published its new five-year Corporate Plan, covering the period from 2025 to 2030. This sets out five strategic priorities: ‘supporting voters and increasing participation’; ‘modernising the electoral system’; ‘safeguarding and protecting the system’; ‘leading an informed debate about the future of elections’; and ‘strengthening the Electoral Commission’.

Under the first of these headings, the Commission said it would expand its ‘education and partnership work’, particularly if votes at 16 is passed at UK level. It announced that the provision of online information on what elections are taking place in each locality, who the candidates are, and where members of the public can vote – which, in its current form, is delivered by Democracy Club – will be taken in-house. On the second priority, it said it would ‘continue to advocate for the consolidation, simplification and modernisation of electoral law’.

In respect of safeguarding the system, the Commission identified a number of challenges, including a growth in mis- and disinformation and ‘dubious campaign practices’, ‘unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation’ of campaigners, and foreign interference. It pledged to work with social media companies, the police, and other regulators to address these matters. It will also replace the current online political finance database.

On leading informed debate, it set out a range of indicators for gauging the health of the electoral system. To protect the Commission’s own independence, it ‘will continue to stress the importance of removing’ the government’s power – created by the Elections Act 2022 – to write a strategy and policy statement for the Commission. Measures to strengthen the Commission will include developing ‘greater digital expertise’ and using AI to improve services.

Earlier, in March, the Commission published research on perceptions of democracy among young people aged between 11 and 25. It found that 72% wanted to be taught more about politics at school or college. Only 45% said they were interested in UK politics – a number that was markedly higher, at 63%, in London, but lower in Northern Ireland.

Back to top

Report on the abuse of candidates and MPs

The Speaker’s Conference on the Security of MPs, Candidates and Elections, which was formed in the House of Commons last October, published an interim report in June. This set out initial recommendations and areas for further investigation.

The Conference found that ‘the current level of threats against MPs and candidates is stifling debate and weakening democracy as a whole’. It continued that such abuse is ‘dissuading candidates from standing and making it harder for MPs and candidates to engage with the public’. By causing some MPs to self-censor on contentious topics, and in some cases even change how they vote, it is ‘improperly influencing political decisions’.

It recommended that ‘The leadership of all parties represented in Parliament and the Electoral Commission should engage constructively with the Speaker to develop a code of conduct for campaigning, to be agreed and in place at the next general election.’ It called for changes to the policing of election campaigns and reform of candidate nomination processes. It proposed ‘a full review of electoral law’, focusing on clarifying relevant offences, ensuring election officials have the powers they need to address harassment, abuse and intimidation, and ending administrative practices (such as publication of candidate addresses) that may undermine security. It also recommended a series of measures to bolster the security of MPs and their staff

The Conference also outlined the areas of focus for the next phase of its work: ‘public attitudes towards MPs and the level of abuse and intimidation in political debate’; ‘how threats against MPs and candidates are handled in the criminal justice system’; and ‘the role of social media in promoting or combatting threats against MPs and candidates’.

Back to top

Legislation on absent voting in devolved elections

A private member’s bill is working its way through parliament that would make it easier to apply for a postal or proxy vote for devolved elections in Scotland and Wales. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a system of online applications for non-devolved elections. But voters wishing to vote by post or proxy in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd, or local authorities in Scotland or Wales still need to apply via a paper form. The bill – which has cross-party support – would provide for consistency across all election types. It went through report stage and third reading in the House of Commons on 4 July.

Back to top

Proposals for recall of Senedd members

As reported in Monitor 89, the Senedd’s Standards of Conduct Committee published a report in January recommending the introduction of a system of recall of MSs found guilty of misdemeanours. The report was debated in plenary in March, receiving support from all speakers, representing all parties in the Senedd.

The minister responding, Counsel General Julie James, confirmed that ‘the Welsh Government will bring forward primary legislation before the next election to introduce a recall system’. She accepted most of the committee’s proposals, but suggested that some would require careful consideration – including the name of the procedure (the committee proposed avoiding the term ‘recall’) and the degree to which triggers for recall should be specified in the legislation.

Back to top

The media and democracy

Speaking in May, BBC Director-General Tim Davie set out a bold vision for the broadcaster as a protector of democracy in the UK and around the world.

He described a ‘crisis’ of trust and of critical thinking, saying, ‘The future of our cohesive, democratic society feels, for the first time in my life, at risk.’ He said that the transformation of media in the internet age, while having some positive effects, is ‘fostering polarisation and threatening communal trust, and putting more power in the hands of global social media platforms’. He asked, ‘We are building an information rich age but is it an insight rich age? How are we sparking critical thinking and curiosity?’

