Tag Archives: Keir Starmer

What future for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? 

Posted on by

A Private Members’ Bill on assisted dying is set to have its second reading this month. The government has declared itself neutral on the passage of the bill. David Natzler argues that the issue is too important for the government to risk the possibility of MPs not fully debating and voting on it. He says ministers should therefore ensure that the Commons can come to a decision on second reading, be open about plans for a public consultation, involve Parliamentary Counsel in the drafting process and allow for submission of written evidence to a prospective public bill committee.

Kim Leadbeater, MP for Spen Valley, was drawn first in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills (PMBs), and her bill on assisted dying –  the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – will be brought forward for second reading – the stage at which the House of Commons is asked to approve a bill in principle – on 29 November. The system at Westminster is such that any PMB opposed by a small but determined minority will not generally reach the Statute Book, exemplified recently by Rebecca Harris’ Daylight Saving Bill in 2010-12. The European Union (Referendum) Bill introduced by backbencher James Wharton in 2013 reached the Lords but perished there. The Leadbeater bill will be neither short nor simple, and it will evidently be controversial. If the bill does pass its second reading on 29 November, there will inevitably be demands that the government ensure that the bill does not perish for lack of parliamentary time at its later stages.  

Past experience 

Other comparably controversial PMBs have reached the statute book in living memory, particularly in the late 1960s on abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality and divorce reform. Their individual histories are fascinating and diverse but distinguished by one common factor: the provision of extra time by the Wilson government to the extent that they became PMBs in name only. The government generally favoured the policy being implemented, at first exercised a benevolent neutrality, and then found ‘government’ time for the bills to proceed. But the record of the 1960s does not mean that governments are obliged to find time for all high-profile PMBs which pass second reading. 

What can be done now? 

All that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has to date in terms of government support are repeated assurances from the Prime Minister that time would be found for a debate and decision on the general issue. That is now more or less certain to happen. If a PMB had not been presented as one of the seven ballot bills guaranteed a full day’s debate, the government might have felt obliged to bring forward a non-binding motion of its own to test the balance of opinion of the Commons, but outside the legislative process: and probably not in this first session of the parliament. It remains unclear if the Prime Minister or the government are committed to helping the bill if it passes second reading. The Cabinet is divided, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Health Secretary and the Justice Secretary all opposed to the bill. The larger parties seem similarly divided. If the bill does pass second reading, the crunch decision point will come at report stage. But there are four things that can and should be done now. 

Continue reading →

A new parliament in an old palace: where next for the Restoration and Renewal programme? 

Posted on by

Following the general election, an unusually large number of MPs entered parliament for the first time, but the building that they will be working in is in serious need of repair. Alex Meakin outlines how the previous parliament approached the problem of restoring and rebuilding a parliamentary estate that is in increasing need of serious work to make it a safe and effective venue for the UK’s legislators. She concludes that the sheer cost of the project will act as a deterrent to strong action, but that further delay will likely only increase that cost, and could result in the loss of the Palace of Westminster as a working building altogether.

Several months into the post-election parliament, the 335 MPs who were sworn in for the very first time are starting to find their way round their new workplace, navigating a building covering the same area as 16 football pitches, across 65 different levels. Along with their returning colleagues, the 2024 cohort will soon be asked to decide on the future of the Palace of Westminster: a decision which has the potential to shape the culture of the legislature for their successors. 

As the newly-elected MPs are discovering, behind the magnificent mock-Gothic exterior of the palace lies a building in disrepair. Windows that cannot be closed, mice running along the long corridors, and leaking pipes and toilets are all evidence of the major refurbishment the palace requires. Far greater evidence is hidden behind the walls and within the basement of the building, where the essential mechanical and electrical services — which provide the necessary power, ventilation, communications, and heating to the building — are now decades past their expected lifespan. Their condition leaves the building at risk of a catastrophic event, such as a fire or flood, which could risk lives as well as the future of the palace.  

Continue reading →

Government standards: the need for reform

Posted on by

Before the election, Labour promised to make broad changes to the standards regime. Yet two months after the election, progress on many aspects of their plans has been slow, and the new government has already been accused of ‘cronyism’ and other ethical missteps. Peter Riddell argues that urgent action to create new safeguards (including legislation) is required, and that ministers cannot brush aside criticism on the grounds that their intentions are good.

