is it accurate to say that 'the uk constitution is no longer fit for purpose' (june 2013)

Unit 2: Governing the UKREVISION SESSIONS (June 2013)

Copyright © 2016 Active Educatonpeped.org/politicalinvestigations

Date ContentMonday 15th April Constitution

Is it accurate to say that ‘The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose’?

Monday 22nd April ParliamentHow effective is parliament in checking executive power?

Monday 29th April Prime Minister & CabinetTo what extent does the prime minister dominate the political system in the UK?

Monday 6th May **BANK HOLIDAY**Monday 13th May Judges & Civil Liberties

Is the judiciary too powerful, or is it not powerful enough?

Monday 20th May EXAM SKILLS & TECHNIQUE

REVISION SESSIONS (June 2013)


Is it accurate to say that ‘The UK constitution is no longer fit for

purpose’?


The Constitution - Recap• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk3rka

gW-xI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk3rkagW-xI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk3rkagW-xI


purpose’?

Question AnalysisWhat is the examiner asking you to do?

Judgement needed: Statement is accurate ORStatement is not accurate

Implies you need to examine impact of constitutional reform:

Ways constitutional reform has made constitution fit for purpose ANDWays constitutional reform has not made constitution fit for purpose

Constitutional Reform: The constitution was NOT fit for purpose which is way it has been reformed since 1997…

40 mark question: Remember you need an introduction, 3-4 developed points and a conclusion.Plan out your answer in bullet points before writing.


Focus of Question: Constitutional ReformConstitutional Reform- the act of modernising the way a country is run

(constitution/statutes/conventions etc)Why reform the constitution?- Fears about parliamentary sovereignty and the impact of EU

membership- Corruption and sleaze associated with the House of Commons- Fairness of the electoral system- Future of the House of Lords- Erosion of civil liberties- Increasing number of unelected bodies/individuals who have influenceHow is the constitution reformed?- Cabinet and Parliamentary Committees- Referendums- Investigatory Commission- Act of Parliament- European Law/Treaty


Constitutional Reform: 1997-2007 Blair’s Constitutional Reforms (1997-2007)

Reforms• Human Rights Act (1998)• Northern Ireland Assembly

(1998)• Scottish Parliament & Welsh

Assembly (1999)• Greater London Assembly &

Mayor (2000)• Referendums held to confirm

new devolved bodies

• PR electoral system used for each assembly

• Removal of all but 92 hereditary peers in HofL (2000)

Criticism• Enthusiasm for

constitutional reform quickly started to fade.

• The reforms were piecemeal.

• The reforms reshaped existing constitutional arrangements but did not address deeper problems.


Constitutional Reform: 2007-2010Brown’s Constitutional Reforms (2007-2010)

Reforms• Limiting the use of the royal

prerogative; now has to be used through consultation with, and approval of Parliament

• E.g. declare war, call general election, recall parliament, ratify international treaties, public appointments, appoint senior judges

Criticism


Constitutional Reform: 2010 - present (Coalition)

• Elected House of Lords• Fewer MPs and Equal sized constituencies• Fixed term parliaments• Power to recall MPs• Electoral Reform Referendum• Statutory register of lobbyists• More back bench MP control of Commons• E petitions• Elected Select Committee Chairmen• Scottish Independence – further devolution?


Constitutional Reform Under the Coalition

Elected House of Lords• The coalition agreement sets out plans for a mostly

elected Lords, with the overall number of peers cut from the current 800 or so to 300. Of these 20% - or 60 - would still be appointed for their expertise. The rest would be elected for 15 year, non-renewable, terms.

• The proposals are currently being discussed by a joint committee of MPs and peers. Mr Clegg and David Cameron are keen to conduct the first Lords elections by 2015. However, opponents are warning that a smaller House will find it harder to scrutinise legislation and are likely to kick up a fuss. The committee will ask Mr Clegg if he thinks the Parliament Act will have to be used to force the measure through against the House of Lords' wishes. Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton

peped.org/politicalinvestigations


Fewer MPs and Equal Sized Constituencies• The government pledged to cut the number of MPs by

50 - to 600 - and to make constituencies more evenly sized to ensure greater fairness for voters. It has since published detailed plans for the re-drawing of constituency boundaries, which were consulted upon around the country. MPs were asked before Christmas to appeal against changes of which they disapproved.

