Yearly Archives: 2023

The Constitution Unit blog in 2023: a guide to the last 12 months of constitutional debate

Posted on by

As the year comes to an end, blog editor Dave Busfield-Birch offers a roundup of the 12 months just gone, as well as a look at the reach of the blog through the lens of its readership statistics.

As I sat down to write this introduction this time last year, I was able to reflect on a year in which we had three Prime Ministers and two monarchs, which I believe is unique in the UK’s modern constitutional history. Three different monarchs sat on the throne in 1936, but there was no change in Downing Street that year. From a quick look, 1830 appears to be the last calendar year when we had two monarchs and two Prime Ministers.

With that in mind, I was (foolishly) expecting 2023 to be a little calmer, constitutionally speaking. But it has not been absent of constitutional excitement. A former Prime Minister has returned to government, in which he will serve as Foreign Secretary despite not being an MP (neither of which has happened in my lifetime: Lord Carrington resigned six months before I made my first appearance). Another former Prime Minister has resigned as an MP due to findings of misconduct, preventing a recall petition being issued. And the recall process itself is a constitutional innovation that (once a novelty) is starting to feel commonplace. Resignations from parliament seem to be increasingly frequent, as well. And of course, we had the first coronation of a monarch in 70 years.

First Ministers in Scotland and Wales have also decided to make way for new blood, while in Northern Ireland the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement’s 25th anniversary came and went with its devolved institutions in stasis.

Editor’s pick

Is confrontational questioning bad for parliaments and democratic politics?, by Ruxandra Serban.

Ruxandra returned to the Unit this year, and the blog is a better place for it. In this post she compares questioning procedures in the UK, Australia, Canada and Ireland, and discusses whether a confrontational style has negative consequences for parliaments and for democratic politics (spoiler alert: the answer is that the desirability of aggressive questioning is questionable).

Continue reading →

Northern Ireland’s political institutions: time for change?

Posted on by

The Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has published a report on the effectiveness of the institutions established by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Alan Whysall argues that it is a much-needed contribution to informed debate. Its proposals for institutional change are unlikely to be implemented as cast. But similar reforms may be essential to the survival of the Agreement settlement.

Politics in Northern Ireland has been deadlocked for almost two years, leaving the institutions established by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement unable to function. The Assembly does not meet; ministers have not been appointed to form an Executive; government is carried on by civil servants with very limited powers, with occasional interventions from London; there is financial disarray.

The leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Jeffrey Donaldson, whose veto has led to the deadlock, has appeared for some months to be edging towards lifting it, despite profound differences of view between DUP leadership figures. Matters seemed to be coming to a head last week following publication of a British government offer to the main political parties of a financial package if devolution resumes. But it is now clear there will be no DUP decision before Christmas – although the Secretary of State, while announcing an improved financial package, declared that talks on resuming devolution were over: the government’s final offer was on the table. 

Into this context, the Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a timely report on the functioning of – and possible reforms to – the Agreement institutions. Though the report passed largely unnoticed outside Northern Ireland, this is much more than geekery. Institutional reforms may be essential to ensuring stable and effective government in the future, whatever the result of the current negotiations. Change will not be easy, however: the DUP opposed the report’s recommendations, and Sinn Féin appears cool towards them (see below). So the consensus that has generally been sought for changes to the Agreement is by no means present.

Continue reading →

Restoring and renewing parliamentary buildings fit for parliamentary diplomacy

Posted on by

Debates about the future of the Palace of Westminster have focused on whether MPs can keep sitting on the green benches in the Commons but, as Cherry Miller and Alexandra Meakin explain, a meeting of the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly has highlighted the broader use of the building, and its role in defining an image of the UK to the rest of the world.

On 4–5 December, the UK parliament hosted the fourth meeting of the EU–UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, a body set up to oversee implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. A delegation of 35 MEPs (and staff) visited the UK parliament, meeting with 21 MPs and 14 peers to discuss ‘the state of play within the Partnership Council’; a recommendation on mobility of people; breakout groups on data protection, fisheries, and citizens’ rights; artificial intelligence and climate change. Innumerable side meetings were also held on the parliamentary estate and there was a reception in Speaker’s House. In the previous visit to Westminster, in November 2022, visiting delegates had the option of attending a tour of the parliamentary estate.

