The Constitution in 2025: A Summary of Legislative Developments, Reforms, and Discussions

In 2025, Britain's constitutional landscape continued its decades-long trend of unidirectional "modernising" reforms under the Labour government. There is an urgent need to challenge the assumption that constitutional evolution can only occur in a progressive direction.

By Jake Watts

6 JANUARY 2026

 Constitutional affairs is a very low-salience policy issue in Great Britain. It is rarely covered properly in the news, and most parliamentarians lack a thorough understanding of the nature of the British constitution, its roots, and its history.

Most constitutional comprehension is grounded in modern ideas of democracy, or even concepts entirely alien to Britain, such as the separation of powers. This rationalises the enthusiasm with which Labour parliamentarians have sought to expel hereditary peers.

I have compiled a list of constitutional developments over the past 12 months, focusing on four areas: House of Lords reform, English devolution, executive power, and judicial developments. It is by no means comprehensive, but I have aimed to create a guide to the general direction of our constitutional development.

I have also, beneath the developments, in each section, provided my own opinion. Regrettably, for constitutional conservatives, it makes for difficult reading. Almost every single constitutional reform of the past three decades has been coloured by modernising zeal. It's been near-completely linear.

Some exceptions exist, such as the repeal of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. However, most of it really is sequential. Even when reforms have received temporary setbacks, such as English devolution in 2004, they have never really died.

Restoration has seemed off-limits. The normative assumption seems to have been that constitutional changes can only exist in one direction. We must put considerable time and effort into, at least normatively, advancing restoration. We must "delinearise" the path of the constitution and Parliament.

For now, though, here is the constitution in 2025, summarised:

House of Lords Reform

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill has progressed steadily, fulfilling Labour's pledge to expel the remaining hereditary peers. The committee stage in the House of Lords spanned five sittings across March and April, with over 100 amendments tabled.

Several substantive amendments were made in the Lords, in divisions won by Opposition peers against the Government. These include:

·        An amendment to allow currently sitting hereditary peers to retain their seats indefinitely, whilst ending by-elections for new ones. This would essentially grandfather existing hereditary peers.

·        An amendment that would empower the monarch, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to create life peerages that are honorary in nature. This would confer the title and dignity of a peer but without the automatic entitlement to a writ of summons, meaning the recipient would not have the right to sit, speak, or vote in the House of Lords.

The Commons, however, voted to disagree with these two substantive amendments, along with most others. They only accepted a group of minor amendments relating to resignation or retirement from the House of Lords on behalf of a peer who lacks mental capacity. The Commons also disagreed with Lords amendment that sought to broaden reform.

As a consequence, the Bill is nearing enactment in its original form, minus a few tweaks.

Debate on the Bill also featured concerns from certain peers that reforms did not go far enough. The 2024 Labour manifesto also committed to mandatory retirement age, proposed at the end of the Parliament in which the peer turns 80 years old, along with a participation requirement.

Baroness Smith, the leader of the House of Lords, reassured the House that hereditary removal was an "immediate first step," but acknowledged strong support for progressing these "stage-two" reforms collaboratively.

She proposed the creation of a select committee to consider retirement age and participation, which was created this month. The committee is due to report by 31 July 2026, potentially foreshadowing more legislation next year.

In 2025, several new peers joined the House of Lords, with the most recent batch being appointed last month. Of these, 25 are Labour peers, five are Liberal Democrats, and just three are Conservatives. Critics accused Starmer of “packing” the Lords with these appointments.

Additionally, some appointments addressed the impending removal of hereditary peers via the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Certain sitting hereditary peers received life peerages to retain seats, including the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord Addington, and Earl Russell.

The expulsion of hereditary peers is an act of partisan vandalism, removing the last vestiges of independent scrutiny in the Lords. It serves the interests of the Government to have a weak upper house, which is exactly why we need a strong one. The removal of hereditary peers eliminates one of the few elements that provided cross-generational wisdom and detachment from electoral cycles.

The substantive amendments defeated by the House of Commons were sensible attempts to preserve balance. The Government’s decision to reject them is not just ideological, but cynical. They are fully aware that a strong upper house dilutes their power.

They are also cognisant of how further reforms to the Lords, such as democratisation, would also dilute their power. We are not in favour of democratisation. But the Government’s decision to only take Lords reform so far is based on this self-interested calculation.

As for a suggested retirement age, this would be a further step that takes the House of Lords in the wrong direction. Some of the finest contributions can be made by older peers. Harold Macmillan joined the Lords just two years prior to his death. However, his maiden speech, on the coal miners’ strike was widely watched and often cited today.

English Devolution

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill has progressed steadily through Parliament, fulfilling Labour's manifesto pledge to extend devolution across England and reform local government structures. Building on the English Devolution White Paper (published 16 December 2024), the bill introduces a standardised framework with three tiers of "strategic authorities" (foundation, mayoral, and established mayoral) and facilitates unitary reorganisation.

The Bill is currently progressing through the House of Lords. The government resisted most opposition changes, accepting only modest technical amendments. Critics, including the Local Government Association and opposition peers, argued the bill risks centralisation, with extensive executive powers overriding local democracy.

For instance, the Bill does a number of things to undermine local democracy. The Secretary of State gains authority to establish, expand, or impose a directly elected mayor on a Strategic Authority even when local leaders cannot agree (or refuse).

The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to mandate unitary reorganisation, from two-tier to single-tier councils. Areas currently covered by both a county council and district council will be forced to live under a single local authority. In many cases, this means a larger local authority and more distant decision-making.