The government is in danger of missing an opportunity to strengthen standards in public life. After more than 10 weeks in office, there have been little more than vague statements about future good intentions, and self-inflicted and unnecessary problems such as over a series of appointments of political allies to the civil service. 

Before the election, Labour promised a fresh approach to standards, focusing on creating a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, giving the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests full powers to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct, and tighter enforcement of rules on post-Whitehall employment. This was part of a broader constitutional reform package that included planned changes to the ways in which parliament operates, and the devolution settlement. Before and during the campaign, there was widespread debate about how to rebuild trust in public institutions, notably the seven point plan for early action jointly unveiled on 24 June by the Constitution Unit, the Institute for Government and the UK Governance Project (a commission chaired by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve). 

The initial signs from the new government were promising: on his first day in office Keir Starmer met Laurie Magnus, the Independent Adviser, to demonstrate his commitment to high standards for ministers. But, since then, there has been nothing apart from non-committal parliamentary answers. A revised Ministerial Code normally appears very early in a new parliament and an agreed draft was ready soon after the election, but it is apparently stuck somewhere in the system. That affects the announcement about the Independent Adviser’s role. 

Continue reading →

Starmer’s challenges and early steps towards constitutional renewal

Posted on by

Today, the Unit published Monitor 87, providing analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. This post by Meg Russell and Alan Renwick also serves as the issue’s lead article. It discusses the Labour landslide at the general election and the new-look House of Commons; the constitutional changes we can expect from the new government (such as House of Lords reform, measures on standards, and increased devolution in England); and unexpected changes in political leadership in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It also warns that aspects of the election campaign show that the divisive politics plaguing the UK has not gone away. And it commits the Unit to work hard to inform the new government, new opposition parties and wider public about the constitutional challenges ahead.

Since the last edition of Monitor was published four months ago, the face of UK politics has radically changed. Most obviously, a general election was unexpectedly called, and the dramatic results delivered a Labour landslide and therefore a change of government. Former Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer is now the UK’s Prime Minister, while former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is (at least for now) Leader of the Opposition. The Shadow Cabinet has very largely become the Cabinet, while many members of Sunak’s government lost their seats, as did former Prime Minister Liz Truss.

The Labour manifesto (analysed alongside others on the Unit blog) promised various constitutional changes, some of which were reflected in the King’s speech given on 17 July. The government promises reform of the House of Lords, with a first session bill to remove the hereditary peers; it is committed to reforming appointments and shrinking the size of the chamber, before turning to larger-scale reform. It also promises quick action on changes to the territorial constitution, with a new Council of the Nations and Regions, and further devolution within England. The speech reiterated plans to act on the integrity of elections and encourage participation – the manifesto pledged to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and improve electoral registration. As for the manifesto commitment to create a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, legislation on the detail of this is expected later – the Unit published a report on the options in March. Beyond legislation, the government has committed to creating a new House of Commons Modernisation Committee – a topic on which the Unit likewise issued a report, in June.  

Continue reading →

Election 2024: the performance of the electoral system 

Posted on by

The general election has raised many questions about the functioning of the UK’s electoral system. In this post, Alan Renwick focuses on two main areas: the First Past the Post rules that form the core of that system; and the quality of democratic discourse during the campaign. The election result illustrates the arguments both for and against First Past the Post; change in this area is unlikely. But, he argues, the need to improve democratic discourse is more pressing than ever. 

The 2024 general election having concluded, we can begin to assess how the voting system performed. On one level, the electoral process was a resounding success. Nowhere did the system collapse. Nowhere are the results contested. Losing candidates up and down the country accepted their fates – often, though sadly not always, with good grace. As outgoing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in his concession speech on election night, ‘Today, power will change hands in a peaceful and orderly manner, with good will on all sides. That is something that should give us all confidence in our country’s stability and future.’ 

Other aspects of electoral administration will take longer to gather evidence on. There were numerous reports during the campaign of voters not receiving their postal ballots on time, and some councils took emergency measures in response. The Electoral Commission will now collect thorough evidence on the extent of the problems, and may recommend reforms. This is no trifling matter: over a fifth of voters now cast their ballots by post, and they need to be able to participate with confidence. Similarly, the impact of new voter ID rules will also need careful examination. 

This blogpost focuses on two other aspects of the election process: the performance of the core of the voting system itself; and the nature of political discourse during the campaign.  

Continue reading →