Quality of Democracy
#16Key Findings
With Brexit-related political disruptions receding, the United Kingdom falls into the upper-middle ranks (rank 17) with respect to democracy quality. Its score on this measure is unchanged relative to its 2014 level.
The adoption of the final Brexit agreement between the EU and the UK at the end of 2020 significantly reduced uncertainty, through many details remain to be clarified. A new Human Rights Act has been proposed to substitute for EU rules. EU citizens resident in the UK before 2021 can continue to vote, but for new arrivals, this will depend on whether their home country offers UK citizens the same right.
Donation-based party funding has produced abuses in the past. Labor union funding for parties has been restricted, reducing the Labour Party’s income. A proposed rewrite of election rules has triggered considerable criticism. The country is a leader in providing open access to government data.
Civil rights are generally adequately protected. Laws on government surveillance powers are being rewritten in response to court judgements. Critics say a proposed shift in the balance of power between parliament and the judiciary could endanger government accountability. Explicit corruption is rare, but a number of pandemic-era procurement scandals emerged.
The adoption of the final Brexit agreement between the EU and the UK at the end of 2020 significantly reduced uncertainty, through many details remain to be clarified. A new Human Rights Act has been proposed to substitute for EU rules. EU citizens resident in the UK before 2021 can continue to vote, but for new arrivals, this will depend on whether their home country offers UK citizens the same right.
Donation-based party funding has produced abuses in the past. Labor union funding for parties has been restricted, reducing the Labour Party’s income. A proposed rewrite of election rules has triggered considerable criticism. The country is a leader in providing open access to government data.
Civil rights are generally adequately protected. Laws on government surveillance powers are being rewritten in response to court judgements. Critics say a proposed shift in the balance of power between parliament and the judiciary could endanger government accountability. Explicit corruption is rare, but a number of pandemic-era procurement scandals emerged.
Graph View
Graph View
How fair are procedures for registering candidates and parties?
10
9
9
Legal regulations provide for a fair registration procedure for all elections; candidates and parties are not discriminated against.
8
7
6
7
6
A few restrictions on election procedures discriminate against a small number of candidates and parties.
5
4
3
4
3
Some unreasonable restrictions on election procedures exist that discriminate against many candidates and parties.
2
1
1
Discriminating registration procedures for elections are widespread and prevent a large number of potential candidates or parties from participating.
In the United Kingdom, procedures for registering candidates and parties can generally be considered fair and without regulatory discrimination. The process of registration is uncomplicated, and the information required is offered by the state and easily accessible. No restrictions or regulations exist on party programs, but there are regulations limiting the choice of party name, which must not be obscene, offensive or misleading. The party emblem should also avoid these qualities. Registration as a candidate requires a deposit of £500 and the support of at least ten voters. Support from a party is not necessary, as candidates can run as independents, and many candidates do take advantage of this provision. Very occasionally, a candidate standing on a single issue achieves election, even in national elections.
Members of certain groups are not allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons, namely those in the police, the armed forces, judges, and members of the House of Lords who sit and vote there. While this may be considered reasonably necessary in a democracy (although no such restrictions are in place in many similar democracies), it seems harder to justify the exclusion of people who are subject to bankruptcy or debt relief restriction orders, because this is tantamount to a second punishment for financial mismanagement and thus discriminates against them.
Leaving the European Union has prompted the necessity to determine voting and candidacy rights for EU citizens. The proposal in the current Election Bill, however, has been criticized by the House of Commons Public Administration Committee Report on the bill, which states that the bill is too complex and likely to lead to confusion.
Citations:
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8194/documents/83775/default/
Members of certain groups are not allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons, namely those in the police, the armed forces, judges, and members of the House of Lords who sit and vote there. While this may be considered reasonably necessary in a democracy (although no such restrictions are in place in many similar democracies), it seems harder to justify the exclusion of people who are subject to bankruptcy or debt relief restriction orders, because this is tantamount to a second punishment for financial mismanagement and thus discriminates against them.
Leaving the European Union has prompted the necessity to determine voting and candidacy rights for EU citizens. The proposal in the current Election Bill, however, has been criticized by the House of Commons Public Administration Committee Report on the bill, which states that the bill is too complex and likely to lead to confusion.
Citations:
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8194/documents/83775/default/
To what extent do candidates and parties have fair access to the media and other means of communication?
10
9
9
All candidates and parties have equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. All major media outlets provide a fair and balanced coverage of the range of different political positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Candidates and parties have largely equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. The major media outlets provide a fair and balanced coverage of different political positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Candidates and parties often do not have equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. While the major media outlets represent a partisan political bias, the media system as a whole provides fair coverage of different political positions.
2
1
1
Candidates and parties lack equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communications. The major media outlets are biased in favor of certain political groups or views and discriminate against others.
The media play a central role in political campaigning, and the importance of coverage has further increased in recent years through the rise of social media and the internet. Television remains the most important medium for campaigning in general elections. Paid TV advertising is prohibited for political parties, who can only advertise in newspapers. However, major parties are granted a certain amount of free time for TV advertising, a concession that is not available to minor parties and which could be construed as a deterrent to them.
Coverage on television is fair and balanced, and monitored by Ofcom, the industry regulator. Broadcasters are required to be balanced in their coverage of parties, especially at election time. Though there has been regular criticism of how broadcasters interpret the term “balance.” On occasion, a minority view (for example on climate change) will be given equal weight by organizations such as the BBC. No such restrictions exist for the print industry and indeed there is strong tradition of crass partiality, especially by some newspaper groups that are prominent in national political life, visible during the Brexit referendum campaign of 2016, the ensuing political quarrels and, more recently, in the coverage of Boris Johnson’s difficulties. There is therefore a marked imbalance between print and broadcast. Independent fact-checking agencies, such as Full Fact, which complement media presentations of statistics, try to highlight misleading claims and will be cited in media analyses.
Citations:
https://fullfact.org/
Coverage on television is fair and balanced, and monitored by Ofcom, the industry regulator. Broadcasters are required to be balanced in their coverage of parties, especially at election time. Though there has been regular criticism of how broadcasters interpret the term “balance.” On occasion, a minority view (for example on climate change) will be given equal weight by organizations such as the BBC. No such restrictions exist for the print industry and indeed there is strong tradition of crass partiality, especially by some newspaper groups that are prominent in national political life, visible during the Brexit referendum campaign of 2016, the ensuing political quarrels and, more recently, in the coverage of Boris Johnson’s difficulties. There is therefore a marked imbalance between print and broadcast. Independent fact-checking agencies, such as Full Fact, which complement media presentations of statistics, try to highlight misleading claims and will be cited in media analyses.
Citations:
https://fullfact.org/
To what extent do all citizens have the opportunity to exercise their right of participation in national elections?
10
9
9
All adult citizens can participate in national elections. All eligible voters are registered if they wish to be. There are no discriminations observable in the exercise of the right to vote. There are no disincentives to voting.
8
7
6
7
6
The procedures for the registration of voters and voting are for the most part effective, impartial and nondiscriminatory. Citizens can appeal to courts if they feel being discriminated. Disincentives to voting generally do not constitute genuine obstacles.
5
4
3
4
3
While the procedures for the registration of voters and voting are de jure non-discriminatory, isolated cases of discrimination occur in practice. For some citizens, disincentives to voting constitute significant obstacles.