He set out five ‘choices’ that he said the BBC should make, three of which directly related to democracy: to make the UK ‘a global leader in trusted information’; ‘to help support our democracy from the roots up’; and ‘to deploy cutting-edge technology and AI to help, not harm, our children and their futures’. Under the first heading, he proposed measures to increase the reach of fact-checking and double the global audience of the World Service. Under the second, he focused especially on strengthening local journalism. Under the third, he said the BBC could ‘provide every single child in the UK with proper training on disinformation, helping them to find and assess information they can trust, developing cutting edge media literacy tools and fostering critical thinking’.

He concluded with an augmented version of the Reithian principles that underpin the BBC’s mission: ‘Entertaining, informing, educating. Bringing us together.’

Meanwhile, also in May, Ofcom published new research into public perceptions of mis- and disinformation. This found that people wanted ‘a multi-channel approach’ to navigating such material, including through person-to-person exchange, ‘community spaces, social media, TV, radio, and billboard campaigns’. It added, ‘Participants also suggested that messaging could focus on the resources available to support critical evaluation of information and the benefits of engaging with a wide range of sources and viewpoints.’

Back to top

Developments in deliberative democracy

The Scottish government’s Programme for Government for 2025–26, published in May (see below), pledges to ‘make it easier for communities to make decisions about the places they know best’. A new ‘blueprint for democratic community decision-making models’ will be published by the end of the current parliament next year, and the government is supporting a pilot citizens’ assembly in Dunfermline, which will ‘set the agenda and shape plans for the city in the years ahead’.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament’s Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee – chaired by longstanding Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw – published a blueprint for embedding deliberative democracy in the work of the parliament. This proposes annual ‘people’s panels’ in the next parliament, which would support the scrutiny work of parliamentary committees. Committees would propose topics, and the Conveners Group (comprising committee chairs) would select from among these. The report was debated in the parliament on 3 June, receiving warm support across all parties, including from Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Parliamentary Business.

At the end of June, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA – the body that sets MPs’ pay and administers’ MPs’ expenses) announced that it will convene ‘a Citizens’ Forum on the future of MPs’ pay and how their parliamentary duties are funded’. The body’s 25 members will be selected by lottery and will meet over four sessions in September. The forum will be part of a wider ‘listening exercise’ under the heading ‘What’s democracy worth?’.

Finally, in London, a report of the London Assembly’s Environment Committee urged the Mayor to ‘innovate further in public engagement approaches to involve Londoners in key climate decisions’. It proposed a range of approaches, including ‘strategy rooms’ and ‘participatory budgeting’.

Back to top

Plans for government ethics reform

The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) launched an inquiry into ‘Propriety, ethics and the wider standards landscape in the UK’. The committee aims to consider the standards landscape in the round, including how key government manifesto commitments on standards might best be delivered.

One year on from the 2024 general election, the key government action on standards has been the publication of a revised Ministerial Code (see Monitor 88). The updated document, published in November 2024, removed the Prime Minister’s ability to veto the opening of investigations by the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, and committed the Cabinet Office to reporting ministers’ gifts and hospitality every month, rather than on a quarterly basis.

As a recent blog post by Peter Riddell pointed out, various other promised or potential standards reforms remain undelivered. Chief among these is the creation of a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was at the core of the manifesto’s offering on standards. As experts suggested at the time, the potential creation of a new body raises thorny questions about its remit and powers, and how it should relate to the existing standards landscape (especially given the coordinating role already played by the Committee on Standards in Public Life). Speaking at the Unit’s annual conference in June, Minister for the Cabinet Office Nick Thomas-Symonds indicated that policy work on the body is ongoing. A subsequent Guardian article suggested that the new body is likely to play an ‘umbrella’ role, with overarching governance responsibilities for the existing regulators. The same article suggested that the responsibilities currently held by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) might be split between other regulators. ACOBA currently considers applications relating to post-government employment for both ministers and senior Crown servants. Labour’s manifesto pledged to strengthen the oversight and enforcement of these rules, which former ACOBA chair Lord (Eric) Pickles described to PACAC as ‘dead in the water, next to useless, utterly pointless and in need of reform’ in their current form.

Back to top

Royal visit to Canada

King Charles visited Canada in May to deliver the Speech from the Throne and open the new session of the Canadian parliament at the invitation of Prime Minister Mark Carney. It was Charles’s twentieth visit to Canada, but only the third time that a reigning monarch has delivered the speech. In the face of threats from Donald Trump to annex Canada, the visit served to underscore the country’s different traditions and national identity. Carney issued an official statement saying: ‘The royal visit is a reminder of the bond between Canada and the crown – one forged over generations, shaped by shared histories, and grounded in common values. A bond that, over time, has evolved… to reflect the strength, diversity and confidence of our people’. In a country where republican sentiment had been growing, the visit also helped to boost support for the monarchy, as a symbol of stability in an increasingly uncertain and unstable world.