The UK Parliamentary Partnership meets in the UK parliament for prestige, minimising costs and maximising attendance (of the UK delegation). The meeting has twice been held in Committee Room 14, a historic setting of the 1922 committee. At the 4 December meeting, co-chair Oliver Heald MP apologised to attendees in his opening remarks:

‘I would like to give you a warm welcome, although this room is not as warm as we would like. We have asked that the windows be closed but they can’t do it tonight because it requires a ladder and all sorts of equipment, but they are bringing an extra heater and I do apologise. It’s a nice historic building, but there is that problem, that it’s a bit cold’.

(PPA, 04/12/23)

Many parliamentarians and staff sat in coats, scarfs (and gloves, for some). Parliamentary staff deftly worked to ameliorate this situation, locating and wheeling in portable heaters. Despite the cool temperature, the mood in the televised plenary was, in general, convivial. One MEP joked there was a need to ‘put another 50p in the meter’ and metaphors about the freezing and thawing of EU–UK relations abounded. However, this raises broader issues about parliamentary diplomacy and Restoration and Renewal, as discussed below.

Continue reading →

Eighteen deals and counting: finding meanings in England’s devolution deals

Posted on by

Mark Sandford argues that devolution within England offers a means of improving policy outcomes with minimal additional cost, but notes that the detailed practicalities of it will have as much effect on its outcome as declarations regarding new powers. He therefore suggests that changes in governance practice should be a core focus of future research initiatives.

Alongside debates on Scotland and Wales, English devolution was described by Christopher Harvie in 1991 as ‘the dog that never barked’. At the end of 2023, it has very rapidly become everyone’s pet. Both Labour and the Conservatives favour more devolution to local areas in England. Think tank reports extolling its likely economic benefits abound. Hardly any voices can be found making the case for pausing or reversing the government’s drive towards devolving power.

Far less attention has been devoted to examining the practicalities of achieving this end. It is easy to assume that ‘more devolution’ can be legislated into existence, with legal powers regarded as the lodestone of ‘real change’. This post suggests that devolution – expanding the scope of local decision-making within England – depends less on legislative changes and more on a transformation of the machinery of government at a local level. In this regard, developments in 2023 give unexpected grounds for optimism (see a summary of developments in 2023 on the House of Commons Library website). New ideas and practices of government are beginning to percolate into the English devolution agenda – and these can erode tacit assumptions that underlie the centralising tendencies within the British state.

This blog highlights the makings of new machinery of government practices in two aspects of English devolution: central-local relations and the role and scope of devolved institutions. Encouraging alternative governing practices has long been amongst the core rationales for devolving power: not just localised government, but better government. However, this blog also highlights a third dimension of English devolution acknowledged by government publications: accountability and scrutiny, where more enduring conceptual obstacles have yet to be tackled.

Continue reading →

Recall petitions: process, consequences, and potential reforms

Posted on by

A recall petition is currently open in Wellingborough, which could lead to MP Peter Bone being recalled by his constituents, followed by a by-election. This is the fifth such petition in as many years. Tom Fleming outlines how the UK’s recall system works, summarises its effects to date, and outlines possible areas for reform.

How do recall petitions work in the UK?

A system for ‘recalling’ MPs was first introduced in the UK by the Recall of MPs Act 2015, which came into force in March 2016. This legislation was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government, following commitments to some kind of recall procedure in both parties’ 2010 election manifestos.

In short, recall is a process by which voters are empowered to remove (i.e. ‘recall’) their MP prior to a general election if they are found to have committed certain types of serious wrongdoing.

Under section 1 of the 2015 Act, the recall process is triggered whenever an MP meets one of three conditions:

  • receiving a criminal conviction that leads to a custodial sentence (though sentences of more than a year already lead to disqualification from being an MP, under the Representation of the People Act 1981),
  • being suspended from the House of Commons for at least 10 sitting days (or two weeks) after a report from the Committee on Standards (or another committee with a similar remit), or
  • being convicted of making false or misleading expenses claims under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

If any of these conditions is met, a recall petition is opened for six weeks in the affected MP’s constituency. If 10% of registered voters sign the petition by the deadline, the seat is declared vacant, and a by-election is held to elect a new MP (though the recalled MP remains free to stand again as a candidate). If the petition fails to reach the 10% threshold, no by-election is held and the MP retains their seat.

Continue reading →