2
1
1
The procedures for the registration of voters or voting have systemic discriminatory effects. De facto, a substantial number of adult citizens are excluded from national elections.
In general elections, British, Irish and qualifying citizens of Commonwealth countries can vote. In local and devolved parliament/assembly elections, EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom were also entitled to vote as a consequence of EU membership. Entitlement to vote thus extends beyond British citizenship. As a government document explains, following Brexit, EU citizens already resident before the end of December 2020 will continue to be granted voting privileges. However, for those arriving later, voting rights will only be accorded if their home country allows the same rights to UK citizens. The bill to enact this is expected to become law in 2022.
In order to be entitled to vote, voters must be on the electoral register, which is maintained by local authorities and updated annually. The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 also introduced individual electoral registration, which is intended to improve the security of the registration process. Registration statistics show regional and social discrepancies. There has been some concern that in certain localities where a significant proportion of the population do not speak English as a first language the registration process has been abused. Sporadic complaints are made about excessive (and possibly manipulated) use of postal votes.
A restriction on the right to vote in national elections applies only in three cases, namely criminal imprisonment, mental disability and membership either of the House of Lords or the royal family. Citizens who have left the country for more than 15 years lose the right to vote in UK parliamentary elections – a regulation due to be abolished in the Elections Bill currently before parliament.
This new Elections Bill, however, has also met a lot of criticism, because it will require photo ID for voting (endangering the vote of citizens without such a document) and impose regulations on the independent Electoral Commission, and it received insufficient consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. The report by the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended, therefore, that the government should not proceed with the proposal, because its enactment might risk endangering trust in elections in the United Kingdom. The Electoral Reform Society also foresees lots of problems and has asked for the bill to be reconsidered.
Citations:
https://constitution-unit.com/2021/09/30/the-elections-bills-proposals-on-electoral-commission-governance-risks-to-electoral-integrity-and-devolution/
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8194/documents/83775/default/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984918/Photographic_ID_research-_headline_findings_report.pdf
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/news/159702/pacac-elections-bill-report-pubished/
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Briefing-on-the-Elections-Bill-–-Report-stage.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-voting-rights-for-eu-citizens-living-in-the-uk/local-voting-rights-for-eu-citizens-living-in-the-uk
In order to be entitled to vote, voters must be on the electoral register, which is maintained by local authorities and updated annually. The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 also introduced individual electoral registration, which is intended to improve the security of the registration process. Registration statistics show regional and social discrepancies. There has been some concern that in certain localities where a significant proportion of the population do not speak English as a first language the registration process has been abused. Sporadic complaints are made about excessive (and possibly manipulated) use of postal votes.
A restriction on the right to vote in national elections applies only in three cases, namely criminal imprisonment, mental disability and membership either of the House of Lords or the royal family. Citizens who have left the country for more than 15 years lose the right to vote in UK parliamentary elections – a regulation due to be abolished in the Elections Bill currently before parliament.
This new Elections Bill, however, has also met a lot of criticism, because it will require photo ID for voting (endangering the vote of citizens without such a document) and impose regulations on the independent Electoral Commission, and it received insufficient consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. The report by the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended, therefore, that the government should not proceed with the proposal, because its enactment might risk endangering trust in elections in the United Kingdom. The Electoral Reform Society also foresees lots of problems and has asked for the bill to be reconsidered.
Citations:
https://constitution-unit.com/2021/09/30/the-elections-bills-proposals-on-electoral-commission-governance-risks-to-electoral-integrity-and-devolution/
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8194/documents/83775/default/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984918/Photographic_ID_research-_headline_findings_report.pdf
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/news/159702/pacac-elections-bill-report-pubished/
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Briefing-on-the-Elections-Bill-–-Report-stage.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-voting-rights-for-eu-citizens-living-in-the-uk/local-voting-rights-for-eu-citizens-living-in-the-uk
To what extent is private and public party financing and electoral campaign financing transparent, effectively monitored and in case of infringement of rules subject to proportionate and dissuasive sanction?
10
9
9
The state enforces that donations to political parties are made public and provides for independent monitoring to that respect. Effective measures to prevent evasion are effectively in place and infringements subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
8
7
6
7
6
The state enforces that donations to political parties are made public and provides for independent monitoring. Although infringements are subject to proportionate sanctions, some, although few, loopholes and options for circumvention still exist.
5
4
3
4
3
The state provides that donations to political parties shall be published. Party financing is subject to some degree of independent monitoring but monitoring either proves regularly ineffective or proportionate sanctions in case of infringement do not follow.
2
1
1
The rules for party and campaign financing do not effectively enforce the obligation to make the donations public. Party and campaign financing is neither monitored independently nor, in case of infringements, subject to proportionate sanctions.
The Electoral Commission oversees all political financing in the United Kingdom. The commission is an independent institution set up by parliament, which publishes all its findings online to make them easily accessible. Although all donations above a certain threshold must be reported to the commission, the fact that political parties are largely dependent on donations for their ever-increasing spending on national campaigns has repeatedly led to huge scandals in the past. There have also been highly publicized cases where individual party donors have been rewarded by being granted honors. Changes have also been made to prevent donations from individuals not resident in the United Kingdom. Although these cases have generated considerable media interest, there is not much evidence that donations have influenced policy.
In 2011, the Committee on Standards in Public Life published a report recommending a cap of £10,000 on donations from individuals or organizations. This recommendation was welcomed at the time, but has not been introduced.
Contributions from party members or local associations (through local fundraising) are relatively minor, though still useful to parties, compared to the amount parties receive from institutional sponsors (trade unions in the case of the Labour Party, business associations in the case of the Conservative Party) and individual donors. There is also some state financing of parties (known as “Short money” after the politician who initiated it in the 1970s), which will be cut following the latest government expenditure review. The amount of Short money received by a party is linked to the party’s representation in the House of Commons, which means that parties that lose seats in a general election will face a funding squeeze during the next parliament. The 2010 – 2015 coalition government pledged to reform party financing, but made no substantial progress on the issue. The Conservative government elected in 2015 passed the Trade Union Act, which includes new restrictions on trade union financing for political parties. This will reduce the Labour Party’s income.
The Election Bill currently before parliament will include provisions that will limit the Electoral Commission’s independence by letting the government set the commission’s strategy. This could also affect party finance regulations.
Citations:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9304/CBP-9304.pdf
In 2011, the Committee on Standards in Public Life published a report recommending a cap of £10,000 on donations from individuals or organizations. This recommendation was welcomed at the time, but has not been introduced.
Contributions from party members or local associations (through local fundraising) are relatively minor, though still useful to parties, compared to the amount parties receive from institutional sponsors (trade unions in the case of the Labour Party, business associations in the case of the Conservative Party) and individual donors. There is also some state financing of parties (known as “Short money” after the politician who initiated it in the 1970s), which will be cut following the latest government expenditure review. The amount of Short money received by a party is linked to the party’s representation in the House of Commons, which means that parties that lose seats in a general election will face a funding squeeze during the next parliament. The 2010 – 2015 coalition government pledged to reform party financing, but made no substantial progress on the issue. The Conservative government elected in 2015 passed the Trade Union Act, which includes new restrictions on trade union financing for political parties. This will reduce the Labour Party’s income.
