# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The review, headed by the independent peer, Lord Faulks, found "courts were increasingly considering the merits of government decisions themselves, instead of how those decisions were made - moving beyond the remit of judicial review".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Right to challenge government in courts overhauled

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The review, headed by the independent peer, Lord Faulks, found "courts were increasingly considering the merits of government decisions themselves, instead of how those decisions were made - moving beyond the remit of judicial review".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
He said: "The prime minister came to speak to me the Sunday before he became prime minister and said: 'Would I come in to Downing Street to try and help sort out the huge Brexit nightmare?'."I said, yes, if first of all you are deadly serious about actually getting Brexit done and avoiding a second referendum; secondly, double the science budget; third, create some Aria like entity, and fourth support me in trying to change how Whitehall works and the Cabinet Office works because it is a disaster zone. And he said 'deal'."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health department was 'smoking ruin' on Covid - Cummings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
He said: "The prime minister came to speak to me the Sunday before he became prime minister and said: 'Would I come in to Downing Street to try and help sort out the huge Brexit nightmare?'."I said, yes, if first of all you are deadly serious about actually getting Brexit done and avoiding a second referendum; secondly, double the science budget; third, create some Aria like entity, and fourth support me in trying to change how Whitehall works and the Cabinet Office works because it is a disaster zone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Justin Parkinson
Political reporter, BBC News

Boris Johnson has nominated businessman Peter Cruddas for a peerage, despite his rejection by the honours watchdog.

The Lords Appointments Commission did not support ennobling the businessman, who quit as Tory co-treasurer in 2012 following cash-for-access allegations.

Mr Cruddas later won a libel case against a newspaper over its claims.

Mr Johnson rejected the commission's recommendation, becoming the first PM to ignore its advice on a nomination since it was set up in 2000.

Labour accused Mr Johnson - who received £50,000 from Mr Cruddas for his campaign to become Conservative leader in 2019 - of "cronyism".

Former Archbishop of York John Sentamu and ex-MI5 boss Sir Andrew Parker are also among those given peerages in the political honours list.

'Historic concerns'

Mr Cruddas, who has donated more than £3m to the Conservatives since 2007, resigned as party co-treasurer in 2012 after a newspaper story suggested he was offering access to then Prime Minister David Cameron for a donation of £250,000 a year.

But the following year he won £180,000 in damages in a libel victory against the Sunday Times, which had published the claims. The damages were later reduced to £50,000 on appeal.

In a letter to the Lords appointment commission, Mr Johnson said its rejection of Mr Cruddas's nomination for a peerage related "to historic concerns in respect of allegations" made during his time as co-treasurer.

But he added that these had been found to be "untrue and libellous" and that an internal Conservative Party investigation had discovered "no intentional wrongdoing" on Mr Cruddas's part.

Mr Johnson also said the committee had found "no suggestion of any matters of concern" before or since the 2012 allegations.

Mr Cruddas, the founder of financial services company CMC Markets and a prominent Brexit supporter, had a "long track record of committed political service" and was one of the UK's "most successful business figures", the prime minister argued.

'Massive U-turn'

The commission provides advice but appointments to the Lords are ultimately a decision for the prime minister.

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: "After months of revelations about the cronyism at the heart of this government, it's somehow appropriate the prime minister has chosen to end the year with a peerage to Peter Cruddas."

She added that there was "one rule for the Conservatives and their chums, another for the rest of the country".

Former environment minister Sir Richard Benyon; former MEPs Dame Jacqueline Foster, Syed Kamall and Daniel Hannan; Cerebral Palsy Scotland chief executive Stephanie Fraser; and Dean Godson, director of the Policy Exchange think tank, have also been nominated for Conservative seats in the Lords.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer chose Leeds City Council leader Judith Blake; former MPs Vernon Coaker and Jennifer Chapman, who chaired his Labour leadership campaign; former MEP Wajid Khan; and Gillian Merron, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and a former Labour MP.

As well as Mr Sentamu and Sir Andrew, the nominations for crossbench - non-party - peerages are former judge Sir Terence Etherton and Sir Simon McDonald, former permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office.

The Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, criticised the number of new peers, which will bring the total membership of the House of Lords to more than 830, accusing Mr Johnson of a "massive U-turn" on his predecessor Theresa May's policy of reducing it in size.

It added "insult to injury" that the appointments had been announced while Parliament was in recess, he said.

"It may also now be the time to review the role and the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission," Lord Fowler added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Peter Cruddas: PM overrules watchdog with Tory donor peerage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Justin Parkinson Political reporter, BBC News Boris Johnson has nominated businessman Peter Cruddas for a peerage, despite his rejection by the honours watchdog. The Lords Appointments Commission did not support ennobling the businessman, who quit as Tory co-treasurer in 2012 following cash-for-access allegations.

# data[].attributes.body
Abortion and NI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The DUP, which opposed the changes to the abortion laws by Westminster, has proposed a piece of legislation at Stormont seeking to restrict abortions in cases of non-fatal disabilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion: UK government to compel Stormont to implement new laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The DUP, which opposed the changes to the abortion laws by Westminster, has proposed a piece of legislation at Stormont seeking to restrict abortions in cases of non-fatal disabilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Excellent article reflection on the relationship between branches

# data[].attributes.subject
Excellent article reflection on the relationship between branches

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Critics of the prime minister tend to deride him as inconsistent; a popularity obsessed, anthropomorphised Groucho Marx quote for whom fidelity to principle can never trump fidelity to self-interest. But in Boris Johnson's defence, there is one belief to which he has remained steadfast over the past 12 months: his determination to control the independent judiciary.

His interest in the justice system was trailed in his final Telegraph columns last summer, in which he filed falsehood-strewn clickbait railing against our " crook-coddling criminal justice system " and vowing to "root out the leftist culture of so much of the criminal justice establishment".

However, since entering Downing Street he has found himself moved, both by experience and by the counsel of that ubiquitous Unnamed Downing Street Source, to train his attentions more broadly. The problem with our justice system, it has been decreed, is the judiciary. Cue the anonymous and self-aggrandising media briefing that the PM's chief adviser Dominic Cummings "wants to get the judges sorted".

The course was set at the beginning of Johnson's premiership when he unlawfully prorogued parliament and then sent out pliant ministers to spread misinformation about the judges who had dared point this out, from the business minister Kwasi Kwarteng telling the BBC that "many people ... are saying that the judges are biased" to Johnson's own response when asked about the supreme court decision, chuntering: " There are a lot of people who want to frustrate Brexit."

***

It was back on 23 June 2016 that more than 17.4 million voters expressed their desire to leave the European Union in a referendum referred to by Prime Minister Theresa May in 2019 as "the biggest democratic exercise in our country's history".

Just over four months later three unelected judges apparently attempted to overturn the democratically expressed will of the British people.

Ruling on judicial review proceedings brought by Gina Miller, the high court judges held that the process for giving notification to leave the EU under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty legally required an act of parliament, and that the notice to withdraw could not be given by the government using its prerogative powers.

The front page of the Daily Mailthe following day made a statement that echoed around the world. "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" was emblazoned above photographs of the three judges involved. A profile of each was provided on the Mail's website: "One founded a EUROPEAN law group, another charged the taxpayer millions for advice and the third is an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer."

The Telegraph opted for a similar front page: "Judges vs the people". Sajid Javid, then communities secretary, told the BBC's Question Time that "This is an attempt to frustrate the will of the British people and it is unacceptable." When May was asked whether she was concerned about the impact of the Mail's headlines, she chided: "It is important that we have a free press."

On 24 January 2017, the supreme court upheld the decision of the high court. As rage swirled on social media and Nigel Farage accused the "establishment" of trying to "frustrate" Brexit, Iain Duncan Smith declared that the decision had created "real constitutional issues about who is supreme". As the future foreign secretary Dominic Raab soberly warned, an "unholy alliance of diehard Remain campaigners, a fund manager [and] an unelected judiciary" had "thwart[ed] the wishes of the British public".

Where to start with the errors strewn throughout this reporting and commentary? On no possible interpretation of the judgments did either the high court or the supreme court "block Brexit". They simply delineated how, as a matter of law, Brexit could be achieved - a route that the government duly followed and accomplished within two months.

Similarly, the courts were not "straying into political territory". As the high court judgment clearly stated, all sides to the litigation, including the government, agreed that the case raised "a justiciable question which it is for the courts to decide", and one which was "a pure question of law".

Judicial review is not, as politicians would have us believe, a tool by which judges overrule a political decision that they disagree with

But the reporting and commentary betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of how our constitution actually works. Concepts that are merrily tossed around in political discourse as if commonly and widely understood - such as parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers and judicial independence: the cornerstones of our democracy - were on this occasion so poorly discussed that it suggested widespread unfamiliarity among the political class with the very basics of how our country operates.

On the last of those three concepts, judicial independence, there was an even graver problem. The reaction to this entire episode, by ministers, parliamentarians, media and the public, exemplified a sprawling global phenomenon in which the independence of the judiciary is under direct attack. We have all been fed accusations against lily-livered liberal judges prioritising the rights of illegal immigrants, money-grabbing compensation claimants and career criminals over the law-abiding British public. But the "Enemies of the People" headline and associated commentary, personally attacking the individual judges, felt like a significant, emblematic moment; a sudden, choking realisation of how careless we have been in our treatment of our constitutional principles, and how close we might be creeping to doing irreparable damage to the framework of our democracy.

***

Johnson's government charted a deliberately provocative course against the judiciary in September 2019, after the supreme court unanimously ruled that the prime minister had acted unlawfully in advising the Queen to prorogue parliament.

A brief reminder of those inconvenient facts: Johnson advised the Queen to prorogue parliament for an unprecedented five weeks in the run-up to "Brexit Day", briefing in the press that this had nothing to do with stifling parliamentary scrutiny of his plans to force a "no deal" exit from the EU, and was instead all to do with preparing a Queen's Speech. He then refused to sign a witness statement confirming this on oath, or indeed to offer any reason to the courts for the prorogation. The supreme court ruled that proroguing parliament, and thereby preventing MPs from holding the government to account, with "no reason, let alone a good reason" was unlawful.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Lady Hale at the supreme court delivering the judgment on prorogation. Photograph: Reuters TV

The supreme court's unanimous judgment, delivered by Lady Hale, was damning for the government. Parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability, the foundational principles of our constitution, could be undermined if the government was able to prorogue parliament without any legal limit. There must, therefore, in order to maintain parliamentary sovereignty, be some legal limit on the power to prorogue.

As with the Miller decision, three years earlier, the ruling was quickly, falsely, reframed as the judges taking sides on Brexit. Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg denounced the judges as having effected "a constitutional coup".

In truth, while a judgment of enormous significance, the decision simply involved the application of established principles of common law to a novel situation. The government's response, rather than apologising for having given the Queen unlawful advice, was to attack the judges who pointed this out.

Since the turn of the year, there has been a series of high-profile court decisions in which judicial reviews have confirmed that the government has acted unlawfully. In February, the court of appeal ruled against the Home Office when it attempted to deport 25 convicted Jamaican nationals, having detained them in conditions where they could not access legal advice. Cummings's response was to demand "urgent action on the farce that judicial review has become".

Last month, the court of appeal ruled that British-born Shamima Begum ought to be permitted to return to the UK from a Syrian refugee camp to appeal against the Home Office's decision to deprive her of her British citizenship, the Home Office's own lawyers having accepted that she could not otherwise possibly have a "fair and effective" hearing. Johnson told the Sunday Telegraph that the solution to such pesky judicial interference might be to deprive Begum and those like her of legal aid. Having pondered whether "judicial review does indeed go too far", he declared it "odd and perverse" that as a nation we allow those whose lives are seriously affected by executive fiat to have access to legal redress.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Shamima Begum reading the letter from the Home Office revoking her British citizenship. Photograph: ITV News

It is with such high regard for our fundamental constitutional principles that the government has just announced the composition of the commission on the constitution, rights and democracy, following through on its 2019 manifesto commitment to hold a constitutional review to " restore trust in democracy " by ensuring that judicial review "is not abused to conduct politics by another means".

The problem, of course, is that "conducting politics by other means" is a misrepresentation of the purpose and operation of judicial review. Public authorities must act within the law. If they do not, judicial review exists as the corrective. Judicial review is not, as politicians would have the public believe, a tool by which judges overrule a political decision that they disagree with. The questions that the courts decide are those are of lawfulness, applying common law principles developed over centuries.

Politicians being frustrated by the courts is the sign of a healthy constitution. You would not know it from the government's narrative, but the overwhelming majority of applications for judicial review are resolved in the government's favour; the charge of judges abusing trust in democracy is just a complaint that the courts are not conferring on Johnson a 100% win rate. And the key point, often marginalised and forgotten, is this: we live in a parliamentary democracy. The courts are required to follow the law passed by parliament. If parliament believes that the courts have misunderstood the effect of the law, or misinterpreted it, parliament can - at any time it has not been arbitrarily and unlawfully prorogued - legislate to make its intentions clear.

But that's not what this government wants. Led by a prime minister indulged by a lifetime of never being told no, and guided by a self-styled "disruptor" with no respect for truth or the rule of law, we have an executive which, perhaps uniquely, has no intention of deferring to the courts or to parliament, or being in any way bound by the law.

It is, in the scheme of things, trivial but nevertheless emblematic that when Cummings himself was challenged about breaking the law during lockdown, the government not only gaslighted the public about the facts, but enjoined Suella Braverman, the attorney general and superintendent of the Crown Prosecution Service responsible for prosecuting breaches of lockdown regulations, to abuse her office by offering a public opinion on Twitter vouchsafing the lawfulness of Cummings' conduct.

This was around the time that Priti Patel, the home secretary, irritated at judges having the audacity to rule against her in immigration detention bail hearings, sent a letter attempting to influence a senior immigration judge, and then, when the story was leaked, permitted her civil servants to lie about it on social media.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Priti Patel, the home secretarty. Photograph: Matt Dunham/AP

Institutions are expected to bend to the whim of the prime minister and his supplicants. The new commission is no different, which is why in Edward Faulks, the PM has appointed a chair who has not only written extensively about his own settled views on "the courts' incursion into political territory", but was a justice minister under Chris Grayling from 2013 to 2015 at a time when they were telling the Daily Mail that judicial review was a "promotional tool for left-wing campaigners" and legislating to restrict its use. Little surprise that he has also called for the repeal of the Human Rights Act, another awkward constraint on ministerial caprice.