• The Boundary Commission will publish its revised plans and these are expected to be decided on by Parliament by October 2013. These plans seem on track to be completed by 2015.



Fixed Term Parliaments• The government has passed a law providing for

general elections on a fixed date every five years, the next occurring on 7 May, 2015. The only ways an election could be triggered earlier are if Commons a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is found - or if a motion for an early general election is agreed by at least two-thirds of the House.



Powers to Recall MPs• Giving voters the power to remove MPs found guilty of

wrongdoing was a promise made by both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives before the general election. As part of the coalition arrangement, they agreed that a by-election could be called when an MP was jailed for a year or more, or a committee of MPs decides a contest should go ahead following a lesser offence. But, before the by-election can happen, 10% of constituents would have to sign a petition calling for their MP's removal. A draft bill on the issue was published last December. Some - such as Tory MP Zac Goldsmith - are unhappy that MPs will be in charge of deciding whether an MP faces being recalled, rather than it being something constituents can force. Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton



Electoral Reform Referendum• The two coalition parties agreed to hold a referendum

on whether the UK should change from the first-past-the-post system to the alternative vote (AV) system for general elections. After weeks of parliamentary battles, a law was passed allowing the referendum to take place in May 2011.

• It did, and voters opted overwhelmingly to retain the old system.



Statutory Register of Lobbyists• David Cameron has described the work of lobbyists as

the "next big scandal waiting to happen" at Westminster. Setting up a register of operatives to ensure their influence on MPs and peers is more transparent was part of the coalition agreement. The government has recently launched a consultation, which includes how to define lobbying as an industry and deciding who should have to register. It says it wants lobbying to be largely self-regulating but is promising fines of up to £5,000 for those who fail to comply. A work in progress.



More Backbench MP Control of the Commons• The government promised to implement in full the

recommendations of a committee into the running of the Commons led by the then Labour MP Tony Wright. These included giving backbench MPs more say over the scheduling of debates, amid criticism that ministers were becoming too dominant.

• So the Backbench Business Committee was set up in 2010. It meets once a week to decide what subjects will be debated by the Commons in time not allotted to the government or the opposition - that amounts to at least 27 days in this parliamentary session.


Constitutional Reform Under the CoalitionE Petitions• As part of its plans to re-connect voters and MPs, the

committee said it was important to give the public more of a say in the conduct of parliamentary debates. One way of doing this was to allow the subjects of popular petitions to be discussed. So the government set up an e-petitions website. Those picking up more than 100,000 signatures can now prompt a debate, providing an MP puts the idea to the Backbench Business Committee. Already, the Commons has talked about issues including the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 and the increase in fuel prices. Some backbench MPs have been unhappy that the e-petitions debates have to be staged during the time reserved for backbench debates, rather than having dedicated time of their own.



Elected Select Committee Chairman• In an effort to beef up the select committees, which

scrutinise government departments, the government promised to implement the Wright committee's recommendation that they should be nominate and elected by MPs. The first elections took place in June 2010 - the month after the coalition was formed.



purpose’?Criticisms of the constitution :

• It does not conform to the modern democratic world.

• It is excessively flexible which means that there is too much opportunity for a drift towards executive power.

• The sovereignty of parliament, which largely replaces a codified

• constitution, prevents individual rights being adequately protected.

• The existence of prerogative powers is fundamentally undemocratic.

• The loss of public confidence in politics may be partly due to a lack of codified constitutional principles.

Remaining strengths of the constitution include:

• Its flexibility arising from its uncodified, unentrenched nature, means it can adapt to circumstances (coalition government?).

• It does provide for strong decisive government (e.g. anti terrorism, credit crunch measures).

• The UK has enjoyed many years of stable government which suggests the constitution is effective. This cannot be said of many modern states which have strong, codified constitutions.