The Election Bill currently before parliament will include provisions that will limit the Electoral Commission’s independence by letting the government set the commission’s strategy. This could also affect party finance regulations.
Citations:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9304/CBP-9304.pdf
Do citizens have the opportunity to take binding political decisions when they want to do so?
10
9
9
Citizens have the effective opportunity to actively propose and take binding decisions on issues of importance to them through popular initiatives and referendums. The set of eligible issues is extensive, and includes national, regional, and local issues.
8
7
6
7
6
Citizens have the effective opportunity to take binding decisions on issues of importance to them through either popular initiatives or referendums. The set of eligible issues covers at least two levels of government.
5
4
3
4
3
Citizens have the effective opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them through a legally binding measure. The set of eligible issues is limited to one level of government.
2
1
1
Citizens have no effective opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them through a legally binding measure.
Formally, referendums play a small role in UK governance. They are rarely called in the United Kingdom, although they have been used in a handful of cases in recent years, also at the local level, to decide on whether to establish an elected mayor. Referendums also only follow from a government decision, rather than a citizen initiative, and require a specific legislative initiative to be enacted instead of being a routine process. The legal foundations for calling a referendum and binding the government to its outcome are weak, as the results are not legally binding. Citizens can, via an online petition, call for a parliamentary debate on any topic. Yet, the House of Commons is not obliged to agree to the debate and high-profile proposals can be – and frequently are – ignored. However, the outcome of the Brexit vote shows that they can become politically decisive and may lead to major changes in the United Kingdom’s political system. Despite their lack of constitutional standing, referendums in the United Kingdom have a de facto influence on policy decisions, but this is rather ad hoc.
Referendums are often more a part of politics and agenda setting than a structural part of the United Kingdom’s policymaking process. The central government may use a referendum to unite the population behind a controversial position and, by doing so, hope to silence their critics for good. Tony Blair’s devolution referendums in 1997 and 1998 or the 1975 referendum which was used by then Prime Minister Wilson to counter opponents of the European Union in his party are prominent examples, as was the Brexit referendum campaign. The 2010 – 2015 coalition government’s referendum in 2011 on an alternative voting system to replace “first-past-the-post” was called at the insistence of the junior coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, but (successfully) opposed by the Conservatives.
In addition to profound political disputes, the conduct of the 2016 EU referendum elicited legal action regarding the use of personal data and breaches of spending limits, as well as allegations of Russian influence. However, there is little evidence these incidents significantly altered the outcome. The bruising experience of the 2016 referendum and the lack of constitutional clarity on how to respond to the results of referendums make further resort to them unlikely at the UK level. However, there is clear grassroots support for a further plebiscite on Scottish independence, which – if it were to happen – would be limited to residents in Scotland, as was the 2014 referendum.
Referendums are often more a part of politics and agenda setting than a structural part of the United Kingdom’s policymaking process. The central government may use a referendum to unite the population behind a controversial position and, by doing so, hope to silence their critics for good. Tony Blair’s devolution referendums in 1997 and 1998 or the 1975 referendum which was used by then Prime Minister Wilson to counter opponents of the European Union in his party are prominent examples, as was the Brexit referendum campaign. The 2010 – 2015 coalition government’s referendum in 2011 on an alternative voting system to replace “first-past-the-post” was called at the insistence of the junior coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, but (successfully) opposed by the Conservatives.
In addition to profound political disputes, the conduct of the 2016 EU referendum elicited legal action regarding the use of personal data and breaches of spending limits, as well as allegations of Russian influence. However, there is little evidence these incidents significantly altered the outcome. The bruising experience of the 2016 referendum and the lack of constitutional clarity on how to respond to the results of referendums make further resort to them unlikely at the UK level. However, there is clear grassroots support for a further plebiscite on Scottish independence, which – if it were to happen – would be limited to residents in Scotland, as was the 2014 referendum.
Graph View
To what extent are the media independent from government?
10
9
9
Public and private media are independent from government influence; their independence is institutionally protected and fully respected by the incumbent government.
8
7
6
7
6
The incumbent government largely respects the independence of media. However, there are occasional attempts to exert influence.
5
4
3
4
3
The incumbent government seeks to ensure its political objectives indirectly by influencing the personnel policies, organizational framework or financial resources of public media, and/or the licensing regime/market access for private media.
2
1
1
Major media outlets are frequently influenced by the incumbent government promoting its partisan political objectives. To ensure pro-government media reporting, governmental actors exert direct political pressure and violate existing rules of media regulation or change them to benefit their interests.
In the United Kingdom, television channels both in the public and the private sector are required by law to be politically neutral. The public regulator, Ofcom, oversees the sector. No such requirement exists for print media. The BBC, the main public-service broadcaster, is financed by a television license fee, which is effectively a poll tax. It is overseen by a board of governors and enjoys almost complete political independence. However, recent scandals have weakened the BBC’s standing, although there is as yet little evidence of that in its behavior, and it remains the case that TV and radio journalists often subject government and opposition politicians to very tough interviews. Politicians of all persuasions frequently accuse the BBC of bias, arguably highlighting the fact that it is outside political control. The aftermath of the News of the World scandal in 2011 (which led to the Leveson Inquiry and its 2013 report) exposed overly close relations between politicians and the press. After a lively debate on whether stricter press regulation should be adopted to prevent excessively intrusive journalism, a new consensus seemed to emerge that formal regulation should not be introduced and the government has proved to be uneasy about acceding to demands for tougher statutory regulation. Occasionally, the government threatens to cut or even abolish the BBC license fee, but so far this has not been put into practice.
Security reasons are sometimes given for restricting press freedom and, as in the case of government attempts to clamp down on disclosures by Edward Snowden, tend to cause considerable political and public backlash. Such incidents can tarnish the relationship between the UK media and the government. The journalists’ resistance to intimidation and their reporting of government surveillance practices are a shining example for civil journalism. Several media actors expressed concerns about the libel laws in the aftermath of the 2013 Defamation Act, which was meant to protect freedom of speech, but there have been no more recent cases in which the underlying freedom of the press has been questioned. The United Kingdom is a signatory of the Global Pledge on Media Freedom, launched in 2019. However, a recent assessment by the Paris-based NGO Reporters without Borders (RSF) is critical of the UK record, notably citing curbs on freedom of information requests. As in many other countries, the unfettered freedoms of social media are being challenged.
Citations:
https://rsf.org/en/united-kingdom
Security reasons are sometimes given for restricting press freedom and, as in the case of government attempts to clamp down on disclosures by Edward Snowden, tend to cause considerable political and public backlash. Such incidents can tarnish the relationship between the UK media and the government. The journalists’ resistance to intimidation and their reporting of government surveillance practices are a shining example for civil journalism. Several media actors expressed concerns about the libel laws in the aftermath of the 2013 Defamation Act, which was meant to protect freedom of speech, but there have been no more recent cases in which the underlying freedom of the press has been questioned. The United Kingdom is a signatory of the Global Pledge on Media Freedom, launched in 2019. However, a recent assessment by the Paris-based NGO Reporters without Borders (RSF) is critical of the UK record, notably citing curbs on freedom of information requests. As in many other countries, the unfettered freedoms of social media are being challenged.