Back to top

Human rights and the rule of law

Both major parties have recently made announcements on their policy toward the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Speaking to an audience of European ambassadors at the Council of Europe in late June, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood reiterated the UK’s commitment to the ECHR, but also argued that it should ‘evolve’, and indicated that the government will legislate to ‘clarify’ the application of Article 8 (which protects the right to respect for private and family life). Questioned by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in April, Attorney General Lord (Richard) Hermer defended the Human Rights Act and ECHR. He suggested that Article 8 currently allows significant latitude for government action, but that a review of government policies and processes might usefully ‘check that the Article 8 calibration is right’.

Shabana Mahmood stands at the dispatch box in the House of Commons, speaking and pointing angrily at the members opposite her, who are not pictured. — Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood © House of Commons.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has rejected the idea of reform and announced a new ‘Lawfare Commission’. Led by Shadow Attorney General Lord (David) Wolfson of Tredegar, it has been tasked with developing a roadmap for the UK to leave the ECHR, and to consider the ‘intended consequences’ of doing so, with Northern Ireland to be given specific consideration. Badenoch argued that the UK should be prepared to leave international agreements which may obstruct policy delivery, in a speech that mentioned not only the ECHR, but also the European Convention against Trafficking, the Refugee Convention, the Palermo Convention (or UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime), the Aarhus Convention (on environmental rights), and judicial review. Wolfson – who, as legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg has pointed out, agrees with Hermer on the importance of the rule of law but significantly differs in his definition of the concept – has previously argued that the UK may, in rare cases, legitimately breach its international obligations when to do so would be in the national interest.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee’s inquiry into the rule of law, launched in March, is ongoing. The committee has so far heard from a broad range of witnesses including representatives of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, Policy Exchange, the Hansard Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. The Unit has submitted written evidence.

Back to top

Criticism of the judiciary and the Sentencing Council

A planned change to sentencing guidelines was postponed following the intervention of Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood in March. The guidelines were produced by the independent Sentencing Council and would have required judges or magistrates to consider a pre-sentence report – which provides the court with details about the offender and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances for the offence – for certain categories of people, including young adults, women, and people from underrepresented ethnic, cultural and religious communities.

The postponement decision was followed by an ill-tempered Commons debate during which Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick attacked ‘activist judges’ seeking to undermine the will of parliament, and called for the Sentencing Council to lose its independence and submit to ministerial oversight. He also called for the sacking of the then Sentencing Council chair, Lord Justice Davis, who was a serving judge until his unexpected death on 7 June. Jenrick’s comments prompted widespread criticism, including from former Conservative Commons Justice Committee chair Bob Neill.

Jenrick was not merely condemned for attacking the judiciary. Baroness (Helena) Kennedy of the Shaws, a barrister and Labour peer who sits on parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, told the BBC that Jenrick was wrong to criticise the policy rationale of the guidelines, which sought to address widely acknowledged inequalities in the justice system. She also encouraged the government not to intervene.

This advice went unheeded, and subsequent legislation – the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 – was passed at speed. It prevents sentencing guidelines from referring to ‘personal characteristics’ such as race and religion in connection with the need to request a pre-sentence report, but leaves most of the criteria contained in the draft guidelines untouched.

The Shadow Justice Secretary was subsequently warned by Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle during Justice Questions for once again criticising a serving judge, in this case a part-time immigration judge whose political views Jenrick disagreed with. Erskine May prohibits criticism of the conduct of members of the judiciary in most circumstances.

Back to top

Parliamentary privilege and the right to privacy

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of the UK’s rules on parliamentary privilege in April, in a case brought against the UK by businessman Philip Green. Green was named in the House of Lords by Lord (Peter) Hain in October 2018, in connection with allegations of sexual and racial harassment and bullying published in the Telegraph, but subject to a court injunction which prevented the newspaper from naming him as the person involved. Green argued that Hain’s actions had compromised his ability to secure a fair trial, and that the use of parliamentary privilege to breach court injunctions should not be allowed. The court ruled that parliamentary privilege is a matter for the state and parliament in question, and that ‘to find otherwise would run contrary to the principle of the autonomy of Parliament’, which is entitled to ‘regulate its own internal affairs’.

Back to top

The Union

The Council of the Nations and Regions – which was formed shortly after Labour’s July election victory (see Monitor 88) – met for the second time on 23 May. Chaired by Keir Starmer, the meeting was attended by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, the First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and regional mayors from across England.

The body was established as ‘a central driving forum’ bringing together ‘governments and authorities with devolved responsibilities’ to work on ‘some of the biggest and most cross-cutting challenges the country faces’. There has, however, been no communiqué about the meeting on the UK government’s website, and no ministerial statement. According to a statement released by Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan, the discussions focused on developments on international trade, and opportunities arising from artificial intelligence for economic growth and public service. The same group – minus Rayner and the English mayors, who met separately as the Mayoral Council – also discussed foreign policy on Russia, Ukraine and Gaza, as well as recent announcements about UK trade with the EU, US and India.

Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, and a group of men and women are sat around a rectangular wooden conference table. — The Council of Nations and Regions (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.

