UCL Constitution Unit

@conunitucl

The UK's leading research centre on constitutional change, covering parliament, government, democracy, elections and more. Sign up to hear about our blog posts, events and publications 👉

1,088 Following11,422 Followers1,676 Posts

Website Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and conunitucl.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· 25d

What do we know about how Andy Burnham’s 'rewired Britain' might look? And did you know that the government is already proposing fiscal devolution and new powers on overnight visitor levies? Read more in Monitor 93 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

England

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act received royal assent on 29 April. The Act contains significant regulation-making powers on matters as diverse as Local Growth Plans, community right to buy, local scrutiny committees, and neighbourhood area committees. Further policy decisions will appear in these areas in the coming months.

Provisions to allow the government to impose new strategic authorities on areas that were unable to agree to work together were dropped from the bill during ping pong. This means that the government has no legal tools to ensure that their commitment to ‘complete the map’ is delivered. In June it was reported that plans for devolution in Thames Valley (Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Swindon) had fallen prey to party political disagreements.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, has proposed a roadmap towards fiscal devolution to England’s mayoralties. It is understood that officials are examining the practicalities of devolving a share of income tax revenue to mayoral areas, and possibly also a share of business rates revenue. An interim report is expected later this summer, with the full...

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· 25d

Have you read the Ethics and Integrity Commission's report on lobbying, business rules and disclosure, extensively citing us? Did you know that the bill that came first in the House of Lords private members' bill ballot is about lobbying? Read more in Monitor 93 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Lobbying

Baroness (Dianne) Hayter of Kentish Town came first in the private members’ bills ballot in the House of Lords, with her Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill. The system for regulating lobbying introduced by the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 applies only to consultant lobbyists, and with only 240 lobbyists on the Register, is estimated to catch only 4% of lobbying activity. Hayter’s bill would extend the regulatory regime to in-house lobbyists, such as David Cameron when he was working for Greensill.

The bill would not extend reporting requirements, which currently apply only to ministers and permanent secretaries, to contacts with other senior civil servants and special advisers. Nor does the bill expand the requirement to report who has been lobbied, or on what subject. And it does not end the exemption for ‘incidental lobbying’, or for people below the VAT threshold.

Second reading of the bill took place on 3 July. It received wide support across the chamber. But the relevant minister, Baroness (Ruth) Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, said the government...

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· 25d

Did you know that Supplementary Vote has been reintroduced for some mayoral elections in the UK? This means that the Greater Manchester mayoral election on 30 July will be the first not to take place under First Past the Post since 2022. Read more in Monitor 93 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Mayoral voting system and election in Greater Manchester

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, which received royal assent in April (see below), includes provision to replace the voting system for directly elected mayors in England, and for police and crime commissioners. Until 2022, the Supplementary Vote system was used for these elections: voters could express first and second preferences; if no candidate secured more than 50% of first preferences, all but the first two candidates were eliminated, and the second preferences of the eliminated candidates’ supporters were added to the tallies of the remaining candidates to determine the winner. That system was replaced by First Past the Post through the Elections Act 2022. The new legislation reverses that change.

The provision required secondary legislation to bring it into force. After the Makerfield by-election was called, ministers noted there was ‘now a possible scenario in which a Mayoral election may need to be held in Greater Manchester in the coming months’. They therefore brought the order forward, and it came into force on 18 June. In consequence, the Greater Manchester Mayor election, scheduled for 30 July, will take place using the Supplementary Vote...

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· 25d

Do you remember the government u-turning on abolishing the strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission? Did you know that over 170 MPs have signed an amendment in favour of a National Commission on Electoral Reform? Read more in Monitor 93 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Representation of the People Bill

Parliamentary consideration of the Representation of the People Bill has continued. The bill was published in February and received its second reading in the House of Commons in March (see Monitor 92). If passed, the bill would lower the voting age from 18 to 16 for all elections in the UK where that change has not already been made, and make a series of other changes to the conduct of elections and the rules of election campaigning.

