Tag Archives: robert hazell

In praise of fixed-term parliaments

Posted on by

The surprise general election may leave many suddenly nostalgic for the principle of fixed-term parliaments. The original central arguments for fixed terms have been reawakened. In this post, Meg Russell and Robert Hazell revisit these long-standing arguments, summarise the birth and death of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, and argue that – on the basis of UK and international experience – we should consider returning Westminster to fixed terms. 

The lengthy and debilitating speculation about when Rishi Sunak might call the general election may have reminded many of the arguments in favour of fixed-term parliaments. His shock announcement on 22 May that such an election would take place in July only reinforces those views. This blog post revisits the arguments for fixed terms, reminds readers of how the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA) was created and abolished, and argues for reintroduction of the principle of fixed terms – albeit with flexibility to allow early elections on occasion, as applies in many other democracies (and existed under the FTPA). 

The arguments for fixed-term parliaments 

The following is a summary of points in favour of the principle of fixed-term parliaments: 

  • Allowing the government to decide the timing of elections provides an unjustified incumbency advantage. 
  • It also confers disproportionate power on the executive over parliament. 
  • A fixed election cycle is better for both civil service and electoral administration planning, and encourages more long-term thinking in government. 
  • Fixed terms are also better for political parties, prospective parliamentary candidates, and the regulation of election spending. 
  • Speculation about an early election may unnecessarily unsettle commercial and economic decisions. 
  • Parliamentary business, including the work of select committees, can be planned and carried through with less risk of interruption.  

These are not our words; they are drawn (mostly verbatim) from the report of the cross-party parliamentary Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (paragraph 17), published in March 2021. Based on recent experience, some of them may now feel very familiar. 

Continue reading →

What is constitutional monarchy, and what is its role in the UK? 

Posted on by

Constitutional monarchies are governed by elected parliaments and governments; but a monarch remains head of state and plays various important roles. Lisa James and Robert Hazell explain the UK monarchy’s constitutional role, its impact, and the questions that would need to be addressed should the UK ever decide to replace it. 

Background 

A constitutional monarchy is a system in which the head of state is a monarch, but that person does not rule the country. Governing is undertaken instead by an elected parliament and government. In the UK, the monarch’s involvement in politics has gradually diminished over the centuries, to the point where they effectively no longer exercise political power.  

The UK is not alone in having a constitutional monarchy. There are seven other monarchies in Europe, which are very similar to the UK system. The main difference is one of size: the UK has a much larger population than most European monarchies, and a larger royal family to service it.  

The UK’s monarchy is also uniquely international: the British monarch is head of state for 14 other ‘realms’ such as Canada, Australia, Jamaica and Papua New Guinea. 

Continue reading →

Constitutional watchdogs: restoring the role

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

King Charles’s cancer: could we be heading for a soft Regency?

Posted on by

The King’s cancer diagnosis has prompted much press speculation about the prospect of Prince William taking on additional responsibilities during his father’s illness and, possibly, a Regency. Robert Hazell answers some of the most pressing questions about what might happen next.

The announcement from the Palace that the King has cancer prompted a flurry of media requests to the Constitution Unit about what might happen next, constitutionally speaking. What follows are answers to some of the most important constitutional questions raised by the news of the King’s cancer diagnosis, such as, how many Counsellors of State are there? (Spoiler: the Palace don’t seem to know), how is a Regency declared, how might Prince Harry become Regent, and when did we last have a Regency?

What does the announcement mean in practice?

The King will continue to fulfil his essential constitutional functions like granting royal assent to laws, appointing ministers and other senior officials, and holding his weekly audience with the Prime Minister. His absence from public appearances will mean more royal visits being undertaken by other senior royals: Princess Anne, Queen Camilla, Prince William, Prince Edward and his wife Sophie.

We are a long way from triggering the provisions of the Regency Acts. These provide for other royals to act on behalf of the monarch in the event of his incapacity, or absence abroad. In the event of temporary incapacity, two or more Counsellors of State are appointed on a short term basis; whereas permanent incapacity leads to the appointment of a Regent.

Continue reading →

How might Keir Starmer codify his Prevention of Military Intervention Act?

Posted on by

Recent events have led to renewed discussion about the convention that parliament should have a formal role in authorising military action, which Keir Starmer at one point proposed to codify in legislation. Robert Hazell argues that placing the existing convention on a statutory footing is unwise, and calls on parliament and the government to work together in creating a ‘shared vision’ of how the convention should operate.

Tony Blair’s decision to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has cast a long shadow over every subsequent leader of the Labour party. Keir Starmer opposed the Iraq war, and one of ten pledges he promised as part of his 2020 leadership campaign was to introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act. He subsequently specified on The Andrew Marr Show: ‘I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons’.

Starmer was reminded of this pledge when he was interviewed about the UK airstrikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. He told Laura Kuenssberg on 14 January that his proposal for military action to require the support of the Commons only meant sustained military action involving troops on the ground, rather than targeted airstrikes like those in the Red Sea:

If we are going to deploy our troops on the ground, then parliament should be informed: there should be a debate, the case should be made, and there should be a vote… What I wanted to do was to codify the convention: the Cabinet Manual has a convention… it could be in a law or it could be by some other means.

Continue reading →