Citations:
https://rsf.org/en/united-kingdom
To what extent are the media characterized by an ownership structure that ensures a pluralism of opinions?
10
9
9
Diversified ownership structures characterize both the electronic and print media market, providing a well-balanced pluralism of opinions. Effective anti-monopoly policies and impartial, open public media guarantee a pluralism of opinions.
8
7
6
7
6
Diversified ownership structures prevail in the electronic and print media market. Public media compensate for deficiencies or biases in private media reporting by representing a wider range of opinions.
5
4
3
4
3
Oligopolistic ownership structures characterize either the electronic or the print media market. Important opinions are represented but there are no or only weak institutional guarantees against the predominance of certain opinions.
2
1
1
Oligopolistic ownership structures characterize both the electronic and the print media market. Few companies dominate the media, most programs are biased, and there is evidence that certain opinions are not published or are marginalized.
The strong concentration of newspaper ownership has long been a feature of the United Kingdom’s media market and that continues to be the case. The BBC as a public-service broadcaster has a dominant position, especially with regard to broadcast and online news. There is a long tradition of powerful individual owners, such as Rupert Murdoch (News Corporation), dating back to the 19th century. This coexists with a lively regional newspaper scene. However, regional newspapers have little influence in terms of national opinion.
The electronic media and television market, in contrast, is much more balanced and also required by regulation to be politically neutral.
The support of the Murdoch media empire has been considered politically crucial over the last two decades. The firm has been very influential particularly in terms of the United Kingdom’s position toward European integration. Following the News of the World scandal and the enquiry into corporate standards at News Corporation, Murdoch’s influence may have been weakened, but that of the Daily Mail Group remains strong. In addition, the Leveson Inquiry has demanded higher diversity in ownership and tighter regulation on media mergers, both of which (if enacted) could also work toward more diversity of opinion. The press, collectively, has strongly opposed attempts to circumscribe the freedom of opinion, and the matter remains unresolved.
In 2020 and 2021, the government attempted to appoint the former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre as head of the media regulator Ofcom by repeating the interview rather than appointing one of the other candidates. There were accusations of the government manipulating the process in his favor and eventually Dacre withdrew his candidacy in November 2021.
Citations:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/19/paul-dacre-pulls-out-of-running-next-ofcom-chair
The electronic media and television market, in contrast, is much more balanced and also required by regulation to be politically neutral.
The support of the Murdoch media empire has been considered politically crucial over the last two decades. The firm has been very influential particularly in terms of the United Kingdom’s position toward European integration. Following the News of the World scandal and the enquiry into corporate standards at News Corporation, Murdoch’s influence may have been weakened, but that of the Daily Mail Group remains strong. In addition, the Leveson Inquiry has demanded higher diversity in ownership and tighter regulation on media mergers, both of which (if enacted) could also work toward more diversity of opinion. The press, collectively, has strongly opposed attempts to circumscribe the freedom of opinion, and the matter remains unresolved.
In 2020 and 2021, the government attempted to appoint the former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre as head of the media regulator Ofcom by repeating the interview rather than appointing one of the other candidates. There were accusations of the government manipulating the process in his favor and eventually Dacre withdrew his candidacy in November 2021.
Citations:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/19/paul-dacre-pulls-out-of-running-next-ofcom-chair
To what extent can citizens obtain official information?
10
9
9
Legal regulations guarantee free and easy access to official information, contain few, reasonable restrictions, and there are effective mechanisms of appeal and oversight enabling citizens to access information.
8
7
6
7
6
Access to official information is regulated by law. Most restrictions are justified, but access is sometimes complicated by bureaucratic procedures. Existing appeal and oversight mechanisms permit citizens to enforce their right of access.
5
4
3
4
3
Access to official information is partially regulated by law, but complicated by bureaucratic procedures and some poorly justified restrictions. Existing appeal and oversight mechanisms are often ineffective.
2
1
1
Access to official information is not regulated by law; there are many restrictions of access, bureaucratic procedures and no or ineffective mechanisms of enforcement.
The United Kingdom has had a long tradition of official secrecy, but in recent years successive governments have very actively tried to capitalize on the transparency and cost-saving potential of making government information available online. Together with the Freedom of Information Act 2005, this has contributed to easier access for citizens and, often in a very high-profile way, the media. The restrictions on what information can be provided under the Freedom of Information Act (cost limits; national security restrictions; state financial interests) are largely in line with the respective regulations in other countries. More recently there has been a debate about restricting the right to freedom of information. However, the former head of the civil service and the cabinet office minister responsible for the civil service have both opposed any restrictions on access, although former Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose government introduced the Freedom of Information Act, has said that he regrets doing so.
The United Kingdom has also been at the forefront of making government data available for commercial use and citizen inspection (“open data”). Recent efforts to simplify and render government information more accessible have seen the replacement of a profusion of websites with a single government portal (gov.uk) and it is clear that the government now regards the provision of information as a high priority. It is noteworthy that the United Kingdom is now mentioned internationally as a leader in open government and access to data. In the World Justice Project’s 2015 Open Government Index, the United Kingdom ranked eighth out of 102 countries, behind the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Canada.
At times, in the fraught period of the Brexit negotiations, however, the government sometimes sought to withhold or delay publication of strategic documents to avoid undermining of the UK negotiating position vis-a-vis the EU27. For the most part, Parliament was able to insist on publication.
During the pandemic, public information was generally published in a timely manner, including detailed data on infections and vaccine rollout, although there were some criticisms about the transparency of data underlying ministerial statements. An easily accessible website was published as part of the comprehensive gov.uk website to host comprehensive information about the COVID-19 pandemic. The website presents information on guidance and support, government announcements, and statistical data on the pandemic, as well as links to legislation and press conference statements.
Citations:
http://worldjusticeproject.org/open-government-index/open-government-around-world
https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/transparency-is-fundamental-to-trust-the-government-must-learn-from-mistakes-during-the-pandemic/
The United Kingdom has also been at the forefront of making government data available for commercial use and citizen inspection (“open data”). Recent efforts to simplify and render government information more accessible have seen the replacement of a profusion of websites with a single government portal (gov.uk) and it is clear that the government now regards the provision of information as a high priority. It is noteworthy that the United Kingdom is now mentioned internationally as a leader in open government and access to data. In the World Justice Project’s 2015 Open Government Index, the United Kingdom ranked eighth out of 102 countries, behind the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Canada.
At times, in the fraught period of the Brexit negotiations, however, the government sometimes sought to withhold or delay publication of strategic documents to avoid undermining of the UK negotiating position vis-a-vis the EU27. For the most part, Parliament was able to insist on publication.
During the pandemic, public information was generally published in a timely manner, including detailed data on infections and vaccine rollout, although there were some criticisms about the transparency of data underlying ministerial statements. An easily accessible website was published as part of the comprehensive gov.uk website to host comprehensive information about the COVID-19 pandemic. The website presents information on guidance and support, government announcements, and statistical data on the pandemic, as well as links to legislation and press conference statements.
Citations:
http://worldjusticeproject.org/open-government-index/open-government-around-world
https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/transparency-is-fundamental-to-trust-the-government-must-learn-from-mistakes-during-the-pandemic/
Graph View
To what extent does the state respect and protect civil rights and how effectively are citizens protected by courts against infringements of their rights?