The bill was examined in committee in March and April, and the proceedings were summarised in a House of Commons Library paper. Only one substantive amendment was agreed, removing provision for ministers to issue a ‘strategy and policy statement’ for the Electoral Commission. This provision was created under the previous government by the Elections Act 2022 and has always been strongly contested. Introducing the amendment, the minister, Samantha Dixon, said:

For the health of our democracy, it is essential that the Electoral Commission is fearlessly independent, commands trust across the political spectrum and the public, and is seen to...

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· 25d

Has Keir Starmer left a mark on the UK constitution? The latest edition of our constitutional review says that there have been welcome developments since 2024, but also problems, and reforms and resets not completed. Read more in Monitor 93 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Starmer’s constitutional record

Starmer has overseen some welcome developments for the constitution and for democracy, which add up to a substantial legacy. But there have also been problems.

On the positive side, his government ended the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords (see below). It established the Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) and freed the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards to launch investigations without prior approval. It accelerated devolution to combined authorities in England, and restored the Supplementary Vote system for electing English mayors (see below). Its Representation of the People Bill (including amendments announced in the administration’s final weeks) will, if passed, lower the voting age to 16 for all elections where it has so far remained at 18, restore Electoral Commission independence, and introduce new controls on some political donations (see below). Ministers have also staunchly defended the rule of law, at least in their rhetoric. The place of citizenship education in schools in England will be enhanced. Policy papers have signalled an intention to strengthen the role of the BBC and of public service media outlets more generally in ensuring healthy democratic discourse (see below). Relations with the EU...

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· 25d

The latest edition of our triannual constitutional review is now available! Monitor 93 examines Keir Starmer's constitutional legacy, Andy Burnham's possible plans, legislation on elections and English devolution, and much more. Read it 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo.... Or browse our thread 👇

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· 26d

🧵 The government was defeated in the House of Lords once yesterday, 15 July 2026. The government was defeated 212 to 171 votes on amendment 10 to the Sporting Events Bill [HL] at report stage. 👉 votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/...

Government Defeat in the House of Lords.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jul 9

With Andy Burnham very likely heading to Downing Street, what next for constitutional reform? In 15 minutes, join Frances Foley, @cathhaddon.bsky.social and @lisajames.bsky.social to discuss what could, and should, be on the agenda at our free, online event. Sign up 👉️ ucl.zoom.us/webinar/regi....

The Constitution Unit. What next for constitutional reform in the UK? 9 July 2026, 1:00pm–2:00pm. Frances Foley (Former Deputy Director of Compass). Dr Catherine Haddon (Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government). Lisa James (Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit). Chair: Dr Tom Fleming (Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit).

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jul 9

Andy Burnham often speaks about constitutional matters (a 'different culture' for whipping, 'modernising Parliament' and plans to 'take power out of Whitehall and Westminster'). So what might be next for reform? Sign up for our free, online event at 1pm 👉 ucl.zoom.us/webinar/regi....

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jul 9

The Ethics and Integrity Commission has today published its report into lobbying, business appointment rules and disclosure. The report heavily cites Robert Hazell, @peterr48.bsky.social, @lisajames.bsky.social and our colleague David Coen. Read it 👉 eic.independent-commission.uk/publication-....

"The principles, I think, are that the system needs to be efficient and effective; so, by efficient, it needs to be much speedier and less bureaucratic than it was when it was run by ACOBA. It needs to be effective in that the Rules need to be complied with, and in cases of non-compliance, there need to be effective sanctions."

Oral evidence, Robert Hazell, Professor of Government and the Constitution, UCL Constitution Unit, 21 April 2026

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jul 7

What is parliamentary scrutiny? Our latest explainer explores how parliamentary scrutiny improves and legitimises government legislation, policy and delivery, the types of scrutiny, the impact of scrutiny, and threats to scrutiny. Read our brand new explainer 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Explainer. What is parliamentary scrutiny? The Constitution Unit. Parliamentary scrutiny can both legitimise and improve government legislation, policy and delivery. Parliament can scrutinise the government through the legislative process, questions and statements, non-government debates and select committees. It would be wrong to see parliament’s scrutiny power as weak. The views of parliamentarians are often incorporated into policy.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jul 6

