°ÄÃÅÀúÊ·¿ª½±¼Ç¼

Ìý

by Ìý

Ìý

Download Monitor 80 (pdf)

Defending Democracy

Monitor has in recent years catalogued a succession of astonishing events in British constitutional politics: the 2014 Scottish independence referendum; the 2016 Brexit referendum; the parliamentary battle that ensued under Theresa May’s divided minority government post-2017; Boris Johnson’s unlawful parliamentary prorogation of 2019; and the politics of COVID-19 lockdown post-2020.

The shock likely to dominate memories of 2022 – Russia’s appalling invasion of Ukraine – is of a different order. The war is not only a terrible tragedy for all those directly affected, on the world stage it is Europe’s darkest and potentially most dangerous moment at least since the Cold War standoff of the 1960s, and perhaps since 1945. In response, British constitutional politics has seen a suspension of normal working. Hostile exchanges at Prime ²Ñ¾±²Ô¾±²õ³Ù±ð°ù’s Questions have been replaced by . The House of Commons has given standing ovations to Ìý, and then to its . A mutinous Conservative Party that had been gearing up, perhaps, to topple its leader now bides its time.

How Putin’s war might shift British politics beyond the short term remains to be seen. In this edition of Monitor, the developments discussed mostly predateÌýthe invasion. Some of these – notably, a raft of bills and consultations – have a momentum that will run on.ÌýAs has been true for several years, these developments give some considerable cause for concern.

Recent constitutional controversies have been primarily of two now familiar kinds, relating to standards and government attitudes to scrutiny. The most high-profile of these reached the news day after day for weeks before and after Christmas, regarding in 10 Downing Street which breached the COVID-19 regulations in place at the time (see 'Partygate' prompts changes at Number 10 and Cabinet Office). Initially denied, these were then handed to Cabinet Secretary Simon Case to examine, before the investigation was subsequently , Sue Gray. The drip-drip of allegations fed on the Conservative backbenches, with some members calling for Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s resignation or submitting letters to the chair of the backbench 1922 Committee demanding a no- confidence vote in his leadership of the party (see Downing Street's relationship with Conservative Backbenchers). Matters seemed to be reaching a head until the Metropolitan Police ,Ìýleading to a delay in the publication of Gray’s final report. The repeated pleas by Johnson loyalists to ‘wait for Sue Gray’ before passing judgement now meant waiting somewhat longer.

Alongside these developments, other concerns have included continued controversy about the oversight of government activity by both parliament and the courts. In November, two House of Lords committees published condemning ministers’ overuse of delegated legislation, including during the pandemic (see Parliamentary committees in conflict with the executive). Meanwhile, ministers announced a ‘ ’, which would make it easier to amend retained EU law: this seems to augur further delegated law-making (see 'The Benefits of Brexit'), and has led to a . Parliamentary specialists at the Hansard Society are conducting their own . Primary legislation, too, seems on occasion to be subject to only superficial scrutiny. The government’s attempt to make significant late changes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill led to of Lords defeats on 17 January (see Lords defeats and the constitution). The Elections Bill sailed through the Commons, but key provisions were sharply criticised by ,Ìýby , and by as it began scrutiny in the Lords (see Legislation on elections).

Simultaneously, ministers are pressing ahead with plans to rein in the courts, including through of the human rights framework (see TheÌýIndependent Human Rights ActÌýReview), where they seem determined (once again) to go further than the recommendations of their own .

All of these developments sit awkwardly with public opinion, as demonstrated through ConstitutionÌýUnit research published in January. A major survey conducted last summer as part of the Democracy in the UK after Brexit project found that people in the UK wanted politicians who are honest, have integrity, andÌýoperate within the rules, and valued these characteristics far higher than ‘delivery’. It also found public wariness about concentrated power in the hands of government ministers, with high levels of support for oversight by parliament, judges, civil servants, regulators, and the public themselves (see Research on attitudes to democracy in the UK). These findings will be bolstered next month by publication of the results of the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK, which ran in the autumn as part of the same project.

Meanwhile, the future of the Union remains contested. Northern Ireland’s First Minister over the Brexit Protocol, leaving its Executive barely able to function.ÌýFresh elections take place for the Northern Ireland Assembly in May, but few are hopeful of a resumption of constructive politics thereafter (see Northern Ireland). Relations within the Conservative Party between London and Edinburgh over ‘partygate’ (see Scotland).

The began its work (seeÌýWales). Within England, the government for further devolution (see England).

In the face of war in Europe, these UK constitutional tussles may appear somewhat trivial. The horrors in Ukraine have galvanised much of the international community into a robust defence of democracy and the rule of law. Importantly, they have shaken some out of complacency about the need to protect and celebrate those values. In the immediate term, all eyes are onÌýthe conflict, and the absolute priority is to halt it and to support those whose lives have been shattered by it. Beyond that, it is incumbent on all leaders, and all of us who have the privilege to live in democratic societies, to nurture them and defend them from casual erosion

Back to top

Downing Street's relationship withÌýConservative backbenchers

ÌýRecent months – at least until Russia’s invasionÌýof Ukraine – saw a substantial deterioration in the government’s relationship with its backbenchers. ThisÌýpartly reflects longer-term tensions, such asÌý, and theÌýÌýwho have been overlooked for ministerial promotion. But the short-term trigger for backbench unease was the government’s mishandling ofÌýÌý(see Parliamentary standards). This was then deepened further by revelations aboutÌýÌýin Downing Street (see 'Partygate' prompts changes at Number 10 and Cabinet Office), andÌýby ministerialÌýÌýto defend or deny this behaviour.ÌýSenior civil servant Sue Gray produced an interimÌýreport on ‘partygate’ in January after being tasked withÌýinvestigating the allegations but the final version will notÌýbecome public for some time.

Conservative MPs have expressed serious concern about the conduct of the Prime Minister and those around him –ÌýÌýin February (see 'Partygate' prompts changes at Number 10 and Cabinet Office) – and its impact on the party’s public reputation. These concerns have been expressed in variousÌýways, includingÌý,Ìýletters to the backbench 1922 Committee expressingÌýa lack of confidence in his leadership, andÌýÌýthat government whips have engaged in underhand tactics that were described by one MP as equivalent to ‘blackmail’. This crisis also helped trigger theÌý, MP for Bury South since 2019, to the Labour Party. Beyond this, the government mightÌýalso be concerned by the wider group of MPs who have simply expressed concerns about the personal conductÌýof the Prime Minister, given lukewarm support, orÌýavoided public comment entirely.