10
9
9
All state institutions respect and effectively protect civil rights. Citizens are effectively protected by courts against infringements of their rights. Infringements present an extreme exception.
8
7
6
7
6
The state respects and protects rights, with few infringements. Courts provide protection.
5
4
3
4
3
Despite formal protection, frequent infringements of civil rights occur and court protection often proves ineffective.
2
1
1
State institutions respect civil rights only formally, and civil rights are frequently violated. Court protection is not effective.
In the United Kingdom, civil liberties have long been protected despite the absence of a written constitution and an accompanying bill of rights. The country thus shows that effective protection is possible if support for civil rights is firmly rooted in society and therefore is expected of the government of the day. However, UK citizens have been afforded additional rights of protection from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Events of the last decade such as terrorist attacks have also demonstrated that the balance between state interests and individual rights can be more easily tilted if there are no institutional protections at hand. Various anti-terrorism acts (2000; 2001; 2005; 2006; 2008) have given the UK government more and harsher instruments to fight terrorism. For most citizens, these anti-terrorist measures are not an issue, but for the very small minority that they affect, they can be a source of dismay. In the past, governments had objected to rulings from the ECHR, to the extent that some government ministers advocated a UK withdrawal from the court. The absolute national sovereignty of British courts was a crucial argument to the campaign to leave the European Union.
While courts and public pressure have from time to time succeeded in stopping practices like the indefinite detention of non-nationals, the state has usually succeeded in reintroducing them after some time under a different name, for example, when replacing “control orders” with “terrorism prevention and investigation measures.” However, it does so under quite intense media scrutiny. The files leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) subcontractor and system administrator Edward Snowden disclosed a degree of digital surveillance in the United Kingdom that far exceeded expectations. The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), with its Tempora and MUSCULAR programs, as well as the NSA/GCHQ PRISM joint venture, tracks and evaluates a very large share of national and international electronic communications. But despite the initial media outcry, public opposition to these programs has been relatively mild. Furthermore, wider society is well aware of the proactive tradition of its national intelligence services and criticism tends to be limited outside the context of libertarian pressure groups. The most sustained opposition today comes from communication firms whose servers were hacked by government agents to access private data. An upshot of this episode was the introduction of the new Investigatory Powers Act in 2016, with regulations coming into force in 2018.
There have been several legal challenges to the government approach, often initiated by NGOs such as Liberty or Privacy International. In October 2016, the Investigatory Power Tribunal, which is the only court that hears complaints against the intelligence agencies (i.e., MI5, MI6 and GCHQ), ruled that the mass collection of private data as committed by the security services between 1998 and 2015 failed to comply with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and was therefore illegal. After being declared unlawful by the Court of Appeal, significant parts of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, better known as the “Snoopers’ Charter,” will need to be overhauled by legislators. However, as Computer World reported in summer 2019, the courts have supported the government position on, for example, the right to appeal judgments of the tribunal.
The government has announced plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a new bill of rights following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, but has yet to do so. Besides new regulations, there is also the need to decide the future standing of court decisions based on EU law. In December 2021, the government published a consultation, which will last until spring 2022, on its proposals to replace the Human Rights Act with a bill of rights.
The governments of the four nations of the United Kingdom chose to impose lockdown and restrictions, although there were some (relatively minor) differences among them in the application the measures. There was a lively public debate on their scope and duration, and many Conservative members of parliament pushed for the restrictions in England to be ended sooner than the government wanted. On the whole, public opinion supported the actions taken during the first year of the pandemic. According to YouGov, some three-quarters of respondents approved of the actions in this period. From March 2021, however, approval fell quite sharply, dropping to below 40% in January 2022.
Citations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668943/Response_to_the_IPA_codes_consultation.pdf
https://www.computerworlduk.com/security/draft-investigatory-powers-bill-what-you-need-know-3629116/
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3427019/the-snoopers-charter-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-investigatory-powers-act.html
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/supporting_documents/humanrightsreformconsultation.pdf
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9406/CBP-9406.pdf
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/03/17/level-support-actions-governments-could-take
While courts and public pressure have from time to time succeeded in stopping practices like the indefinite detention of non-nationals, the state has usually succeeded in reintroducing them after some time under a different name, for example, when replacing “control orders” with “terrorism prevention and investigation measures.” However, it does so under quite intense media scrutiny. The files leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) subcontractor and system administrator Edward Snowden disclosed a degree of digital surveillance in the United Kingdom that far exceeded expectations. The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), with its Tempora and MUSCULAR programs, as well as the NSA/GCHQ PRISM joint venture, tracks and evaluates a very large share of national and international electronic communications. But despite the initial media outcry, public opposition to these programs has been relatively mild. Furthermore, wider society is well aware of the proactive tradition of its national intelligence services and criticism tends to be limited outside the context of libertarian pressure groups. The most sustained opposition today comes from communication firms whose servers were hacked by government agents to access private data. An upshot of this episode was the introduction of the new Investigatory Powers Act in 2016, with regulations coming into force in 2018.
There have been several legal challenges to the government approach, often initiated by NGOs such as Liberty or Privacy International. In October 2016, the Investigatory Power Tribunal, which is the only court that hears complaints against the intelligence agencies (i.e., MI5, MI6 and GCHQ), ruled that the mass collection of private data as committed by the security services between 1998 and 2015 failed to comply with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and was therefore illegal. After being declared unlawful by the Court of Appeal, significant parts of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, better known as the “Snoopers’ Charter,” will need to be overhauled by legislators. However, as Computer World reported in summer 2019, the courts have supported the government position on, for example, the right to appeal judgments of the tribunal.
The government has announced plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a new bill of rights following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, but has yet to do so. Besides new regulations, there is also the need to decide the future standing of court decisions based on EU law. In December 2021, the government published a consultation, which will last until spring 2022, on its proposals to replace the Human Rights Act with a bill of rights.
The governments of the four nations of the United Kingdom chose to impose lockdown and restrictions, although there were some (relatively minor) differences among them in the application the measures. There was a lively public debate on their scope and duration, and many Conservative members of parliament pushed for the restrictions in England to be ended sooner than the government wanted. On the whole, public opinion supported the actions taken during the first year of the pandemic. According to YouGov, some three-quarters of respondents approved of the actions in this period. From March 2021, however, approval fell quite sharply, dropping to below 40% in January 2022.
Citations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668943/Response_to_the_IPA_codes_consultation.pdf
https://www.computerworlduk.com/security/draft-investigatory-powers-bill-what-you-need-know-3629116/
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3427019/the-snoopers-charter-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-investigatory-powers-act.html
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/supporting_documents/humanrightsreformconsultation.pdf
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9406/CBP-9406.pdf
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/03/17/level-support-actions-governments-could-take
To what extent does the state concede and protect political liberties?
10
9
9
All state institutions concede and effectively protect political liberties.
8
7
6
7
6
All state institutions for the most part concede and protect political liberties. There are only few infringements.
5
4
3
4
3
State institutions concede political liberties but infringements occur regularly in practice.
2
1
1
Political liberties are unsatisfactory codified and frequently violated.