• The ‘conservative’ arguments suggests a change to the constitution would have unknown consequences


The constitution was NOT fit for purpose so has been reformed since 1997…• Devolution• The Human Rights Act• House of Lords Reform• Freedom of Information• Elected mayors and local government cabinets• Electoral reform in devolved systems• Reform of the Judiciary• Wider use of referendum• Use of PR electoral systems• The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005• The introduction of fixed term parliaments• The ‘convention’ or requirement that referendums be used for

constitutional issues


The Constitution IS NOT fit for purpose despite changes because…• they have not gone far enough – the Lords reform is incomplete, the

Human Rights Act does not bind the UK Parliament, Freedom of Information is too weak

• electoral reform is limited and does not include the Westminster Parliament• there are very few elected mayors• not clear principles or long term goals• reform does not include a codified constitution• too much power still rests with the executive• problem of ‘elective dictatorship’ not addressed• unelected elements – the Lords and the Monarchy remain important but

are undemocratic• lack of full electoral reform means representation is distorted.• The balance between government and parliament has not fundamentally

changed.• Despite devolution, government remains centralised and local government

is relatively weak.• Parliament retains sovereignty so the constitution remains unitary.• Government can still set aside individual rights if it can pass the necessary

legislation. Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton


The Constitution IS still fit for purpose after changes because…• reforms have generally structured checks and balance by decentralising power• the House of Lords has more legitimacy• the Freedom of Information act has had an impact, eg MPs’ expenses• the HRA has led to many successful rights and liberties legal victories• the judiciary is more independent.• Power has been significantly decentralised through devolution so the scope of

central government activity is narrowed (examples would be welcome) .• The protection of human rights has been increased by the HRA and the FOIA.

Thus government must take rights and openness into account when making decisions and policy.

• Government is more open as a result of the FOIA.• The House of Lords has become more assertive and therefore challenges

government more robustly. Government must take this into account when drafting legislation.

• Elected mayors has revitalised some aspects of local government in London and a few other locations. Again this presents central government with rival centres of power.

• The Constitutional Reform Act has made the judiciary more independent and it is now more independent in its control of government power. Governments must take the increased possibility of judicial reviews and other challenges into account.

• Government, even a coalition, is more secure as a result of fixed terms. Copyright © 2016 Active Educatonpeped.org/politicalinvestigations

Is it accurate to say that ‘The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose’?

ConclusionThe statement ‘The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose’ is..

Completely accurateMostly accurate

Somewhat accurateMostly inaccurate

Completely inaccuratebecause...

REMEMBER TO JUSTIFY YOUR ARGUMENT


Constitutional ReformSpotlights


Spotlight on Devolution: Welsh Assembly

Reforms• Referendums took place in 1997 - in

Wales the turnout was only just over 50% and of those who turned out to vote - only 50.3% of them voted yes

• Welsh National Assembly established 1999 - under powers of the Government of Wales Act 1998


Background/Motivation

• There have long been movements dedicated to the introduction of greater self government for Britain’s national regions

• The Welsh Nationalist party Plaid Cymru dates back to 1925• Prosperity in 1980s headed off nationalist demands for power - but these re-

emerged after the 1987 General Election• Under Margaret Thatcher - although Conservatives = dominant in England - their

mandate (authority given by electorate) was weak in Scotland and Wales [Labour and other parties held an overwhelming majority of the seats]

• The Labour party in Scotland and Wales felt threatened by the new growth in nationalist voting - feared they too would suffer the same fate as the Conservatives

• In 1993 the Welsh language gained official recognition - signs and documents = both languages and Welsh had to be offered in all schools/people could opt to speak Welsh in courts = fresh impetus for Welsh nationalism

• End of Cold War in late 80s = upsurge of nationalist feeling across the world• John Smith who took Labour leadership in 1992 was a committed devolutionist• At that time Labour party believed it would need the support of the Liberal

