Tag Archives: Democracy in the UK after Brexit

The misleading of parliament greatly troubles the public: something should be done

Posted on by

The recent case of Boris Johnson, now referred to the Committee of Privileges, highlighted perceived problems in handling allegations of MPs misleading the House of Commons. Meanwhile, Constitution Unit research shows that the public want tough sanctions for such behaviour. Meg Russell summarises these findings, in the context of the Johnson inquiry, and a parallel inquiry by the Commons Procedure Committee on correcting the record – arguing that serious consideration should be given to tightening the rules.

Recent context

Concerns about the truthfulness of politicians are nothing new. Indeed, historically politicians may often have been subject to unfair criticism in this area. Within parliament, and particularly with respect to ministers, there is a strong expectation that members should tell the truth. The December 2022 edition of the Ministerial Code states in its very first article (as did its predecessors) that:

It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.

Within parliament, this matter is in theory handled equally seriously. Erskine May states that ‘The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt’. As such, this behaviour may be referred to the Committee of Privileges for investigation leading to possible punishment.

These matters reached prominence under the premiership of Boris Johnson, who was frequently accused – by MPs and others – of misleading parliament. Things came to a head over statements that he had made about ‘partygate’ (the holding of social gatherings in 10 Downing Street during the COVID-19 lockdowns), which ultimately resulted in Johnson being referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is currently undertaking an investigation. Aside from the allegations themselves, controversy has reached the news over Johnson submitting a legal opinion to the committee questioning its processes, and over his legal advice being funded by the public purse. Hearings by the committee are expected in due course, with a report later this year.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons Procedure Committee is conducting a parallel inquiry which also addresses handling of misleading statements to parliament, with a focus on ‘correcting the record’. Unlike the Committee of Privileges, the Procedure Committee has invited evidence on general issues, rather than a single case, and it exists to propose changes to Commons procedures. Understandably, therefore, it has attracted evidence from those concerned about recent events.

Continue reading →

The public wants parliament to have a central role in legislation, so why does the Retained EU Law Bill enhance the legislative power of ministers?

Posted on by

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is controversial for many reasons – not least the sweeping powers it grants the executive to change a swathe of laws. Lisa James and Alan Renwick discuss recent Constitution Unit survey results, which suggest that members of the public instinctively favour a central role for parliament in law making.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill – or REUL Bill – is a complex and controversial piece of legislation. Its focus is the law which arose from the UK’s membership of the European Union. This ‘retained EU law’ is significant in both scale and scope: the government currently lists over 3700 pieces of such legislation, much of it implementing regulatory regimes across a number of major policy domains. Areas such as environmental protection, consumer rights and employment law are particularly affected.

The REUL Bill would automatically repeal most retained EU law at the end of 2023, and make it much easier for ministers to amend or replace. This approach has proved controversial in a number of ways. Business groups have raised concerns that previously settled areas of law could be disrupted at short notice, creating legal uncertainty. Environmental groups and trade unions, among others, have raised concerns about rights protections being lost. And some have questioned whether Whitehall really has the capacity to conduct a thorough and careful review of such a huge body of law by the end of the year.

Alongside this, experts have warned that the bill as currently drafted would greatly empower the government at the expense of parliament, handing ministers sweeping powers to decide what law is repealed or preserved, and how it is amended. Such process-related concerns – regarding how legal change is enacted – are sometimes considered of interest only to experts. But recent Constitution Unit research shows that the public have clear instincts on how such processes should work – and express widespread support for parliament’s role in law-making.

The REUL Bill and parliamentary scrutiny

As currently drafted, the bill places significant powers and discretion in the hands of ministers. If passed in its current form, the clock would begin ticking on the sunset clause which would repeal most retained EU law at the end of 2023; from this point, parliament would have little say over what happens to retained EU law.

Continue reading →

The problem(s) of House of Lords appointments

Posted on by

Lords appointments are back in the news, with rumours of resignation honours from Boris Johnson, and even possibly Liz Truss. The current unregulated system of prime ministerial patronage causes multiple problems, and new Constitution Unit polling shows widespread public demand for change. Meg Russell reviews the problems and possible solutions, in the context of a bill on Lords appointments due for debate tomorrow. She argues that small-scale changes are now urgently required, and urges party leaders to embrace them – whatever their longer-term aspirations for Lords reform.

Recent weeks have seen revived controversies about appointments to the House of Lords. These include concerns about Boris Johnson’s long-rumoured resignation honours list, now joined by concerns that Liz Truss may want resignation honours of her own after just 49 days as Prime Minister. While the personalities may be different, controversies over Lords appointments are nothing new. The central overarching problem is the unregulated patronage power that rests with the Prime Minister. As this post highlights, a series of other problems follow: regarding the chamber’s size, its party balance, the quality of candidates appointed, the chamber’s reputation and widespread public dissatisfaction with the system.

An end to the Prime Minister’s unfettered appointment power is long overdue. Tomorrow a bill will be debated in the Lords aiming to tackle some of the problems, but as a backbench bill it is unlikely to succeed. Its contents nonetheless provide a useful (though incomplete) guide to the kind of important small-scale changes needed. Both main party leaders now need urgently to propose short-term packages of their own.

The problem of the size of the Lords

Much attention has focused in recent years on the spiralling size of the House of Lords. The current system places no limits whatsoever on the number of members who may be appointed to the chamber by the Prime Minister. Most – though not all – prime ministers have appointed unsustainably. Particularly given that peerages are for life, over-appointment drives the size of the chamber ever upwards. This is a historic problem, visible throughout the 20th century. The Blair government’s reform of 1999 brought the size of the chamber down (from around 1200 to just over 650). But since then it has risen again. Two reports from the Constitution Unit – in 2011 and 2015 – analysed this problem, calling for urgent action. In 2016 the Lord Speaker established a cross-party Committee on the Size of the House, which made recommendations the following year. Centrally these included restraint by the Prime Minister based on a ‘two-out-one-in’ principle – so that only one new peer would be appointed for every two who left, until the chamber stabilised at 600 members. These principles were endorsed by the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and respected by Theresa May. But Boris Johnson ignored them. In 2021, the Lord Speaker’s Committee lamented how he had ‘undone progress’ achieved by his predecessor.

Continue reading →

The UK’s constitutional norms and standards took a severe battering under Johnson: Labour should pledge to restore the system

Posted on by

There is no guarantee that the Johnson government’s dismal record on safeguarding our democracy will be improved upon by the new Prime Minister, Liz Truss. This creates big opportunities for Labour to offer a real alternative by restoring integrity and accountability to politics, writes Meg Russell.

Concerns about honesty and integrity and the erosion of constitutional norms were central to Boris Johnson’s dramatic downfall. The new Prime Minister’s attitudes in this area remain largely untested – though the omens during this summer’s leadership contest were not good. Meanwhile, public opinion research suggests that voters really care about these questions. That presents significant opportunities for Labour.

The charge sheet against Johnson was remarkably long. The journalist Peter Oborne, formerly political editor of the Spectator and a Telegraph columnist, dedicated both a website and a book to chronicling Johnson’s uneasy relationship with the truth. This trait was well known before he assumed the premiership and to an extent ‘priced in’. But the difficulties under his leadership went far wider, covering multiple aspects of integrity in politics and respect for the essential rules and norms that underpin UK democracy. This often put him at odds with regulators and non-political figures holding responsibility for maintaining the system, as well as with senior figures in his own party.

Continue reading →