Without a written constitution and the protection it affords, citizens of the United Kingdom have no fundamental rights in the sense of enjoying special protection against the powers of the executive and parliament. Citizens’ rights in the United Kingdom can thus be said to be residual and negative in nature. Citizens can do anything not expressly prohibited by law, but there are no positive rights to assert against the government unless the government concedes them. In practice, UK citizens enjoy considerable freedoms, although rights to protest were somewhat circumscribed by a law requiring protesters to give advance notice to the police of a demonstration and restrictions on protests in sensitive locations. Even so, demonstrations do take place, sometimes without respecting the legal obligations. For example, the “flash” protests by Extinction Rebellion in 2019 and by a related group called Insulate Britain in 2021 were initially treated lightly by the police, but were subsequently more robustly policed, partly in response to public objections to the disruption caused.
Since disputes about political liberties always arise over contested issues, UK citizens have little recourse within the political system, especially when compared to continental European political systems. The Human Rights Act of 1998 (HRA) represented an attempt to create a “higher law” to which all other laws must conform. It offers individual and minority rights, and empowers judges to hold the executive to account and review acts of parliament. But its effectiveness is constrained by the fact that the government can temporarily annul the HRA, if it considers this necessary for the benefit of the country, and it remains contested.
The relative informality of civil rights in the United Kingdom is often justified by the strong tradition of a fair and open public discourse, which forms the very heart of the United Kingdom’s political identity. However, in recent years, criticisms have been voiced that these informal foundations are being neglected or circumvented for political reasons. With the planned replacement of the Human Rights Act 1998 through a bill of rights, new rules will be set. The government announcement that it will to “restore common sense to the application of human rights,” and provide “a check on the expansion and inflation of rights without democratic oversight and consent” indicates that it intends to roll back existing regulations in this field. In line with further attempts to constrain judicial review (see section D4.2), the government aims to “restrain the ability of the UK courts to use human rights law to impose ‘positive obligations’ onto our public authorities without proper democratic oversight.” These plans are likely, though, to face stiff resistance and may struggle to be realized.
Citations:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/supporting_documents/humanrightsreformconsultation.pdf
Since disputes about political liberties always arise over contested issues, UK citizens have little recourse within the political system, especially when compared to continental European political systems. The Human Rights Act of 1998 (HRA) represented an attempt to create a “higher law” to which all other laws must conform. It offers individual and minority rights, and empowers judges to hold the executive to account and review acts of parliament. But its effectiveness is constrained by the fact that the government can temporarily annul the HRA, if it considers this necessary for the benefit of the country, and it remains contested.
The relative informality of civil rights in the United Kingdom is often justified by the strong tradition of a fair and open public discourse, which forms the very heart of the United Kingdom’s political identity. However, in recent years, criticisms have been voiced that these informal foundations are being neglected or circumvented for political reasons. With the planned replacement of the Human Rights Act 1998 through a bill of rights, new rules will be set. The government announcement that it will to “restore common sense to the application of human rights,” and provide “a check on the expansion and inflation of rights without democratic oversight and consent” indicates that it intends to roll back existing regulations in this field. In line with further attempts to constrain judicial review (see section D4.2), the government aims to “restrain the ability of the UK courts to use human rights law to impose ‘positive obligations’ onto our public authorities without proper democratic oversight.” These plans are likely, though, to face stiff resistance and may struggle to be realized.
Citations:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/supporting_documents/humanrightsreformconsultation.pdf
How effectively does the state protect against different forms of discrimination?
10
9
9
State institutions effectively protect against and actively prevent discrimination. Cases of discrimination are extremely rare.
8
7
6
7
6
State anti-discrimination protections are moderately successful. Few cases of discrimination are observed.
5
4
3
4
3
State anti-discrimination efforts show limited success. Many cases of discrimination can be observed.
2
1
1
The state does not offer effective protection against discrimination. Discrimination is widespread in the public sector and in society.
Over the last two decades, measures to combat discrimination have entered the political agenda, the statute books and, perhaps most tellingly, have become cultural norms. Starting with the Race Relations Act 2000, all public authorities have been obliged to promote race equality and tackle discrimination. In 2006, this was extended to cover gender and disability discrimination. The Equality Act 2010 has added further areas, such as age, gender identity, pregnancy and maternity and religion or belief. Political pressure is being exerted to add “caste” in order to fight discrimination still common in the Asian community. The legal framework is therefore very robust in countering discrimination and has had a significant impact on social attitudes, with the result that incidents of discrimination are rapidly and loudly condemned.
The state has made a serious attempt to end discrimination and abolish inequalities by reacting to a number of scandals in, for example, the police force with its alleged “institutionalized racism.” Relatively minor incidents on the football field become headline news and the mainstream view is very strongly anti-discriminatory, to the extent that even populist political parties appealing to indigenous groups have to be very careful to avoid any hint of overt racism or other forms of discrimination. A perception that the indigenous population is crowded out from public services and social housing has contributed to populist right-wing views about the impact of immigration, but gains only limited traction. Some high-profile cases, particularly those involving trans-identified people, have resulted in increased tensions and heated public discourse about just how far anti-discrimination should go.
There is still a massive imbalance in the national DNA database (40% of the black male population is registered, but only 13% of Asian males and 9% of Caucasian males) and anti-terrorism laws sometimes entail racial profiling. These phenomena may be primarily rooted in security concerns rather than in explicit discrimination. They can, however, nurture discriminating path dependencies in criminal investigations. While such relations have lately been the subject of heated public debates in countries like France, the Netherlands and the United States, the debate in the United Kingdom has remained comparatively quiet. Moreover, support for equality measures is evident in how public opinion reacts to cases of discrimination.
The state has made a serious attempt to end discrimination and abolish inequalities by reacting to a number of scandals in, for example, the police force with its alleged “institutionalized racism.” Relatively minor incidents on the football field become headline news and the mainstream view is very strongly anti-discriminatory, to the extent that even populist political parties appealing to indigenous groups have to be very careful to avoid any hint of overt racism or other forms of discrimination. A perception that the indigenous population is crowded out from public services and social housing has contributed to populist right-wing views about the impact of immigration, but gains only limited traction. Some high-profile cases, particularly those involving trans-identified people, have resulted in increased tensions and heated public discourse about just how far anti-discrimination should go.
There is still a massive imbalance in the national DNA database (40% of the black male population is registered, but only 13% of Asian males and 9% of Caucasian males) and anti-terrorism laws sometimes entail racial profiling. These phenomena may be primarily rooted in security concerns rather than in explicit discrimination. They can, however, nurture discriminating path dependencies in criminal investigations. While such relations have lately been the subject of heated public debates in countries like France, the Netherlands and the United States, the debate in the United Kingdom has remained comparatively quiet. Moreover, support for equality measures is evident in how public opinion reacts to cases of discrimination.
Graph View
To what extent do government and administration act on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions to provide legal certainty?
10
9
9
Government and administration act predictably, on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions. Legal regulations are consistent and transparent, ensuring legal certainty.
8
7
6
7
6
Government and administration rarely make unpredictable decisions. Legal regulations are consistent, but leave a large scope of discretion to the government or administration.
5
4
3
4
3
Government and administration sometimes make unpredictable decisions that go beyond given legal bases or do not conform to existing legal regulations. Some legal regulations are inconsistent and contradictory.
2
1
1
Government and administration often make unpredictable decisions that lack a legal basis or ignore existing legal regulations. Legal regulations are inconsistent, full of loopholes and contradict each other.