Number 10 has attempted to repair relations with itsÌýbackbenchers, withÌýÌýranging from one-on-one meetings with the Prime Minister to the re-establishment of backbench Conservative policy committees. Johnson has also moved the two senior ministers central to parliamentary relations – the Chief Whip and LeaderÌýof the House of Commons, although the former, Mark Spencer, has simply taken the job of the latter, JacobÌýRees-Mogg (see 'Partygate' prompts changes at Number 10 and Cabinet Office).

These strategies may only provide a brief respite. ThereÌýare a series of flashpoints ahead, with anÌýÌý(see 'Partygate' prompts changes at Number 10 and Cabinet Office) and Sue Gray’s final report on the alleged breaches, as well as potentially tricky localÌýelections in May. Any of these could spark a furtherÌýworsening of relations, and even the end of Johnson’sÌýpremiership.

Back to top

Ìý

Parliamentary committees in conflict with the executive

ÌýSeveral House of Lords committees have criticised the government’s approach to parliamentary scrutiny inÌýrecent months. In November, theÌýÌý(SLSC) andÌýÌý(DPRRC) eachÌýpublished reports on this subject. Both expressedÌýconcerns about the government’s use ofÌý, which set out a broad policy, but leave it up to ministers to fill in the gaps through delegated legislation.ÌýThe DPRRC emphasised the importance of timelyÌýdebate on statutory instruments, while the SLSC alsoÌýpressed the government on the sometimes blurred line between legislation and guidance, and the provision ofÌýinformation to support parliamentary scrutiny. As bothÌýcommittees pointed out, these concerns had become particularly pertinent during the COVID-19 pandemic, butÌýalso predated it. Responding to bothÌýÌýand theÌý, the government promised some minor updates to drafting guidance for officials, but otherwise rejectedÌýtheir recommendations. The Hansard Society is currently conducting an independent review of processes around delegated legislation.

Separately, tensions have emerged between theÌýInternational Agreements Committee and the government. In its response to theÌý, the governmentÌýappeared to row back on the so-called Ìý– a commitment givenÌýÌýonÌý23 February 2021, during the ping pong stage of theÌýTrade Act – which requires it to facilitate debates onÌýnegotiating objectives and treaties if asked to do soÌýby the committee. Committee chair Baroness (Dianne) Hayter hasÌýÌýto set out in writing the government’s commitments on trade agreement scrutiny.

Back to top

Ìý

Parliamentary standards

In the wake of theÌý, the practiceÌýof MPs having additional paid roles attracted a greatÌýdeal ofÌý. Some senior figures, including former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, came underÌý, and a number of MPsÌý
some or all of their additional employment. A successfulÌýto an opposition day motion in November suggested that any new rules should be based on two principles: that MPs’ work outside parliamentÌýshould be subject to ‘reasonable limits’; and that MPsÌýshould ‘not act as political or parliamentary consultants or advisers’. The Committee on Standards subsequentlyÌýwent further,ÌýÌýthat any employment shouldÌýbe subject to a contractual stipulation against either conducting, or advising on, lobbying.

The Committee on Standards’ recommendation formed part of its much widerÌýreview of the MPs’ÌýCode of Conduct. Initial recommendations were published for consultation on 29 November. In additionÌýto the proposed strengthening of the lobbying ban,Ìýthe committee recommended new rules aimed atÌýguaranteeing civility in political debate, harmonisingÌýthe rules for declaration of financial interests (which currently differ for MPs who also serve as ministers), and protecting complainant confidentiality in bullying cases.ÌýIt also sought views on whether some stages of the process might be delegated to an independent lay panelÌýsimilar to the Independent Expert Panel that overseesÌýtheÌý.

On 4 March the Committee published’Ìýin the Commons’ standardsÌýsystem, authored by Ernest Ryder, a former judge whoÌýonce served as Senior President of Tribunals. The reviewÌýwas alsoÌýprompted by the Paterson debates, and aimed toÌýspecifically address claims from backbenchers suchÌýasÌýÌýandÌýÌýthat the current standards procedure is inconsistent with the principlesÌýof natural justice. The review concluded that the system was fair, but also proposed numerous proceduralÌýchanges. Several of these were called for during theÌýPaterson debates, such as a proposed right of appeal,which wasÌýÌýin November.

The Committee on Standards will now consider theÌýconsultation responses, input fromÌýÌýand the Ryder review before producing final proposals, including a revisedÌýCode of ConductÌýandÌýGuide to the Rules for Members, which will need to beÌýput to the Commons for approval.

Back to top

Ìý

Former Speaker found guilty of bullying

An independent panel has concluded that JohnÌýBercow was a ‘serial bully’ who was guilty ofÌýnumerous acts of misconduct during his time asÌýSpeaker of the House of Commons. Complaints were made by several formerÌýparliamentary staff members, including, who served for almost three years as Bercow’s most senior official, the Clerk of the Commons. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, upheld 21 separate allegations of bullying andÌýharassment.

The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) under which allegations of bullying and harassment are decided affords respondents a right toÌýappeal to an Independent Expert Panel (IEP). Unlike theÌýCommittee on Standards that dealt with the PatersonÌýcase (see above) – the IEP does not have MPs among its membership. When Bercow appealed, he claimed theÌýallegations were ‘fabricated’ and a result of ‘collusion’. He also argued – unsuccessfully – that he was notÌýsubject toÌý.

The IEP published itsÌýÌýon 9 March. It rejectedÌýBercow’s appeals and stated that it would have recommended Bercow’s expulsion had he not already left parliament. BercowÌýÌýthat he did notÌýaccept the panel’s findings, attacked the lack ofÌý‘independent’ evidence for its decision and called the process ‘a stitch up’.

Back to top

Ìý

Lords defeats and the constitution

On 17 January the House of Lords subjected the government to on amendments to the This was the largest number of Lords defeats in a day since the chamber’s 1999 reform by the Blair government. The previous highest number had been 13, all but one relating to the on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 2005, over ‘control orders’. Beyond this, the largest number of defeats on any given day had been seven.

In normal circumstances cries of government outrage at such behaviour by peers might have been expected, but it was less the Lords that was breaking with convention here, and more the government. Ministers had sought, at the bill’s report stage in the Lords, to introduce a , including new criminal offences limiting public protest. Had its amendments been accepted, there would have been little opportunity for MPs to consider them, as the bill had already passed its Commons stages. Several of the defeats were to reject these amendments. Those speaking out against the government included former Conservative Cabinet minister . Ministers had no choice but to accept the defeats, as these had blocked new material being added to the bill, and it is procedurally impossible to add such new material during the ping pong process. Consequently they will hopefully have learnt their lesson.

Back to top

Ìý

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

The has now completed its Lords stages. The bill, which is intended to repeal the , had its Lords on 30 November, followed by detailed scrutiny at and stages on 25 January and 9 February respectively. Peers were broadly supportive of the decision to repeal the FTPA, but expressed concerns about several aspects of the bill. Their criticisms particularly focused on the removal of parliament’s role in approving early general elections, and on an that sought to exclude judicial oversight of matters relating to dissolution.