In 2025, devolution expanded significantly, with mayoral elections in May 2025 for new combined authorities including Greater Lincolnshire and Hull & East Yorkshire. The government postponed local elections in nine councils from May 2025 to May 2026 to facilitate reorganisation. Many of these elections could now be delayed further.

The Government’s local government reforms contain stark parallels to Edward Heath’s Local Government Act 1972, which replaced centuries-old parishes and authorities, eroding local identity and democratic accountability. The authorities that replaced them were larger and decision making was consequently more distant.

Similarly, the Government’s current reforms will make decision-making more remote. They are reforms built on ideology, not history. The concept of a presidential-style directly-elected mayor is an Americanism with no British roots.

Interest in mayors is low, as reflected in the turnout for mayoral elections, often around 30 per cent. The public are generally confused about their responsibilities, and I doubt many know who their combined authority mayor is.

It has echoes of the 1972 Act, which imposed reforms. Counties such as Cumberland and Westmorland were abolished. The parish of Saddleworth was historically part of the West Riding of Yorkshire. However, under the 1972 Act, it was transferred to Greater Manchester for administrative purposes.

This comes despite the strong Yorkshire identity and heritage of the locals. Indeed, annual events continue to celebrate their Yorkshire heritage. It was a decision taken with indifference to local views.

Executive Power and Bureaucracy

Parliamentary select committees have intensified scrutiny of executive power this year, amidst concerns about quangocracy, delegated legislation, and constitutional accountability under the current Government. Key inquiries highlight risks of executive dominance and the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee's 6th Report of the 2024–25 Session (HL Paper 72), published on 28 January 2025, examined the Government’s role in safeguarding Britain’s constitution.

The report highlighted the increasing reliance on skeleton bills and over-broad delegated powers, which shift significant legislating authority to ministers with limited parliamentary scrutiny. Whilst the report did not refer to specific bills, examples of this could include the Retained EU Law Bill and pandemic-era legislation.

The report also highlighted fragmented responsibilities, with constitution duties spread across multiple ministers. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the rule of law, whilst the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for intergovernmental relations.

The main recommendations of the report include appointing a senior and authoritative minister with explicit responsibility for advising on constitutional matters and coordinating across government and placing key advisory bodies on a statutory footing for greater independence and permanence.

In 2025, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) launched multiple inquiries, including into public bodies and public inquiries.

These developments, in parliamentary select committees, ought to be greeted with cautious approval for recognising some symptoms of Britain’s constitutional decay, but profound scepticism for the proposed remedies.

The identification of skeleton bills is welcome, along with excessive delegated powers. Parliamentary scrutiny should not be bypassed. Indeed, pandemic-era legislation was abused to introduce ministerial rule by decree. The best governance often comes as a result of the in-built checks and balances within Parliament.

Similarly, PACAC's scrutiny of public bodies is a welcome opportunity to look into the problems of Britain’s quango state. There are too many quangos, swallowing too much public money, frustrating too much necessary policy.

However, the solutions suggested are not the answer. The Lord Chancellor, historically, had an important role in being the champion and defender of the judiciary. The present-day issue though, is that the position of Lord Chancellor is not taken seriously enough.

Recent occupants of the office have included politicians with very limited legal experience, often ones that are towards the beginning of their ministerial career: David Lammy is a prime example. The contrast with previous times is stark.

Consider, for instance, Lord Hailsham, who served as Lord Chancellor in two stints, under both Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher. His tenure under Thatcher came after four decades of parliamentary tenure, first as a Member of Parliament, and later as a peer.

He frequently sat on the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords – the predecessor to the Blairite Supreme Court – and on the Woolsack. He fundamentally shaped English law and defended the judiciary against perceived deleterious ministerial reforms.

Judicial and Rights Developments

2025 marked a pivotal year for transgender rights, dominated by the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers ([2025] UKSC 16, 16 April 2025), which clarified the definition of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 as biological sex at birth.

The unanimous judgment held that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for Equality Act purposes. The landmark ruling highlights the significant power handed to judges by the ambiguity in the Equality Act, fuelled by Parliament’s avoidance of clarifying the issue.

The Mental Health Act 2025 introduced key human rights enhancements, extending Human Rights Act duties to private providers for publicly funded care. It prohibited detention solely for autism or learning disability, aligning closer with Article 5 of the ECHR (liberty) and Article 14 (non-discrimination).

The Supreme Court judgement, that ruled in favour of For Women Scotland Ltd, was widely lauded on the right of politics and amongst gender critical people. However, the case itself represents something deeper: the relinquishment of legislative duty by Parliament.

Properly speaking, it was the role of Parliament to remove ambiguities in the Equality Act through new statute law. Their refusal to do this is not uncommon. Indeed, Parliament has wilfully handed judges lots of power to decide on policy matters in many other areas.

My sense is that the judgement in For Women Ltd aligns with the spirit of public opinion. Nonetheless, in many areas, judicial rulings have not. For instance, the extensive powers given to judges under the Human Rights Act has frustrated the deportation of foreign sexual offenders and dangerous criminals.

Even the Equality Act itself gives sweeping power to judges and has huge political consequences, in a bad way. Section 66 of the Equality Act indirectly led to the bankruptcy of Birmingham City Council, due to an equal pay claim brought before the Supreme Court in 2012.

Dr David Starkey has correctly highlighted how its equal pay provisions allowing claims for "work of equal value" embodies a pernicious application of the discredited Marxist labour theory of value. The duty to provide equal pay for jobs that carry equal effort, skill, and responsibility is bound to result in liabilities on a colossal scale.

Jake Watts is the Director of Constitutional Conservatives UK. He is also a History and Politics student at the University of Cambridge.