All change?

Abstract

Labour came to power in the 2024 general election promising constitutional reform in various arenas. Its manifesto laid out ambitions to restore trust in politics, improve behaviour and decision-making and “deepen our democracy by reforming Parliament”. In pursuit of these goals, it pledged numerous reforms to UK-level institutions.1

Labour's manifesto proposals included ambitious changes to UK-level institutions, including reform of the House of Lords and ‘modernisation’ in the House of Commons. The party also pledged changes to the standards system and more powers for the Office for Budget Responsibility.

There were also proposals to reform devolution and elections – both topics in their own right, which will not be covered in detail here. In brief, the manifesto pledged a reset in the relationship between the UK and devolved governments, and an extension of devolution in England, broadly following the existing model but with the devolution of additional powers.2 On elections, the key pledge was to extend the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds. Since Labour took office, ministers have also pledged a review of voter ID rules and hinted that the controversial strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission introduced in 2022 – which allows the government to set high-level priorities for the regulator – could be scrapped.3 Reforms to devolution are planned for this parliamentary session; electoral policy is likely to follow in later sessions, allowing time for consultation.

These proposals for structural change were complemented, before and after the general election, by promises to abide by constitutional norms. Now leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell pledged from opposition to facilitate better parliamentary scrutiny of legislation and deliver higher legislative standards. In his speech upon becoming attorney general, Lord (Richard) Hermer pledged to end the abuse of delegated legislation and to respect the rule of law. An early statement by Keir Starmer as prime minister to the civil service was designed to reassure Whitehall that recent tensions between ministers and civil servants are a thing of the past.4

Progressive constitutional reform often entails the dispersal of power, and acceptance of greater checks and balances in the system. Thus, the New Labour government introduced a number of constitutional reforms with the effect of distributing power more widely – including, for example, through the creation of the devolved institutions and the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. These reforms sought to combine the greater sharing of power with the retention of parliamentary sovereignty (meaning that Westminster retained the power to overrule the devolved legislatures, and judges were given the power to rule primary legislation as incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but not strike it down). For this reason, some argued at the time that these reforms fell short of fundamental constitutional change.6

Labour's plans for House of Lords reform combine the incremental and the ambitious. Foremost among the short-term reforms planned for the chamber is the removal of the remaining hereditary peers. This represents unfinished business from the 1999 reforms, which removed all but 92 hereditary seats from the House of Lords (a compromise that allowed the reform to pass).8 The legislation is expected in this parliamentary session and should pass easily with strong Commons backing, especially if – as in 1999 – the government offers a small number of life peerages to the most valued contributors to ease the transition.

Labour has also proposed to tackle the growing size of the House of Lords – a long-recognised problem, especially within the House itself.9 Its preferred policy, announced in its general election manifesto, is for a new mandatory retirement age. This would see peers required to step down at the end of the parliament in which they turn 80 years old. Such a policy would likely face resistance if pursued; many older peers remain active and highly valued, including on the Labour benches (an obvious example is the campaigner for refugee children's rights, Alf Dubs). Ironically, one of Labour's most recent nominees to the House of Lords, Margaret Beckett, is already over 80.

Though Labour has indicated a general ambition for a reformed second chamber to be more representative of the nations and regions of the UK, this leaves unresolved difficult questions about, for example, how members should be chosen, or how geographical boundaries might be drawn – or whether and how far changes to membership should be mirrored by changes in the House of Lords' powers. The Commission on the UK's Future – a constitutional and economic reform group chaired by Gordon Brown – made some suggestions, but fell short of a detailed blueprint.15 The government has committed only to consult in this parliament, and it is unclear at this stage what form that consultation might take and over what period of time. A minimalist version might, for example, entail a green paper (the standard form of government consultation document); a more expansive consultation could include more proactive forms of public engagement, such as a citizens’ assembly.

Beyond this, the committee will face a broad choice of topics to consider. On the procedural side alone, the deterioration of parliamentary scrutiny in recent years has prompted various reform proposals, including changes to the distribution and control of Commons time, the scrutiny of delegated legislation, and the legislative process more broadly.18 These concerns were also addressed by Powell in her pre-election speech. Here, she criticised recent Conservative governments for, among other things, rushing legislation, misusing the Committee of the Whole House procedure and poor legislative standards, promising different behaviour from a Labour government.19

It remains to be seen whether the Modernisation Committee will be keen to address such topics, and consider the overall balance of power in the chamber between the government and backbenchers. Like its predecessor, the committee will be chaired by a government minister (that is, the leader of the House). This is not necessarily a cause for concern – among other things, it guarantees the committee's proposals time for debate, and did not prevent the original committee from putting forward reforms that benefitted backbenchers.20 More depended on the personality of the chair, with Robin Cook for example proving a more ambitious and energetic reformer than his predecessors, and driving the agenda accordingly.21

While the Modernisation Committee is set to consider ethics in the House of Commons, the Labour party also came to power promising reforms to the system for ministerial standards. The current system takes the form of a network of regulatory bodies, established at different times and with inconsistent powers.

A close look at three key areas for constitutional reform suggests that the tension between a progressive constitutional vision that prioritises checks and balances, and the incentives of government, may play out in the new government's constitutional agenda. While the government has ambitions to limit the size of the House of Lords, the clearest method to achieve lasting change would be to reduce the prime minister's power to appoint. The Modernisation Committee has the scope and potential to enhance House of Commons procedure and working practices, and address some of the shortcomings identified by Labour when in opposition, but early signs suggest a tight grip by the government, and other frontbenches. And while individual elements of the standards system may be strengthened, the government must now decide whether to commit to one of the most obvious routes to strengthen the system overall.

These dilemmas reflect both the incentives of government and a long-running tension within Labour thought that pits an impulse to disperse power and strengthen checks and balances against a desire to preserve a strong, centralised government with a relatively unconstrained ability to deliver its agenda. How the Starmer government will resolve this tension remains to be seen.