The bill was amended just once. Crossbencher and former Lord Chief Justice Lord (Igor) Judge proposed a new clause that retains a (simplified) role for the Commons in approving early general elections. This that the Prime Minister could only request an early dissolution after the Commons had approved a motion that ‘this present Parliament will be dissolved’. It was opposed by the government, but . Proposed amendments to tackle the ouster clause did not pass, despite former Supreme Court Deputy President Lord (David) Hope ‘draconian’ and ‘without precedent’. The ouster clause would in effect be nullified by Lord Judge’s amendment.

The bill returned to the Commons just after Monitor went to press; it had previously received very limited scrutiny there (see Monitor 79, page 3). MPs will need to consider the merits of Lord Judge’s amendment, on our blog.

Back to top

Ìý

Restoration and Renewal

The House of Commons Commission has sought to reassert its control over the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) programme – the plan for major refurbishment ofÌýthe Palace of Westminster. The Commission – which is made up of senior MPs plus three lay representatives and is chaired by the Speaker – is responsible among other things for maintaining the parliamentary estate. It recently its wish to abolish the previously established and move its functions to a ‘new, separate department serving both Houses [of Parliament]’. While the that the Sponsor Body oversees is expected to remain in place to carry out the refurbishment, the scope of this work seems set to be significantly reduced due to the direction from the Commission that the project should be planned to ‘reduce the need for a complete or nearly-complete decant of the Palace’.

A full decant, with both Houses moving out of the Palace and into temporary accommodation, was approved by MPs and peers in 2018, but has been repeatedly questioned by the Commission. It was the Sponsor Body’s continued insistence that a complete decant was necessary – most recently in a review discussed by the Commission in January – that appears to have been the spur for its abolition, with then Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg that such a decant could take up to 20 years. The House of Lords Commission has also moved away from its previous commitment to a complete decant, for a wider range of delivery options to be considered, and accepting the recommendation to abolish the Sponsor Body. In the meantime, the state of the Palace continues to cause concern, with in February that dozens of parliamentary staff and contractors may have been exposed to asbestos, as part of the fire safety works carried out in the Speaker’s Apartments.

Back to top

Ìý

The Benefits of Brexit

The government has furthered its plans to review retained EU law (see Monitor 79, page 4) with the announcement of a major new . A subsequent policy paper on the confirmed that the government intends to make changes to the process of amending retained EU law, by creating new ministerial powers to do so via statutory instrument. Jacob Rees-Mogg, reshuffled to a newly-created post of Minister for Brexit Opportunities (see 'Partygate' prompts changes at Number 10 and Cabinet Office), to the Sun’s readership for suggested changes shortly after his appointment in February.

Experts have that the government seems likely to seek broad powers, which would enable significant policy change with only minimal parliamentary scrutiny. As the Hansard Society and Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law have , this reflects with the scrutiny process for delegated legislation.

The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee is currently conducting an into the future of retained EU law, which its chair, Bill Cash,will address the potential mechanisms for its amendment. The inquiry has published a submissions can be sent to the committee and the deadline for doing so is 18 April.

Back to top

Ìý

UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

In early December, parliament agreed to the ±«°­â€™s participation in the (PPA) – an interparliamentary forum for the UK and European parliaments to discuss the implementation of the (TCA) that sets out the UK–EU post-Brexit relationship. The PPA has no formal decision-making role, but can request information from – and make recommendations to – the a joint ministerial body that oversees the TCA’s operation.

The PPA will consist of a 35-person delegation from each parliament, with parties proportionally represented and the UK delegation split 60/40 between MPs and peers. The composition of the UK delegation was in late January: former Justice minister Oliver Heald will serve as Chair, with House of Lords EU Committee chair the Earl of Kinnoull and former Exiting the European Union Committee chair Hilary Benn as its vice-chairs.The PPA is expected to meet twice a year.

Back to top

Ìý

Legislation on elections

ÌýAs reported in Monitor 79 (pages 6–7), the government’s seeks to change many aspects of electoral law throughout the UK. It passed its final stages in the House of Commons in January without substantive amendments, but looks set to receive more searching scrutiny in the Lords, which was part way through committee stage as Monitor went to press.

The bill easily progressed through the lower house despite a by the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC). On the bill’s provision to require voters at polling stations in Great Britain to show ID, the committee expressed its concern that the evidence justifying the change ‘simply is not good enough’. It said that the proposal should not go further until additional research has been conducted into its potential impact on vulnerable groups. The committee also noted widespread concerns about the measures in the bill requiring the Electoral Commission to follow a ‘strategy and policy statement’ written by ministers. It found that ‘the Government has not provided sufficient evidence to justify why the proposed measures are both necessary and proportionate’. It accordingly proposed that the measures be removed from the bill pending a formal public consultation and the conclusion of the committee’s own forthcoming report on the Electoral Commission. In addition, the committee criticised howÌýthe government had introduced the bill. It said that the proposals should have been published in draft and subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee. It expressed particular concern that the government had introduced a major new dimension to the bill – the replacement of the current system for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections with First Past the Post – after the bill’s second reading. It suggested that this ‘was unsatisfactory and disrespectful towards the House of Commons’.

Despite all of this, an amendment to remove the voterÌýID provision from the bill at report stageÌýÌýby only two Conservatives: PACAC Chair William Wragg; and former Cabinet minister David Davis. The provisionsÌýrelating to Electoral Commission governance were notÌýseparately voted on.

Following the bill’s Commons passage, and before Lords scrutiny began, all but one of the ElectoralÌýCommissionersÌýÌýurging them to think again on the matter of the Commission’s governance. They said the strategy and policy statement would be ‘inconsistent with the role that an independent electoralÌýcommission plays in a healthy democracy’, adding, ‘This independence is fundamental to maintaining confidenceÌýand legitimacy in our electoral system.’

The Commission’s Conservative-nominated member, Lord (Stephen) Gilbert, did not sign the letter, but that, the letter said, was ‘because the House of Lords whereÌýhe sits is now considering this legislation’.

The bill’sÌýÌýtook place on 23 February. Almost all of the speakers who referred to the provision on Electoral Commission independenceÌýopposed it. Crossbencher and former Lord Chief JusticeÌýLord (Igor) Judge described it as ‘chilling’, and said, ‘surely we understand the constitutional necessity, inÌýa democracy based on universal suffrage, that there should be an independent Electoral Commission’.ÌýMany members referred to the PACAC report and theÌýElectoral Commissioners’ letter. Only two ConservativeÌýbackbenchers – Lords (Patrick) Cormack andÌý(Richard) Balfe – contributed on this point, but bothÌýsaid the provision needed to change. Cormack – a parliamentarian for over 50Ìýyears – commented thatÌýhe had ‘never seen such chilling words in any Bill fromÌýany Government of any party’.ÌýOnly one backbencher – the non-affiliated BaronessÌý(Claire) Fox – spoke for theÌýmeasure. Opposition andÌýCrossbench peers also raisedÌýconcerns about many other aspects of the bill, so a raftÌýof amendments seem likely to follow.

