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.

(more…)

The main party manifestos for the forthcoming general election have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this fifth post in a series on the manifestos, Lisa James looks at the parties’ policies on the standards system. What do they propose, what should they consider, and what might be missing? 

Standards scandals were a frequent feature of the 2019–24 parliament; MPs, ministers and even a Prime Minister were forced to resign amid controversy. In this context, expert bodies probed the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and suggested improvements, with major reports published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Boardman Review into the Greensill lobbying scandal, House of Commons Standards Committee, Institute for Government, UK Governance Project and Constitution Unit. And public opinion research revealed a strong appetite for reforms to enforce high ethical standards. Coming into the 2024 general election, political parties had both the impetus to take standards reform seriously, and no shortage of recommendations for how to achieve it. 

This blogpost assesses the manifesto commitments on reforming ministerial and parliamentary standards made by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Reform UK, with most of its material coming from the former two. The Scottish National Party does not address standards at Westminster; Plaid Cymru’s key pledge, on criminalising lying by politicians or candidates, was addressed in a previous post. And strikingly, given the party’s experiences in the last parliament, the Conservative manifesto makes no mention of standards at all. 

An Ethics and Integrity Commission? 

The most significant pledge in the Labour manifesto is to create a new Ethics and Integrity Commission. This policy has been well-trailed, and was the centrepiece of two major speeches by Angela Rayner in 2021 and 2023. But the manifesto gives scant detail on the commission’s remit and scope, saying only that it will have a brief to ‘ensure probity in government’. 

(more…)

A new Constitution Unit report by Meg Russell, Hannah White and Lisa James, published jointly with the Institute for Government, provides a menu of constitutional reform options ahead of political parties’ manifesto preparation. Its chapters have been published on this blog throughout August, with this final excerpt identifying potential changes relating to elections and public participation.

Democracy rests ultimately on popular sovereignty. But the bond of trust between the public and their representatives – which is essential for healthy democratic governance – has become increasingly frayed. Public engagement with the political process has long been a cause for concern, and there is a desire to boost public trust and participation. In recent years, particular concerns have been voiced about the government’s attitudes towards the Electoral Commission, its policies on public protest and on voter ID, and a change in the electoral system for local mayors that appeared to be motivated by partisan gain. At a more mundane but nonetheless important level, there are also long-running challenges to the fair and effective administration of elections.

A range of reforms to elections, the conduct of campaigns, and the wider role of the public in processes of policymaking have been proposed to tackle these concerns. Some improvements could be made immediately. A number of others would require legislation, but would be largely uncontroversial, or could be implemented fairly straightforwardly through other means. Proposals for more fundamental change – most obviously to the Westminster voting system, and party funding – would be much more contested.

Quick win

The Elections Act 2022 empowered ministers to prepare a ‘strategy and policy statement’ for the Electoral Commission. Experts widely view the existence of such a statement as a threat to the Commission’s independence. Three Commons committees sharply criticised the government’s first draft, leading to revisions. Ministers should not proceed further with designating a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. Rather, they should simply affirm their commitment to the Commission’s independence and welcome its work. Should a statement be designated, a future government should withdraw it.

(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.

Standards in public life are essential to the health of the democratic system. They protect decision-making, underpin political stability, and help to maintain public trust. Lisa James, Meg Russell and Alan Renwick argue that if they are not respected, pressures will grow for a more legalised constitution.

Background

High ethical standards are fundamental to a healthy democracy, and their importance is widely recognised across the political spectrum. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has promised to put ‘integrity, professionalism and accountability’ at the heart of his government; Keir Starmer has pledged to maintain ‘decency and standards in public life’.

No single set of rules or values can hope to capture every aspect of behaviour, so standards in public life are maintained through a combination of codified values, laws, rules and conventions.

The most fundamental values governing all those in public life are contained in the Nolan Principles – also known as the Seven Principles of Public Life (set out below) – which are defined and promoted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL). Some standards – such as those relating to electoral malpractice or bribery – are matters of law. Others are contained in various codes of practice, such as the Ministerial Code or the Code of Conduct for MPs. And others are reflected in the UK’s wider system of constitutional conventions, which help to govern the relationships between institutions.

There is little serious disagreement about the importance of standards in public life for a democratic system. But debates and disagreements exist about how they should be defined and enforced.

(more…)

The Unit today published a new report, Parliament’s Watchdogs: Independence and Accountability of Five Constitutional Regulators. Robert Hazell explains that public awareness of these regulators is low and the position of some of them in public life is precarious. He calls for several measures, including putting the CSPL on a statutory footing, protecting watchdogs from dismissal, and repealing the legislation allowing the government to produce a strategy statement for the Electoral Commission.

Origins of this study

The constitutional reforms of the last 25 years have seen an upsurge in the number of constitutional watchdogs. The Constitution Unit anticipated these developments from the start, with an early report on constitutional watchdogs in 1997 (Unit report no. 10). This interest was continued by Oonagh Gay and Barry Winetrobe, who wrote two major reports on watchdogs: Officers of Parliament: Transforming the Role (Unit report no. 100, 2003) and Parliament’s Watchdogs: At the Crossroads(Unit report no. 144, 2008).

Today sees the launch of a new report, Parliament’s Watchdogs: Independence and Accountability of Five Constitutional Regulators, (Unit report 195), by Marcial Boo, Zach Pullar and myself. Marcial Boo, former Chief Executive of IPSA, joined the Constitution Unit in late 2020 as an honorary research fellow. We asked him to do a study of those watchdogs which are directly sponsored by parliament, working with Zach Pullar, a young law graduate who has since become a Judicial Assistant in the Court of Appeal. There is an obvious tension with watchdogs whose role is to scrutinise the executive (like the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests), being themselves appointed and sponsored by the government. Less obvious, but just as fundamental, is the tension for watchdogs whose role is to regulate the behaviour of parliamentarians, being themselves appointed and sponsored by parliament.

(more…)