What is democratic backsliding? Our latest explainer explores key features of democratic backsliding, how it comes about, preventing it, and backsliding in the UK, including the important role that MPs play safeguarding our democracy. Read our brand new explainer 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Explainer. What is democratic backsliding? The Constitution Unit. Democratic backsliding is the process by which a country becomes less democratic over time. Recent examples of backsliding have often resulted from a gradual process, led by elected leaders. Preventing backsliding can involve designing institutions with guardrails in place, and transparency requirements and consistent high standards of behaviour by politicians.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 25

On the second day of our conference, we had two fascinating discussions about: 📑 Standards in public life 🗳️ Representation of the People Bill Speakers included @suehawley.bsky.social and @markpackuk.bsky.social. Listen 👉️ linktr.ee/constitution.... Watch 👉️ www.youtube.com/playlist?lis....

The Constitution Unit Conference 2026. The Constitution Under Labour. 24 June 2026: 9:30am: UK-EU relations ten years after the referendum; 11:30am: How can public confidence in UK democracy be restored?; 1:45pm: How should political parties choose their leaders?; 3:30pm: Making policy on difficult issues. 25 June 2026: 10:00am: What next for standards in public life?; 12:00pm: The Representation of the People Bill.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 25

The Representation of the People Bill In five minutes, join Phoebe Arnold, John Pullinger and Philip Rycroft to discuss the government's elections bill, and if these measures enough to deliver fair, safe and secure elections, at our free, online conference. Sign up 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

The Constitution Unit Conference 2026. The Representation of the People Bill. 25 June 2026, 12:00pm – 1:00pm. Phoebe Arnold (Policy Lead at Full Fact). John Pullinger (chair of the Electoral Commission). Philip Rycroft (author of the 2026 review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics). Chair: Prof Alan Renwick (Director of the Constitution Unit).

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 25

What next for standards in public life? In 30 minutes, join Baroness (Ruth) Anderson, @suehawley.bsky.social and @markpackuk.bsky.social and Doug Chalmers to discuss what has and needs to be done to strengthen standards at our free, online conference. Sign up 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

The Constitution Unit Conference 2026. What next for standards in public life? 25 June 2026, 10:00am–11:00am. Baroness (Ruth) Anderson of Stoke on Trent (Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office and Labour peer. Dr Susan Hawley (Executive Director of Spotlight on Corruption). Lord (Mark) Pack (Liberal Democrat House of Lords spokesperson for the Cabinet Office). Doug Chalmers (Chair of the Ethics and Integrity Commission). Chair: Lisa James (Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit).

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 25

The second day of our free, online conference kicks off at 10:00am today! Today we have two panels of experts and practitioners covering standards in public life and the Representation of the People Bill. Sign up, or watch and listen to yesterday's panels 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 24

On the first day of our conference, we had four fascinating discussions about: 🌍️ UK–EU relations 📈 Restoring public confidence in UK democracy 📣 Choosing political party leaders ✍️ Making policy on difficult issues Listen 👉️ linktr.ee/constitution.... Watch 👉️ www.youtube.com/playlist?lis....

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 24

Making policy on difficult issues In 30 minutes, join Lord (Charlie) Falconer of Thoroton, @ruthfox.bsky.social and @janesuit.bsky.social to discuss changing the law on issues like 'assisted dying' and digital ID, at our free, online conference. Sign up 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

The Constitution Unit Conference 2026. Making policy on difficult issues. 24 June 2026, 3:30pm–4:30pm. Lord (Charlie) Falconer of Thoroton (Labour peer and Lords sponsor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Dr Ruth Fox (Director of the Hansard Society). Prof Jane Suiter (Director of Dublin City University's Institute for Future Media, Democracy and Society). Chair: Dr Tom Fleming (Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit).

