Today the Constitution Unit publishes a wide-ranging new report. The Constitutional Landscape: Options for Reform briefly summarises 31 areas of constitutional policy, describing the current state of affairs and the options for reform. In this post Lisa James, one of the report’s authors, explores its contents.
Continue readingTag Archives: royal prerogative
Seven steps to restore trust in government ethics
The Constitution Unit today publishes a joint statement with the Institute for Government and UK Governance Project proposing seven steps for the new government to restore trust in the regulation of ethics in public life. This is summarised in a letter to The Times, signed by the leaders of these three groups and numerous others.
Trust in politics in the UK, and in the people and institutions of public life, is at an all-time low. Recent reports from the Institute for Government, Constitution Unit and UK Governance Project have identified important, practical reforms to the current system for setting out, monitoring and enforcing standards in public life.
A new parliament offers the opportunity for a renewal of the standards which protect our democracy. This document sets out key priorities, all of which can be easily implemented straightaway.
As soon as possible after the general election, to demonstrate clearly that a page has been turned, the Prime Minister should make a statement to parliament setting out his priorities for ethics and integrity in public life, including committing to:
- Publish, promote and provide independent enforcement of a new Ministerial Code designed to guide the ethical conduct of ministers.
- Enable ministers, senior public officials and special advisers to identify, manage and report conflicts of interest, by establishing a fair and robust new system.
- Ensure lobbying of ministers, senior public officials and special advisers is transparent, by building a new clear, coherent and consistent system.
- Regulate the post-government employment and appointments of ministers, civil servants and special advisers with a more rigorously enforced, fair and transparent system.
- Reform the appointments process to ensure that appointments to the House of Lords are made on merit, with the purpose of enhancing the work of parliament.
- Ensure public appointments are rigorous, delivered through an independent, transparent and timely process.
- Enhance the standing of the honours system by strengthening its independence and ending the practice of prime ministerial personal patronage.
Parliamentary reform in the 2024 party manifestos
The main party manifestos have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this second post in a series on the manifestos, Meg Russell looks at the parties’ commitments on parliamentary reform. What are they promising, and what are the prospects for these proposed changes?
Yesterday on this blog, Lisa James reviewed the constitutional proposals presented by the political parties in their 2024 general election manifestos. Unsurprisingly, parliamentary reform is a key area that appears in several of them. Most parties include aspirations to reform the House of Lords, and some make other commitments on the House of Commons, or the overall power of parliament. This second post in the Constitution Unit’s manifesto series reviews these proposals, reflecting on their origins, merits, and prospects for implementation. It starts with the power of parliament as a whole, before moving to the Commons, and then the Lords.
The power of parliament
It is primarily the Liberal Democrats that give space to parliament’s overall place in the constitution – an area subject to significant recent controversy. The Brexit referendum of 2016 led to fierce clashes in parliament, and unusually high-profile arguments about both parliamentary procedure and the limits of the government’s prerogative power. Brexit also raised new questions about parliament’s powers over policy matters that returned to the UK following its exit from the European Union.
Continue readingThe 2019 Conservative Party manifesto: were its pledges on the constitution delivered?
The 2019 Conservative Party manifesto contained a number of constitutional policy commitments – on Brexit, UK institutions, elections, civil liberties, and devolution. As the manifestos for this year’s general election emerge, Lisa James assesses the delivery record of the 2019–24 Conservative governments against the pledges made in 2019.
The 2019 Conservative Party manifesto contained a wide-ranging set of constitutional commitments. Since its publication much has changed – the UK has left the EU, experienced a global pandemic, and had three Prime Ministers and five Chancellors of the Exchequer. But delivery against manifesto commitments still matters, so with the 2019–24 parliament dissolved, now is the time to reassess the pledges that were made.
Getting Brexit done
The single highest profile – and titular – pledge of the manifesto was of course the promise to ‘get Brexit done’. The election followed a period of parliamentary deadlock, and the negotiation of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal. The manifesto pledged to pass this deal, limit the length of the ‘transition period’ for negotiating new trade arrangements, end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the UK, and end the supremacy of EU law.
The Brexit deal was rapidly passed following the Conservative general election victory, and the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020. The pledge not to extend the transition period beyond the end of 2020 was also kept. The deal largely removed ECJ jurisdiction from the UK, but the court retained a continuing role in relation to Northern Ireland as a result of its treatment under Johnson’s Brexit deal (discussed further below). The supremacy of retained EU law (a special category of legislation derived from the UK’s EU membership) was ended by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.
Continue readingShould military action require parliamentary approval?
The role of parliament in authorising the use of military force has been much debated in recent years, most recently following airstrikes against targets in Yemen. The Constitution Unit hosted an event with three distinguished experts to discuss what role, if any, parliament should have in approving military action. Rowan Hall offers a summary of the key contributions.
Recent airstrikes in Yemen have revived the debate around parliament’s role in military action. In March, the Constitution Unit held an event on this very topic, with a panel consisting of academic experts Dr Veronika Fikfak and Dr James Strong, and former Cabinet minister and current chair of the Royal United Services Institute, David Lidington. This blog post summarises some of the points made at the event, a recording of which is available on YouTube and in podcast form.
Dr Veronika Fikfak
Veronika Fikfak began by outlining the current constitutional convention governing parliament’s role in military action and made three key points.
First, citing the Cabinet Manual, Fikfak said that the role of MPs currently only extends to debating military action, not necessarily to voting on it. Although MPs have voted on military action in the past, this is not always guaranteed under the convention as it currently stands.
Second, Fikfak said that the convention as it currently stands is explicitly linked to the period before military action takes place, not during or after it happens. She welcomed this, arguing that if parliament is to have a real say, it needs to do so in advance of military action. However, she did also note that this aspect of the convention has not always been observed.
Continue reading