Holding ministerial office or leading a public body involves challenges and duties that do not exist in the private sector. Using recent examples of high profile resignations by public office holders, former Commissioner for Public Appointments Peter Riddell argues that although it is rightly difficult to remove some public servants, it is also incumbent on them to know in what circumstances they should offer to resign. When they do not then do so, it should be difficult – but not impossible – for a minister to remove a person when confidence in their ability to fulfil their functions has been lost.

(more…)

Unit research shows that the public cares deeply about ethics and integrity in public life. Many constitutional and ethical watchdogs exist: there is a consensus that they need strengthening, but not on how, or to what extent. Robert Hazell and Peter Riddell have produced a new report on how to reinvigorate these watchdogs: they summarise their conclusions here.

This week we have published a new report, Trust in Public Life: Restoring the Role of Constitutional Watchdogs. It comes at an important juncture, when public trust in politicians has fallen to an all-time low. There is a wealth of evidence from survey data about the decline in trust; not least from the Constitution Unit’s own surveys, as part of our Democracy in the UK after Brexit project. Those surveys show that the public value honesty in politicians above qualities like being clever, working hard or getting things done; but only 6% of the public believe that politicians who fail to act with integrity are dealt with effectively. There is an urgent need to repair and rebuild the system for upholding standards in public life if trust in politicians is to be restored.

Constitutional watchdogs are the guardians of the system for upholding standards. The Unit has long had an interest in them, from one of our earliest reports in 1997 to one of our most recent, on parliament’s watchdogs published in 2022. This new report is complementary to the one on parliament, in studying the watchdogs which regulate the conduct of the executive. They are the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA); the Civil Service Commission; the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA); the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL); the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC); the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests; and the Registrar for Consultant Lobbyists.

A series of official and non-governmental reports have all agreed that these watchdogs need strengthening; but there is less agreement on how, or by how much. That is the gap that our report is intended to fill. It sets out a range of strengthening measures, in detail, for implementation early in the next parliament. Early action is possible because most of our recommendations do not require legislation.

(more…)

Last year, the Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy published a Review of the UK Constitution. One recommendation in that review was that parliament create a joint committee on the constitution. Steph Coulter sets out the case for such a body.

As part of our recently completed Review of the UK Constitution, the Institute for Government and Bennett Institute for Public Policy outlined the key issues with the UK’s current constitutional arrangements and made recommendations for reform. We highlighted the lack of clarity within a system underpinned by an uncodified constitution and the failure of existing political checks to deter constitutional impropriety.

Given the UK system’s reliance on parliamentary sovereignty as its central constitutional principle, we believe that parliament should be central to addressing these issues. Therefore, one of our key recommendations was the establishment of a new Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, comprised of members from both the House of Commons and House of Lords. By acting as a central and authoritative constitutional guardian, such a body would go some way to improving constitutional clarity and would provide a more effective check on unconstitutional behaviour than existing arrangements.

(more…)

 

With a general election expected sometime in 2024, political parties are increasingly planning their manifestos. A report published jointly today by the Constitution Unit and Institute for Government offers a menu of options for constitutional reform, from ‘quick wins’ to much larger-scale changes. Authors Meg Russell, Hannah White and Lisa James explain its importance.

A general election is legally required by January 2025, and is likely next year. This means political parties are increasingly focused on planning their manifestos. Among the many policy areas they must address is the future of the UK constitution.

Recent years have demonstrated numerous constitutional tensions. The Brexit period saw conflicts over the appropriate roles of parliament and executive, and the Covid-19 pandemic intensified long-running debates about how government freedom to act should be balanced with adequate parliamentary scrutiny. A series of standards scandals have highlighted weaknesses in the current systems for ensuring politicians’ integrity. There have been substantial pressures on the devolution settlement, while devolution within England remains a complex patchwork. Tensions between government and the legal profession, also a feature of the Brexit years, have continued, most recently over migration policy – and expert groups have expressed concern over government willingness to breach international law. Controversial changes to election law have also raised questions about electoral integrity.

Research by the Constitution Unit demonstrates that the public care about these topics, ranking the health of UK democracy alongside crime and immigration. Survey responses show very strong public support for high constitutional standards, and checks and balances.

Our new report – Rebuilding and Renewing the Constitution: Options for Reform – published today jointly by the Constitution Unit and Institute for Government, offers a menu of options for constitutional reform. It draws together recommendations from numerous expert bodies and parliamentary committees to lay out the options for reform across five key areas: the executive; parliament; the territorial constitution; courts and the rule of law; and elections and public participation. These include numerous modest changes that could be quickly and easily implemented – either by the current government, or a new government after the election – to improve the functioning of the constitution and make our democratic institutions more robust, but also some larger possible changes.

(more…)

This is the first edition of this briefing. It has since been updated. Read the most up-to-date version and other briefings on the Constitution Unit’s website.

Checks and balances are fundamental elements of constitutional democracy that prevent the unconstrained exercise of power, improve the quality of decision-making and ensure that mechanisms exist for preventing or penalising unethical behaviour. Lisa James, Alan Renwick and Meg Russell argue that they therefore play a vital role in maintaining public confidence in the political system and the government has a particular responsibility to uphold them.

Background

The importance of checks and balances is often cited in debates about the health of democracy, and their erosion is widely considered a sign of democratic backsliding. But what are they, and why are they important?

Checks and balances are the mechanisms which distribute power throughout a political system – preventing any one institution or individual from exercising total control. The words ‘checks’ and ‘balances’ are typically used together, but can be thought of as referring to subtly different (though overlapping) things. Checks are the mechanisms which allow political institutions to limit one another’s power – for example by blocking, delaying or simply criticising decisions. Balances, meanwhile, ensure that a wide variety of views and interests are represented in the democratic process. This includes structures like federalism, or broader features of democratic functioning such as the existence of multiple political parties.

The term ‘checks and balances’ is given more prominence in some countries than others, and is often particularly associated with the United States. But the principle is core to all modern democracies.

Checks and balances operate between and within most political institutions. However, the risks of unconstrained power are often considered particularly high with respect to the executive. This briefing hence focuses on the key institutions which check and balance executive power at UK level:

1. parliament
2. the courts
3. impartial officials, and
4. media and civil society.

Why do checks and balances matter?

Checks and balances play two key roles. First, they limit the power of the majority to act without regard to the views or interests of others. They ensure that the perspectives of those who are in the minority on a given issue are represented – for example, by guaranteeing that opposition voices are heard in the process of law-making. Second, at a more practical level, they ensure that policy is tested and behaviour supervised. This helps to improve the quality of decision-making, and prevent behaviour which might threaten the integrity or reputation of the political system.

(more…)