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 24

How should political parties choose their leaders? In 30 minutes, join Lord (Graham) Brady of Altrincham, @siennarodgers.bsky.social and @robertsaunders.bsky.social to discuss how our political leaders should be chosen, at our free, online conference. Sign up 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

The Constitution Unit Conference 2026. How should political parties choose their leaders? 24 June 2026, 1:45pm–2:45pm. Lord (Graham) Brady of Altrincham (Conservative peer and former chair of the 1922 Committee). Sienna Rodgers (Deputy Editor of The House magazine and former editor of LabourList). Dr Robert Saunders (Reader in Modern British History at Queen Mary University of London). Chair: Prof Meg Russell (Director of the Constitution Unit to May 2026).

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 24

How can public confidence in UK democracy be restored? In 30 minutes, join @pollycurtis.bsky.social, @mds49.bsky.social, Sue Tibballs and @anneliesedoddsmp.bsky.social to discuss what works to restore confidence in democracy, at our free, online conference. Sign up 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

The Constitution Unit Conference 2026. How can public confidence in UK democracy be restored? 24 June 2026, 11:30am–12:30pm. Polly Curtis (Chief Executive of Demos). Prof Marc Stears (Director of the UCL Policy Lab). Sue Tibballs (Chief Executive of Involve). Anneliese Dodds MP (Labour MP for Oxford East and former Minister for Women and Equalities and International Development) Chair: Prof Alan Renwick (Director of the Constitution Unit).

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 24

UK–EU relations ten years after the referendum In 30 minutes, join @katyhayward.bsky.social, @anandmenon.bsky.social and Lord (Jock) Stirrup to discuss current UK–EU relations, and possible future changes, at our free, online conference. Sign up 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

The Constitution Unit Conference 2026. UK–EU relations ten years after the referendum. 24 June 2026, 9:30am–10:30am. Prof Katy Hayward (Professor of Political Sociology at Queen's University Belfast). Prof Anand Menon (Director of the UK in a Changing Europe). Lord (Jock) Stirrup (chair of the House of Lords European Affairs Committee and Crossbench peer). Chair: Lisa James (Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit).

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 16

How can public confidence in UK democracy be restored? Join @pollycurtis.bsky.social, @mds49.bsky.social, Sue Tibballs and @anneliesedoddsmp.bsky.social to discuss what works to restore confidence in democracy, at our free, online conference next Wednesday. Sign up 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 11

How did taking evidence in public bill committees come about, and what can this teach MPs seeking House of Commons reform today? Our new guide, Reforming the Commons: The backbench MP's guide to achieving procedural change, discusses just this. Read it 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Box 10: Taking evidence in public bill committees

Prior to the establishment of public bill committees, most bills were considered in legislative ‘standing committees’. These had no evidence-taking powers: instead, they operated in a similar way to the chamber in miniature. From 1980, standing orders allowed for the use of socalled ‘special standing committees’, which could take oral and written evidence. But their use was rare.

In 1992, the Hansard Society’s Rippon Commission examined the legislative process. It found that legislative standing committees were largely ineffective and too focused on political point-scoring rather than meaningful scrutiny. Its solution was the more regular use of the special standing committees, with their evidence-taking powers a point of particular appeal.

Over the following years, a series of reports and analyses drew similar conclusions. The Modernisation Committee, Parliament First, and the House of Lords Constitution Committee all argued that legislative committees were inadequate for scrutiny, and found that bills should be routinely referred to a committee with evidence-taking powers. The Hansard Society reiterated its position in a 2004 publication.

The key impetus for change came from a second Modernisation Committee report, in 2006. This concluded that standing committees should be replaced with ‘public bill committees’, which would have evidence-taking powers and would as standard hold at least one evidence session with the minister and officials responsible for the legislation. In November that year, the Commons debated the report and approved government motions for the necessary standing order changes. Public bill committees began to operate soon after. However, 20 years later evidence-taking still does not apply to all bills – exceptions include key constitutional bills, and any bill starting its passage in the House of Lords.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 10

How did elections for select committee chairs and members come about, and what can this teach MPs seeking House of Commons reform today? Our new guide, Reforming the Commons: The backbench MP's guide to achieving procedural change, discusses just this. Read it 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Box 9: Electing select committee chairs and members

The election of select committee chairs and members was the product of a long period of debate and advocacy. From the late 1990s onwards, MPs and external organisations increasingly argued that the control exercised by party whips over committee appointments weakened the independence and authority of parliamentary scrutiny.