Legislatures from across the UK are also attempting to work together more closely. Representatives from the House of Commons, House of Lords, Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd met on 12 June as part of the Interparliamentary Forum. Chaired by Conservative MP Simon Hoare, who also chairs the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Forum discussed a wide range of issues, including intergovernmental relations, the legislative consent process and the funding of the devolved governments. It met with Douglas Alexander, Minister for State in the Cabinet Office, who is leading a review into the operation of the UK Internal Market Act (see Monitor 89), a subject of concern to numerous members of the Forum.

Lord (Peter) Goldsmith updated the Forum on the work of the House of Lords International Agreements Committee – which he chairs – and Forum members outlined the difficulties that devolved parliaments face in ‘engaging in scrutiny of international treaties and to properly scrutinise their implications in the devolved parliaments’.

Lord (Peter) Ricketts, vice-chair of the UK–EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly – which exists to facilitate dialogue between the UK and EU parliaments – also met with the Forum, and its members expressed concern about ‘the challenge of incorporating representation from the devolved parliaments’.

The new UK–EU agreement reached in May has implications for the Union, particularly in Northern Ireland (see below).

Back to top

England

Local elections took place in England in May (see above). Meanwhile, in the UK Spending Review published in June, many of the more established urban mayoral authorities were promised substantial increases in transport and potential housing investment. An integrated settlement promising mayors enhanced financial flexibility went live in April 2025 for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, with five areas (Liverpool, South Yorkshire, North East, West Yorkshire and Greater London) due to follow in April 2026.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill was presented to parliament just before Monitor went to press. It includes provisions deriving from the December 2024 white paper (see Monitor 89) regarding metro-mayors in England. Combined authorities are to be renamed ‘mayoral strategic authorities’ and provided with a standard range of powers that will be set out in a statutory devolution framework. Other matters covered in the bill include reform of local government audits, the voting system used to elect mayors (see above), and the government’s promised ‘community right to buy’.

Additionally, the government has published a consultation document for its ‘fair funding review’. This will adjust the allocation of funding to local authorities as of 2026–27, and set out the framework for a three-year finance settlement for councils from 2026 to 2029. Councils will therefore see significant change to their funding in April 2026: as well as this review, there will be a revaluation of business rates and additional higher and lower multipliers (tax rates) within the business rates system.

The government’s plans to restructure local government in two-tier areas to a unitary pattern have continued. It has received several dozen interim proposals for the shape of new unitary authorities. At least two proposals – and often more – were received from each two-tier county area. Final proposals are now due in September this year from devolution priority areas that will elect mayors in 2026, and in November this year for other areas.

Both the Council for the Nations and Regions and the Mayors’ Council met on 23 May 2025 (see above).

Back to top

Northern Ireland

The Northern Ireland institutions remain in place, but as before (see Monitor 89), there are limited signs of them working effectively and in harmony to deliver better policy and services. Political tensions have broken the surface, most recently over race-based rioting in parts of Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin First Minister Michelle O’Neill called for the resignation of a junior minister, the DUP’s Gordon Lyons, after he made comments on social media that she said strayed into ‘inflaming the situation’. Lyons said that he had no intention of resigning, and his party leader, Gavin Robinson, said that to call for his resignation was improper. O’Neill cannot dismiss Lyons, as ministerial positions are not decided by the First Minister, but are chosen by parties, which are awarded posts according to their strength in the Assembly. This is perhaps the most serious split within the Executive since devolution resumed. More conflicts are in prospect, notably over a long-running issue about funding Casement Park, a stadium for Gaelic games in Belfast, which may yet threaten the stability of the institutions.

The agreement between the UK and EU on a ‘renewed agenda’ for cooperation reached on 19 May could help relieve some tensions. The adoption of dynamic alignment with the EU on ‘sanitary and phytosanitary’ (SPS) standards will reduce the need for checks on many animal and plant products at UK–EU border crossings and on goods movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Even when agreed in detail and reflected in law, however, it will not remove all irritants around the ‘Irish sea border’ that resulted from Northern Ireland’s position following Brexit.

The UK Spending Review delivered a little comfort, with the Finance Minister, Sinn Féin’s John O’ Dowd, saying that a potential cliff edge had been averted. Difficult financial decisions still lie ahead, with the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council arguing for the introduction of water charges – people in Northern Ireland, unlike in the rest of the UK, do not pay directly for water. The pace of Stormont action on public policy issues was demonstrated by the approval of a draft anti-poverty strategy 18 years after the Executive came under a statutory duty to adopt one, and coaxed out now only by a (second) judicial review.

The issue of reforming the institutions – to prevent their future collapse, to enhance equity for the centre ground parties and improve the quality of government – features regularly in debate. The Unit published a report on options for reform in March (see below), and its authors later gave evidence to an Assembly committee. The vested interests are strong, however, and it is not clear there is much prospect of significant early change, except perhaps in a crisis.

