Tag Archives: rule of law

Monitor 89: The urgency of protecting democracy and the rule of law

Posted on by

Today the Unit published Monitor 89, providing an analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. This post by Alan Renwick and Meg Russell, which also serves as the issue’s lead article, highlights welcome action by the government on devolution, commitment to the rule of law and the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords, but calls for stronger action on wider Lords reform, progress on the promised Ethics and Integrity Commission, and action on the pre-election pledge to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. It warns that the governments of the UK must strive to maintain healthy checks and balances, avoid polarisation, and foster open political discourse at a time when events in the US are showing the dangers of not doing so.

Continue reading →

MPs’ role in the constitution

Posted on by

MPs play a central role in all democratic systems, but this is particularly true in the UK given its tradition of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. With judges unable to strike down Acts of Parliament for unconstitutionality, MPs have a key role in constitutional protection. Like MPs elsewhere, they also have responsibilities for upholding the constitution and democracy in many other ways, most obviously through holding the government to account, and representing the public, but also, for example, through maintaining standards of political debate. Meg Russell and Lisa James summarise these various important roles. 

Members of parliament are central political actors in all democratic systems. Legislatures are highly visible institutions, and MPs have key roles representing citizens, debating key policy matters, scrutinising the executive and approving major changes to the law. The legislature is at the heart of any functioning national democracy. 

Hence MPs routinely have important roles within the constitution. But some of their wider roles and responsibilities in upholding and protecting the constitution are less often spoken about. In an age of populism and ‘democratic backsliding’ these deserve reflection. As sadly seen in various countries, MPs are important gatekeepers whose consent can facilitate the dismantling of democratic norms and institutions. But where they stand firm, they can be bulwarks against decline. 

Continue reading →

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 →

Protecting the rule of law in public health emergencies  

Posted on by

The Covid-19 pandemic tested the UK’s capacity to respond to a crisis, including its ability to maintain the rule of law. The Independent Commission on UK Public Health Emergency Powers considered how far current legal frameworks and parliamentary procedures protect the rule of law and human rights, and how far they promote accountability, transparency and parliamentary control of executive action. Its final report and recommendations are summarised here by Katie Lines.  

Towards the end of this week, on 18 July, the UK Covid-19 Inquiry will publish its first interim report on the UK’s resilience and preparedness for the coronavirus pandemic. ‘Resilience and preparedness’ is one of many topics the UK Inquiry aims to cover in its terms of reference, which include health and social care, and economic responses to Covid-19. However, the constitutional and rule of law dimensions of the UK’s Covid-19 response fall outside the Inquiry’s key areas of focus, as do parliamentary proceedings during the pandemic. These items are also not central to the Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry’s investigations. 

To ensure that the constitutional dimensions of the Covid-19 pandemic receive independent scrutiny, in 2022 the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law established the Independent Commission on UK Public Health Emergency Powers. The Commission published its report on 15 May this year after 15 months of intensive work by the 12 Commissioners, chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Sir Jack Beatson. The Commission considered both written and oral evidence, and comments on their preliminary findings, from 82 individuals and organisations across the UK and in 10 other jurisdictions. The report’s 44 recommendations for change cover the design of legislation, the role of parliaments, the clarity and certainty of emergency public health laws, the enforcement of public health restrictions, and the management of a public health emergency in a country with devolved governments and legislatures. This blog highlights some of the Commission’s key recommendations. 

The role of parliaments 

The Commission has significant concerns about the extent to which the UK Parliament and the three devolved legislatures were able to provide appropriate scrutiny and oversight of government law-making during the Covid-19 pandemic. A number of its recommendations focus on enhancing the role of parliaments.  

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 →