Democrats in order to gain power and devolution was one of their key policies• Devolution was a clear part of the Labour manifesto for the 1997 general

election and their decisive victory gave them a clear mandate


Effects of Reforms• By 1999 the Welsh Assembly (WA) had come into existence• Labour - in control (in minority govt) at first under First Minister Alun Michael• He was replaced in 2001 by Rhodri Morgan and Labour formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats• By 2007 elections this coalition had collapsed and Labour (who dropped from 29 to 26 seats) formed a

coalition with Plaid Cymru who came second in the elections(Welsh Nationalists)• The Welsh Assembly has considerably fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament • It has NO power to make PRIMARY legislation - this means that the British Parliament and Govt. still rule

Wales• There are 60 seats in the Welsh Assembly• They do have devolved powers in certain areas of policy - It does have power to make secondary legislation

(minor laws and regulations) [eg: abolition of school league tables in Wales) but it has to rely on Westminster to make primary legislation

• It can’t raise any special taxes in Wales (as the Scottish Parliament can)• The Welsh executive shares power with the Welsh Office in London• In 2004 The Richard Commission reported after 2 years of deliberation - suggested - Assembly should be

increased in size to 80 by 2011; it should have the right to make many of the types of laws allowed to the Scottish Parliament; Members should be elected by the Single Transferable Vote system; it should be allowed tax varying powers; Committees should be strengthened to enable better scrutiny of the executive

• The Government in Westminster passed the GOVERNMENT OF WALES ACT 2006 - enabled parts of the WA to be reformed to more resemble a Parliament = modest increase in powers

• The Assembly would then be allowed to pass Primary legislation in certain areas [depending on the outcome of a referendum] (UK Parliament would have the right to veto them)

• Overall the Act was seen as a disappointment and further evidence that the Westminster Parliament intends to maintain its sovereignty and control over Wales

• In February 2010 the WA voted in favour of holding a referendum on the issue of enabling the Assembly to pass primary legislation

• If this referendum produces a ‘Yes’ vote - it will give the WA similar powers to the Scottish Parliament• Even if the referendum produces a ‘Yes’ however, it remains to be seen whether the coalition will allow it


Spotlight on Devolution: Welsh Assembly

How successful?• Turn out for initial referendum = low

and only achieved a majority yes vote by 0.3% = was that enough??

• Turnout at first election = only 46%• The Assembly gained support by

abolishing prescription charges and reducing tuition fees payable by Welsh students in higher education

• Overall the Government of Wales Act 2006 was seen as a disappointment and further evidence that the Westminster Parliament intends to maintain its sovereignty and control over Wales

• Although there are plans for a referendum on the extension of the powers of the WA

Future?• Rhodri Morgan has complained

that Welsh Nationalism is not taken seriously

• The Government of Wales Act 2006 provides that a referendum on the legislative powers of the Welsh Assembly be held before any changes are made

• Cheryl Gillan - Secretary of State for Wales announced that she is working on this matter and aims for holding the referendum before March 2011


Spotlight on Devolution: Scottish Parliament

Reforms• Referendums took place in 1997 - majority

(74.3%) voted yes on 60% turnout• Contraversial part of leglislation= proposal

for what the Conservatives dubbed a ‘tartan tax’ (ability of Scottish Parliament to vary UK income tax by 3% up or down)

• Scotland Act was passed in 1998 with this provision




• A Scottish Nationalist Movement has existed for over a century (although SNP = only created in 1928)

• Prosperity in 1980s headed off nationalist demands for power - but these re-emerged after the 1987 General Election

• Under Margaret Thatcher - although Conservatives = dominant in England - their mandate (authority given by electorate) was weak in Scotland and Wales [Labour and other parties held an overwhelming majority of the seats]

• The Labour party in Scotland and Wales felt threatened by the new growth in nationalist voting - feared they too would suffer the same fate as the Conservatives

• In Scotland = huge resentment that unpopular “Poll Tax” had been introduced one year earlier than in England and Wales - they felt they were guinea pigs

• End of Cold War in late 80s = upsurge of nationalist feeling across the world• John Smith who took Labour leadership in 1992 was a committed devolutionist• At that time Labour party believed it would need the support of the Liberal