Meanwhile, a bill to disqualify people convicted of sex offences from standing for election or holding officeÌýas local councillors or mayors in England completedÌýits passage through the Commons and moved to the Lords. TheÌýÌýis aÌýprivate member’s bill, butÌýhas government support. It isÌýtherefore likely to reachÌýthe statute book.

Back to top

Ìý

Reports on the draft Online Safety Bill

Two parliamentary committees have produced weighty reports on the government’s draft Online Safety Bill: aÌýjoint committee established to provide pre-legislativeÌýscrutiny of the billÌýÌýin December; and the departmental select committee with responsibility in theÌýarea – the Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS)ÌýCommittee –ÌýÌýin January. The report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill was Ìýby its chair,ÌýConservative MP Damian Collins. Both reports have also been reviewed on our blog (ÌýandÌý),Ìýby Alex Walker.

Both committees expressed concern over theÌýpowers that the draft bill would confer on ministers.ÌýThey said that proposed powers that could undermine theÌýindependence of the regulator, Ofcom, should be removed, that additional matters should be specified in the bill rather than left to secondary legislationÌýand that parliamentary scrutiny should be tightened.Ìý

They disagreed on some of the mechanisms for suchÌýscrutiny, however: the Joint Committee proposed a new,Ìýpermanent Joint Committee on DigitalÌýRegulation; but the DCMS Committee opposed this as a duplication of its own ’constitutional role’.

Both committees also criticised the weakness of the draft bill’s measures against disinformation and other related harms to democracy. The Joint Committee proposed a range of measures to tackleÌýdisinformationÌýand misinformation. It added, ‘Disinformation and misinformation surrounding elections are a risk to democracy. Disinformation which aims to disrupt elections must be addressed by legislation’ – eitherÌýthe Online Safety Bill or the current Elections Bill. The DCMS Committee, meanwhile, said that the definitionÌýof harmful content should ‘explicitly account for any intention of electoral interference and voter suppression’. Both committees urged better protections for legitimate speech in the democratic sphere.

The government had not yet responded formally to either report whenÌýMonitorÌýwent to press. But it has committed to strengthening the bill in several respects from the draft – includingÌý. The timetableÌýfor bringing the final bill forward is not yet known.

Back to top

Ìý

Boundary reviews

The review of constituency boundaries for elections to the House of Commons has moved to itsÌýsecondary consultation period. Responses to theÌýfour Boundary Commissions’ initial proposals have been published. The secondary consultation period gives individuals and organisations an opportunity to comment on those responses – either in writing or at public hearings – before the Commissions decideÌýwhether to amend their proposals.

The number of responses during the primaryÌýconsultation period varied widely across the fourÌýpartsÌýof the UK: 34,204 in England, 1105 inÌý, 1211ÌýinÌý, and just 31 inÌý The Boundary Commission for WalesÌýÌýthat the numberÌýof submissions it had received was a record. TheÌýdifferences partly reflected the extent ofÌýthe changesÌýproposed in each area: those in WalesÌýare particularlyÌýwide-ranging, with the number ofÌýseats there falling from 40 to 32. The reasons for the high response in England were less obvious.

The secondary consultations will close in late March and early April. The Boundary Commissions will then produceÌýrevised proposals later this year, and final proposals byÌý1 July 2023.

Back to top

Ìý

Developments in deliberative democracy

A significant innovation in deliberative democracy practice took place in February, whenÌýÌýreconvened eight months afterÌýpublishing its final report to review the ScottishÌýgovernment’s response to its findings. PreviousÌýcitizens’ assemblies have generally disbanded afterÌýreporting, leading to an absence of any institutionalÌýimpetus to encourage further discussion of the conclusions. Given that governments expendÌýsubstantial resources in running these assemblies, and assembly members invest great time and effort, this isÌýclearly unsatisfactory.

During its extra weekend, Scotland’s Climate Assembly heard from Patrick Harvie, Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights, and Richard Lochhead, Minister for Just Transition, Employment and Fair Work. It deliberated, andÌýproduced aÌý. This said, ‘weÌýcommend the Scottish Parliament forÌýestablishingÌýthe Assembly and the ScottishÌýGovernment for providing a considered response’; but it added,Ìý‘Members of the Assembly overall are disappointedÌýwith the Government’s response to many areas of our recommendations, as it does not appear to recogniseÌýthe urgency behind the Assembly’s recommendationsÌýfor action.’ It said, ‘Government needs to think lessÌýabout what they can’t do and instead demonstrate a positive attitude, thinking hard about how they canÌýmake things happen’. The statement wasÌýÌýon 1 March. All sides praised theÌýwork of the Assembly, and opposition MSPs pressedÌýministers to meet the scale of ambition that it had urged.

Meanwhile, work within the Scottish government onÌýimplementing its commitment to regularising the use of citizens’ assemblies and other deliberative processesÌýhas continued. Beyond Scotland, the ±«²Ô¾±³Ù’s ownÌýCitizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UKÌýconcludedÌýin December, withÌýpartial resultsÌýpublished in January. Its full report is due out later in the spring (see Research on attitudes to democracy in the UK).

Back to top

Ìý

'Partygate' prompts changes at Number 10 and Cabinet Office

On 30 November the Daily Mirror that there had been parties at Number 10 in the run up to Christmas 2020, a period when the rest of the country was in lockdown.

Downing Street initially denied that any party had taken place, but in the following weeks stories of similar events emerged: , on the Prime ²Ñ¾±²Ô¾±²õ³Ù±ð°ù’s birthday, and in the . The PrimeÌý²Ñ¾±²Ô¾±²õ³Ù±ð°ù’s official spokesperson Allegra Stratton on 8 December after appearing to joke about the matter at a mock press conference.

Cabinet Secretary Simon Case was initially tasked with leading an investigation, but quickly after it was reported that one of the events took place in his office. Sue Gray, second Permanent Secretary at the Department for Levelling Up and a former Director General of Propriety and Ethics in the Cabinet Office, took over the investigation. Days before she was due to report, the Metropolitan Police that it was launching its own inquiry. Gray therefore delayed publishing her findings in full, instead producing an on 31 January. It stated that there hadÌýbeen 16 ‘g²¹³Ù³ó±ð°ù¾±²Ô²µ²õ’, of which 12 reached the thresholdÌýfor criminal investigation. She criticised failures of leadership at Number 10 and the Cabinet Office. During a subsequent in the Commons, Boris Johnson announced his commitment to ‘learn lessons’ and revamp the machinery of central government by creating . Not all Tory MPs were satisfied: former Prime Minister Theresa May that, ‘Either the Prime Minister hadn’t read the rules, didn’t understand them or didn’t think they applied to him’, and others .