‘Legacy’ matters – legal proceedings stemming from the Troubles – continue to cause controversy. In April, Northern Ireland’s Court of Appeal affirmed a decision requiring the Northern Ireland Secretary, Hilary Benn, to establish a public inquiry into a Troubles death, which the government appears to see as judicial overreach, since the statutory discretion to do so lies with the Secretary of State. The government has said it is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Debates about Irish unity go on, with former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar continuing to urge preparations, and SDLP voices increasingly pressing similar themes. Surveys continue to show there is no majority for Irish unity in Northern Ireland at present, but suggest opinion is moving in that direction, with young people in particular favouring it.

Back to top

Scotland

Constitutional reform has continued to be a low priority in Scottish politics since the previous issue of Monitor was published in March. First Minister John Swinney remains committed to independence but has not pressed for a referendum and has quietly disbanded internal civil service teams preparing independence policy. The SNP has made no new policy proposals on independence. Scotland Secretary Ian Murray has focused on cooperating with the Scottish government on day-to-day economic and domestic policies rather than promoting significant reforms to devolution or the UK constitution. Expressed support for independence remains just above the 50% mark, but there continues to be no majority for the holding of an independence referendum in the next five years. However, one poll indicates that these figures could change should Nigel Farage become Prime Minister.

On 6 May, a new Programme for Government was published. Measures to improve faith in democracy include piloting a citizens’ assembly in Dunfermline and exploring the idea of single local authority models (bringing councils together with health and housing bodies) in Argyll and Bute, Orkney, and the Western Isles. A bill to ban conversion therapy in Scotland was not included in the legislative programme. Swinney has said he is committed to working with Westminster to pass a UK-wide ban but will introduce a bill for Scotland in the first year of the next parliament should that not prove possible. A UK bill has been much promised, but has yet to appear.

The Programme for Government was followed in June by the UK Spending Review. Substantial growth in UK health programmes led to significant Barnett formula consequentials (additional money for Scotland provided to match public expenditure planned for England). The UK government also set aside funds for some direct investments, such as for the Acorn carbon capture project in the northeast of Scotland. The Scottish government’s approach to recent one-year settlements has been to manage in-year, and hope that subsequent additional provision will cover the cost of its commitments. Promises made on social security and other entitlements remain very hard to fund, as the Scottish Fiscal Commission has repeatedly pointed out. But ministers will at least now have a clearer forward budget to plan to.

June’s Scottish Parliament by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall, and Stonehouse proved to be a significant political moment. Labour took the seat from the SNP, a welcome boost for both Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar, leader of Scottish Labour. But the victory reflected a large drop in SNP support: Labour’s vote share actually fell compared to the last election, in 2021. Reform received nearly 26% of the vote and won more than four times the number of votes received by the Scottish Conservative candidate, showing that it has the potential to be successful in Scotland. It is not at all clear what approach Reform MSPs would take to government formation or constitutional issues if elected to Holyrood.

Back to top

Wales

An opinion poll published in May was not positive news for the Welsh Labour government led by Eluned Morgan. Asked how they would vote in a Senedd election, 30% of respondents opted for Plaid Cymru, 25% for Reform and just 18% for Labour. In the newly expanded 96-seat Senedd, this would give Plaid Cymru around 35 seats, Reform 30, and Labour 19, with nine for the Conservatives and three for the Liberal Democrats.

Faced with a very real prospect of losing her position as First Minister (and of Labour ceasing to be the principal party of government, as it has been since 1999), Morgan has distanced herself from Labour policies at Westminster that may be unpopular in Wales. She has styled this the ‘red Welsh way’, channelling predecessor Rhodri Morgan’s ‘clear red water’ – the phrase he used to distinguish his policies from those of Tony Blair.

In a speech in early May, Morgan said she would call out Westminster policies that harmed Wales. She singled out cuts in disability benefits and the ending of the winter fuel allowance, the inequity of the Barnett formula, and the failure to devolve the Crown Estate in Wales (see Monitor 89). Appearing on a podcast later that month, Morgan also criticised Keir Starmer’s rhetoric and policies on immigration.

Morgan has, however, not been wholly critical. In particular, she warmly welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement in the UK Spending Review of £445 million for Welsh railways – a response to the long-running complaint about classification of HS2 as an ‘England and Wales project’ (which means that it brings no financial benefit to Wales via the Barnett formula). This was something Morgan had previously called an ‘almighty injustice’, one amplified in June by the revelation that the Treasury similarly classifies the Oxford to Cambridge rail link as an England and Wales project. The newly announced additional funding has not, however, matched the Barnett payments that would have been paid had HS2 been categorised as an England-only project.

Three women are stood in front of a fireplace, mid-conversation. One woman has her back to the camera and is speaking, with the other two listening. A Welsh flag and a Union flag hang in the background. — Wales Secretary Jo Stevens, Eluned Morgan and Chancellor Rachel Reeves (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by HM Treasury.