Judges are tough critters, robust enough to deal with the rough-and-tumble of strong media criticism and the occasional politician stepping out of bounds. The reaction of Sir Terence Etherton to the "Enemies of the People" story is a case in point. JK Rowling tweeted: "If the worst they can say about you is you're an OPENLY GAY EX-OLYMPIC FENCER TOP JUDGE, you've basically won life." Sir Terence and his husband had the tweet put on a mug.

More than half of all judges surveyed reported that they had feared for their personal safety. Threats have become common

However, judges are also human. And the cumulative effect of years of chipping away at the foundations is starting to show. In the immediate aftermath of the headline, the lord chief justice sought advice from the police for his protection - the first time in his career that he had needed to do so. More than half of all judges surveyed reported that they had feared for their personal safety. Threats of hostage-taking, assault and death have become common. Some have been physically assaulted in court.

Not all of this can be attributed to media and political comment; judges are dealing with the most combustible elements of society and making decisions that can overturn people's lives. There is a heightened risk inherent in the job. But it would be the height of naivety to pretend that printed and tweeted words do not have consequences.

And it is not merely a British phenomenon. In the US not only has the supreme court divided along party lines since 2010, but President Trump makes unrestrained attacks on "so-called" judges and "Obama judges" who rule against his unlawful executive conduct. While British people may laugh at the pantomime of Trump tweeting "See you in court!" at judges, here home secretaries are indulged in their threats to "fight" judges for their liberal treatment of "foreign criminals". Trump's rhetoric is ours.

If we lose judicial independence, we lose the rule of law. The day a judge makes a binding decision affecting the rights and liberties of one of us, not on the legal and factual merits, but with a nervous glance to the press and public galleries, or with a beady eye on political favour or punishment, is the day that the decay in our democracy turns terminal.

Judicial review is what protects us, the individual, from the overbearing might of the state. It exists to ensure that, however venal, corrupt or malign the politicians who govern us, we are treated equally and according to the law. The government's claims to be restoring trust in democracy by rolling back these checks and balances mask an audacious power grab, allowing them to govern unlawfully and without accountability.

Casting a glance across the world, we see the logical consequences taken to their grisly extremes. Every would-be authoritarian regime has the judiciary in its sights. From the Polish Law and Justice party attempting to remove a third of its senior judges, to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan dismissing a quarter of all judges following the failed military coup in 2016, to Hungary's Viktor Orbán's "climate of fear" leading to the removal of unfavoured judges and the installation of party loyalists.

Let us never be so naive as to suppose that we are immune.
* Fake Law: The Truth About Justice in an Age of Lies is published by Picador (£20). To order a copy go to guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply. Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Against the law: why judges are under attack, by the Secret Barrister

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Critics of the prime minister tend to deride him as inconsistent; a popularity obsessed, anthropomorphised Groucho Marx quote for whom fidelity to principle can never trump fidelity to self-interest. But in Boris Johnson's defence, there is one belief to which he has remained steadfast over the past 12 months: his determination to control the independent judiciary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the Labour peer, Lord Hain, used parliamentary privilege to name Sir Philip Green as the businessman at the centre of a legal action about harassment, did he open a parliamentary Pandora's Box?

The ancient right of parliamentary privilege gives MPs and peers unrestricted free speech in their debating chambers - this enables them to name names without any fear of being dragged before the courts and sued for defamation.

It is, potentially, a powerful tool for righting wrongs, but, as they say in teen epics, with great power, comes great responsibility.

And there are some in Westminster who now fear an epidemic of social media-driven injunction busting in Parliament.

This week, I attended a meeting convened by a newish think-tank, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, where an audience mostly composed of senior lawyers, judges and constitutional scholars, thought Lord Hain's actions an outrage.

"It cannot be right," thundered superlawyer Lord Pannick, that any parliamentarian could simply set aside the rulings of a court and name a name that it had ordered should not be disclosed.

Worse still, it might reveal details of a live court case, so breaking both the injunction and the sub judice rule, under which parliamentarians do not discuss actions before the courts.

Rare events

So should this right be curtailed in some way?

The first point to make is that these events are fairly rare. The last few years have seen a handful of cases, mostly involving the former Lib Dem MP, John Hemming, who in March 2011, used parliamentary privilege to reveal the existence of a super-injunction granted to former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Fred Goodwin and later mentioned Ryan Giggs as the footballer whose name was protected by another injunction.

The clerks of the Commons and Lords are kept aware of live court cases, so that they can alert the chair to prevent breaches - sometimes they will be forewarned; perhaps the MP or peer concerned will have attempted to put down a question or an EDM and been blocked from doing so.

But if not, they have to react pretty rapidly, or the name will be uttered, and broadcast live on BBC Parliament, and thence released into the wilds of the twittersphere, in a matter of seconds.

This kind of thing could become a problem.

There have been legal challenges to the use of parliamentary privilege in the European Court of Human Rights, but the ECHR has thus far always upheld the right of freedom of speech within a parliament; but there is also the implication that if a parliament fails to police the actions of members effectively, then the court might begin to look at this differently.

Were Sir Philip to bring an action saying Lord Hain had infringed his right to a fair trial, under Article 6 of the European Declaration, the result would be a rather interesting case.

How, then, might the Commons and the Lords deal with MPs or peers set on breaking the terms of an injunction, to name some name?

The current rules advise against such actions unless the parliamentarian in question "thinks it right". This is not exactly a high bar. Peers are also supposed to act "on their honour".

One suggestion on toughening up this system, made at the Bingham Centre meeting, was that an MP or peer contemplating breaking an injunction should discuss the idea with the Speaker or Lord Speaker, and could be open to some kind of disciplinary action if they went against their advice.

They would then have the chance to justify their action, perhaps before a committee, or maybe even the whole House. And at the end of the process there would have to be the possibility of a significant sanction - including suspension or expulsion.

Whether MPs or peers would be prepared to accept such a restriction, and vote through the rule changes needed to underpin it, is another question.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the limits to parliamentary free speech?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the Labour peer, Lord Hain, used parliamentary privilege to name Sir Philip Green as the businessman at the centre of a legal action about harassment, did he open a parliamentary Pandora's Box?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
m I going too far? Will this jump the shark? Would it be too much to give an ermine-lined parachute to my brother so he can float into the House of Lords?" Thus Boris Johnson may have mused to himself as he ran a forefinger down the list of names that he has just announced as new peers.

"Here's a leaping lordship for Evgeny Lebedev, billionaire son of a former KGB agent turned oligarch, host of wonderful parties at his Italian castle, owner of a pet wolf called Boris and a chap whose newspaper was so good to me when I was mayor of London. Let's make a lady of Claire Fox, former activist in a Trotskyist sect that was an apologist for the IRA, and for whom all is forgiven because she campaigned to leave the EU. Let's give her some company by ennobling Beefy Botham and a host of the Brexit gang. And we can bulk up the numbers with old mates, former ministers, ex-MPs and party donors, nothing that many of my predecessors have not done."

Yeah, the prime minister will have said to himself after wrestling with the conflict of interest about his brother for less than a second. "Let's add Jo to the list. The only real headache will be explaining to dad Stanley, sister Rachel and other brother Leo why they aren't getting a perch in the Lords as well."

Boris Johnson will have expected the cocktail of derision and outrage that greeted his picks for the peerage. And he will have said to himself: " Quid ergo?" Because he will have also anticipated that the howls of horror at the shamelessness of his list would not last terribly long. Spumes of revulsion about appointments to the Lords are one of the most predictable rituals of our politics. If the prime minister is a Labour one rewarding his friends and supporters, the outrage will mainly come from Tories. If the prime minister is a Conservative, which has been the case more often over the past 100 years, the condemnation will erupt from the other side. Words such as "cronyism" and "disgrace" are hurled in the direction of Number 10. Then the outrage subsides, everyone's attention swivels to other subjects and the House of Lords trundles on as a gilded mockery of Britain's claim to be a fully developed democracy.

Try explaining the upper house of our national legislature to someone from abroad. Start with the 92 members who are hereditary peers, the rump left over as the price for getting rid of the rest without too much fuss when Tony Blair was prime minister. These hereditaries possess a vote in one half of our parliament because an ancestor swung his sword on the winning side of a battle fought long ago or was the illegitimate child of a priapic monarch or was owed a favour by the ruler of their time. The rest of the lords and ladies are "life peers", the category invented by Harold Macmillan in the 1950s when a gesture was needed to acknowledge the rise of meritocracy but he did not want to do anything so modern as to make peers subject to election. The "lifers" are a gallimaufry of the genuinely distinguished, highly diligent and seriously expert, along with the lifelong bore and the absolutely pointless, the part-timers and the absentees, the ex-MPs seeking a retirement home and the chums, flunkies and sugar daddies of various prime ministers. The US Senate, representing 331 million Americans, has 100 members. The British Lords, elected by no one, will be swollen to more than 800 members once the Johnson appointees are installed. Only the national people's congress of the People's Republic of China is larger.

Peers lack the legitimacy to stop a prime minister in possession of a Commons majority from having his way

The important question, one that often gets neglected when discussing this subject, is who is truly responsible for this bloated absurdity? It is not Boris Johnson. He didn't invent this state of affairs - he's just exploiting it in a particularly egregious fashion. Nor does the blame fundamentally lie with the peers themselves. So as long as the place exists, there will always be people keen to ease their bottoms on to the claret-coloured benches. There's a nice £300-plus daily fee for turning up. No requirement to speak to make the claim. Expenses on top. The car parking is handily situated in the centre of London. A titled handle may add apparent respectability to a corporate letterhead or open doors for a lobbyist's pitch. Lords are now required to declare their financial interests, but the shy peer can always take a "leave of absence" if they'd prefer not to have their sources of income perused by the public. Membership of the Lords is a bauble or a reward or an earner or all three. Or it is a kind of private members' club that pays you for attending. Explaining why he wanted a seat in the Lords, one former cabinet minister once told me: "All my friends are there."

Many peers know that their institution can't be justified and that they look ridiculous. Reacting to the Johnson list, the Lord Speaker, Norman Fowler, bewailed a " lost opportunity " to trim the ranks of the peers, though this missed the point for those who think that the appropriate number of unelected legislators is zero.

It is the lack of democratic legitimacy that lies at the heart of why the Lords is both so tainted and so unreformed. Absent any claim to a public mandate, peers can never be a fully functional element of the legislature and that means they can never be properly capable of checking the executive of the day. Governments like it that way so they keep it that way.

Peers will sometimes refettle pieces of legislation and, very occasionally, they use their delaying power to slow down a government, but they lack the legitimacy to stop a prime minister in possession of a Commons majority from having his way. "Who elected you?" a prime minister can always demand. Because no one did, the Lords can never be more than a constitutional speed-bump for the executive to roll over. This is why successive governments have not made a serious effort to change things. It suits them to have an upper house neutered by its lack of democratic credibility.

They have had willing collaborators among MPs, a lot of whom prefer to keep a compromised second chamber because a legitimate one might challenge the otherwise near-untrammelled power of the Commons. This has been, and for decades, the fundamental obstacle. Way back in the 1960s, Lords reform was stymied by an unlikely alliance of Michael Foot, a man of the left, and Enoch Powell, a man of the right. In the decades since, various schemes to modernise the Lords have been promoted, only to perish at the hands of MPs. Each suggested reform has been dashed on the rocks of vested interests. The most vehement opposition has not come from the peers themselves. They know they'd have to pack their robes and be off if ever told the game was up by a government elected with a manifesto pledge to democratise the Lords. The real problem has always been the Commons. New Labour's half-hearted attempts to complete Lords reform in the first decade of this century foundered on the resistance of MPs, many of them on the Labour side, who preferred to have a weak second chamber. It was a similar story when Nick Clegg championed a new upper house, largely elected by proportional representation, during the coalition years. That was abandoned in the face of resistance from Conservative MPs.

A currently fashionable idea is to reconfigure the upper house as a chamber representing the nations and the regions, a notion promoted by those who think it might provide some extra glue to hold together a fractured kingdom. This sometimes comes attached to the idea that the chamber could be relocated to York or some other city that is not London. The idea is not without merit, but it will go the same way as every other reform that has been floated over the decades unless the ruling prime minister and the governing party see advantage in it for themselves.

A critical mass of MPs has never wanted to allow the other house to acquire more democratic legitimacy and the enhanced authority that would come with it. A ridiculous second chamber persists because many MPs think it in their interests to keep the Lords incredible. If you want to blame someone for the absurdities of the Lords, point your finger not at the peers. The real villains are, and always have been, sitting in the Commons.

* Andrew Rawnsley is Chief Political Commentator of the Observer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The House of Lords is absurd because it suits MPs to keep it that way

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Am I going too far? Will this jump the shark? Would it be too much to give an ermine-lined parachute to my brother so he can float into the House of Lords?" Thus Boris Johnson may have mused to himself as he ran a forefinger down the list of names that he has just announced as new peers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In November 2017, Roger Hallam looked up from his cup of tea in a central London cafe and made a bold prediction. He had been walking me through the principles behind a new air pollution campaign he was organising, which involved small groups of activists blocking some of London's busiest junctions, when he paused, mid-sentence. "Of course, this is just small-scale stuff compared to what is coming," Hallam said. "The scale of the ecological crisis is a different thing. It is going to change everything."

The air pollution campaign, Stop Killing Londoners, had yet to gain traction with politicians or the media, but Hallam didn't seem too concerned. He explained that it was partly being used to "road-test" civil disobedience tactics. "Within a year or so we will have thousands of people on the streets, blocking large parts of central London for days on end," he said. "Hundreds will be arrested and the government will be forced to sit down and tell the truth about the climate emergency."

It seemed fanciful at the time. Hallam, a charismatic, committed and sometimes divisive figure, was splitting his time between his organic farm in Wales and King's College London, where he was researching a PhD about political activism. Earlier that year, he had staged a hunger strike, which led King's College to divest from fossil fuels. Despite this recent victory, and an air of certainty that would become familiar to those who dealt with him in the months to come, there was still little to suggest Hallam's predictions would come to pass - almost word for word - within 18 months. Nothing he had been involved in before had achieved the kind of impact that he was now prophesying. The movement that would carry out these protests, Extinction Rebellion (XR), didn't yet exist.