On 3 February the Downing Street Chief of Staff, Principal Private Secretary, Director ofÌýCommunications and Director of the Policy Unit . Steve Barclay took over as Chief of Staff and will do the job in conjunction with his duties as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – . On 9 February former NHS Chief Executive Samantha Jones was Permanent Secretary and Chief OperatingÌýOfficer at Number 10, charged with establishing the new Office of the Prime Minister

() by .

Barclay’s new role prompted a small , during which Chief Whip Mark Spencer was moved to become Leader of the House of Commons, and replaced by Chris Heaton-Harris, who moved to his third ministerial job in as many months. In the Cabinet Office, Michael Ellis – promoted to Minister of State level – and Heather Wheeler – who doubles as a whip – are expected to take on some of Barclay’s responsibilities. They willÌýbe joined by former Commons Leader Jacob Rees- Mogg, to the new role of Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency. and have both spoken since the reshuffle of the need for measures to reduce the size of the state, including a smaller civil service and a reduction in the number of quangos.

Back to top

Ìý

Judicial Review of COVID-19 contracts prompts resignation

In January the High Court that the government’s use of a ‘VIP lane’ to award COVID-19 contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) to two companies was unlawful. However, the judgment also said that being fast-tracked onto the high priority lane did not confer any advantage at the decision-making stageÌýof the process: both of the companies’ offers justified priority treatment on their merits, and both firms were very likely to have been awarded contracts without it.

Two weeks later, Lord (Theodore) Agnew, Minister for Efficiency at the Cabinet Office, whileÌýÌýanswering a Private Notice Question (equivalent to a Commons Urgent Question) in the House of Lords. He said that he felt unable to defend the ‘desperately inadequate’ anti-fraud measures protecting the COVID-19 business loan schemes. The National AuditÌýOffice that the schemes lost £4.9 billion as a consequence and Agnew told peers that the Treasury appeared ‘to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or ²õ´Ç³¦¾±±ð³Ù²â’.

On 3 March, Agnew to the Lords Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee. He said that he had spent a lot of time attempting to ‘generate more interest and concern’ within government, andÌýpartially attributed his lack of success to the ‘siloing’ of departments and a lack of ‘join up’. He recommended that a ‘higher-profile’ minister should be responsible for counter-fraud and that a new government ‘unit’ should be created that can hold different parts of the government to account.

Back to top

Ìý

Electoral Commission report on Downing Street flat

On 9 December the Electoral Commission the conclusion of its investigation into payments for theÌýrefurbishment of the Prime ²Ñ¾±²Ô¾±²õ³Ù±ð°ù’s Downing Street flat. It found that the Conservative Party had failed to accurately report a donation of £52,801.72 from a company ofÌýwhich party donor Lord (David) Brownlow is a director. The donation had been used to pay for some of the refurbishment. TheÌýCommission fined the party £17,800.Ìý

Lord (Christopher) Geidt, the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, had earlier conducted an inquiry into the refurbishment of the flat, and concluded that the Prime Minister had not broken the Ministerial Code, but by not being more rigorous in finding out who funded the refurbishment work.

In January an was published in which Lord Geidt complained about not having been shownÌýa series of WhatsApp messages between Johnson and Lord Brownlow, which had later emerged as part of the Electoral Commission’s investigation. Geidt said that the messages did not alter his fundamental conclusions, but added that it was ‘plainly unsatisfactory’ that heÌýhad not received all the relevant information. This will add to the pressure on the government to accept the of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to strengthen the position of the Independent Adviser, including giving his office a statutory foundation.

Back to top

Ìý

Ministerial Code judicial review

The decision of former Home Office Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam to in March 2021 (see Monitor 77, page 13), after in February 2020 due to the alleged bullying of staff by Home Secretary Priti Patel (see Monitor 74, page 12), did not end the legal wrangling over her behaviour. In February 2021, the FDA union, which represents civil servants, had of the Prime ²Ñ¾±²Ô¾±²õ³Ù±ð°ù’sÌý that Patel had not breached the Ministerial Code, despite that she had engaged in ‘behaviour that could be described as bullying’.

The High Court announced its on 6 December. Having found the question to be justiciable – despite the government’s arguments to the contrary – it dismissed the claim on the merits, essentially because it did not accept the FDA’s assertion that Johnson’s decision depended on his belief that Patel had intended no harm. The court found that the Prime Minister had taken into account the full context of her actions and his decision was based on multiple factors. But the judge alsoÌýsaid that the Prime ²Ñ¾±²Ô¾±²õ³Ù±ð°ù’s status as ‘arbiter of the Code’ did not mean that he was permitted to ‘give any interpretation he chooses’ to its wording. Combined with the justiciability finding, this raises the prospect of similar legal challenges to future ministerial conduct findings.

Back to top

Ìý

New First Civil Service Commissioner

Baroness (Gisela) Stuart has been to the role of First Civil Service Commissioner, following theÌýretirement of Ian Watmore in September. A former Labour MP and chair of the Vote Leave campaign in the Brexit referendum, she now sits as a non-affiliated peer in the House of Lords. She is the first former politician to be appointed to head the Civil Service Commission, and at her with the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee onÌý3 February, she said that, while the First Civil Service Commissioner should be someone who understood the civil service, ‘it’s increasingly felt they probably shouldn’t be someone who comes from the civil service’. PACAC her appointment with reservations about ‘her suitability for the role and, in particular, her perceived impartiality’. Her appointment was confirmed on 3 March and she will take over from Rosie Glazebrook, a fellow Commissioner who had been carrying out the First Commissioner’s duties on an interim basis.

Back to top

Ìý

The Royal Family and the law

ÌýOn 13 January, the anti-monarchy group Republic released signed by more than 150 former members of the Armed Forces asking the Queen to strip Prince Andrew of his eight British military titles. The reason given was his conduct in relation to filed by Virginia Giuffre, who alleged she had been forced into sexual encounters with him. The same day, Buckingham Palace that ‘the Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen’ and he will no longer use the title ‘His Royal Highness’.