Early committee reports, particularly from the Liaison Committee, helped build support for the idea that committee leadership should be insulated from party management, but initial proposals were rejected by government. Momentum briefly accelerated after the 2001 general election, when the House rejected government attempts to block the reappointment of two experienced select committee chairs. This backbench revolt demonstrated dissatisfaction with the existing system and created a sense that reform was needed. However, initial ideas for reform from the Modernisation Committee were resisted by the whips and rejected by MPs.

Subsequently, the idea of electing chairs and members began to circulate, through sustained backbench campaigning, including from Parliament First (see box 3). The decisive breakthrough came in the wake of the 2009 expenses crisis, which created strong political pressure for visible reform of parliamentary institutions and drove establishment of the Wright Committee (see box 1). Many of its proposals were already well developed, but the crisis provided the opportunity to implement these ideas. The committee recommended that select committee chairs be elected by secret ballot of the whole House, and that committee members be elected by secret ballot within parties. The proposal gained cross-party support and was accepted by the government.

The text of this box cannot be fully reproduced because of character limits on ALT-text on Bluesky. However, its content can be found in the full report available on the Constitution Unit's website.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 9

How did the PM appearing in front of the Liaison Committee come about, and what can this teach MPs seeking House of Commons reform today? Our new guide, Reforming the Commons: The backbench MP's guide to achieving procedural change, discusses just this. Read it 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Box 6: The Prime Minister appearing in front of the Liaison Committee

For decades after the creation of departmental select committees in 1979, ministers regularly appeared before committees to account for their departments, but the Prime Minister did not. This absence increasingly came to be seen by MPs as a serious gap in parliamentary scrutiny.

Early attempts at change ran into firm resistance. In 2000 the Public Administration Committee invited Prime Minister Tony Blair to give evidence on the Ministerial Code, arguing that only he could properly be held accountable for it. Blair declined, citing the long-standing convention that Prime Ministers did not give evidence to select committees. The Liaison Committee, in a report on executive scrutiny, made the case that a regular appearance would improve matters while avoiding multiple committee summonses, but Downing Street again rejected the proposal, warning that it might undermine established lines of ministerial responsibility.

Behind the scenes, however, pressure was building. Robin Cook, then Leader of the House, encouraged the Prime Minister to embrace the proposal as part of a wider drive for modernisation, and Blair’s advisers also sought to persuade him that appearing before a committee could demonstrate openness and confidence rather than weakness. For a time this went nowhere, and in early 2002 Cook even asked Tony Wright, then chair of the Public Administration Committee, to drop the issue, believing Blair would never agree.

The breakthrough came unexpectedly. In April 2002 Blair approached the Liaison Committee chair and offered to appear twice a year to discuss domestic and foreign affairs.

The text of this box cannot be fully reproduced because of character limits on ALT-text on Bluesky. However, its content can be found in the full report available on the Constitution Unit's website.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 8

How did proxy voting for new parents come about, and what can this teach MPs seeking House of Commons reform today? Our new guide, Reforming the Commons: The backbench MP's guide to achieving procedural change, discusses just this. Read it 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 7

How did Westminster Hall debates come about, and what can this teach MPs seeking House of Commons reform today? Our new guide, Reforming the Commons: The backbench MP's guide to achieving procedural change, discusses just this. Read it 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Box 4: Westminster Hall

The creation of Westminster Hall as a parallel debating chamber illustrates how procedural reform can emerge from sustained institutional pressure, committee inquiry and a willingness to proceed incrementally. By the late 1990s, concerns were growing about the limited time available in the main Commons chamber. Governments complained of difficulties in progressing their legislative programmes, while backbenchers and select committees argued that opportunities to debate topical issues and committee reports were severely constrained.

