Tag Archives: house of lords reform

What did – and didn’t – the King’s speech say on the constitution?

Posted on by

Following the King’s speech on Wednesday, Lisa James assesses its pledges on the constitution, which included reforms to devolution, the House of Lords and government transparency. What should we expect to see in the new parliament’s first session, what might happen without legislation, and what might follow in future sessions?

At the state opening of parliament on Wednesday, the King’s speech laid out the government’s legislative programme for the current parliamentary session. Among the 40 bills announced were a number relating to the constitution – but various constitutional policies previously announced by Labour were omitted, at least for now. Some could be pursued by non-legislative means, while others may be set to follow in a later session.

What was included?

Perhaps the most substantial constitutional material in the King’s speech related to devolution. The government promises an English Devolution Bill which will, among other things, create a legislative framework for devolution, devolve further powers to local level, and reform governance arrangements. A separate bill will create new local powers relating to bus franchising. The new government’s intention to move quickly on English devolution was also demonstrated in a letter sent from Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner to council leaders earlier in the week. Rayner reiterated the government’s commitment to widening and deepening devolution in England, and invited new devolution deal bids by the end of September.

Continue reading →

The (un)Conservative effect on the constitution: 2010-2024

Posted on by

This week sees the publication of Anthony Seldon and Tom Egerton’s new book, The Conservative Effect 2010-2024: 14 Wasted Years?. The book reviews the record of the Conservative Party in government across various topics. Constitution Unit Director Meg Russell contributed the book’s chapter on ‘Government, Parliament and the Constitution’, and summarises it here. 

A sustained period of Conservative government would normally be expected to usher in constitutional stability. But the reverse applied to most of the period 2010-24. During this time constitutional controversies were rarely far from the news, partly due to deliberately planned changes, but more often to radically shifting conventions and political behaviour. The direction of change was also very far from consistent. The initial coalition period primarily saw pressures towards greater constitutional pluralism, though Liberal Democrat ambitions were often held back by Cameron’s Conservatives. Later, any prospect of calm under single-party government was quickly punctured by Brexit, which eventually brought into question almost every aspect of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Boris Johnson’s populist approach, in particular, was characterised by wholesale disregard for constitutional norms.  

In 2012 Philip Norton emphasised that Conservative traditions valued constitutional conventions, parliament, and a strong government tempered by checks and balances, and might contemplate change that would ‘maintain, not destroy, the system’. This suggests that, if one commonality can be discerned across the 2010-24 period of constitutional extremes, it is its largely unconservative nature. 

Continue reading →

Rebuilding and renewing the constitution: parliament

Posted on by

A new Constitution Unit report by Meg Russell, Hannah White and Lisa James, published jointly with the Institute for Government, provides a menu of constitutional reform options ahead of political parties’ manifesto preparation. Its chapters appear on this blog throughout August, with this second excerpt identifying potential changes to parliament.

Recent years have seen significant tensions over the role of parliament, which came under particular pressure over Brexit and Covid. There have been concerns about declining standards of scrutiny, and parliament has yet to adapt fully to the new policy environment post-Brexit. There are long-standing concerns about the House of Lords, including over its size and the nature of prime ministerial appointments. Reforms could be very beneficial, to improve governmental accountability, to avoid the government advancing poorly thought-through policy, and thereby to build trust in political decision-making.

Numerous proposals have been made for change, both by external experts and by parliamentary committees. There are some long-running concerns which could be resolved quickly and easily by ministers as ‘quick wins’. Various other changes would necessarily require a little more time and consideration. Some of these are naturally subject to government initiative (e.g. legislation), but various others are formally within the purview of parliament itself and would be dependent, for example, on reviews by parliamentary committees. These would nonetheless greatly benefit from cooperation by the government. Large-scale House of Lords reform is the most obvious proposal which is more disputed, and would require further work – and potentially significant consultation and deliberation – before being ready to be implemented.

Continue reading →

Why Labour should adopt a two-stage approach to House of Lords reform

Posted on by

Today the Constitution Unit publishes a report jointly with the Institute for Government and Bennett Institute on the options for House of Lords reform. Here, in the second of two posts summarising its conclusions, report author Meg Russell argues that if Labour wins the next election, it should pursue a two-stage approach. This would begin with immediate urgent changes to the appointments process and hereditary peers, while the party consulted on larger-scale proposals such as those set out in the Brown report.

Today the Constitution Unit publishes a new report, House of Lords reform: navigating the obstacles, jointly with the Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute at the University of Cambridge. This is the second of two posts summarising some of the report’s conclusions, with a particular focus on Labour’s options for Lords reform.

The previous post explored proposals from Labour’s commission chaired by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for an elected ‘Assembly of the Nations and Regions’. It suggested, on the basis of past UK and international experience, that large-scale reform of this kind will be difficult to achieve, and could not be actioned by Labour immediately. The Brown report leaves many open questions on which careful consultation and deliberation would be required. Meanwhile, there are clear problems with the House of Lords which are widely recognised, and would be relatively straightforward to deal with. This post focuses on such beneficial small-scale changes, including:

  • placing a limit on the size of the House of Lords
  • agreeing a formula for the sharing of seats
  • introducing greater quality control on appointments
  • removing the remaining hereditary peers.

More detailed consideration was given to the first three of these options in another recent post on this blog. Hence this one deals with them quite briefly, then draws the strands together, considering a possible strategy for the Labour Party on Lords reform if it comes to power.

Placing a limit on the size of the House of Lords

One of the most visible difficulties with the House of Lords is its growing size. Reform by Tony Blair’s government in 1999 removed most hereditary peers, slashing the chamber from more than 1,200 members to 666. But since then, its size has crept gradually upwards again. There was a net growth of around 70 members under Blair, and well over 100 under David Cameron – though Gordon Brown and Theresa May each presided over net reductions of around 30 members. Boris Johnson’s appointments were also excessive, and concern remains about his possible resignation honours list. Currently, the size of the House of Lords hovers around 800.

Continue reading →