Extinction Rebellion, which would be founded a few months later, was the brainchild of a small group of activists, academics and friends, including Hallam, and Gail Bradbrook, a similarly unorthodox environmentalist. The daughter of a coal miner from South Elmsall in Yorkshire, Bradbrook studied for a PhD in molecular biophysics before working on various social justice campaigns, such as tax justice and the Occupy movement. But by 2016, disillusioned by how little political progress these groups had made, Bradbrook came to the conclusion that she was missing vital information about how to bring about meaningful change. There was something else that nagged at her, too - an awareness of something deeper inside her "that needed addressing". (In conversation, Bradbrook moves easily between detailed analysis of the latest climate science and organisational theory to discussions of spirituality. She often holds prayer sessions before meetings.)

In March 2016, Bradbrook travelled to Costa Rica in search of enlightenment. There, in a story that has become part of XR lore, she took a series of powerful psychedelic drugs. "The most fucking terrifying thing I have done in my entire life," she told me later. "But I was willing to do it because I needed help." Before the hallucinogenic trip began, she offered up a prayer to be shown the "codes for social change". Those words would have a key role to play in the emergence of XR.

A few months after she returned to the UK, Bradbrook met Hallam for the first time. Their initial conversation lasted four hours - Hallam complained that he had a headache by the end - as they discussed the unfolding environmental crisis, the inability of the current system to even recognise the oncoming chaos, and theories about how to transform politics. As Hallam stood up and prepared to leave, he half-jokingly told Bradbrook that the ideas he had laid out about how to transform society were the "codes" she needed. "The hairs on the back of my neck stood up," Bradbrook said later. "It was exactly the phrase I had used during my prayer in Costa Rica."

Over the coming months, Bradbrook and Hallam continued their conversations, along with a loose grouping of like-minded people, who eventually formed Rising Up, a network of activists committed to peaceful civil disobedience. It wasn't until April 2018 that, in Bradbrook's home on a hillside overlooking the Cotswold town of Stroud, the idea of Extinction Rebellion was born. At the "Stroud meeting", as it has become known, a core group of about 15 long-time campaigners, activists and academics decided that after years of small-scale political campaigns, about everything from fracking to migrant rights, they were, in Bradbrook's words, "ready to go for the 'big one'". As another of those present, Simon Bramwell, who was Bradbrook's partner at the time, recalled later: "It was [then] that we decided to go for broke. We decided to throw all of our energy and intelligence at something that could change the planet."

But before such grand aims could be achieved, there were more mundane tasks. Agreeing on a name for the new group turned into a 25-step process that went on for weeks. "It was an absolute mission," said Clare Farrell, another XR co-founder, who has a background in sustainable fashion and design. When "Extinction Rebellion" was first suggested, Farrell recalled that "there was quite a bit of disquiet, because some people thought it was too harsh". But eventually it won.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Extinction Rebellion co-founder Gail Bradbrook being arrested after a protest in London in October 2019. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/Reuters

According to Bradbrook, the group quickly realised it needed to appeal beyond what she called the "leftist echo chamber". The campaign would aim not only to tap into progressive concerns about social justice and equality, but also traditionally conservative themes such as national security and protecting family. XR's goals were boiled down to three demands of the government: to tell the truth about the climate and ecological emergency; to halt biodiversity loss and commit to net zero emissions by 2025; and to follow the lead of a citizen's assembly. A presentation titled Heading for Extinction and What to Do About It was developed, and quickly became known as "the talk". It starkly outlined the scale of the crisis and the dire consequences of inaction, as well as XR's belief that if enough ordinary people took to the streets for peaceful civil disobedience, then radical change was possible.

Then came the hard work of building a movement from scratch in just a few months. Farrell remembers that those early meetings had a different atmosphere to other campaigns she had been involved in: "It felt to me straight away like a group of people who were serious, who were very interested in how the system works and how to change it." She recalled the excitement of working with experts in so many different fields, from design to science, philosophy and politics. "It was the breadth of the collaboration that was really fundamental."

Hallam told me at the time that they did not want it to simply be an online phenomenon, which he feared could flare up and then disappear again just as quickly. Instead, XR needed people to go out into their own communities, explain, recruit - and then rebel. From the summer of 2018 onwards, volunteers began touring the country, giving "the talk" to people gathered in libraries and meeting halls, cafes and universities, pubs and churches. These meetings were sometimes tense affairs, as the scale of the climate crisis was laid out. But there was also a sense of relief among many of those present - that their fears about the crisis were being acknowledged, and that they were being told there was something they could do.

On 31 October 2018, XR formally launched its campaign with a Declaration of Rebellion outside the Houses of Parliament. It had been billed as a small, symbolic act that would probably attract a couple of hundred people. In a taste of what was to come, more than 1,000 turned up and took a spontaneous decision to occupy the road outside parliament. The group's first big test came the following month, when it held a day-long demonstration aiming to block five bridges across the Thames in central London. On a beautiful winter's day, thousands turned out, blocking the bridges and bringing chaos to central London in the biggest act of peaceful civil disobedience seen in London for decades.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

An Extinction Rebellion blockade at Oxford Circus in London during two weeks of protest in April 2019. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/AFP/Getty Images

Five months later, in April 2019, came the protest that the group had been working towards since its foundation. Thousands of people occupied key sites across London for almost two weeks. More than 1,000 were arrested for what were peaceful, respectful, sometimes joyful, protests. The arrests were a key part of XR's strategy, which drew particular inspiration from the civil rights movements in the US and Gandhi's independence struggle in India. By encouraging as many protesters as possible to get themselves arrested, XR's plan - devised chiefly by Hallam - was to overwhelm the court system, with the aim of winning support and forcing change.

The protests turned XR into a movement of global significance, with scores of XR groups springing up in cities around the world, as well as in towns and cities across the UK. By the end, XR's representatives were sitting down for talks with senior politicians and ministers in the UK. Supporters and funders - many of whom had been sceptical before April - showered praise and money on the new movement, and in the weeks that followed, the UK parliament and scores of councils around the country declared a climate emergency. XR had changed the conversation around the crisis. Now it had a big question to answer: what next?

ithin XR there was elation about the success of April's rebellion, as well as exhaustion and uncertainty about the future. "A lot of these people had been involved in lots of would-be uprisings that they had hoped would take off but hadn't, so they were wary of pinning too much hope on this," said Daze Aghaji, a 20-year-old student and an early member of XR Youth, the influential youth wing of the movement. "And then, when it did all come together, it was a bit like: 'Oh, OK - what do we do now?'"

Hundreds of new people had come forward to join the movement in the weeks after the April protests, many of them giving up their jobs to dedicate themselves to XR full-time. This influx boosted XR's organisational capacity, but also brought new ideas about what the group should be, and competing theories about how to achieve the change needed to tackle the climate crisis.

Among the key figures to emerge during the April rebellion was Farhana Yamin. Her experience - as a former UN lawyer who had helped draft the Paris agreement and worked on many of the key climate treaties of the past three decades - enhanced XR's credibility, and she became one of the group's most convincing public advocates. Over lunch at a north London cafe a few months later, she told me she had joined XR after becoming disillusioned with her world of diplomacy, thinktanks and policymakers. "I had been working with people who were not telling the truth about where we are, and are in a state of euphoric, egocentric denial," she told me. When she was asked to join XR, she agreed immediately. "I saw [coverage of] the October rebellion, when people laid down and got arrested and Greta was there, and I thought: yes, that is what we need, that is what I want to do. It looked beautiful."

Amid all the praise for XR's achievements up to that point, there had also been some significant criticism. From the left, some argued that XR's "beyond politics" framing fatally overlooked the role that neoliberal capitalism, driven by the right, played in the ecological crisis - exploiting people and natural resources, particularly in the global south, for the benefit of a wealthy minority. There was also growing criticism from black and ethnic minority groups, who said XR's tactic of encouraging mass arrests ignored the reality of police racism, and effectively made the protests the preserve of privileged white people.

Meanwhile, from the right, critics branded those involved in Extinction Rebellion variously as middle-class layabouts or drug-addled hippies, dangerous killjoys or extremist anarchists. During the April 2019 protests, Daily Mail headlines described the group as a "radical far-Left eco-rabble" and detailed how "the Extinction Rebellion eco-mob plotted chaos in London from vegetarian café in leafy market town". (XR's "critics have left no cliche unmolested," wrote James Butler in the London Review of Books.)

After April, new recruits also had to be fitted into XR's decentralised structure, which includes an organising hub of "circles", each with around a dozen or more individuals who focus on particular themes, from "actions" to "finance", "legal support" to "regenerative culture". On top of this, there are around 485 XR groups spread across more than 70 countries, with about 130 in the UK. There are also scores of affiliated groups based around shared identities, such as XR doctors, XR farmers or XR Muslims. People do not formally join XR, and there is no central membership list. Local groups can plan and carry out their own actions as long as they follow XR's 10 core principles and values, including a commitment to non-violence and focusing on systemic problems rather than "blaming and shaming" individuals.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

A 'sinking house' floated down the River Thames in London by Extinction Rebellion protesters in November 2019. Photograph: Guy Reece/Extinction Rebellion/PA

Although XR's structure aims, as its website says, to build a "participatory, decentralised and inclusive" movement, some complain that it allows those with the loudest voices - often white, middle-class men - to dominate. Others complain of endless meetings, labyrinthine decision-making processes, and the sprawling network of WhatsApp groups the organisation has spawned.

According to Ronan McNern, a veteran of the Occupy movement and a key figure in XR's communications operations, the months after the April rebellion were dominated by internal wrangling. On one side were Hallam and his backers, who were pushing for an escalation in provocative direct action to keep the momentum going. They believed that a relatively small group of people, prepared to keep escalating their disruptive, peaceful, direct action could bring about systemic change quickly - especially if the elite in the country are in terminal decline, as Hallam regularly insisted. On the other side were people who argued the good will and moral high ground achieved in April should be used to build a broader movement, within the UK and internationally.

An increasingly important voice in those discussions was XR Youth, a semi-autonomous group that had been created at the start of 2019. "I felt pretty early on that as a young person I didn't really fit into main XR," said Aghaji. "There was so much love of young people, but not in the right way. I would go to some things and everyone would be like, 'Do social media! Kids love social media!' I was like, this is so sweet, but it is not where we need to be." Another founding member of XR Youth, Nils Agger, 26, who was also one of XR's original co-founders, agreed. "I had been feeling for a while that there was something missing, there were just not that many people my own age."

From the start, XR Youth wanted to approach the climate crisis from a more international perspective, to highlight the role of activists in the global south, and to change the perception that this was a struggle for the future, rather than for the present. The message, said Aghaji, was "save ourselves" rather than "save our grandchildren".

As the summer went on and internal disputes about XR's future grew more intense, the conflict came to a head over a proposed action to shut down Heathrow airport. Those in favour, including Hallam, wanted to fly drones within the Heathrow exclusion zone in order to bring the airport to a standstill for days. For others in XR, this represented a counterproductive step-change in the level of civil disobedience. They warned that there could be serious safety concerns, and a real risk that the public goodwill built up in April would be lost.

Towards the end of July, after a series of gruelling discussions, events took an unexpected turn. During a key strategy meeting in Stroud attended by Hallam, Bradbrook and other leading figures, there was a sudden commotion at the door. Aghaji, Agger and half a dozen members of XR youth had turned up, unannounced. Bearing cinnamon rolls with We Love You written in icing on top, they occupied the meeting and read out their three demands, one of which was that the Heathrow plans should not go ahead.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Daze Aghaji, an early member of XR Youth. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian

"At first they were like: 'What are you doing coming in here demanding things?'" recalled Aghaji. "But we were like: 'This is literally what you have taught us to do.'" Agger said it was a strange feeling, as one of XR's founders, to be occupying an XR meeting: "It was us trying to make some kind of intervention in the way XR was working. Heathrow was j

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In November 2017, Roger Hallam looked up from his cup of tea in a central London cafe and made a bold prediction. He had been walking me through the principles behind a new air pollution campaign he was organising, which involved small groups of activists blocking some of London's busiest junctions, when he paused, mid-sentence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Committee Example: Intelligence and Security scrutinise govt 

# data[].attributes.subject
Committee Example: Intelligence and Security scrutinise govt 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UK government "badly underestimated" the Russian threat and the response it required, according to an inquiry.

The Intelligence and Security Committee's long-awaited report into Russian activity in the UK said the government was "playing catch-up" and needed to take "immediate action".

The report also claimed the government made no effort to investigate Russian interference in the EU referendum.

The Russian Foreign Ministry called the report "Russophobia".

No 10 said the government was "fully aware of the significant and enduring threat" Russia posed.

The ISC's inquiry covers a number of topics, including disinformation campaigns, cyber tactics and Russian expatriates in the UK.

Much of the "highly sensitive" detail was not published due to fears Russia could use the evidence to threaten the UK.

'Hot potato'

The committee said Russian influence in the UK was now "the new normal", and the UK was a "top Western intelligence target" for the state, only behind Nato and US.

ISC member, Stewart Hosie, told reporters the government "took its eye off the ball, because of its focus on counterterrorism", adding: "The government had badly underestimated the response required to the Russian threat, and is still playing catch up."

In its report, the group said UK was "clearly a target" for disinformation campaigns around its elections, but that the issue was described as a "hot potato", with no one organisation taking a lead to tackle it.

The report criticised intelligence agencies for not taking action during the EU referendum, despite there being "credible open source commentary" suggesting "influence campaigns" from the Russians during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

And it said the government only "belatedly realised the level of threat which Russia could pose" after the so-called "hack and leak" operation against the Democrats in the 2016 US election, calling it a "game changer".

The committee said: "Had the relevant parts of the intelligence community conducted a similar threat assessment prior to the [EU] referendum, it is inconceivable that they would not have reached the same conclusion as to Russian intent, which might then have led them to take action to protect the process."

The report also said that social media companies "hold the key and yet are failing to play their part", adding that the government should "name and shame those which fail to act."

Mr Hosie also said no-one in Government wanted to touch the issue of Russian interference when it came to elections with a "10-foot pole".

He told reporters: "The report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum, because they did not want to know.

"The UK government have actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfere."

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab later told a press conference the government 'categorically rejected' the claim, saying it was "the comment of one MP" on the committee.

The government also rejected the committee's call for a full assessment by intelligence agencies of potential Russian meddling in the 2016 referendum, saying it had "seen no evidence of successful interference".

Committee places blame at government's door

This report may not be what some expected, but it is still damning.

Many expected the committee to have answered the question of whether there was interference in political events like Brexit.

Instead, it says the problem was the government and the spy agencies failed to even look at this question.

British intelligence has, at least in recent years, been reluctant to get involved in anything that looks "political" and treated the issue of trying to protect democracy like a "hot potato".

But ultimately it's the government that the committee blames.