In its first report of the 1998–99 session The Parliamentary Calendar, the Modernisation Committee was tasked with identifying practical ways to ease these pressures. The committee noted the competing demands on the chamber and the scarcity of time for debates on matters of public and parliamentary importance. It examined international practice, in particular the Australian ‘Main Committee’, which operated as a parallel debating forum to the House of Representatives, and raised the possibility of establishing a similar arrangement in Westminster. At this stage, the committee did not advocate a specific solution but invited MPs’ views before undertaking further work.

Following debate on the report, the committee launched a second inquiry and, in its report Sittings of the House in Westminster Hall, proposed the establishment of a parallel chamber. It argued that the House had always adapted its procedures to manage pressure on time, and that this would represent another step in that evolution. The proposed chamber was intended primarily as a backbench forum, creating additional opportunities for debate – particularly of select committee reports – without duplicating legislative business.

The text of this box cannot be fully reproduced because of character limits on ALT-text on Bluesky. However, its content can be found in the full report available on the Constitution Unit's website.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 6

How did the Petitions Committee come about, and what can this teach MPs seeking House of Commons reform today? Our new guide, Reforming the Commons: The backbench MP's guide to achieving procedural change, discusses just this. Read it 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Box 2: Introduction of the Petitions Committee

For much of the twentieth century, public petitions to the House of Commons had limited practical impact on parliament. Although individuals could submit petitions through MPs and receive a published government response, petitions were not debated and rarely shaped parliamentary business. As expectations of public participation evolved – particularly with the growth of online engagement – this increasingly came to be seen as a missed opportunity for parliament to respond more visibly and meaningfully to public concerns.

The launch of the Number 10 e-petitions website in 2006 marked an important shift, demonstrating strong public appetite for digital participation. However, because the system was owned by the executive rather than parliament, it reinforced concerns that petitions were being treated as a communications exercise rather than a route into parliamentary scrutiny. These concerns were taken up by select committees and external bodies, which argued that petitions should provide a clearer link between public support and parliamentary debate.

Over the following years, a series of committee inquiries and reports, including from the Procedure Committee and the Wright Committee (see box 1), made the case that parliament needed to become more responsive to pressures from outside Westminster. They argued that petitioning should be better integrated into parliamentary processes, allowing issues with demonstrable public backing to be considered, debated and, where appropriate, investigated by MPs.

Initial reforms, including the introduction of petition debates organised through the Backbench Business Committee, improved visibility but proved difficult to sustain within existing time constraints.

The text of this box cannot be fully reproduced because of character limits on ALT-text on Bluesky. However, its content can be found in the full report available on the Constitution Unit's website.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 5

How did the 'Wright reforms' come about, and what can this teach MPs seeking House of Commons reform today? Our new guide, Reforming the Commons: The backbench MP's guide to achieving procedural change, discusses just this. Read it 👉 www.ucl.ac.uk/social-histo....

Box 1: The Wright Committee

The Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons – better known as the ‘Wright Committee’ after its chair, the Labour MP Tony Wright – was established in July 2009 in the aftermath of the MPs’ expenses scandal. It was created as a temporary committee to examine four specific areas: the appointment of select committee members and chairs; the appointment of Deputy Speakers; the scheduling of Commons business; and how the public might initiate debates in the House.

The committee’s recommendations focused on improving parliament’s reputation by making its processes more transparent, independent, and effective. Its principal achievements included the introduction of elections for select committee chairs and members, the creation of the Backbench Business Committee, and the eventual establishment of the e-petitions system.

Many of the ideas that the Wright Committee advanced were not new: proposals such as a Backbench Business Committee had appeared in a 2007 Constitution Unit report, while reforms to the appointment of select committee chairs had been debated for years (see box 9).

The expenses crisis – though largely unconnected – provided a political moment in which longstanding ideas could be assembled into a coherent package and gain the support needed to pass.

UCL Constitution Unit@conunitucl· Jun 4

You might notice that our blog looks a little different: we have migrated to a new website! But do not worry: everything is still there, all our old links should redirect, and existing email subscribers will continue to be notified about new posts. Explore it 👉 blogs.ucl.ac.uk/constitution....