Morgan has remained silent on several other long-standing issues where Labour in Cardiff disagrees with the UK government. No reform of the outdated fiscal framework for Wales was mentioned in the Spending Review, and she has not recently repeated calls for the devolution of justice and policing, a long-held Welsh Labour policy.

All parties are now focused on the coming Senedd elections in 2026. Plaid Cymru announced a notable policy change on Welsh independence in May, when its leader, Rhun ap Iorwerth, rowed back from his predecessor’s commitment to a referendum within five years by saying that his party would concentrate on health, education and the economy during its first term in office. Plaid adopted candidates for the Senedd elections during April and May, using a zipping system designed to ensure gender parity by alternating male and female names on electoral lists. No priority was given to sitting MSs.

Reform continues to target Wales, with Nigel Farage making a speech in Port Talbot on 9 June, where he attacked Labour’s record in Wales and set out policies designed to reindustrialise the country. Reform still has no leader in Wales, but it has begun the process of vetting potential Senedd candidates.

The Conservatives are also engaged in selecting candidates. The party has denied reports that potential candidates who oppose the continued existence of the Senedd have been removed from the list because of this view. Darren Millar, the party’s Senedd leader, has made clear that the party is in favour of devolution, but opposition to it continues to simmer within its membership.

Back to top

Romania’s presidential election

Romania held presidential elections, with the first round taking place on 4 May, and the second on 18 May. Pro-European independent Nicușor Dan defeated George Simion, the leader of the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), in a politically charged contest. Dan secured 53.6% of the vote in the second round. Turnout reached nearly 65% of registered voters, the highest since 1996. His victory came after Simion had won the most votes in the first round, capitalising on widespread public dissatisfaction with the government coalition in place at the time, and strong support from voters living abroad.

The election followed months of political uncertainty and was effectively a rerun: a previous attempt to elect a new president had been annulled by the Constitutional Court in December 2024 between the first and second rounds of voting, due to allegations of Russian interference and campaign finance violations favouring far-right candidate Călin Georgescu. As the mandate of the previous president had expired and a new president could not be elected in time, Speaker of the Senate Ilie Bolojan served as interim President between February and May.

The key question looming over the new elections was whether Georgescu would be allowed to run again. His unexpected rise and anti-Western discourse had posed serious questions about the future of Romania’s democracy, and security commitments in the region. In March, Georgescu’s candidacy was rejected by the Central Electoral Bureau and the Constitutional Court, on the basis that he had ‘violated the very obligation to defend democracy’. Simion emerged as the new far-right presidential candidate. Dan, at the time mayor of Bucharest, announced that he would run as an independent, and campaigned on maintaining Romania’s strategic alignment with the EU and NATO, as well as fighting corruption and supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Following his election victory, Dan’s immediate challenges include stabilising Romania’s politics after the collapse of the Social Democratic–Liberal coalition government. Executive power is shared between the President and the government (headed by the Prime Minister); the president plays a key role in foreign policy and national security, acts as a mediator in domestic politics, and nominates a Prime Minister who must be able to secure parliamentary confidence. After overseeing talks between the parliament’s pro-EU parties, Dan nominated Ilie Bolojan to serve as Prime Minister and his government won a confidence vote 301–9 on 23 June.

Back to top

People on the move

Antonia Romeo left her position as Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in March to take over from Philip Rycroft as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. Romeo’s former role was given to Jo Farrar, who rejoined the department after serving as Chief Executive of NHS Blood and Transplant.

Anna Macmillan was named Interim Director at the Scotland Office in April, following the departure of Laurence Rockey.

Nusrat Ghani was made chair of the Parliamentary Works Estimate Commission in April.

Lord (Terence) Etherton stepped down as chair of the Lords Conduct Committee in April, shortly after taking over the role. He sadly died in May. Lord (Ajay) Kakkar was appointed to serve as his replacement.

PACAC chair Simon Hoare was appointed to chair the Liaison Committee’s newly created sub-committee on national policy statements.

Sarah Clarke stepped down from her role as Black Rod, a senior parliamentary official responsible for organising access to the House of Lords chamber and maintaining order both there and within the precincts of the Lords. Ed Davis was announced as her successor in April and commenced his duties in July.

Isabel Doverty was appointed to chair the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments on an interim basis following the retirement of Lord (Eric) Pickles at the conclusion of his five-year term.

Paula Sussex was appointed to serve as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (see above). The position became vacant after Rebecca Hilsenrath, who had been performing the role for 12 months on an interim basis, stepped down in March.

Joe Griffin was appointed Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government in April, following the departure of John-Paul (JP) Marks, who is now Permanent Secretary and Chief Executive of HMRC.

Kenny MacAskill was elected as leader of Alba on 26 March. The leadership vacancy arose following the death of Alex Salmond in October (see Monitor 88). Neale Hanvey was elected to replace MacAskill as deputy leader.