More broadly, there are serious questions about the failure of the UK to confront the spread of Russian money and influence over a long period.

And there is an urgent call for new legislation to deal with an ongoing challenge.

Lords links

The report also accused successive governments of welcoming Russian oligarchs "with open arms" due to the investments they brought with them.

The committee said "few questions if any were asked about the provenance of this considerable wealth", with particular issues around the UK's investment visa scheme, the housing market, the judicial system and PR firms.

They said: "A lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene, are accepted because of their wealth."

The report said it had concerns about links between these wealthy Russians and the House of Lords.

"It is notable that a number of members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state," it read.

"These relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them."

A big collective shrug from Russia

The reaction to the ISC's report from Russia has been a big collective shrug.

The Russian foreign minister dismissed it out of hand and called it "Russophobia".

And a Kremlin spokesman said Russia doesn't meddle in other countries elections.

What this report has done is to present a broad picture of Russia as a powerful foe.

And I don't think in the Kremlin they will be too unhappy at that.

'No reason for delay'

Committee members also criticised No 10 for the delay in the report's publication - seven months after it was submitted to No 10 to sign off.

Downing Street was accused of holding back the report ahead of December's UK election and for delaying its nominations to set up the new committee - both claims it has denied.

But speaking at a press conference to launch the report, one of the ISC's committee members, Kevan Jones, criticised Boris Johnson for not signing it off sooner, saying there was "no reason for delay".

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab tweeted: "We've been clear that Russia must desist from its attacks on the UK and our allies.

"We will be resolute in defending our country, our democracy and our values from such Hostile State."

The ISC's former chair, Dominic Grieve - who pushed for the report to be published before the election - told BBC News his pleasure at seeing it come to light was "mitigated by a sense of frustration and bluntly anger at the way the government behaved".

Labour's shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy accused the PM of taking a "political decision" to block the report.

She added: "The government has underestimated the response required to Russia and it is imperative we learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK 'badly underestimated' Russian threat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UK government "badly underestimated" the Russian threat and the response it required, according to an inquiry. The Intelligence and Security Committee's long-awaited report into Russian activity in the UK said the government was "playing catch-up" and needed to take "immediate action". The report also claimed the government made no effort to investigate Russian interference in the EU referendum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Conservative MP Julian Lewis has been kicked out of the Conservative parliamentary party after beating Chris Grayling to become chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Believed to be No 10's preferred choice, Mr Grayling was widely expected to get the role.

But concerns had been raised that the body's impartiality could be undermined, and MPs backed Mr Lewis.

The committee scrutinises the work of the intelligence and security services.

A senior government source told the BBC that Mr Lewis "has been told by the chief whip that it is because he worked with Labour and other opposition MPs for his own advantage".

Labour's shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy criticised the decision tweeting: "Completely self-defeating act that bears the hallmark of a government so arrogant it really believes it is above scrutiny.

"What is in the Russia report that Johnson doesn't want to see the light of day?"

Former Tory Cabinet minister and ex-chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Dominic Grieve, told the BBC's Newsnight: "What troubles me about this episode, quite apart from its utter absurdity, and now withdrawing the whip from Julian, who is indeed highly respected, is the mindset it gives about what on earth is going on in Downing Street.

"Why did they try to manipulate this process? They shouldn't have done.

"The committee can only exist, the committee can only be respected... if it is seen to be non-partisan, and independent."

After Boris Johnson nominated five Conservative MPs for the committee last week - giving them a majority - it had been thought Chris Grayling was a shoo-in for the chairman position.

But it seems there was a coup. Opposition members of the committee were worried Mr Grayling would be too close to No 10, and decided to back Julian Lewis. It appears he then backed himself, thus securing a majority.

That's left No 10 embarrassed and it seems angry. Sources say Mr Lewis had the whip removed because he had told the Tory chief whip he would back Mr Grayling.

I hear the committee is meeting again on Thursday to discuss when to publish the much delayed Russia report. Some are pushing for it to be published next week - and believe today's events could make that more likely.

Mr Grayling held cabinet positions under David Cameron and Theresa May including transport secretary.

Despite supporting Mr Johnson in the Conservative leadership election he was not given a role in government.

The other Conservative committee members are Sir John Hayes, Mr Lewis, Mark Pritchard, and Theresa Villiers. There are two Labour MPs - Kevan Jones and Dame Diana Johnson - plus Labour peer Lord West of Spithead. Stewart Hosie is the SNP's representative on the committee.

Russian report

One of the first jobs of the newly formed committee will be to publish a long-awaited report on alleged Russian interference in UK politics.

Publication has been held up by the 2019 election and then a delay in setting up the committee. It has been the longest hiatus since the committee was established in the early 1990s.

The report includes evidence from UK intelligence services concerning Russian attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum and 2017 general election.

The delay in publication has led to speculation the report contains details embarrassing for the Conservatives, however leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg said the hold up was due to a number of committee members leaving Parliament and the need "to make sure that the right people with the right level of experience and responsibility could be appointed".

Speaking in the House of Commons on Monday, Mr Jones said the report should be produced before Parliament goes into recess on 22 July.

"There's no reason why it shouldn't be. It's been through both the committee, it's been agreed through the redaction process, and it's been agreed by government," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New intelligence committee chair loses Tory whip

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conservative MP Julian Lewis has been kicked out of the Conservative parliamentary party after beating Chris Grayling to become chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Believed to be No 10's preferred choice, Mr Grayling was widely expected to get the role.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conduct in office, interesting opinion piece 

# data[].attributes.subject
Conduct in office, interesting opinion piece 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Twenty five years have passed since Lord Nolan published the report that has provided the moral framework for British public life ever since.

John Major, British prime minister at the time, had commissioned the report in the wake of an embarrassing scandal where two Conservative MPs were allegedly paid to ask parliamentary questions on behalf of then Harrods owner Mohamed Al-Fayed. Nolan delivered the goods. His report set the framework for the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which monitors integrity in parliament.

'Almost every single one of the Nolan principles of public life is being breached by the government of Boris Johnson'
Leighton Andrews, University of Cardiff

A quarter of a century later is the ideal moment to assess Nolan's legacy. The verdict is dreadful. It could hardly be worse. It makes one despair.

In a carefully written article published in Political Quarterly last year, Professor Leighton Andrews of the University of Cardiff declares that:

"The Nolan era is over. Ministers can perform badly but not be sacked. They can mislead Parliament but escape punishment. Cabinet and other ministers can breach collective responsibility with impunity. Details of Cabinet meetings and indeed Cabinet minutes can be leaked without any sanction. Ministers can undermine civil servants without consequence to themselves."

According to Andrews, almost every single one of the Nolan principles of public life is being breached by the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Those words were written last November.

The situation has grown worse since then. Much worse.

The Code

In my column three weeks ago, I drew attention to the demand inside the Ministerial Code, a set of rules and principles issued by the prime minister to outline the standards of conduct for government ministers, that ministers who "knowingly mislead parliament would be expected to offer their resignations to the prime minister".

I gave a series of examples of how the ministerial code was being routinely flouted by the prime minister himself. Since writing that piece, further statements from the prime minister in the House of Commons have been proven false. For example, the prime minister told parliament in early June about Covid-19 that " the tests conducted at the 199 testing centres, as well as the mobile test centres, are all done within 24 hours".

Lord Nolan, a Lord Justice of Appeal, presents his powerful team of lawyers, academics, industrialists and politicians to the media on 17 January, 1995 (Reuters)

As the statistical checking website Fullfact drily noted last week: "When this was said, on 3 June, 19 percent of tests at regional testing sites and five percent of tests at mobile test centres were done within 24 hours." Yet, in a flagrant defiance of the ministerial code, Johnson's false statement remains on the House of Commons' record.

But not telling the truth to parliament is not the only problem. Ever since Johnson became prime minister, there have been a number of troubling episodes concerning conflicts of interest around decisions made by ministers.

Conflict of interest

Robert Jenrick, housing secretary, ought to have resigned over the deeply embarrassing set of revelations concerning his role in a decision to allow planning permission for a development on the Isle of Dogs, East London, by former Tory donor Richard Desmond.

Jenrick had reportedly been in contact with Desmond and gone against the advice of government officials when awarding the planning permission. According to The Guardian, Jenrick's decision was made just 24 hours before the introduction of local community charges from Tower Hamlets council, which "would have cost Desmond at least £40m".

The council challenged the decision, which has since been overturned. According to the Independent, High Court documents showed that what Jenrick did was "unlawful by reason of apparent bias".

Jenrick later told the House of Commons: "I took the decision in good faith and with an open mind. I am confident that all the rules were followed in doing so... It is not unusual for a secretary of state to come to a different conclusion from a local authority. It is not unusual for a secretary of state to come to a different conclusion from a planning inspector."

At the very least, one would have expected Johnson to have ordered a Cabinet Office enquiry. Instead, the prime minister stood by Jenrick until the fuss had died down.

Unanswered questions

Details have emerged this week about an £840,000 (over $1m) contract being awarded to a close ally of Dominic Cummings, Johnson's special adviser, and Michael Gove, the current Cabinet Office minister, without open tender.

According to a joint investigation by openDemocracy and the Guardian, the contract was awarded to Public First, "a small policy and research company in London's Tufton Street," which is "run by James Frayne - whose work alongside Cummings dates back to a Eurosceptic campaign 20 years ago - and Rachel Wolf, a former advisor to Gove who co-wrote the Conservative Party's 2019 election manifesto".

It is important to stress that there is no illegality in these cases. But what does emerge is a pattern of conflict of interest and cronyism which damages the reputation of the government, and also British public life

The government justified the lack of public competition for the contract due to emergency regulations that allow urgent commissions in response to the Covid-19 crisis. However, the report revealed that the Cabinet Office's public record states that part of the work related to Brexit rather than coronavirus.

According to the report, "a Cabinet Office spokesman said that this was due to bookkeeping methods, insisting that all the focus group research done by Public First was in fact related to the coronavirus crisis".

In response to a set of questions from MEE, a Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "Public First was awarded a contract to carry out focus groups across the UK in response to the Covid-19 crisis. This has been published on gov.uk in the normal way."

A poster of Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove is seen in Kentish Town on 3 June (Reuters)

The spokesman told the Guardian that Public First were "contracted to undertake this work because of their wealth of experience in the area," and that they "carried out this work to make sure the vitally important public health messages the Government was issuing were the right ones. This work will continue to inform future Covid-19 campaign activity."

A pattern of cronyism

Another case emerged on Tuesday thanks to a diligent investigation by Mark Curtis and Matt Kennard at the Declassified website. It shows that the Home Office donated more than £80,000 (over $100,000) to The Henry Jackson Society (HJS), a neoconservative think tank, during 2015-17. The money was to produce a report on UK connections to Islamist terrorism.

Declassified notes: "The HJS has donated more than £12,000 to mainly Conservative MPs since 2013. Priti Patel, now the home secretary, was given £2,500 by the HJS in 2013 to cover a visit to Washington DC, while Michael Gove was given £2,764 in 2016 for a visit to New York."

In response to MEE questions, the Home Office said: "We work with a wide range of organisations to understand the threats we face and to protect the public. Funding was agreed in 2014 for a third edition of a report by the Henry Jackson Society titled 'Islamist Terrorism: The British Connections'. Given that the organisation had produced the previous two editions, they had the necessary expertise to update the report effectively."

MEE approached HJS for a comment but received no response by time of publication.

It is important to stress that there is no illegality in these cases.

But what does emerge is a pattern of conflict of interest and cronyism which damages the reputation of the government, and also British public life. In his original report 25 years ago, Lord Nolan warned of the dangers of a fall in the standards of public life. "Unless corrective measures are promptly taken," he wrote, "there is a danger that anxiety and suspicion will give way to disillusion and growing cynicism."

His words could not ring clearer today.

I don't believe it's a coincidence that this collapse in standards comes at the same time that Boris Johnson and his senior adviser Dominic Cummings are waging war on the civil service.

The Ministerial Code makes it clear that ministers should "uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service". There's been no attempt to do this. Already, Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary and UK's top civil servant, has been forced out. Several other permanent secretaries are leaving as well.

The state's integrity

The British state used to be renowned internationally for its integrity. With Johnson in charge that reputation is being swept away.

Nolan set a number of moral principles which offer the ethical grounding for matters including misleading parliament, MPs' interests, business appointments for former ministers, ministerial accountability, impartiality of the civil service and neutrality of the monarch.

In each one of these areas, standards have fallen under the last three Conservative prime ministers and are now in collapse under the current prime minister. Johnson and the team that surrounds him do not believe that ordinary standards belong to them.

As Eric Anderson, Johnson's headmaster when he was at Eton, wrote in his school report: "I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else."

The warning signs

All the warning signs were there before Johnson became prime minister, as Leighton Andrews vividly points out in the following passage:

"In July 2018, within a week of resigning as foreign secretary, Boris Johnson signed a contract with the Daily Telegraph to write a weekly column. He did not apply to ACOBA [the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments] for permission until two weeks after signing the contract.

The British state used to be renowned internationally for its integrity. With Boris Johnson in charge that reputation is being swept away

The chair of ACOBA, Baroness Browning, wrote to Johnson on 8 August, saying:

"The committee considers it unacceptable that you signed a contract with The Telegraph and your appointment was announced before you had sought and obtained advice from the committee, as was incumbent upon you on leaving office under the Government's Business Appointment Rules."

The letter pointed out that the rules were contained within the Ministerial Code and this was "a failure to comply with your duty" to seek advice. Johnson had been reminded in a letter from his permanent secretary on leaving office of his duties. He claimed that he did not receive this letter before signing the contract.

The committee refused to grant retrospective advice, stating that Johnson's actions were "a breach of the rules". It said that it expected that his Telegraph contract would be amended to confirm that he would not make use of privileged information arising from his role as foreign secretary.

In many eyes, Johnson's abuse of the rules was accentuated by his refusal to leave the foreign secretary's Carlton House residence for three weeks, despite warnings from the permanent secretary.

Boris Johnson's behaviour provides another illustration of the end of the Nolan consensus: in December 2018 he was told by the Commons Standards Committee to apologise for his "over‐casual" failure to declare £52,000 (over $65.000) worth of expenses in an incident which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said was "a lack of attention to House requirements, rather than inadvertent error".

