The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has attracted considerable controversy, not just because of the subject matter of the bill, but because concern is growing that should the bill pass second reading, that there will be insufficient scrutiny. Dan Gover argues that parliament needs to take measures to ensure that this important subject gets the debate and scrutiny it deserves.
Continue reading
The House of Commons has voted to establish a new Modernisation Committee. Tom Fleming and Hannah Kelly explore the opportunities and challenges facing this new committee, drawing on their recent Constitution Unit report on past approaches to delivering House of Commons reform.
Last week MPs voted to establish a new select committee, the Modernisation Committee, ‘to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices’. This proposal was brought forward by the Leader of the House, Lucy Powell, and was promised in the Labour manifesto.
The name implies similarity with the previous Modernisation Committee, which was appointed under the last Labour government between 1997 and 2010, and which we analysed in our recent Constitution Unit report, Delivering House of Commons Reform: What Works?. This blogpost therefore draws on that research to evaluate the opportunities and potential pitfalls facing the new committee.
A new Modernisation Committee
The committee will have 14 members – nine Labour MPs, three Conservatives, and two Liberal Democrats – to be nominated via a future motion from the Leader of the House. It will include the Leader of the House herself (who expects to chair the committee) and the Conservatives’ Shadow Leader, Chris Philp. Though Powell wasn’t explicit in last week’s debate about how other members of the committee would be selected, Philp indicated that they would be chosen by their parties’ whips.
The committee’s composition will therefore be unusual in two ways. First, House of Commons select committees usually only include backbench MPs. Second, since 2010 the members of most select committees have been chosen by their fellow MPs via intra-party elections, not by party whips.
Continue reading
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 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 reading
The extent and proper level of the Westminster parliament’s power has long been disputed. So what impressions do UK newspaper readers receive on this question? Meg Russell and Lisa James summarise a new study showing that the dominant right-leaning newspapers, in particular, often present negative messages about parliament: depicting it as either too weak or too strong.
Parliament sits at the heart of the UK constitution. But, despite valuable communication and outreach programmes by the parliamentary authorities, the public’s understanding of this central institution is likely to be heavily influenced by its presentation in the media.
We have recently published an article, ‘Representation of the UK Parliament’s Power in the National Media: Too Weak, or Too Strong?’, investigating how parliament is portrayed in UK newspapers. It explores, in particular, how the print media depicts parliamentary strength. The actual level of parliament’s power has long been a debate among academics: is it a mere rubber stamp, dominated by the executive, or a more influential shaper of policy? Some scholars have charted the well-established but dubious ‘parliamentary decline thesis’. Others have suggested parliament is more powerful than often assumed, that procedural and political changes have led to a ‘new assertiveness’, or even that the institution may have become ‘too powerful’. But what messages do the public receive from the media about such questions? Our article is the first to explore this directly. It also explores how these messages changed in the turbulent years following the June 2016 Brexit referendum, when the government faced increasing challenges in the House of Commons.
Continue reading