Democrats in order to gain power and devolution was one of their key policies• Devolution was a clear part of the Labour manifesto for the 1997 general

election and their decisive victory gave them a clear mandate


Effects of Reforms• By 1999 the Scottish Parliament had come into existence• 129 seats - voting = Alternative Member System [each voter = 2 votes] (73

elected by FPP and 56 = party list) - means that it is unlikely that any one party will gain a clear working majority

• Elections = every 4 years• First election = Labour majority - but not overall - therefore coalition with Liberal

Democrats• In 2007 this coalition collapsed and the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) formed a

Government with a majority of only 1 [the fact that Labour lost power has been attributed to dissatisfaction with the Labour party on the whole and with Tony Blair in particular) - fact that SNP = more power = implications for further demands for full independence

• Scottish Parliament = powers to make PRIMARY legislation in selected areas [primary legislation includes laws and the ability to grant powers to other public bodies]

• Scottish executive is headed by a First Minister (currently Alex Slamond)= effectively the PM of Scotland

• Decision to grant powers of primary legislation = crucial to Scottish devolution - meant that Scots = opportunity to make themselves and their society distinctive

• Devolution has allowed the people of Scotland to decide their own policies irrespective of central government wishes - eg - Scottish Parliament abolished fees for University students in Scotland



THE WEST LOTHIAN QUESTION• Named after the constituency of Tam Dalyell (Labour opponent of

devolution)• Problem = Scotland still sends MPs to Westminster - all MPs at

Westminster who represent Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland can vote on issues affecting Wales and England only (all issues affecting Scotland = Scottish Parliament)

• Also - English and Welsh MPs have no such voting rights over Scottish issues

• Could argue that Scottish MPs should be denied a vote on any issues affecting just England and Wales - but this may affect the Government’s majority

• The West Lothian Question could become a constitutional crisis if a government was to have a working majority in the HoC for the UK as a whole, but not for England and Wales Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton



How successful?• At first turn out in Scotland for first

elections = 58%• Calman commission established in 2007

to review Scottish devolution 10 years on - reported in 2009 with 24 recommendations for reform

• Most of the funding for Scotland still comes from Westminster

• The fact that the leading party in the SP is different to that in Westminster could be a problem

Future?• The coalition have agreed to set up a

body to look into the West Lothian Question

• The coalition have agreed to implement the recommendations of the Calman Commission (see above)

• The SNP (leading Party in Scottish Parliament since 2007) want further devolution/independence - the fact that they now dominate the Scottish Parliament has implications for the future of the constitution [they want a referendum on full independence - although polls suggest that this would produce a ‘No’ vote - however the new London Govt may change opinion as most Scots are still very anti Conservative] Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton


Spotlight on Devolution: Northern Ireland

Reforms• Under the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) -

a Northern Ireland Assembly (NIA) was established with powers of primary legislation, education, health etc [however defence and foreign policy, relations with Irish Republic, economic policy, social policy and taxation = all still with Westminster]




• The devolution of power to Northern Ireland has to be seen within the context of the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 (GFA)

• However, there are a number of reasons why it is different to Wales and Scotland

• The Deep sectarian divide in Northern Ireland (NI) = fundamental and devolution arrangements had to take account of this - especially the fact that in many cases it would be difficult to reach a consensus

• Normal ‘British’ model = tends to ensure a clear majority - so that govt. = dominated by one party. This would not have been good in NI (Ulster Unionists have dominated NI politics since 1921 = main problem and reason for discontent) = any new system had to ensure against this

• The electoral system had to reflect the diversity of the political community

• A power sharing agreement was needed Copyright © 2016 Active Educatonpeped.org/politicalinvestigations

Effects of Reforms• Electoral system for NIA = Single

Transferable Vote - results of 2007 election reflect the plurality that this encourages - five groups won significant representation entitling them to a share in Govt. = results = highly proportional

• In NIA - legislation = only passed if there is a majority among parties on both sides of the sectarian divide = makes law making difficult - but does ensure consensus