A month later, Prince Andrew settled the claim against him . He made no admission of guilt, which is a standard condition of such settlements. It is that he will ever return as a working royal.Ìý

The Metropolitan Police has launched following allegations that the Prince’s Foundation,Ìýof which Prince Charles is president, offered help in securing a knighthood for one of its donors, Mahfouz bin Mahfouz. The charity’s Chief Executive, MichaelÌýFawcett, in November following an independent investigation by auditors Ernst and Young into its fundraising practices. The police investigation will focus on allegations of offences under the , which renders the sale of honours unlawful. Mahfouz was awarded an honorary CBE at a private investiture following donations to Dumfries House, which is part of the Prince’s Foundation. These events prompted the Charity Commission to into the Burke’s Peerage Foundation, due to its links to the Mahfouz Foundation, which the Commission has been since November. Children and the Arts, which has Prince Charles as a patron, to the same regulator back in September.

Prince Harry of a Home Office decision to deny him police protection when he visits the UK, despite his commitment to pay for the costs of such a service himself. The Duke of Sussex says his private security team cannot replicate the work of the police, given the latter’s legal authority and access to local intelligence. He lost his taxpayer-funded police security after he in 2020.

Back to top

Ìý

The Independent Human Rights Act ReviewÌý

The (IHRAR), chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Peter Gross, was published by the government on 7 December. A week later, on 14 December, Lord Chancellor Dominic Raab confirmed during that the government had commenced on a proposed package of ‘reforms’ to the human rights framework of the UK.

() by

As happened with the Independent Review of Administrative Law (see Monitor 79, page 12), the terms of the consultation led to that the government had established a panel only to depart significantly from its recommendations in key areas. Some of the items in the consultation relate to areas not even considered by IHRAR because they were outside of the narrow terms of reference drafted by the government. Gross on 1 February that he does not consider the consultation to be a response to his report.

A ‘Modern Bill of Rights’ is proposed, via which the government seeks to ‘restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest’. IHRAR did not recommend this, or anything on this scale. Its report proposed minor technical changes to – whichÌýincorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law – and firmly rejected calls for its abolition, or the repeal of any of its key provisions.

It is envisaged that the new bill will include rights not explicitly protected by the ECHR, such as a right to trial by jury. The government has also said it wants to strengthen the existing right to freedom of expression, and create statutory guidance as to how it should be balanced against competing rights, such as the right to privacy.

The consultation was set to end as Monitor was going to press, but was extended until mid-April following , due to the late publication of accessible versions of the consultation documents.

The consultation may not be over, but the direction of travel seems clear: the government aspires to major changes to the ±«°­â€™s human rights framework

Back to top

Ìý

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

The has moved swiftly through parliament since the last issue of Monitor. Two particular areas of reform have proved controversial: the decision to abolish Cart judicial reviews and the extent to which the government has sought to remove or limit judicial discretion regarding quashing orders.

The abolition of Cart reviews would reverse and prevent the High Court from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the UK tribunal system. This raises questions about the government’s commitment to the rule of law. A nullifies the decision of a public body where it has acted outside its legal powers or in breach of natural justice. The bill requires that such an order be suspended so that the relevant body has time to prepare for its impact, takeÌýthe opportunity to modify its initial decision in a way that is compatible with the law, or so that the government can pass legislation to retrospectively legitimise the action the court wishes to quash. The latter option led to about the potential impactÌýon the rule of law.

Both policies were criticised in a by parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights. It suggestedÌýthat the bill’s presumption in favour of suspended or prospective remedies would be inconsistent with the right to an effective remedy under of the European Convention on Human Rights and warned that the government’s use of an ouster clause for Cart reviews – and its broader view that judicial oversight of government should be restricted – was a legitimateÌýcause of concern. , and have expressed similar reservations.

The bill completed its Commons stages in January without any parliamentary turbulence. At in the Lords on 21 February, Crossbencher Lord (David) Pannick sought to amend the bill to prevent courts from overturning decisions retrospectively, and Labour’s shadow minister Lord (Frederick) Ponsonby tabled an amendment to preserve Cart reviews. Both were withdrawn without a vote, but at the time of going to press the bill’s report stage – where amendments are more often made – was still awaited.

Back to top

Ìý

The Union and intergovernmental relationsÌý

The conclusions of a long-running review of intergovernmental relations (IGR), in 2018 and conducted jointly by the UK and devolved governments, was on 13 January. Its conclusions constitute a . A large increase in the volume of meetings between ministers from the fourÌýadministrations in the UK is envisaged. The previous Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) would be replaced by a new system of ‘Councils’. At the highest level will be the Prime Minister and the Heads of Government Council. Below that would be an ‘Interministerial Standing Committee’,Ìýto be attended by ministers with responsibility for IGR. At the bottom of the pyramid, numerous sectoral forums would regularise meetings of ministers from each administration with equivalent policy responsibilities.

The UK government’s control of meetings and processes would be reduced – an important pre- condition for a system that will rely on buy-in from ministers in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Whereas the JMC was ‘not a decision-making body’, intergovernmental decisions can in future be made by consensus. The report also signals that IGR processes will be used for substantive purposes, such as responding to major policy challenges like pandemic recovery, tackling the climate crisis and delivering sustainable growth. A more detailed Ìý, by Professor Michael Kenny – a ConstitutionÌýUnit Fellow – and Jack Sheldon, can be found on the ±«²Ô¾±³Ù’s blog.

External commentary cautioned that, while the review provided for significantly improved arrangements on paper, the changes were necessary but insufficient for ensuring the effective and meaningful operation ofÌýIGR. In a which strongly advocated ‘greater joint working’ between governments, the House of Lords Constitution Committee concluded that the review ‘appears to have addressed many of the defects inÌýthe previous structure’. However, it also argued that the success of the new arrangements would depend on whether the governments are ‘committed to using the new structures to cooperate on achieving shared objectives, rather than simply managing – or taking opportunities to accentuate – their differences’.ÌýConstitution Unit Fellow Professor Nicola McEwen similarly that ‘the proof will be in the practice’.

One indication of continuing intergovernmental tension was the UK government’s announcement of legislation to revise the process forÌýamending retained EU law (see 'The Benefits of Brexit'), which was greeted by sÌýabout a lack of consultation. The devolvedÌýadministrations offered a more mixed response to November’s of transport infrastructure. It was byÌýScottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as ‘a power ²µ°ù²¹²ú’, because transport in Scotland is a devolved policy area. The Welsh government wasÌý . Ministers from different parties in the Northern Ireland Executive on this latest display of ‘’.

More positively, there has been over recent months towards agreeing UK-wide ‘commonÌýframeworks’ in areas of devolvedÌýcompetence that were previously subject to EU regimes. Provisional agreement has now been reached on 29 , covering subjectsÌýsuch as food labelling and public health protection. These are now undergoing parliamentary scrutiny. The frameworks that have beenÌýpublished show how – and in what areas – joint decisions could be taken, and present arrangements for amendment.ÌýTheir significance willÌýbecome clearer if and when policy changes are proposed in the areas they cover.