Lord Nolan, who died in 2007, must be rolling in his grave at the catastrophic collapse of standards under the current British prime minister.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boris Johnson's post-truth government marks the end of the Nolan consensus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twenty five years have passed since Lord Nolan published the report that has provided the moral framework for British public life ever since. John Major, British prime minister at the time, had commissioned the report in the wake of an embarrassing scandal where two Conservative MPs were allegedly paid to ask parliamentary questions on behalf of then Harrods owner Mohamed Al-Fayed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How May's Local Election Defeat Affects Brexit - Brexit Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Educational Resources. Some nice resources on Human Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Educational Resources. Some nice resources on Human Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning resources

We have developed a range of learning resources for schools, colleges and universities. These resources have been developed with assistance from teachers.

Contents

Resources for children under 11 years old

Colouring book

These are Supreme Court thematic colouring pages, aimed at children as a 'stay at home' fun activity during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Download

Resources for schools and colleges

Lesson plan on protecting human rights - AS/A/Higher Level

This is a two-lesson plan based on the topic of human rights. The first lesson plan explores which human rights are legally protected in the UK, how these have developed over time, and the role of the courts in upholding them. It also encourages students to learn about specific cases decided by the Supreme Court in recent years.

The second lesson plan helps students reflect on how decisions of the Court affect the public, and how the Court's judgments are communicated.

Each of these lesson templates can be adapted for use without a visit to the Court and can be used flexibly to last between 60-90 minutes.

Download

First lesson

Second lesson

Worksheets on separation of powers - AS/A/Higher Level

These are worksheets on the topic of the separation of powers. These worksheets are designed to help students understand the meaning of the separation of powers in relation to the judiciary.

They will learn why separation of powers is important, how it has developed over time and how the situation in the UK differs from other countries. They will also take a look at specific Supreme Court cases.

Download

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) : A comparative learning tool - AS/A/Higher Level

This learning resource is designed to help students understand the main differences and similarities between the role and work of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the UK Supreme Court (UKSC).

The main text is accompanied by four open questions aimed to further students' understanding.

The resource is particularly complementary to the Government and Politics AS/A Level.

Download

Run your own Supreme Court debate - AS/A/Higher Level

These learning resources can be used as preparation material for running a student debate within the classroom. The debate topic is based around a point of law in a case previously heard at the Supreme Court.

The resources introduce students to the topic of the debate and facts about the case, plus information for debate teams and a debate timetable. There are also recommendations for the students' own research.

Students will learn more about the role of the Supreme Court, the type of cases it hears and how to structure arguments. The debates will help to enhance confidence in public speaking.

Download

Beginner's Guide to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - GCSE/A Level

This Beginner's Guide gives an overview of the history, role and work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC).

You are welcome to download, copy and distribute it within your educational institution and link to our content on your website.

Download

Resources for universities

This educational resource offers undergraduates an overview of the role and operation of the Court and a signpost to extra-judicial speeches and other materials.

You are welcome to download, copy and distribute it within your educational institution and link to our content on your website.

Download

If you have any further enquiries, please contact us.

Videos from Justices and staff at the Supreme Court

Inspiring Girls by Lady Arden

Justice of the Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lady Arden of Heswall DBE is one of two female justices at the Supreme Court. She grew up in Liverpool before going on to law at Girton College Cambridge and Harvard Law School. She has had a number of prestigious positions within the legal world, including being the first woman judge appointed of the Chancery division. Alongside her work in the judiciary, she has written extensively on how law keeps pace with social change. In this video created by Inspiring Girls Lady Arden talks about her inspirations provides advice and gives highlights from her own career.

Watch

The role of the Judicial Assistant by our JAs

Judicial Assistants are qualified solicitors or barristers and assist the Justices. In these videos they reveal what it's like to work at the heart of the UK's highest Court.

The opportunity to apply for the role of Judicial Assistant is open every year, with applications invited from January to March.

Watch

If you have any further enquiries, please contact us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the supreme court has many learning resources for use by schools and colleges. they provide added support to teachers with materials including lesson plans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning resources at the Supreme Court - The Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We have developed a range of learning resources for schools, colleges and universities. These resources have been developed with assistance from teachers. Contents Resources for children under 11 years old Colouring book These are Supreme Court thematic colouring pages, aimed at children as a 'stay at home' fun activity during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
360 ° virtual tour

Explore the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on this 360° virtual tour. Alternatively, find out more about visiting the Court.

Explore our three Court Rooms, the Law Library and our main event spaces - the Lawyers' Suite and Lobby Area.

Use the menu in the top left hand corner to navigate between the spaces and the different views available. The tools at the bottom allow you to zoom in and out and move faster or slower.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on this 360° virtual tour. Alternatively, find out more about visiting the Court. Explore our three Court Rooms, the Law Library and our main event spaces - the Lawyers' Suite and Lobby Area.

# data[].attributes.headline
Useful for revision guides, links etc... 

# data[].attributes.subject
Useful for revision guides, links etc... 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Economic considerations are central to socialist ideology because socialists strive to create an egalitarian society and economic reform is central to this fundamental aim. As part of their economic reform, socialists advocate the active redistribution of wealth to remove the differences between classes that have emerged since the Industrial Revolution. To answer this question the...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supporting Students and Teachers of A-Level Politics

# data[].attributes.headline
Government responds to mounting pressure. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Government responds to mounting pressure. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A-level and GCSE students in England will be given grades estimated by their teachers, rather than by an algorithm, after a government U-turn.

It follows uproar after about 40% of A-level results were downgraded by exams regulator Ofqual, which had used a formula based on schools' prior grades.

Pupils in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will get their GCSE results on Thursday.

The decision brings England in line with the other UK nations.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version. You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teacher estimates to be used for exam results

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A-level and GCSE students in England will be given grades estimated by their teachers, rather than by an algorithm, after a government U-turn. It follows uproar after about 40% of A-level results were downgraded by exams regulator Ofqual, which had used a formula based on schools' prior grades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'The prime minister has made such a mess of this'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sir Keir Starmer says not to underestimate the "distress" caused by the U-turn on exam grades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black History: Lord Constantine's story - Parliament UK Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cricketer, barrister, politician, campaigner against racial injustice and member of House of Lords. Lord Constantine became the first black member of the House of Lords in 1969.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Parliamentary Scrutiny: Challenges and Choices | The Political Studies Association (PSA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parliamentary Scrutiny: Challenges and Choices | The Political Studies Association (PSA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Parliamentary Scrutiny: Challenges and Choices' a seminar for teachers of A Level Politics and Adavanced Higher Modern Studies. How does the UK Parliament hold Government to account? Hear from our academic and parliamentary guests!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read the world's top academic blog on British political debates, hosted at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
n a year not short on drama, it was one of the great moments of 2019. After the Queen agreed to prorogue parliament for five weeks at Boris Johnson's request, and after the English and Scottish courts could not agree whether the suspension was lawful, in September it was left to the supreme court to resolve the issue. And over the days of deliberation that followed, Brenda Hale came into her own. On 24 September, she announced the court's blistering judgment: "The prime minister's advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect... The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. " Her tone was emphatic, delivered in an austere black dress with a huge silver spider brooch crawling up her right shoulder. The ruling delivered the ultimate slap down for Johnson; there was even talk that the prime minister might have to resign. MPs returned to work the following day.

For many outside the law, it was the first we had seen of Brenda Marjorie Hale, but already she had decades of experience as a glass-ceiling smasher. In 2004, she was made Britain's first female law lord. In 2009, she became the first woman to serve on the UK's new supreme court; in 2017, she became its first woman president. Already dubbed "the Beyoncé of the legal world", after the prorogation ruling Baroness Hale of Richmond became a household name - a septuagenarian rock star. There were calls for the spider brooch to be given its own Twitter account, and fans could buy spider-brooch T-shirts and an illustrated children's book celebrating Hale's journey from Yorkshire schoolgirl to head of the UK's highest court.

Rarely has so much been projected on to one woman. Although the judgment was made unanimously by 11 justices, it was regarded by some as a personal intervention - an expression of Hale's liberal beliefs. And however many times she said that the brooch was just a randomly chosen piece of jewellery, it took on a larger metaphorical significance - a reference to the web Hale had spun to trap an unruly government. Of course, this was nonsense: as all the judges insisted, they were simply ruling on whether the suspension of parliament had been lawful or not.

Now, four months later, it's all over. When Hale turns 75 on 31 January, she will have to retire - because that is the law. We meet at Middlesex Guildhall, home of the supreme court in Parliament Square, Westminster. It's a funny mix of old and new, fusty and modern. The library is grand, wood-panelled with stained-glass windows, hung with portraits of judges past. The toilets, meanwhile, are very much 21st century - unisex and fitted with sanitary bins. A procession of boisterous schoolchildren snakes through the entrance. The supreme court prides itself on its openness to the public.

Hale's head of press, Janet Coull Trisic, briefs me before we start. She says Lady Hale would like me to mention a series of portraits by the British artist Catherine Yass (featuring female legal pioneers, Hale among them) that was recently unveiled here, celebrating 100 years of women in the legal profession. She says Lady Hale will not answer any questions she considers political or inappropriate. It all sounds terribly formal, but I'm sure we'll warm up once we get going. After all, we have so much in common: we both come from the north, were state educated, and work in professions with more than their fair share of public school alumni.

Hale is waiting for me in her office - diminutive, twinkle-eyed, razor-sharp. She wears a maroon dress, maroon shoes and sits in a maroon chair. The dress is offset by a silver brooch: another eight-legged creature, this time an octopus.

I'm sure I've got an ego. I try to keep it in check, and to be patient, but I'm sometimes a bit quick with people

I compliment her on the unisex toilets and tell her I reckon a male president would have run a mile from such loos. She smiles. "Yep. Well, he might!" But in a flash she turns fierce. "Don't stereotype all male judges," she says. "Don't make me complicit." She is quick to jump on anything she sees as an attempt to pigeonhole or put words into her mouth.

Like the library, Hale is a funny mix of old and new, fusty and modern. She may be on the verge of retiring, but she makes it clear that she is not about to dispense with propriety. While US judges are political appointees, British judges are not allowed to make partisan pronouncements - as she reminds me at every opportune moment.

Is she dismayed that she has to quit just as her career is reaching new heights? In the US, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, associate justice of the supreme court, is still going strong at 86. "I actually think 75 is fine. Seventy I think is too young." But she's barely done two years in the job, and seems to be having the time of her life. "You're doing your best to goad me into it, but I don't feel that," she says, firmly. "I have been a full-time judge for 26 years. It's a long time, and it's time to leave it to the others to get on with the job."

The supreme court is a tribunal of last resort, focusing on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance. The 12 judges rule on points of law - ie whether the law has been applied correctly rather than whether the right verdict has been reached. Only a few minutes before our interview, the court handed down another significant judgment - and again the government was found wanting. Five supreme court judges, including Hale, ruled that the Home Office falsely imprisoned asylum seekers, without having proper policies to determine whether an individual poses a risk of absconding.

"The law is quite clear," Hale says. "You can only lock asylum seekers up if there is a risk of absconding, and you've got clear guidelines on how you decide. And the government's guidance didn't even say that's the only basis on which you can lock them up. So you can imagine their poor case workers going through this guidance and not addressing their minds to the right question."

Does Hale think Britain is becoming a crueller country? She looks at Coull Trisic, who sits between us.

"I'm not sure that's a legal question, is it?" Coull Trisic says.

"No, it's not a legal question at all," Hale says. "So I'm not sure that it's proper for me to answer it. I may have my personal opinion about it."

Can I ask your personal opinion on whether we've become a crueller country?

"You can ask me all sorts of things, as long as you accept that there are certain things that are not appropriate for me to talk about. I've got to be very careful not to look as if I'm making political comments." Silence. Hale is brilliant at saying just as much as she wants, and not a word more; she simply comes to a polished stop and waits.

Is there a judgment she look backs on that she is most proud of, that she would take to a desert island? She beams. "Well, it's funny you should put it that way, because I'd probably have great fun working out my eight Desert Island Judgments. In fact that's a nice thought, and thank you for it."

OK, let's hear them.

"I'd have to go away and think about eight."

What about three?

"Number one would probably be the prorogation case, where we said it was not within the power of the prime minister to suspend parliament for such a long time at such a critical moment. That's quite a source of, not pride, but satisfaction."

Why does it mean so much to her? "Well, it means a lot to the constitution." She refers me back to the 17th century and the constitutional settlement, making strong eye contact throughout. I can't help feeling she's testing me. "We've all got a very clear understanding of the way the constitutional settlement worked out then, so we were acting in support of that."

Hale moves on to the second of her three favourite judgments. In 2011, the supreme court ruled that a mother who was due to be deported to Tanzania should be allowed to stay: the interests of her children took priority. "The government conceded that it would be a disproportionate interference with their rights to deport the mother. So that established taking account of the interests of children who were affected by all sorts of governmental decisions."

Her third choice is another 2011 judgment which established that domestic violence does not have to be physical. "We said, no, it involves all kinds of domination and abuse. Psychological domination - what we now call coercive control. We didn't have that phrase then." Hale explains the impact of the judgment by referencing the fictional case of Rob and Helen Titchener in The Archers, which climaxed in her stabbing him after years of coercive control. As she does, I see what a wonderful teacher Hale must be. She relates the storyline with total recall and explains its significance with perfect clarity. "The Archers educated the public, because the public saw what that man was doing bit by bit: destroying that woman's personality by making her leave her job, cutting her off from her family, marrying her without anybody else being present, confiscating her mobile phone, stopping her driving, probably making her pregnant against her will. We could all see that. But of course, the family and neighbours couldn't."

After this judgment, Hale was harangued by elements of the press who regarded the supreme court as intrusive and nannying. "Thank goodness Lady Hale has never set foot in our home, or I'd be sleeping under Blackfriars Bridge tonight," wrote columnist Cristina Odone in the Telegraph. "I am, you see, guilty of domestic violence: I shout at my husband on a regular basis." I mention Odone's comment. "Yes, but that's not what it was about," Hale says curtly. "It wasn't about shouting. It was about something more insidious than that."

Women are at the heart of two out of three of your favourite judgments, I say. She nods. "I think a sense of the position of many women, and the necessity of the law to understand that position, is an important part of my work." When she was appointed a law lord, Hale created a coat of arms for her new title bearing the motto Omnia Feminae Aequissimae, meaning "women are equal to everything". But her feminism has been used against her by the right. In a particularly venomous attack in 1995, the Daily Mail accused Hale of having "her fingerprints all over some of the most revolutionary draft bills" the Law Commission had ever produced, and being "a feminist of the kind who would like to see changes in the way society is organised".

