The Institute for Government (IfG) has published analysis on the use of retrospective legislation, following debate about whether further amendments to the Representation of the People Bill could affect recent large political donations to Reform UK. The analysis notes that there is no absolute rule against retrospective legislation, although courts presume Parliament does not legislate retrospectively unless clear wording is used.  The analysis states that the Bill already contains provisions backdated to 25 March 2026, including measures concerning donations made using crypto assets and proposed restrictions on donations from British voters living overseas. It explains that any further retrospective provision would require an assessment of the public interest, including the harm addressed, the period covered and the persons affected. The final position will depend on the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published an analysis examining how government departments could support the government's procurement agenda. The analysis follows reports that ministers have been asked to identify measures to help deliver the government's plans to use procurement to promote economic growth and innovation. It considers proposed changes to social value criteria and outlines five areas in which departments could strengthen procurement practices, including signalling future demand through commercial pipelines, undertaking greater early market engagement, supporting innovation, making greater use of procurement data, and strengthening commercial capability. The IfG says any reforms should build on, rather than replace, the framework established by the Procurement Act 2023.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published a commentary advocating for reforming the UK's public inquiries system, using the Hillsborough Law as a catalyst. The law mandates a statutory 'duty of candour' for public bodies, aiming to ensure accountability and transparency, with criminal sanctions for non-compliance. The IfG highlights systemic issues such as slow, costly, and ineffective inquiries, with only 302 of 1,400 recommendations implemented since 1994. In the coming weeks, the IfG plans to outline key options for improving the inquiry system, highlighting international good practices that could be adopted in the UK and proposing innovations to make public inquiries faster, more effective, and more accountable.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has welcomed the new Industry and Regulators Committee (IRC) report titled ' Who watches the watchdogs? Improving the performance, independence and accountability of UK regulators' and its recommendations including its proposed ‘Office for Regulatory Oversight’. The IRC report highlights that regulators should be given prioritised objectives from the government and recommends it publishes a comprehensive list of bodies with regulatory functions, their powers and oversight arrangements as well as suggests regulators should self-report performance information in a way that is digestible to parliamentarians and the public. A key proposal of the report is the establishment of a new ‘Office for Regulatory Performance’, an independent statutory body which would undertake regular performance review of regulators. However, the IfG questions how the body will work in practice without duplicating the work of the National Audit Office. The IfG has also noted that this is a time for change for the IRC, and that new members should look at how they can use findings of the report to develop on its agenda in their work in the future.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published an explainer on possible legal challenges to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in both the domestic and Strasbourg courts. The Bill has recently passed both Houses in Parliament and is awaiting Royal Assent. Senior consultant at Linklaters, Sir Jonathan Jones KCB KC (Hon), comments on four possible routes of challenge which include: a constitutional challenge to the whole Act, a claim under section 4 of that Act that Rwanda is not a safe country for a person based on compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s particular individual circumstances, a request for a declaration of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) under section 4 of the Human Rights Act, and (once any domestic claims have been exhausted) an application to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that the Act or a decision under it breaches the claimant's ECHR rights. It remains open to the ECtHR (ECtHR) to order interim (Rule 39) measures preventing removal pending full hearing of the case (where it decides that an individual would face an imminent risk of irreparable harm if removed to Rwanda) but section 5 of the Rwanda Act provides that only government ministers can decide whether to comply.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published an explainer following the UK government’s recently announced plans to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) on 13 October 2025, effectively replacing the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL). The EIC will continue to perform the existing functions of its predecessor while also taking on additional responsibilities such as, leading ethics and standards bodies in central government and Parliament, reporting annually to the Prime Minister on the health of the standards system and supporting public sector entities in developing effective codes of conduct. The reforms also involve a restructuring of post-government employment oversight, and the introduction of new ministerial severance pay rules. Doug Chalmers, the current chair of the CSPL, will assume leadership of the EIC.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published an explainer detailing UK diplomatic appointment processes, following the removal of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. The document outlines how ambassadors are appointed through royal prerogative on Foreign Secretary advice, with exemption from standard civil service competition rules. It explains the security vetting requirements and removal procedures, contextualising Mandelson's withdrawal following revelations about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. The explainer also notes Lord Llewellyn's August 2025 appointment as Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) political director.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published an explainer, highlighting elements of the agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) contained in the Command Paper published by the government. The IfG has explained three main elements of the agreement; DUP’s concerns about the operation of the Windsor Framework and how these have been addressed by the UK government; how the UK plans to make Northern Ireland's (NI) place in the UK internal market more secure; proposals to ‘strengthen the union’; and if this is sufficient in solving the NI Budget problems.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published an insight paper examining the mismatch between the government’s stated public service reform aims on devolution, integration and prevention and their implementation across departments. It finds reforms across the National Health Service (NHS), local government, policing, courts, schools and children’s social care are increasing centralisation by consolidating local bodies and expanding ministerial control, weakening local decision making. The paper warns that extensive structural reorganisations risk slowing service integration by disrupting established relationships, widening service geographies and diverting leadership attention. While welcoming improved funding arrangements, including multi‑year settlements and reduced ringfencing, it finds limited evidence of a shift towards preventative spending, particularly in NHS. It concludes that weak cross‑government coordination risks entrenching centralisation and undermining integration.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published an insight paper proposing that the UK government introduce an annual Migration Plan to address what it terms as the incoherent and reactive nature of current immigration policy. It suggests that an annual Migration Plan would allow for a more strategic approach to immigration, setting clear objectives, assessing current migration levels, and evaluating the costs and benefits of migration by route. It would include a multi-year planning horizon and proposed policy changes, coordinated across government departments. The plan would be developed through an annual process involving independent evidence and analysis, and input from the Migration Advisory Committee, Skills England and the Industrial Strategy Council, devolved ministers, local leaders, businesses, and civil society. The plan would be published and debated in Parliament, allowing for greater public and parliamentary scrutiny. The IfG draws on examples from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to illustrate how such a plan could be implemented.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published an analysis of the government's Courts and Tribunals Bill, aimed at reducing the Crown Court case backlogs. The Bill proposes several key reforms to jury trials, including: (1) removing the right of defendants charged with either‑way offences to elect trial by jury; (2) increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 months, with potential extension to 24 months; (3) creating a Crown Court Bench Division, allowing a single judge to hear either‑way cases likely to attract sentences of up to three years; (4) introducing judge‑alone trials for certain fraud and financial crime cases and (5) replacing the automatic right of appeal with a permission to appeal process limited to points of law for cases heard in magistrates’ courts. Although the government estimates that these reforms will reduced crown court demand by 20% by 2028–29, the IfG cautions of potential implementation risks and capacity constraints in magistrates' court.

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published a commentary on Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts, which sets out proposals to address the backlog in the Crown Court system in England and Wales. The review recommends reducing the use of jury trials by retaining more cases in magistrates’ courts, establishing a new Crown Court Bench Division composed of a judge and two magistrates, and allowing judge-only trials in certain serious and complex cases, particularly complex fraud. These measures are presented as pragmatic responses to increasing case complexity and the volume of digital evidence, with an estimated saving of up to 9,000 sitting days annually. While the IfG acknowledges the urgency of reform, it questions whether restricting jury trials is necessary. It notes that overall demand on the courts remains below early 2010s levels and that the total time spent on jury trials has declined by nearly 25% since 2016. The commentary attributes the backlog primarily to a decline in court productivity, citing staffing shortages, infrastructure limitations and operational inefficiencies. It concludes that targeted investment and operational reform could reduce delays without significantly altering the role of jury trials in the justice system.