Back to top

Thirty years of the Constitution Unit

On 12 June the Constitution Unit marked its official thirtieth birthday. On that date in 1995, a launch party was held to mark the Unit’s creation, under the Directorship of Robert Hazell, with funding from the Nuffield Foundation. No doubt at that time there was little expectation that we would still be as active as ever three decades on.

Over the intervening years, the Unit has produced no fewer than 213 reports, numerous books, chapters and papers, 90 editions of Monitor and over 1300 blogposts – providing commentary and analysis on a wide range of constitutional topics and reforms. It has also hosted innumerable events, bringing together policymakers, academics and others, while its former staff and volunteers have gone on to hold various key positions in the UK and overseas, including in parliament, the civil service, regulatory bodies, thinktanks and academia.

Over our long history we have worked closely with many policymakers from all parties and none, and Unit impact has been visible on various important policy changes.

We feel very proud of our achievements, and immensely grateful to all of those who have worked for, and with, us in all of these endeavours over such an extended period.

Back to top

New report: Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion

In March, the Unit published the latest in a series of reports on constitutional matters in Northern Ireland. Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion, written by Conor J Kelly, Alan Renwick and Alan Whysall, examines a wide range of options for reforming Northern Ireland’s governing institutions – principally, the Assembly and Executive.

The report offers no view on the desirability of these options. Rather, it provides a technical analysis of possible reforms that have been – or might reasonably be – proposed and that can plausibly be said to preserve the Agreement’s underlying principles. It provides the first systematic listing and assessment of such proposals, and its purpose is to enable wider debate.

A launch event for the report was held at Queen’s University Belfast in April, with responses from Professor Katy Hayward and Ann Watt of the think tank Pivotal. The report’s publication proved to be well timed, as it coincided with the announcement of an inquiry into reform options by Stormont’s Assembly and Executive Review Committee. The authors gave evidence at the inquiry’s opening evidence session, in May.

Back to top

Unit conference

The Constitution Unit’s annual conference took place on 18 and 19 June. It brought together politicians and experts from across the political spectrum to discuss Labour’s constitutional agenda in office.

Across six panels, nine MPs spoke. They included the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Alex Burghart, and the Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesperson, Sarah Olney.

Giving the keynote speech, the Minister praised the Unit: ‘the esteem in which [it] is held really does speak to the high quality and the rigor of your work’. His speech then focused on the changes that the government has made to date, relating to standards, parliament and devolution.

Concluding, the minister said that while the phrase ‘constitutional reform’ may be unfamiliar to voters, its rationale is not: ‘a politics that feels divorced from their day-to-day lives, decisions about their local area being made in another nation, and a system that seems to safeguard a “do as I say, not as I do” approach to public life’.

The conference was a great success and the Unit is very grateful to all the staff and speakers involved. A full programme, including links to audio and video recordings, can be found below.

Back to top

Exploring Parliament

In March a new edition of the textbook Exploring Parliament was published, edited by Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin and Louise Thompson. The book is widely used for teaching, particularly on the Parliamentary Studies programme, which is run jointly by universities and parliament itself. But its many short chapters are written in an accessible style, giving it significant appeal also to the more general reader who wants to understand parliament better. Two of the chapters, on the legislative process and parliamentary questions, were written by Unit staff – respectively Director Meg Russell (jointly with honorary researcher Daniel Gover), and Ruxandra Serban (jointly with two other authors). Several other members of Unit honorary staff also contributed.

Back to top

Bob Morris

We were sad to announce the death of Dr Bob Morris, who served as an Honorary Senior Research Associate at the Constitution Unit for over 25 years. He died on 16 May, at the age of 87.

An expert on monarchy, church and state, Bob was author, editor or co-editor of four books, eight Constitution Unit reports and a dozen journal articles. He also frequently appeared in the media, with over 100 appearances and mentions just since 2021.

Born in 1937, Bob did infantry National Service before going to Christ’s College, Cambridge to read History in 1958. He then spent almost 40 years as a Home Office civil servant, working variously on crime, policing, security, prisons, immigration and constitutional matters. His last role, from which he retired in 1997, was as Assistant Under-Secretary of State and head of the Criminal Justice and Constitutional Department.

Arriving at the Constitution Unit, Bob developed a new work programme exploring the implications of disestablishing the Church of England. Then, as the late Queen’s reign drew to a close, his interest in church and state developed a new focus, on the need to update the accession and coronation oaths before the accession of a new monarch. This prompted a wider interest in the other constitutional monarchies of Europe, which notably resulted in the publication of a book, The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy.

To commemorate Bob’s life, former Unit Director Professor Robert Hazell published an obituary in the Guardian and a longer tribute on the Unit’s blog.

Back to top

Labour’s Constitutional Agenda in Office: Constitution Unit Conference 2025

Recordings of all panels are available on YouTube and as podcasts.

Day 1, 18 June

Opening keynote from Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office

Chair: Professor Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit.