In the United Kingdom, the government and public administration apparatus act in line with legal provisions. This is facilitated by the government’s extensive control over the legislative process, which enables the government to alter provisions if they constitute a hindrance to government policy objectives. Media and other checks on executive action deter any deviation.
An interesting test case arose as a result of the fraught stand-off between Parliament and the government during the autumn of 2019 when the former passed an act obliging the government to send a letter requesting an extension to the Article 50 deadline. The government did comply, albeit with bad grace and with two accompanying letters, saying it disagreed with the obligation. Despite these theatrics, the law was followed and an extension agreed with the European Union.
Completing Brexit entailed a large number of statutory instruments, a form of legislation that limits the legislature’s ability to scrutinize. There were also concerns that a large proportion of the legislation necessary to implement Brexit would be introduced in this way – with critics deploring so-called Henry VIII Clauses, referring to the 16th century English monarch’s propensity to over-ride Parliament. Given the volume of legal changes needed, the balance between primary legislation and a resort to statutory instruments is a delicate matter. However, it would be incorrect to regard the government as not acting in accordance with legal provisions. Uncertainty has long been a source of great concern for the business community and international investors in the United Kingdom. Since the passing of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the situation has improved considerably in terms of legal certainty, even if details still need to be clarified.
Some of the measures introduced to cope with the pandemic relied on statutory instruments after the Coronavirus Act was passed (for England), with a similar law in Scotland, while Northern Ireland and Wales used regulations. Parliaments have to agree to an extension of the duration of lockdown powers. These powers include a mix of obligations with (as the Boris Johnson may find) potential fines for breaches and guidance to citizens. Latterly, the balance has shifted back toward guidance.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/eu-withdrawal-act-2018-statutory-instruments
Fore Keidanren source: https://www.ft.com/content/37e87630-a9eb-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c
An interesting test case arose as a result of the fraught stand-off between Parliament and the government during the autumn of 2019 when the former passed an act obliging the government to send a letter requesting an extension to the Article 50 deadline. The government did comply, albeit with bad grace and with two accompanying letters, saying it disagreed with the obligation. Despite these theatrics, the law was followed and an extension agreed with the European Union.
Completing Brexit entailed a large number of statutory instruments, a form of legislation that limits the legislature’s ability to scrutinize. There were also concerns that a large proportion of the legislation necessary to implement Brexit would be introduced in this way – with critics deploring so-called Henry VIII Clauses, referring to the 16th century English monarch’s propensity to over-ride Parliament. Given the volume of legal changes needed, the balance between primary legislation and a resort to statutory instruments is a delicate matter. However, it would be incorrect to regard the government as not acting in accordance with legal provisions. Uncertainty has long been a source of great concern for the business community and international investors in the United Kingdom. Since the passing of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the situation has improved considerably in terms of legal certainty, even if details still need to be clarified.
Some of the measures introduced to cope with the pandemic relied on statutory instruments after the Coronavirus Act was passed (for England), with a similar law in Scotland, while Northern Ireland and Wales used regulations. Parliaments have to agree to an extension of the duration of lockdown powers. These powers include a mix of obligations with (as the Boris Johnson may find) potential fines for breaches and guidance to citizens. Latterly, the balance has shifted back toward guidance.
Citations:
https://www.gov.uk/eu-withdrawal-act-2018-statutory-instruments
Fore Keidanren source: https://www.ft.com/content/37e87630-a9eb-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c
To what extent do independent courts control whether government and administration act in conformity with the law?
10
9
9
Independent courts effectively review executive action and ensure that the government and administration act in conformity with the law.
8
7
6
7
6
Independent courts usually manage to control whether the government and administration act in conformity with the law.
5
4
3
4
3
Courts are independent, but often fail to ensure legal compliance.
2
1
1
Courts are biased for or against the incumbent government and lack effective control.
The United Kingdom has no written constitution and no Constitutional Court, although the supreme court fulfills this function. Consequently, the United Kingdom has no judicial review comparable to that in the United States or many other European countries. While courts have no power to declare parliamentary legislation unconstitutional, they scrutinize executive action to prevent public authorities from acting beyond their powers. A prominent example was the ruling of the High Court of Justice in November 2016 that the British government must not declare the United Kingdom’s separation from the European Union without a parliamentary hearing. The United Kingdom has a sophisticated and well-developed legal system, which is highly regarded internationally and based on the regulated appointment of judges.
Additional judicial oversight is still provided by the European Court of Human Rights, to which UK citizens have recourse. However, as a consequence of several recent high-profile ECHR decisions overturning decisions made by the UK government, some political figures called for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the court’s jurisdiction even before the referendum. The role and powers of the ECHR in the British legal system in a post-EU United Kingdom remain unclear.
In recent years, courts have strengthened their position in the political system. In cases of public concern over government action, public inquiries have often been held. However, implementation of any resulting recommendations is ultimately up to government, as the public lacks legal power. Judge-led inquiries tend to be seen by the public as having the highest degree of legitimacy, whereas investigations by members of the bureaucracy are prone to be regarded more cynically. Many such inquiries tend to be ad hoc and some drag on for so long that there is limited public awareness of the subject by the time their final reports are published. The extensive delay in publishing the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, finally made public only in July 2016 several years after it was supposed to be completed, was widely criticized by the government, media and citizen groups.
After the Supreme Court decision declared the first Johnson government’s attempt to prorogue Parliament in 2019 illegal, the new government questioned the existing balance of judicial and parliamentary powers, which in their view had become distorted over the previous decade. Attorney General Suella Braverman argued that to restore the supremacy of Parliament, courts should no longer be able to question primary legislation enacted by Parliament or interfere in parliamentary proceedings. The proposed Judicial Review and Courts Bill has met much criticism, however, with a cross-party group of members of parliament and peers, but also Conservative MP David Davis saying it could endanger government accountability and should therefore be dropped.
Citations:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9006/CBP-9006.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/judicial-review-trends-and-forecasts-2021-accountability-and-the-constitution
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/02/plans-to-restrict-judicial-review-weaken-the-rule-of-law-mps-warn
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/25/judicial-review-peoples-right-fight-government-destroy-courts-undemocratic
Additional judicial oversight is still provided by the European Court of Human Rights, to which UK citizens have recourse. However, as a consequence of several recent high-profile ECHR decisions overturning decisions made by the UK government, some political figures called for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the court’s jurisdiction even before the referendum. The role and powers of the ECHR in the British legal system in a post-EU United Kingdom remain unclear.
In recent years, courts have strengthened their position in the political system. In cases of public concern over government action, public inquiries have often been held. However, implementation of any resulting recommendations is ultimately up to government, as the public lacks legal power. Judge-led inquiries tend to be seen by the public as having the highest degree of legitimacy, whereas investigations by members of the bureaucracy are prone to be regarded more cynically. Many such inquiries tend to be ad hoc and some drag on for so long that there is limited public awareness of the subject by the time their final reports are published. The extensive delay in publishing the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, finally made public only in July 2016 several years after it was supposed to be completed, was widely criticized by the government, media and citizen groups.