Back to top

Ìý

England

The was published on 2 February. It contained substantial detail about the government’s plans for devolution in England, including a ‘d±ð±¹´Ç±ô³Ü³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô ´Ú°ù²¹³¾±ð·É´Ç°ù°ì’ that was first mooted in 2017.Ìý

The devolution framework includes three ‘levels’ of devolved powers. Level 1 constitutes informal joint working between authorities; Level 2 is a single institution without an elected mayoralty; and Level 3 is a single institution with a directly-elected mayor. Level 3 bodies would be able to access the broadest range of powers, including raising money from council tax and business rates, police and crime responsibilities, and public health duties.

The government intends to negotiate ‘’ – bespoke agreements with local authorities in ‘non- metropolitan’ areas – with the county and unitary authorities in nine areas, some of which could be finalised by the autumn of this year. Additionally, a mayoral deal will be negotiated with Ìý, an ‘expanded deal’ will be sought in , and new ‘trailblazer’ deals, to act as blueprints for elsewhere, will be negotiated with and

Alongside the devolution deals, the white paper acknowledged previous problems for local government caused by centralisation, government departments being too insular, and the overheads involved in local government bidding for money from multiple sources. Despite this, it announced multiple new policies and funds. A strategy to streamline funding sources is to be produced later in 2022. A new independent body is to beÌýestablished to publish comparable data across the whole of the UK, allowing the government, local authorities and the public to compare performance and indicators, and to facilitate evaluation.

() by .

Back to top

Ìý

Northern Ireland

On 3 February the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) acted on its long-standing from the Northern Ireland Executive in protest against theÌý (see opposite for more details). The DUP First Minister, Paul Givan, stepped down, which by law also removed Michelle O’Neill of Sinn Féin as deputy First Minister. Other ministers – regardless of their party affiliation – remain in post. Without the First Minister and deputy, however, there can be no Executive meetings to approve contentious or crosscutting measures, leaving ministers with limited freedom of action. Finance Minister Conor Murphy in the absence of an agreed budget, amid acute difficulties in the NHS and other public services. The DUP’s of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement’s North–South institutions, begun last year, will no doubt continue – despite the but ultimately beyond legal remedy. The other main parties all criticised Givan’s resignation, , which feared it was ultimately contrary to unionist interests.

There is no doubt an element of election tactics in the DUP’s actions and timing: shows it unlikely to be the largest party after the upcoming Assembly elections, losing a large proportion of its earlier vote, although that decline was less severe than in .Ìý

Assembly elections will proceed on 5 May as scheduled. Thereafter, under recent , negotiations to restore the Executive may go on forÌýup to 24 weeks, after which further elections must be called. It may be particularly difficult to put together a functioning Executive. Differences over the Protocol are one factor; but another is that for the first time a unionist party is unlikely to be the largest in the Assembly, and will therefore lack the right to nominate the First Minister – instead appointing the deputy First Minister. The two posts’ powers are entirely joint and equal, but the DUP has long played up the importance of a unionist First Minister: if it is the largest unionist party, retreat will be difficult.Ìý

A further complication is that, given their differences, especially over the Protocol (see below), the British and Irish governments may find it hard to continue to work together as honest brokers. Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis has whether devolution can function post-election without a change in the DUP’sÌýposition on the Protocol. The answer may not be known until much later in the year, but there is a widespread sense that, if devolution cannot now be restored, getting it back at any time in the near future will be very hard.ÌýLondon’s role

Back to top

Ìý

Northern Ireland ProtocolÌý

Since it was negotiated in 2019, the that forms part of the has been by many unionists on the grounds that it undermines the Union. Along with the UK government, they have also said that it is unsustainable in its current form, given the barriers to trade that it has created in the Irish Sea. On this basis, the DUP has always opposed Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, but clearly he and his Conservative colleagues supported it. Since September 2021, the UK government has delayed the implementation of aspects of the Protocol .

No retaliatory steps have been taken by the EU. It has agreed to consider solutions: in recent months there have been a series of from both sides which would significantly reduce the need for checks on many goods, including medicines. Formal negotiationsÌýbegan in October and have focused on the scope of the proposed changes and the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Much . In December, the UK chief negotiator Lord (David) Frost over issues largely unconnected with his role. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss now leads the UK delegation, with minister James Cleverly serving as her deputy.

The dispute has had a profound impact on Northern Ireland’s internal politics (see opposite). The January decision of DUP Agriculture Minister Edwin PootsÌýto order a suspension of Protocol checks at ports in Northern Ireland appears to have been ignored by officials on the grounds that he lacks the authority to override an international treaty. The UK government , on the basis that it believes the matter to be for the Executive to decide. The order by the High Court, pending judicial review. As indicated above, the Protocol was the direct cause of the First ²Ñ¾±²Ô¾±²õ³Ù±ð°ù’s resignation in February, and the political crisis over its operationÌýis likely to dominate both the Assembly elections in May and the subsequent negotiations on forming an Executive.

The EU and the Irish government continue to express disappointment at the conduct of the UK government and have strongly implied that it negotiated the Protocol in bad faith. However, both sides have that progressÌýis being made and that an accommodation that protects the EU single market, while reducing barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, .

Back to top

Ìý

Scotland

Debates over Scotland’s constitutional future have been somewhat sidelined since 2020 by the need for the Scottish and UK governments to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, now that the ScottishÌýgovernment has announced that all legal restrictions , the constitutional questions are likely to return to the fore.

A referendum pledge was present in both the and its . In November, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon party that a referendumÌýwould take place by the end of 2023, provided the COVID-19 situation allowed it. However, the UK government maintains its opposition to a referendum, and the way through this impasse is not yet clear. The Scottish Parliament may yet pass legislation enabling a referendum, inviting a legal challenge by London, although any resolution of the independence questionÌýis . indicates that Scotland remains divided on the independence question.

Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone ( ).

Meanwhile, Alison Johnstone, Holyrood’s Presiding Officer, has launched an to examine the barriers women face when entering and engaging in electoralÌýpolitics. The 2021 election saw the return of the most diverse class of MSPs, but several women stood down as members ahead of the poll, about balancing the demands of political life and caring responsibilities. The audit board will be made up of MSPs from several parties, who will serve alongside leading academics. The audit will examine both progress to date and next steps to improve the parliament’s inclusivity, in terms of both its composition and its internal workings.ÌýProxy voting is not currently possible in the Scottish Parliament, and it is not clear whether the provisions allowing for remote participation in proceedings, introduced in response to the pandemic, will be retained.

The relationship between the SNP and the Greens has come under strain after the Scottish and UK governments signed a deal to introduce two low-tax, low-regulation freeports in Scotland. The Greens haveÌýbeen , arguing that they facilitate tax avoidance and fail to deliver a return on investment.ÌýFreeports were included in the issues explicitly excluded from the cooperation agreement signed by the two parties in the autumn (see Monitor 79, page 15), suggesting conflict over the issue was foreseen.