While it is true that Hale has always championed women's rights, it's less clear that she is the anti-establishment radical both her critics and fans describe. Her parents were both headteachers, and her father's best friend was the local vicar. She may cling to her beloved north Yorkshire roots, but you wouldn't know it from the way she talks: path is "parth", room is "rum". She frequently throws Latin expressions into casual conversation ("Mirabile dictu"), and at times her language is so archaically correct that she might have stepped out of a Jane Austen novel.

I'm not sure I ever liked Brenda. There was a popular book in the 70s about a woman called Brenda and she was a bitch

Hale makes a point of the fact that, unlike most of her male peers, she did not attend public school; but she did go on to Cambridge University from grammar school. Two facts invariably quoted in the official biographies are that she graduated in 1966 with the only starred first in her year, and in 1969 passed her bar exam with the highest overall mark. At university, she was one of only six women studying law, in a year group of more than 100. Rather than being anti-establishment, she took the establishment men on at their own game and trounced them. I ask if she was always phenomenally clever. "Well, that's for others to say," she replies.

Never does she sound more establishment than when I ask her, at the beginning of our interview, what I should call her - Brenda or Lady Hale. I assume it's going to be Brenda. But Hale looks at Coull Trisic and says, "Well, Lady Hale is the correct form of address."

"Yes, I call her Lady Hale," Coull Trisic agrees.

I swallow loudly, momentarily lost for words. I hadn't expected Hale would have a touch of the Ben Kingsleys (the actor insists on being called Sir Ben).

"Some people do call me Brenda," she adds. But it's clear that she does not want me to be one of them.

"My PA, Ayo, who has been with me many years still calls me Dame Brenda," she says. She is not offended that Ayo is still an honour behind - she finds it amusing. "Oh," I say, and swallow loudly again.

***

Brenda Hale was born in Leeds and grew up in Richmond. She talks about the town with huge affection: the medieval castle, the cobbled market place, the close community. She and her two sisters were all head girls at the local girls' grammar school, and Hale says she owes much of her success to her parents, who brought their daughters up to believe they could achieve anything; gender was no barrier. They assumed their girls would go to university, preferably Oxford or Cambridge.

Hale is often compared to Bader Ginsburg, and there are many obvious similarities: both are professors; both made their name in academic law; both serve on the supreme court; both were from non-legal families, triumphed over male hegemony in the judiciary and have rock star soubriquets (while Hale is Beyoncé, Ginsburg is known as the Notorious RBG). But there are also significant differences. In 2008, they gave a talk together in the US and were asked what the professional responsibility of a lawyer was. After Ginsburg replied that a lawyer had to "make things a little better in your community, your nation and your world", Hale responded, "I want to be more down to earth - the greatest challenge for the legal profession is to be honest, and it's the first duty." While Ginsburg is a self-proclaimed idealist, Hale prefers to see herself simply as a practitioner.

In 1984, Hale became the first woman and the youngest person appointed to the Law Commission, at the age of 39. It was here that she helped devise the Children Act 1989, which allocated duties to courts, local authorities and parents to ensure children are safeguarded. This is another reform she looks back on with satisfaction - and another that caused controversy. Columnist Melanie Phillips wrote in the Daily Mail that, as the "principle architect" of the Act, Hale had "helped destroy the authority of adults and made it impossible for teachers, social workers or even parents physically to restrain children from mischief without the child reporting them to the police". But there was considerable support from elsewhere.

In 1986, Hale was made professor of law at Manchester University, after two decades in academia. Most judges come direct from the bar; is it true that there is a snobbery about academia? "Yes." Even so, Hale says her background proved beneficial. "The advantage is that you have to think about the law in the round - the whole subject, not just the individual case. So it gives you a different perspective from the one you get just dealing with case, after case, after case."

But now she is preparing to step down. After sitting for a month in Hong Kong's court of final appeal, she will formally retire, and spend more time indulging her passions - walking, gardening, opera, family (her daughter Julia lives on the same street in London, and she has three stepchildren). Does she think she is leaving the law in a better state than when she qualified? "In certain respects, yes. I think what I'm happiest with is that people now take equality very seriously as a value in the law and in the way people are treated. Equality and non-discrimination. By equality, I mean treating people equally, I don't mean equality of outcome - that is a very different thing."

It is odd to be sitting here talking about increased equality while under orders to use her title. "Lady Brenda Hale," I say, "I don't find all this Lady stuff very easy."

She laughs. I'm still waiting for the punch on the arm and the "Gotcha!", but it doesn't come.

"I know. I know. That's why I'm laughing." She seems to enjoy my discomfort.

I tell her my mother is called Marjorie, Hale's middle name, and ask if she likes it. She says it was her mother's name, too, and she's happy enough with it. "It's the Brenda I don't really like." Why not? "Ah well, what's the book called? It was popular in the 1970s. A Handful Of Dust. This is all about a really decent aristocratic chap who marries a not-decent aristocratic woman called Brenda and she treats him very badly, is unfaithful to him, etc. But of course he does the decent thing and lets her divorce him because that's what they did, and she then takes him to the cleaners. So he takes a trip up the Amazon where he is captured by some barmy Englishman who makes him stay there and read Dickens novels to him." Again, there is this incredible recall of detail and ability to summarise on the spot. So she only started disliking her name then? "Well, I'm not sure I ever liked it. Not particularly happy with it, but not unhappy. Then I read that book, and she was called Brenda and she was an absolute bitch." But despite her protestations, Brenda seems rather appropriate; it's the Queen's nickname, and there is something rather regal about Hale.

I'm staring at her octopus. What is it with the animal brooches? Simple, she says: they were a way of glamming up her drab work clothes. "It started off when I was in the family division wearing dark suits. My husband started giving me brooches to cheer them up a bit, to feminise them, and it just grew from there - a lot of frogs, a lot of creatures."

In 1992, Hale married her second husband, Julian Farrand, former dean of the law faculty at Manchester university. Their wedding took place a few days after she and her first husband, Anthony Hoggett QC, Julia's father, were divorced. She refers to Farrand affectionately as her "frog prince". There are a number of Frog and Toad of Toad Hall figurines lined up on her desk, all tributes to Farrand. "It's his driving style," she says. "That's where all the Toad stuff started." Toad is known for his love of fast cars.

Who are her heroes? Hale reels off a list of lawyers: former senior law lord Lord Bingham; family division judge Margaret Booth; Lord Atkin, widely credited with creating the law of negligence. And outside the law? "One would be Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He kept a certain spirit alive, which was hugely influential in how things worked out in the immediate aftermath [of Nelson Mandela's release from prison]."

What I also love about Tutu, I say, is that he knows his weakness - he's got a massive ego. I ask her if she has a big ego. "I'm sure I've got an ego. I try to keep it in check." Does she succeed? "Other people had better tell you the answer to that."

A couple of years ago, journalist Afua Hirsch (author of Equal To Everything, the children's book about Hale) wrote a profile for Prospect magazine in which an unnamed former colleague of Hale's said she found her "a totally fascinating woman" but "difficult to work with". The ex-colleague added: "You have to be obstreperous as a woman to get there, to break the glass ceiling - it's painful, it leaves you with cuts."

Does Hale recognise that description? "Yes, probably. I try very hard to be patient, but I'm sometimes a bit quick with people. I probably ask a lot of people. Certain people. But I also think certain people find women 'obstreperous' when they would not find the same behaviour from a man obstreperous. They'd just call them determined or authoritative. It wouldn't be a criticism."

Coull Trisic tells me we have 15 minutes left. I ask her whether she tells Hale when she's being quick with her. "No," she says. "I'd say, 'We'll do it that way and we'll get it done.' She's my boss and I'll go, 'OK'."

I seem to have touched a tender spot. Hale is thinking aloud. "What I'm struggling with is, I think I am less bossy and assertive than most of the men I see around me." She is still doing battle with obstreperous. Firm is a fairer word, she decides.

Over the decades, Hale has witnessed so much progress for women in the legal system, both as practitioners and in terms of their access to justice. Does she worry that some of these gains are now being reversed? In September last year, Crown Prosecution Service figures showed that the number of rape convictions were the lowest they had been in a decade, despite an increase in the number of reported incidents - prosecutions were down by 3 3% on the year and convictions fell by 26%.

Will she leave her job feeling - Hale interrupts before I can finish the sentence. "Job done? No, no." Why not? "I think the question of prosecuting sex offences generally is problematic for obvious reasons. How do you establish a case that is going to have a better than evens chance of getting a conviction? To what extent do you take into account the known facts about some of the prejudices that some juries have?"

There are other areas where she worries the law may not be doing enough to protect women. Digital technology, she says, has brought its own set of problems. "What might not have been an issue 20 years ago is now a serious issue: trolling on social media. It's a problem for men, but it's a particular problem for women. So there may be things the law needs to do to catch up."

Over the past five years the legal aid budget has shrunk by more than £1bn, while the justice bill in general has been slashed by 40%. Today, legal aid is denied to most housing, welfare, family and immigration cases. Hale admits the financial cuts are her greatest concern. "The removal of legal aid from whole subject matters has been unfortunate to say the least. The justice system generally finds itself in a very needy state."

I tell her I'm horrified that most people now have less access to justice. Will these cuts be reversed? "I've got to be really careful what I say about legal aid. I can't adopt the language you're using. I can't. I think there has been a worrying period since 2012 [when funding cuts were introduced]. It is difficult to claw back what has been given up. I think massive efforts are going into trying to modernise the justice system. If they work, that will be a good thing, but whether they will is very much open to question." She pauses. "It would be great if a lot more prominence were given to the problems of the justice system than currently is, including by journalists."

I tell her I can't believe we're living in a country where we deport migrants who have broken the law rather than simply letting them serve their prison sentence. What has happened to the concept of rehabilitation? "Well, usually they deport them after they've served their sentence," she says. Exactly: so it's a double punishment. "I think I'd better not comment on that. I really better not comment on that," Hale says, but her tone suggests she is hardly sympathetic to this practice. I think she is finally warming up.

"One hour, two minutes," says Coull Trisic, looking at the time.

Well, at least I've got a lot off my chest, I say.

"You have, haven't you?" Hale says. "You've got more off your chest than I have." True. But I've got a sneaky feeling that, once she is no longer shackled by office, we will be hearing a lot more from Lady Hale.

* If you would like your comment on this piece to be considered for Weekend magazine's letters page, please email weekend@theguardian.com, including your name and address (not for publication).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lady Hale: 'My Desert Island Judgments? Number one would probably be the prorogation case'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a year not short on drama, it was one of the great moments of 2019. After the Queen agreed to prorogue parliament for five weeks at Boris Johnson's request, and after the English and Scottish courts could not agree whether the suspension was lawful, in September it was left to the supreme court to resolve the issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The former president of the supreme court says parliament "surrendered" its role over emergency laws restricting freedoms amid the coronavirus pandemic, in an intervention expected to embolden MPs threatening a Commons revolt.

Lady Hale, who retired in January after becoming the first woman to lead the supreme court in 2017, is critical of the way health regulations were imposed on the public with little or no parliamentary scrutiny.

The Coronavirus Act 2020, passed in March, gave government "sweeping" powers alongside other "draconian" regulations, and "it is not surprising the police were as confused as the public as to what was law and what was not", she says in an opening essay for a collection published on Monday and seen by the Guardian.

In a reference to Dominic Cummings, the prime minister's chief adviser whose lockdown journey to Durham was revealed by the Guardian, Hale says: "A certain government adviser obviously did know what the regulations were and what they said. Others might have also felt that they had a reasonable excuse for doing something like he did. But they did not do it, either because they did not know the law and just abided by what they were told or because they felt they were not safe.

"Hence the outcry that there was one law for those in power and another law for the rest of us. There isn't. But that's how it felt to many."

Hale says parliament has resumed much of its traditional role "but it did surrender control to the government at a crucial time". "Maybe the lockdown and its severe consequences ... were inevitable or at least the best solution that could be devised in the circumstances. My plea is that we get back to a properly functioning constitution as soon as we possibly can."

Growing numbers of Tory MPs are increasingly unhappy about the way restrictions on everyday life have been forced into law without the Commons being effectively consulted. They intend to register a protest on Wednesday 30 September, when there will be a vote on renewing the provisions of the Coronavirus Act.

The act gives the government a wide range of emergency powers to tackle the coronavirus crisis, although most of the Covid lockdown laws have been imposed using regulations under the Public Health Act 1984, which take effect prior to a parliamentary vote.

At the weekend Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, signalled his willingness to rebel against the government to ensure parliament gets a greater say.

"In March, parliament gave the government sweeping emergency powers at a time when parliament was about to go into recess and there was realistic concern that NHS care capacity might be overwhelmed by Covid-19," he told the Sunday Telegraph.

"There is now no justification for ministers ruling by emergency powers without reference to normal democratic processes. It is essential that going forward all of these massively important decisions for family life, and affecting people's jobs and businesses, should be exercised with proper supervision and control."
Lady Hale: 'My Desert Island Judgments? Number one would probably be the prorogation case'
On 30 September, MPs plan to vote on an "all or nothing" proposition that would either extend the powers in the Coronavirus Act for six months or result in them lapsing.

In a recent report arguing that the government's sidelining of parliament for emergency measures had "not always been justified", the Commons public administration committee said the government should allow votes on amendments. More than a dozen Tory MPs are said to share Brady's concerns, and one proposal is for an amendment that would ensure any new measures have to be voted on by MPs first.

Brady's intervention is a sign of the scale of disquiet among Boris Johnson's backbenchers about the way he is handling the pandemic.

Some Conservative MPs, such as Sir Desmond Swayne of New Forest West, are concerned the government's restrictions are too draconian. Swayne has complained that rules on face coverings were imposed without "the democratic legitimate right to ask you the counter case and vote upon it in parliament". Others have expressed doubts about the "rule of six".

The intervention from Hale is likely to fuel the discontent. In Justice Matters, a 153-page book published by the Legal Action Group, she explains that parliament has three constitutional functions: to pass laws, vote on government funding and hold it to account.

"In March this year, almost exactly six months [after the prorogation ruling at the supreme court upheld the sovereignty of parliament, it] surrendered these functions in the face of Covid-19," she writes.

It voted to give the Treasury £260bn in contingencies and passed the Coronavirus Act. Furthermore "a great deal of what the public was told they could or could not do was not in the regulations. It was just in government guidance."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parliament surrendered role over Covid emergency laws, says Lady Hale

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The former president of the supreme court says parliament "surrendered" its role over emergency laws restricting freedoms amid the coronavirus pandemic, in an intervention expected to embolden MPs threatening a Commons revolt. Lady Hale, who retired in January after becoming the first woman to lead the supreme court in 2017, is critical of the way health regulations were imposed on the public with little or no parliamentary scrutiny.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MPs are set to debate whether the content of GCSE and A-level exams should be reduced after pupils missed out on learning time owing to the pandemic.