After the Supreme Court decision declared the first Johnson government’s attempt to prorogue Parliament in 2019 illegal, the new government questioned the existing balance of judicial and parliamentary powers, which in their view had become distorted over the previous decade. Attorney General Suella Braverman argued that to restore the supremacy of Parliament, courts should no longer be able to question primary legislation enacted by Parliament or interfere in parliamentary proceedings. The proposed Judicial Review and Courts Bill has met much criticism, however, with a cross-party group of members of parliament and peers, but also Conservative MP David Davis saying it could endanger government accountability and should therefore be dropped.
Citations:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9006/CBP-9006.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/judicial-review-trends-and-forecasts-2021-accountability-and-the-constitution
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/02/plans-to-restrict-judicial-review-weaken-the-rule-of-law-mps-warn
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/25/judicial-review-peoples-right-fight-government-destroy-courts-undemocratic
To what extent does the process of appointing (supreme or constitutional court) justices guarantee the independence of the judiciary?
10
9
9
Justices are appointed in a cooperative appointment process with special majority requirements.
8
7
6
7
6
Justices are exclusively appointed by different bodies with special majority requirements or in a cooperative selection process without special majority requirements.
5
4
3
4
3
Justices are exclusively appointed by different bodies without special majority requirements.
2
1
1
All judges are appointed exclusively by a single body irrespective of other institutions.
The judicial appointments system reflects the informality of the constitution, but it has undergone substantial changes in recent years, which formalize a cooperative process without a majority requirement. Since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the powers of the Lord Chancellor have been divided up. Furthermore, the supreme court of the United Kingdom has been established, which replaces the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and relieves the second chamber of its judiciary role. The queen appoints 12 judges to the supreme court based on the recommendation of the prime minister who is advised by the Lord Chancellor in cooperation with a selection commission. It would be a surprise if the prime minister ignored the advice or the Lord Chancellor or selection commission or the queen ignored the recommendations of the prime minister. The queen has a formal, ceremonial role and she is bound to impartiality. In contrast, the Lord Chancellor has a highly influential role and consults with the legal profession.
There is no empirical basis on which to assess the actual independence of appointments, but there is every reason to believe that the appointment process will confirm the independence of the judiciary.
Given criticisms of the courts during the course of the Brexit process and especially after the Supreme Court judgment on the prorogation of Parliament in 2019, and given government attempts to restrict judicial review as well as the role of the prime minister in this process, the continued independence of judicial appointment from political interference will be important. However, a public outcry would be expected if independence were seen to be seriously threated.
Citations:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-prorogation-of-parliament/
There is no empirical basis on which to assess the actual independence of appointments, but there is every reason to believe that the appointment process will confirm the independence of the judiciary.
Given criticisms of the courts during the course of the Brexit process and especially after the Supreme Court judgment on the prorogation of Parliament in 2019, and given government attempts to restrict judicial review as well as the role of the prime minister in this process, the continued independence of judicial appointment from political interference will be important. However, a public outcry would be expected if independence were seen to be seriously threated.
Citations:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-prorogation-of-parliament/
To what extent are public officeholders prevented from abusing their position for private interests?
10
9
9
Legal, political and public integrity mechanisms effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Most integrity mechanisms function effectively and provide disincentives for public officeholders willing to abuse their positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Some integrity mechanisms function, but do not effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
2
1
1
Public officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.
The United Kingdom is comparatively free of explicit corruption like bribery or fraud, and there is little evidence that explicit corruption influences decision-making at national level. Occasional episodes arise of limited and small-scale corruption at the local level, usually around property development. The delinquents of recent scandals in UK politics mostly acted within the law. However, these scandals point to a continuing gap between politicians’ attitudes and the public’s expectations. Regulations against corruption have already been formalized to strengthen them, with the 2004 Corruption Bill consolidating and updating regulations into one law. On most international comparisons, the United Kingdom comes out with strong scores.
The members of parliament expenses scandal of 2009 provoked a call for more transparency in this field, but is an example of an informal “British” approach to the political problem of not wanting to raise the salaries of members of parliament. Instead, there was a tacit understanding that they could claim generous expenses. The rules were tightened very substantially in the wake of the scandal and an independent body was set up to regulate member of parliaments’ expenses. Codes of practice, such as the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code, have been revised (the latter most recently in August 2019) and are publicly available.
During the coronavirus pandemic, things took a turn for the worse when a number of scandals over firms associated with Conservative members of parliament – which had been awarded highly profitable pandemic-related contracts – led to an inquiry by the National Audit Office (see section G13.1) in which existing government practices were criticized. In a separate case, in January 2022, the High Court ruled that the use of a “high priority lane” through which contracts were awarded to firms personally known to members of parliament and members of the government had been illegal. While unfortunate, the most plausible explanation for these actions is desperation on the part of the government to secure the necessary supplies, leading to a lack of due diligence, and not so much deliberate corruption
In November 2021, Conservative MP Owen Paterson stepped down after the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had found him in breach of lobbying rules and described his actions as “paid advocacy,” something members of parliament are not allowed to do. In what became one of a number of criticisms of his style of government, Boris Johnson attempted to engineer a change the rules to enable Paterson to avoid what would have been a short suspension from Parliament, despite concerns from many of his own members of parliament. What proved to be a badly misjudged attempt to support Paterson met with widespread protest and Johnson had to abandon the plan. On 16 December, the Liberal Democrats won the byelection in Paterson’s vacated seat with a 34% swing in votes in what was widely seen as protest against government action in the Paterson case.
Citations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/826920/August-2019-MINISTERIAL-CODE-FINAL-FORMATTED-2.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/12/use-of-vip-lane-to-award-covid-ppe-contracts-unlawful-high-court-rules
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59188972
The members of parliament expenses scandal of 2009 provoked a call for more transparency in this field, but is an example of an informal “British” approach to the political problem of not wanting to raise the salaries of members of parliament. Instead, there was a tacit understanding that they could claim generous expenses. The rules were tightened very substantially in the wake of the scandal and an independent body was set up to regulate member of parliaments’ expenses. Codes of practice, such as the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code, have been revised (the latter most recently in August 2019) and are publicly available.
During the coronavirus pandemic, things took a turn for the worse when a number of scandals over firms associated with Conservative members of parliament – which had been awarded highly profitable pandemic-related contracts – led to an inquiry by the National Audit Office (see section G13.1) in which existing government practices were criticized. In a separate case, in January 2022, the High Court ruled that the use of a “high priority lane” through which contracts were awarded to firms personally known to members of parliament and members of the government had been illegal. While unfortunate, the most plausible explanation for these actions is desperation on the part of the government to secure the necessary supplies, leading to a lack of due diligence, and not so much deliberate corruption
In November 2021, Conservative MP Owen Paterson stepped down after the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had found him in breach of lobbying rules and described his actions as “paid advocacy,” something members of parliament are not allowed to do. In what became one of a number of criticisms of his style of government, Boris Johnson attempted to engineer a change the rules to enable Paterson to avoid what would have been a short suspension from Parliament, despite concerns from many of his own members of parliament. What proved to be a badly misjudged attempt to support Paterson met with widespread protest and Johnson had to abandon the plan. On 16 December, the Liberal Democrats won the byelection in Paterson’s vacated seat with a 34% swing in votes in what was widely seen as protest against government action in the Paterson case.
Citations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/826920/August-2019-MINISTERIAL-CODE-FINAL-FORMATTED-2.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/12/use-of-vip-lane-to-award-covid-ppe-contracts-unlawful-high-court-rules
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59188972