Panel 1: Standards in public life

Phil Brickell, Labour MP for Bolton West, Professor Gillian Peele, member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Jeremy Wright KC MP, former Conservative Attorney General.

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

Panel 2: The electoral system in a multiparty era

Frances Foley, Deputy Director of Compass, Professor Robert Ford, University of Manchester, Peter Lamb, Labour MP for Crawley.

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

Day 2, 19 June

Panel 3: The rule of law

Dr Joelle Grogan, presenter of The Law Show on BBC Radio 4, Baroness (Victoria) Prentis of Banbury KC, former Conservative Attorney General, Andy Slaughter MP, Labour chair of the House of Commons Justice Committee.

Chair: Professor Veronika Fikfak, UCL Department of Political Science.

Panel 4: Reforming the House of Commons

Wendy Chamberlain MP, Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and member of the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, Dr Hannah White, Director of the Institute for Government, Cat Smith MP, Labour chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee.

Chair: Dr Tom Fleming, Constitution Unit.

Panel 5: Reflections on Labour’s constitutional agenda

Alex Burghart MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Baroness (Dianne) Hayter of Kentish Town, former Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Sarah Olney MP, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office.

Chair: Professor Meg Russell.

Additional events recently made available online

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. Events are free and open to all.

England’s ‘devolution revolution’: prospects and challenges

Professor Arianna Giovanni, University of Urbino, Roger Gough, former Conservative leader of Kent County Council, Bella Sankey, Deputy Leader of the Local Government Association Labour Group.

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

Recorded on 10 July.

AI and democracy

Professor Danielle Allen, Harvard University, Professor Helen Margetts, University of Oxford, Professor Ciaran Martin, University of Oxford.

Chair: Professor Alan Renwick.

Recorded on 15 May.

Reform of Stormont: options for discussion

Professor Katy Hayward, Queen’s University Belfast, Professor Alan Renwick, Ann Watt, Director of Pivotal, Alan Whysall, Honorary Senior Research Associate at the Constitution Unit.

Chair: Professor John Garry, Director of the Democracy Unit, Queen’s University Belfast

Recorded on 28 April.

Unit in the news

Robert Hazell’s work on hung parliaments was mentioned in the Mandarin (27 March).

The Unit report Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion, was covered in the Irish Times (28 March). An event at Queen’s University Belfast about the report was also covered in the Irish Times (30 April) and on Slugger O’Toole (2 May). The report’s authors appeared on the ARINS podcast (1 May).

Meg Russell was interviewed about House of Lords reform in Doorbraak (29 March).

Meg Russell’s blogposts about the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, were mentioned in London Playbook (8 April) and were covered by Ian Dunt in his column in the i. She was later interviewed on the subject by Byline Times (10 April).

Robert Hazell was quoted in a Telegraph piece about the role of women in monarchies across Europe (3 May).

Robert Hazell spoke to AfP about VE Day, leading to mentions in the Guardian (5 May) and The Australian (8 May).

Meg Russell’s blogpost about the decline of parliamentary scrutiny was reproduced in Civil Service World (9 May).

Robert Hazell appeared on PoliticsHome’s The Rundown podcast discussing lessons to be learned from the 2010–15 coalition government (23 May).

Robert Hazell was quoted in the Sun about the King’s visit to Canada (26 May).

Robert Hazell was interviewed by SpeakUp about public perception of King Charles and Queen Camilla (30 May).

Alan Renwick had a letter published in Prospect Magazine about the different steps that could and should be taken to protect UK democracy (12 June).

Alan Renwick wrote an article for the Conversation about whether electoral reform could happen in the UK (27 June).

Meg Russell was interviewed for Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4 about parliamentary ping pong (27 June).

New Constitution Unit opinion polling on House of Lords reform was mentioned in London Playbook and on Mark Pack’s website (both 30 June), and covered, alongside quotes from Meg Russell, in the Guardian (1 July). Meg also discussed the polling on the Hansard Society’s Parliament Matters podcast (4 July).

Meg Russell wrote an article for the Conversation about using the hereditary peers bill to limit the Prime Minister’s appointment power (2 July).

Committee appearances

Alan Renwick, Conor J Kelly and Alan Whysall discussed their report on institutional reform in Northern Ireland at a meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Assembly and Executive Review Committee (13 May).

Meg Russell gave evidence on the effectiveness of parliamentary committees to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of the Scottish Parliament (20 March).

Unit publications

Conor J Kelly, Alan Renwick and Alan Whysall, Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion (Constitution Unit, March).

Meg Russell and Daniel Gover, ‘Parliament’s influence on government bills’, in Exploring Parliament (Second Edition), edited by Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin and Louise Thompson (OUP, March).

Ruxandra Serban, Luke Hussey and Peter Kerr, ‘Questioning the Government’, in Exploring Parliament (Second Edition), edited by Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin and Louise Thompson (OUP, March).

Contributors to Monitor 90

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