The debate has been sparked by a petition signed by more than 146,000 people, which says pupils must not be penalised for missing out on face to face teaching during the lockdown.

GCSEs 2021: Call to make teacher assessment more robust
GCSEs: Call to keep some inflation from grades fiasco
Coronavirus: Prioritise exam students for Covid tests, DfE told

It states: "A significant number of students will sit their final 2021 examinations.

"The outcome of which undoubtedly will be their passport, for many of their future life chances and successes. In order for this to be done fairly, it is imperative that the amount of content they are tested on is reduced."

The debate, next Monday, will last 90 minutes and will provide opportunities for MPs to question government ministers directly.

The petition was started by a Sheffield academic, Rafia Hussein. It says: "As an educator myself, I understand the huge benefits of face to face teaching and the positive impact this has on a child's educational success.

"Unfortunately, due to the ongoing unprecedented situation, classroom-based learning has not been possible.

"A significant amount of teaching and learning time has been lost (ongoing). This cannot effectively be compensated for by provided remote learning activities. By reducing the content, students will have the opportunity to sit their exams equitably."

The government responded to the petition in July, stating: "All students, including current Year 10s and 12s, will have experienced disruption to their education this year. Ofqual is consulting on measures to mitigate this through changes to next year's exams."

The government will also debate a petition next week over how GCSE and A-level grades were awarded this summer.

Another petition, which has 148,880 signatures, calls for a review of how GCSE and A-level grades were to be awarded prior to the government U-turn on the issue, stating, "we want a better solution than just using our previous data to be the basis of our grade".

It added: "Using previous data could result in unfair grading as the majority of this data may be inaccurate and unrepresentative of a student's ability. Most of these assessments are not always taken seriously, and could misinterpret students true potential."

The government gave a response on 4 September, stating: "Students in England have now received the higher of their centre assessment grade or calculated grade for GCSEs, AS and A levels in 2020".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MPs to debate whether to reduce GCSE content for 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MPs are set to debate whether the content of GCSE and A-level exams should be reduced after pupils missed out on learning time owing to the pandemic. The debate has been sparked by a petition signed by more than 146,000 people, which says pupils must not be penalised for missing out on face to face teaching during the lockdown.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MPs are set to debate whether the content of GCSE and A-level exams should be reduced after pupils missed out on learning time owing to the pandemic.

The debate has been sparked by a petition signed by more than 146,000 people, which says pupils must not be penalised for missing out on face to face teaching during the lockdown.

GCSEs 2021: Call to make teacher assessment more robust
GCSEs: Call to keep some inflation from grades fiasco
Coronavirus: Prioritise exam students for Covid tests, DfE told

It states: "A significant number of students will sit their final 2021 examinations.

"The outcome of which undoubtedly will be their passport, for many of their future life chances and successes. In order for this to be done fairly, it is imperative that the amount of content they are tested on is reduced."

The debate, next Monday, will last 90 minutes and will provide opportunities for MPs to question government ministers directly.

The petition was started by a Sheffield academic, Rafia Hussein. It says: "As an educator myself, I understand the huge benefits of face to face teaching and the positive impact this has on a child's educational success.

"Unfortunately, due to the ongoing unprecedented situation, classroom-based learning has not been possible.

"A significant amount of teaching and learning time has been lost (ongoing). This cannot effectively be compensated for by provided remote learning activities. By reducing the content, students will have the opportunity to sit their exams equitably."

The government responded to the petition in July, stating: "All students, including current Year 10s and 12s, will have experienced disruption to their education this year. Ofqual is consulting on measures to mitigate this through changes to next year's exams."

The government will also debate a petition next week over how GCSE and A-level grades were awarded this summer.

Another petition, which has 148,880 signatures, calls for a review of how GCSE and A-level grades were to be awarded prior to the government U-turn on the issue, stating, "we want a better solution than just using our previous data to be the basis of our grade".

It added: "Using previous data could result in unfair grading as the majority of this data may be inaccurate and unrepresentative of a student's ability. Most of these assessments are not always taken seriously, and could misinterpret students true potential."

The government gave a response on 4 September, stating: "Students in England have now received the higher of their centre assessment grade or calculated grade for GCSEs, AS and A levels in 2020".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MPs to debate whether to reduce GCSE content for 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MPs are set to debate whether the content of GCSE and A-level exams should be reduced after pupils missed out on learning time owing to the pandemic. The debate has been sparked by a petition signed by more than 146,000 people, which says pupils must not be penalised for missing out on face to face teaching during the lockdown.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Much cheaper & more effective than TES or the Guardian. Reach the audience you really want to apply for your teaching vacancy by posting directly to our website and related social media audiences.
Find our more ›

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Labour Party - Professor Vernon Bogdanor | Politics | tutor2u

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much cheaper & more effective than TES or the Guardian. Reach the audience you really want to apply for your teaching vacancy by posting directly to our website and related social media audiences. Find our more ›

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
He said: "Just considering this great city of London, the restaurants are closed, the pubs closed, there is no takeaway available at 10 o'clock and, guess what, the first train out of London, or the next Tube at 10 past 10, is going to be rocka-chocka solid, [with people] mixing and mingling... at close proximity."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coronavirus: 44 Tory MPs rebel over curfew

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
He said: "Just considering this great city of London, the restaurants are closed, the pubs closed, there is no takeaway available at 10 o'clock and, guess what, the first train out of London, or the next Tube at 10 past 10, is going to be rocka-chocka solid, [with people] mixing and mingling...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
David Lammy, the shadow justice minister, said on Twitter: "No 10 broke a precedent and snubbed Britain's first black archbishop for a peerage because it says the House of Lords is too large, but it made room for Ian Botham, Claire Fox and Theresa May's husband.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Sentamu peerage 'imminent' amid House of Lords row

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
David Lammy, the shadow justice minister, said on Twitter: "No 10 broke a precedent and snubbed Britain's first black archbishop for a peerage because it says the House of Lords is too large, but it made room for Ian Botham, Claire Fox and Theresa May's husband.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Where's Boris?" asked this week's Spectator, the weekly magazine the prime minister once edited and from which Johnson might once have expected a better press had it not been for the coronavirus crisis.

With a front cover image featuring a distant blond dot on a tiny boat bobbing rudderless and oarless on a stormy sea, the message of chaos and drift from the title was emphatic - a criticism of the prime minister's leadership in the battle against the pandemic that is being replicated across an increasingly sceptical rightwing media.

"The question now is whether he can become a proper leader with a sense of direction and purpose," said the magazine's editor, Fraser Nelson, effectively arguing that Johnson's premiership was at a crossroads, that a narrative was close to being set.

After a week in which Britain's test-and-trace system - once intended by the prime minister to be "world-beating" - was at the point of collapse, Nelson asked "whether the pattern we have seen in recent months - of disorder, debacle, rebellion, U-turn and confusion - is what we should henceforth expect".

Others writing in the same magazine put it more idiosyncratically. "What on earth happened to the freedom-loving, twinkly-eyed, Rabelaisian character I voted for? Oliver Hardy has left the stage, replaced by Oliver Cromwell," said columnist Toby Young, complaining of a "lack of engagement with the detail".

Earlier on Thursday, the same day the Spectator cover emerged, the Daily Mail had reached a similar conclusion. "Boris: We've Failed" the front-page headline blared, with the paper claiming it had warned of a "looming test crisis five months ago".

The rightwing tabloid highlighted Johnson's subdued performance the day before in front of parliament's liaison committee, where he had been forced to admit that "the short answer" was that there were nowhere near enough Covid tests available.

Only a week earlier, the prime minister talked optimistically about a "moonshot" plan to test millions of people a day as way to return to pre-coronavirus normality. Now he had humiliatingly been forced to admit there were nowhere near enough tests for worried parents at a level closer to 230,000 a day.

"Too often the government has over-promised and under-delivered," concluded a leader in the Times on Friday morning. "Policies have had to be swiftly abandoned after the exposure of entirely predictable problems," the centre-right broadsheet continued, adding the A-level fiasco and the problems with the contact-tracing app for good measure.

The paper - perhaps with one eye on a promotion for the former Times journalist Michael Gove - argued that Johnson needed to appoint "competent deputies" before "the public come to a settled and unflattering view about his ability to do the job".

Timeline
What the UK government said on Covid testing

Boris Johnson

"Not only are we getting the pandemic under control, with deaths down and hospital admissions way, way down, but we will continue to tackle it, with local lockdowns and with our superlative test-and-trace system."

Boris Johnson

"NHS Test and Trace is doing a heroic job, and today most people get an in-person test result within 24 hours, and the median journey is under 10 miles if someone has to take a journey to get one ... [To Keir Starmer] We make the tough calls - all he does is sit on the sidelines and carp."

Boris Johnson

[On the 'moonshot' proposal for mass, near-instant testing:] "We are hopeful this approach will be widespread by the spring and, if everything comes together, it may be possible even for challenging sectors like theatres to have life much closer to normal before Christmas."

Boris Johnson

"We don't have enough testing capacity now because, in an ideal world, I would like to test absolutely everybody that wants a test immediately ... Yes, there's a long way to go, and we will work night and day to ensure that we get there."

Matt Hancock

"Of course there is a challenge in testing ... We have sent tests to all schools to make sure that they have tests available. But of course I also recognise the challenges in getting hold of tests ... Tests are available, even though it is a challenge to get hold of them."

Was this helpful?

Thank you for your feedback.

It was a few months after another surprising general election win in 1992 that John Major's reputation was shredded on Black Wednesday. But for all the growing criticism and pandemic policy failures the situation is nowhere near as grave for the current prime minister: the Conservatives remain ahead in polls at just over 40%.
Welsh and Scottish leaders: Johnson hasn't talked to us for months
Neither the Times nor the Mail nor other traditional rightwing titles are talking about switching support to Labour's Sir Keir Starmer. And there remain good arguments that the British public takes far longer to change its mind than Britain's fickle and fast-moving press.

Pollster Deborah Mattinson, author of a new book, Beyond the Red Wall, that analyses Johnson's seizure of Labour strongholds in last December's election, said: "Red Wallers, though disappointed, are more forgiving than you might expect. They have taken this big decision to leave Labour and are seeking to justify that."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sinking without trace: rightwing press turns on Boris Johnson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Where's Boris?" asked this week's Spectator, the weekly magazine the prime minister once edited and from which Johnson might once have expected a better press had it not been for the coronavirus crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her "embarrassing" private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.

A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor's private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.

Following the Queen's intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by "heads of state" from new transparency measures.

The arrangement, which was concocted in the 1970s, was used in effect to create a state-backed shell corporation which is understood to have placed a veil of secrecy over the Queen's private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011.

The true scale of her wealth has never been disclosed, though it has been estimated to run into the hundreds of millions of pounds.

Evidence of the monarch's lobbying of ministers was uncovered by a Guardian investigation into the royal family's use of an arcane parliamentary procedure, known as Queen's consent, to secretly influence the formation of British laws.

Unlike the better-known procedure of royal assent, a formality that marks the moment when a bill becomes law, Queen's consent must be sought before legislation can be approved by parliament.

It requires ministers to alert the Queen when legislation might affect either the royal prerogative or the private interests of the crown.

The website of the royal family describes it as "a long established convention" and constitutional scholars have tended to regard consent as an opaque but harmless example of the pageantry that surrounds the monarchy.

But documents unearthed in the National Archives, which the Guardian is publishing this week, suggest that the consent process, which gives the Queen and her lawyers advance sight of bills coming into parliament, has enabled her to secretly lobby for legislative changes.

Thomas Adams, a specialist in constitutional law at Oxford University who reviewed the new documents, said they revealed "the kind of influence over legislation that lobbyists would only dream of". The mere existence of the consent procedure, he said, appeared to have given the monarch "substantial influence" over draft laws that could affect her.

'Disclosure would be embarrassing'

The papers reveal that in November 1973 the Queen feared that a proposed bill to bring transparency to company shareholdings could enable the public to scrutinise her finances. As a result she dispatched her private lawyer to press the government to make changes.

Matthew Farrer, then a partner at the prestigious law firm Farrer & Co, visited civil servants at the then Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the proposed transparency measures in the companies bill, which had been drafted by Edward Heath's government.

The bill sought to prevent investors from secretly building up significant stakes in listed companies by acquiring their shares through front companies or nominees. It would therefore include a clause granting directors the right to demand that any nominees owning their company's shares reveal, when asked, the identities of their clients.

Three crucial pages of correspondence between civil servants at the trade department reveal how, at that meeting, Farrer relayed the Queen's objection that the law would reveal her private investments in listed companies, as well as their value. He proposed that the monarch be exempted.

"I have spoken to Mr Farrer," a civil servant called CM Drukker wrote on 9 November. "As I had recalled he - or rather, I think, his clients - are quite as concerned over the risk of disclosure to directors of a company as to shareholders and the general public.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

The Queen with the then prime minister, Edward Heath, in 1973, the year Heath's government put forward the transparency proposals. Photograph: Mirrorpix/Getty Images

"He justifies this not only because of the risk of inadvertent or indiscreet leaking to other people," Drukker continued, "but more basically because disclosure to any person would be embarrassing."

After being informed that exempting only the crown from the legislation would mean it was obvious any shareholdings so anonymised were the Queen's property, Farrer, the correspondence states, "took fright somewhat, emphasised that the problem was taken very seriously and suggested - somewhat tentatively - that we had put them into this quandary and must therefore find a way out."

Drukker continued: "He did not like any suggestions that holdings were not these days so embarrassing, given the wide knowledge of, for example, landed property held. Nor did he see that the problem might be resolved by any avoidance of holdings in particular companies. It was the knowledge per se that was objectionable."

After being informed by Farrer "that he must now seek instruction" from his client, Drukker advised a colleague: "I think we must now do what you suggested we should eventually do - warn ministers."

Three days later, another civil servant, CW Roberts, summarised the problem in a second memo.

"Mr Farrer was not only concerned that information about shares held for the Queen, and transactions in them, could become public knowledge (since it would appear on the company's register) and thus the subject of possible controversy," Roberts wrote.

"He regards any disclosure of beneficial ownership of shares by the crown, even if restricted to the directors of the company, as potentially embarrassing, because of the risk of leaks."

He continued: "Mr Farrer has accepted an invitation to go into the matter with us, but has said that he will not be able to do so for a few days, until he has taken instructions from his principals."