There have also been cross-border tensions within the Conservative Party over the ‘partygate’ allegations (see 'Partygate' prompts changes at Number 10 and Cabinet Office). Douglas Ross was by then Leader of the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg, after the leader of the Scottish Conservatives . Several senior MSPs, such as his predecessor Jackson Carlaw, for Ross, as did former leader . Scotland Secretary Alister Jack did his best to smooth things over: he , before stating he was ‘110%’ supportive of the Prime Minister. Ross later his letter of no confidence due to the international crisis provoked by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Back to top

Ìý

Wales

The Welsh Labour government and Plaid Cymru announced the full details of their on 1 December. Under the terms of the deal, Plaid Cymru will remain outside government, but will work alongside the Welsh Labour government to deliver an agreed policy programme. This sets the tone for how Wales will be governed for the next three years.

Support by the two parties for Senedd reform is reaffirmed by the document. While a cross-party specialÌýpurpose committee had already been created, the deal states both parties’ support for an enlarged SeneddÌýof between 80 and 100 members (compared to 60 at present), a voting system that retains at least the current level of proportionality, and gender quotas set by law.

The agreement has created a in the Senedd, the implications of which are currently being considered by the Llywydd/Presiding Officer, Elin Jones. Legally, Plaid Cymru retains its status as a party outside government, . Yet it, was allocated special advisers, and has ‘quasi-ministers’ called Designated Members who will collaborate with the government on delivering the agreement. The Llywydd has thatÌýshe is considering how Price and Plaid’s Designated Members can be scrutinised by opposition members, raising the prospect of them facing Senedd questions from backbenchers.

Interestingly, the Co-operation Agreement also contains proposals on media reform. While broadcasting isÌýa matter reserved to the UK parliament, the Welsh government has funded independent media outlets in Wales in both English and Welsh. The deal commits the government to exploring the creation of a ShadowÌýWelsh Broadcasting Authority, which will coordinate and support a comprehensive Welsh media policy.

has begun its work, and is mentioned in the Co-operation Agreement. Labour and Plaid retain the right to make independent submissions to the Commission, but its interim and final reports will be presented jointly to the two parties, leaving open theÌýprospect of some kind of combined push for UK reform. The Commission, which is co-chaired by Professor Laura McAllister and former Archbishop of WalesÌý(and of Canterbury) Rowan Williams, has been quietly establishing its operating model, with announced in November. The names have been well received in Welsh political circles, striking a clever balance between recent political heavyweights and respected behind-the-scenes names such as Philip Rycroft, former Permanent Secretary at the Department for Exiting the European Union.

As noted in Monitor 79 (page 16), the Welsh Cabinet Sub-Committee on Justice has reconvened, and reveal the intention to publish a Welsh Justice Plan, ‘outlining current and planned justice-related activity across the Welsh Government’.ÌýThe Senedd the Legislative Consent Motion on the ±«°­â€™s on 18 January, rejecting aspects of the legislation on criminal damage arising from protests and trespassing. The debate allowed space for the range of positions on criminal justice that exist across the Senedd to be aired, perhaps as a precursor to a refocus on Welsh distinctiveness in this policy area during 2022.

Back to top

Ìý

Research on attitudes to democracy in the UK

ÌýThe ±«²Ô¾±³Ù’s current research project exploring public attitudes to democracy in the UK reached two milestones in the last four months. In December, its six-weekend Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in theÌýUK concluded. The Assembly’s 67 members, who were representative of the ±«°­â€™s voting-age population, agreed eight resolutions and 51 specific recommendations, on matters including the regulation of ethical standardsÌýin public life, mechanisms for engaging people in representative democracy, and the roles of parliament, judges, referendums, petitions, and citizens’ assemblies. The Assembly’s full report will be published later in the spring, but the Unit released selected conclusions – those most salient to the immediate political agenda –Ìýin early January.

In late January, meanwhile, the Unit released the project’s first report, setting out the findings of a survey of public opinion conducted last summer. The report had three principal findings. First, while most respondents expressed broad satisfaction with democracy, theyÌýhad very little trust in politicians. Second, respondents wanted politicians who are honest, have integrity, and operate within the rules. The survey included several innovative questions showing that, even when asked to trade off aspects of integrity against various forms of policy delivery, most respondents opted for the former. Third, respondents generally preferred not to concentrate power in the hands of a few politicians, but to spread it to parliament, non-politicians, and the public. There was notably strong support for judges to have a powerful role in upholding human rights and settling disputes about the government’s powers. The report also found that almost everyone thought people like themselves hadÌýtoo little influence over policymaking. But many were reluctant to get actively involved themselves. There was support for citizens’ assemblies, but only limited appetite for extending the use of referendums.

The Unit will follow up these findings with a further survey in the coming months. The project – called Democracy in the UK after Brexit – is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council throughÌýits Governance after Brexit programme. It is led byÌýProfessor Alan Renwick, working with Professors Meg Russell and Ben Lauderdale, and Research Assistant James Cleaver.

New project

In January the Unit began a new project on Constitutional Principles and the Health of Democracy, which is funded by the Legal Education Foundation. The primary purpose of the project is to inform and engage policymakers and the wider public in the importance of protecting such principles, and particularly of avoiding the risks of ‘’ as witnessed in many countries around the world. The project is ledÌýby Unit Director Meg Russell, with input from Deputy Director Alan Renwick, and a staff team comprising Lisa James, Tom Fieldhouse and (see below) Sophie Andrews-McCarroll. The team will work closely with policymakers of all parties and none, and with otherÌýindependent research organisations, to produce a range of written materials and events between now and the summer of 2024.Ìý

Staff News

ÌýWe were sad to say goodbye in December to Charlotte Kincaid, our Impact Research Fellow, who departed after two years with the Unit to take up an exciting new post at Imperial College London. Charlotte was an excellent colleague, and we are very grateful for her many fantastic contributions to our work. She will be replaced in March by Sophie Andrews-McCarroll, who joins us from the Royal United Services Institute, where she was a Project Officer working in research and communications. Before that, Sophie was a Brexit researcher at the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. She will support dissemination of all of the ±«²Ô¾±³Ù’s work through various communication channels, and engagement with policymakers. She will contribute particularly to our new project on Constitutional Principles and the Health of Democracy (see above).

Research VolunteersÌý

ÌýThe Unit is, as always, grateful for the excellent work done by its research volunteers. A big thank you to former volunteers Alejandro Castillo-Powell, Laura Hurford and Will Knatchbull. Details of how to become a Unit volunteer are on our website.

Back to top

Ìý

ÌýBack to top