Secrecy clause

By the following month the Heath government had developed an ingenious proposal through which the Queen's dilemma might be resolved.

"With the help of the Bank of England, my department have evolved the following solutions, which will appear in the bill," wrote the Conservative trade minister Geoffrey Howe to a fellow minister.

Howe proposed that the government would insert a new clause into the bill granting the government the power to exempt certain companies from the requirement to declare the identities of their shareholders.

Officially, the change would be for the benefit of a variety of wealthy investors. "Such a class could be generally defined to cover, say, heads of state, governments, central monetary authorities, investment boards and international bodies formed by governments," Howe continued.

In practice, however, the Queen was plainly the intended beneficiary of the arrangement. The government intended to create a shell company through which a range of these investors could hold shares. It meant that any curious member of the public would be unable to pinpoint which of the shares owned by the company were held on behalf of the monarch.

"My department have discussed this solution with the legal advisers to the Queen," Howe noted. "While they cannot of course commit themselves to using the suggested new facility, they accept that it is a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem which they face, and that they could not ask us to do more. I am therefore arranging that the necessary provisions should appear in the bill."

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Geoffrey Howe, September 1973. Photograph: William Lovelace/Getty Images

It would be three years before the bill and its secrecy clause would come into law. In February 1974 Heath called a general election, resulting in all legislation that was going through parliament being thrown out.

However, the proposal was resuscitated by the subsequent Labour government under Harold Wilson and became law in 1976, with much of the original bill simply copied into the second edition.

The exemption was almost immediately granted to a newly formed company called Bank of England Nominees Limited, operated by senior individuals at the Bank of England, which has previously been identified as a possible vehicle through which the Queen held shares.

Shares believed to be owned by the Queen were transferred to the company in April 1977, according to a 1989 book by the journalist Andrew Morton.

The exemption is believed to have helped conceal the Queen's private fortune until at least 2011, when the government disclosed that Bank of England Nominees was no longer covered by it.

Four years ago, the company was closed down. Precisely what happened to the shares it held on behalf of others is not clear. As a dormant company, it never filed public accounts itemising its activities.

'A possible landmine'

The use of Queen's consent is normally recorded in Hansard, the official record of parliamentary debates, before a bill's third reading. However, no notification of consent for the 1976 bill appears in the record, possibly because it was only sought for the 1973 version that never made it to third reading.

Howe, who died in 2015, appears to have disclosed the role of Queen's consent - which is invoked when ministers believe a draft law might affect the royal prerogative or the private interests of the crown - during a parliamentary debate in 1975 in a previously unnoticed speech.

"In relation to that draft legislation, as to any other, the advisers of the Queen, as they do as a matter of routine, examined the bill to see whether it contained, inadvertently or otherwise, any curtailment of the royal prerogative," Howe said.

Howe had been prompted to speak in the parliamentary debate during a row caused by the leak of high-level Whitehall papers to the Morning Star newspaper. The leak revealed the government's intention to exempt the Windsor wealth from the companies bill.

It was a major scoop for the communist newspaper, but the leaked papers did not establish whether the Queen had lobbied the government to help conceal her wealth.

At the time, the Financial Times remarked that "a possible landmine for the Conservatives would be if Buckingham Palace in 1973 had taken the initiative in suggesting that disclosure of the Queen's shareholdings should be excluded from the bill".

The newly discovered papers reveal exactly that. "At the very least, it seems clear that representations on the part of the crown were material in altering the shape of the legislation," Adams said.

When contacted by the Guardian, Buckingham Palace did not answer any questions about the Queen's lobbying to alter the companies bill, or whether she had used the consent procedure to put pressure on the government.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Queen said: "Queen's consent is a parliamentary process, with the role of sovereign purely formal. Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government.

"Whether Queen's consent is required is decided by parliament, independently from the royal household, in matters that would affect crown interests, including personal property and personal interests of the monarch," she said.

"If consent is required, draft legislation is, by convention, put to the sovereign to grant solely on advice of ministers and as a matter of public record."

Do you have information about this story? Email royalconsent@theguardian.com, or (using a non-work phone) use Signal or WhatsApp to message +44 7584 640566

* This article was amended on 10 February 2021. An earlier version incorrectly described Geoffrey Howe as "trade secretary". He was a trade minister at the time, not a secretary of state.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her "embarrassing" private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian. A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor's private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How identity plays a part in NI elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Identity and tradition still play a large part in elections in Northern Ireland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How identity plays a part in NI elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Identity and tradition still play a large part in elections in Northern Ireland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the prospect of Scotland holding another independence referendum "in the near future" and "Northern Ireland cooperating more with the Republic", Wales' Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism Lord Elis-Thomas said he did not think it would be "wise" to hold a referendum in Wales "at the moment".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welsh independence: More people in favour, Plaid say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the prospect of Scotland holding another independence referendum "in the near future" and "Northern Ireland cooperating more with the Republic", Wales' Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism Lord Elis-Thomas said he did not think it would be "wise" to hold a referendum in Wales "at the moment".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The government has been hit by a double whammy of reports from MPs criticising its performance on climate change.

The influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) says ministers have "no plan" to meet climate change targets, two years after setting them in law.

And the business committee says the vital UN climate conference scheduled for Glasgow in November will fail unless its goals are made clear.

The government says both reports are inaccurate and unfair.

The PAC's report says ministers still don't have a coordinated strategy to realise the goal of removing almost all the carbon emissions from Britain by 2050.

The report notes that the government intends to publish what the MPs call a "plethora" of strategies setting out how it will reduce emissions in sectors ranging from transport to heating buildings.

But, it says, the policies aren't agreed yet.

The MPs say the Treasury has changed its guidance to ensure departments place greater emphasis on the environmental impacts of their policies, but hasn't explained how this will work in practice.

What's more, the MPs say, the government is not yet ensuring that its activities to reduce emissions in Britain are not simply transferring those emissions overseas - where so many of the carbon-intensive goods bought in Britain's shops are made.

They also blame the government for failing to engage with the public.

Meg Hillier, the committee's Labour chairwoman, said: "The government has set itself a huge test in committing the UK to a net zero economy by 2050 - but there is little sign that it understands how to get there.

" We must see a clear path plotted, with interim goals set and reached - it will not do to dump our emissions on poorer countries to hit UK targets.

"Our new international trade deals, the levelling up agenda - all must fit in the plan to reach net zero.

"COP26 (the vital climate conference in Glasgow in November) is a few months away. The eyes of the world, its scientists and policymakers are on the UK - big promises full of fine words won't stand up."

Meanwhile, the business committee says the government has provided no details so far about how success at the conference will be measured.

Their report urges the prime minister to set out a clear list of ambitions for the summit, with a set of accompanying measures of success.

It points out that the UK is currently guiding the summit to focus on key areas for change chosen by Britain.

Adaptation and resilience

Nature based solutions

Energy transitions

Clean transport

Switching the finance system to low-carbon investments.

But the committee says: "We have concluded the current 'themes'-based approach is too broad, without clear measures for success.

"More focus needs to be given to the overriding necessity to agree deliverable policies that keep global temperature rises to as close to 1.5C as possible."

A COP26 spokesperson said the government was making "good progress" but added "there is no time to waste".

"The COP26 President, Alok Sharma, our teams, and the full weight of our diplomatic network are all working tirelessly to push for accelerated action from our partners around the world" the spokesperson added.

Nick Mabey, from the think tank e3g, argues that multiple potential goals must be achieved - and he believes those goals should be debated publicly.

Strengthening nations' long -term commitments to cut emissions

Measuring whether governments' policies match up to their promises

No new coal power built.

Major public banks withdrawing from fossil fuel investment

Ending export finance for coal power stations

Greatly increasing cash for poorer nations to adapt to inevitable global heating.

"This debate is up for grabs" he told BBC News.

"It should be a public debate because we're talking out how to change whole economies. A lot of the outcomes from Glasgow will be decided in the court of public opinion."

Richard Black from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) said: "The lack of clarity on the vision for COP26 is seriously concerning. It is surely obvious that COP26 has to set the global economy on track to net zero emissions by mid-century.

"This means brokering agreements that kick-start decarbonisation in various sectors and it also means Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab and Rishi Sunak stepping up to the plate on finance to help the poorest nations.

"Failure to sort this will fatally compromise COP26 - and the failure will lie squarely at the door of Downing St."

Whatever global goals are eventually agreed, green groups warn the UK's negotiating position will be weakened unless it consistently cuts carbon domestically - it's currently slipping away from its long-term targets.

Mr Black added: "Coming on the back of a Budget that didn't even try to get the Conservatives on track to their net zero target, the conclusion that they don't have a plan for reaching it, just months before the UK hosts a major UN climate summit for the first time, should stimulate some serious thinking right across Whitehall."

A government spokeswoman said: "It is nonsense to say the government does not have a plan when we have been leading the world in tackling climate change, cutting emissions by almost 44 per cent since 1990 and doing so faster than any other developed nation in recent years.

"Only this week in the Budget we built on the prime minister's Ten Point Plan for a green industrial revolution by encouraging private investment in green growth, and we are bringing forward bold proposals to cut emissions and create new jobs and industries across the whole country."

Follow Roger on Twitter @rharrabin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government has no climate change plan - MPs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government has been hit by a double whammy of reports from MPs criticising its performance on climate change. The influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) says ministers have "no plan" to meet climate change targets, two years after setting them in law.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should we get rid of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should we get rid of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the Brexit wars of 2016, Boris Johnson staked his career on a three-word phrase: "Take back control".

Five years on that slogan could easily be applied to one of the prime minister's current goals. He wants to regain the power to trigger early general elections, from Parliament.

In 2011, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) set the length of time between general elections at five years - and transferred the power to call an early election from the prime minister to MPs.

It removed at a stroke what many saw as a big advantage for a sitting prime minister - the ability to choose the best moment to face the electorate. It also ended the traditional media guessing game of when the PM would "go to the country".

But the legislation came in for a lot of criticism from the start.

And late last year the government began the process of repealing the FTPA, accusing it of putting the nation in "paralysis" at the height of Brexit tensions two years ago.

"This bill has a single, clear purpose," then-Deputy Prime Minister Sir Nick Clegg told MPs as he introduced the legislation in 2010.

"For the first time in our history the timing of general elections will not be a play thing of governments."

It was also an insurance policy for his party.

As Liberal Democrat advisers hashed out the details of a coalition agreement with their Conservative counterparts in the spring of 2010, they identified a potential pitfall.

'Do the dirty'

They feared that David Cameron could spring a snap election on his coalition colleagues if opinion polls suggested the timing would suit his own party.

"The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was designed to create a commitment between the two political parties," says Polly Mackenzie, chief executive of the Demos think tank and a former adviser to Nick Clegg, who helped draft the coalition agreement.

She says it was there to ensure the parties "would stick it out for the full five years, to make it just a little bit more difficult for the main party to do the dirty on the smaller party".

In that sense, the Act was a success. Despite what many predicted, the coalition government lasted for a full five-year term.

The Liberal Democrats hoped the FTPA would signal the start of further constitutional change.

But the public's resounding rejection of a new voting system in the AV referendum, in 2010, put paid to that.

'Rushed legislation'

And the FTPA remained as the first stage in a series of reforms that never came to be.

Professor Meg Russell, director of University College London's Constitution Unit, says the "legislation was rather rushed".

"It was quite substantially changed in parliament," she says.

"The government took out a whole chunk of the bill while it was in the Lords and replaced it with whole new measures, which therefore didn't have full time for scrutiny and I think that may be where some of the problems come from."

Over the next few years, as the UK became gripped by the Brexit saga, the FTPA failed to do what it said on the tin - in contrast to the coalition years. says Russell.

"It's a bit of a misnomer to call it the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in the first place," says Meg Russell.

"It never actually fixed terms, it always included provisions for there to be early elections and that's what Theresa May used in 2017.

"It said that if she could get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons for there to be an early election, then there would be an early election. And that happened all perfectly smoothly."

It was in the slow, tumultuous run-up to the 2019 election that the act's critics became louder.

Three times Boris Johnson asked MPs to back an early general election using the provisions of the Act. Three times MPs refused to comply.

In one tense, late-night Commons debate in September of that year, now-former Conservative MP Sir Alan Duncan placed the political uncertainty squarely at the feet of the coalition government's legislation.

"We all understand why it came into being," he said.

"It was to be the glue in the coalition government after the 2010 election, but it should have had a sunset clause.

"Its effect is now to trammel this government and our prime minister in a very Kafkaesque trap. He is finding it very difficult to govern but is unable to call a general election.

"I very much hope that the first act of the new Parliament will be to abolish the Fixed-term Parliaments Act."

'Good for voters'

Polly Mackenzie says the wider upheaval surrounding the Brexit negotiations, not the FTPA, was to blame for the volatile atmosphere.

"They blamed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act because the Conservative Party wanted to have an election," she says.

"They wanted to have an election whereby they could be confirmed in delivering Brexit because they quite rightly hypothesised that it would play really well for them.

"And they were upset because the Fixed-term Parliaments Act took that power away from them and put it into the hands of the opposition parties."

Boris Johnson did eventually secure an election.

And the publication of the Conservative and Labour manifestos seemed to spell the end for the FTPA - both main parties pledged to repeal the Act.

A cross-party committee of parliamentarians is now reviewing the government's draft replacement for the Act.

Scrapping parts of the bill that some saw as a contributing factor in 2019's election confusion is not seen as being hugely controversial at Westminster.

Last month, constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor told The Times that giving the power to trigger an early election to the prime minister is a good thing for voters.

He said it ensures the government "can function effectively and remain accountable not only to parliament but also the voters".

But Professor Meg Russell says the core argument over whether it should be Parliament or the prime minister that gets to call an early general election is far from over.

"They [the government] are trying to recreate a prerogative power, which is something that lawyers questions whether that's even possible," she says.

"It is possible we might see recommendations that some of the stuff in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act should go, but what you could have is a bill where by a simple majority the House of Commons support is required to endorse an early general election.

"And I think that could be a compromise point which would give the government most of what it wants and also remove some of the aspects of the draft bill that people think are problematic."

Listen to Jack's report on BBC Radio 4's Westminster Hour at 22:00 GMT on Sunday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is axing fixed-term parliaments a good idea?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the Brexit wars of 2016, Boris Johnson staked his career on a three-word phrase: "Take back control". Five years on that slogan could easily be applied to one of the prime minister's current goals. He wants to regain the power to trigger early general elections, from Parliament.