Spotlight on Devolution: Northern Ireland

How successful?• Since 1998 there has been difficult progress towards permanent

govt. in NI• Lack of trust between main parties = they were unable to form a

Govt. and direct rule from London was restored• In 2007 = St. Andrews agreement = breakthrough achieved and

new Northern Ireland Executive took office with DUP leader Ian Paisley as first minister and Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness as his deputy

• Since then further problems between Nationalists and Loyalists = created uncertain progress

• Further breakthrough = February 2010 = all parties agreed to transfer of law and order and security issues to the Northern Ireland Executive = highly significant event Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton


Spotlight on Electoral Reform

Reforms• Various forms of PR were steadily creeping into the system despite delays

on decision re; overall voting system• STV = NIA 1999 and Scottish Local elections 1997• AMS (additional member system) Scottish Parliament 1999 Welsh

Assembly 1999 and Greater London Assembly 2000• Regional list system - EU parliament 1999• Little progress = made by electoral reform movement in terms of general

elections since 1997 and prospects for future reform under the Labour Govt -were uncertain

• Coalition: Referendum on AVReferendum on the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum – NO vote Officials say 19.1m people voted in the second UK-wide referendum in history - a higher than expected turnout of 41%. The final result put the Yes vote at 32.1% and the No vote at 67.9%. Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton


Background/Motivation• Both Labour and Lib Dems - advocated electoral reform in UK • By 1960s it was firmly at the fore of the Liberals (later Lib Dems) agenda - because of

decline in Liberalism since the 1920s under the First Past the Post system (FPP)• A more proportional voting system could therefore work in their favour• Labour also watched whilst the voting system tended to exaggerate support for the

Conservatives - a long period in opposition = renewed interest in electoral reform• Two groups = against electoral reform traditionally = Conservatives (argued that it enables

decisive two party government) and most elements of the traditional left wing of the Labour party

• New Labour philosophy of the 1990s = modernising - but the party = split on the question• Commissioned the Plant Committee whilst in opposition = recommended reform• But still unconvinced Blair offered a referendum if Labour won in 1997 - they did but they

did not give the referendum• Jenkins report 1998 = advocated more radical reform than Plant = AV Plus - this got little

support within the party and was shelved• Labour in mid 90s assumed it would need support of Lib Dems to continue in power and

therefore was prepared to entertain electoral reform as the price• However - FPP began to benefit Labour 2001 - 40.7% = 62.6% seats, 2005 35.2% = 66 seat

majority for Labour = therefore unenthusiastic for change• The leadership of the Labour party was opposed to reform• Results of 2005 election led to further demands for reform and Conservatives woke up to

the idea that it would be of benefit to them


Spotlight on Electoral ReformHow successful?• Criticised for not going

further• No vote has halted

electoral reform – although still pressure groups and part of Lib Dem manifesto

Effects of Reforms• New voting systems =

introduced across the country for various regional and sub national levels of govt


Spotlight on Parliamentary Reform

Reforms• HOL - after tricky negotiations with the Conservatives (had majority in HoL) - number of

hereditary peers was reduced from several hundred to 92 (elected by the other HPs)• This was implemented by the House of Lords Act 1999 - removed automatic conservative

majority in HoL• This was supposed to be the start of a process - the tricky part was then to determine the best

composition for the new chamber in the long term• Despite various initiatives and white papers, this issue remains unresolved• Parliamentary vote 2003 - proposals were effectively rejected• Historic vote in March 2007 - HoC voted for fully elected HoL by a majority of 113 (but the

vote= only advisory in nature- not implemented due to lengthy consultation process/general election

• The coalition Govt agreement have indicated desire for a wholly/mainly elected 2nd chamber - elected on the basis of PR

• These proposals = debated 29.6.2010• As an interim measure, appointment of new peers will reflect shares of the vote secured by the

political parties in the last general election



Reforms (continued)• June 2010 - at PMQs DC announced that HoL reform was to proceed and that a motion would be

put before the HoC before the end of the year• HOC - Reforms have been piecemeal and largely superficial• Some strengthening of departmental select committees and tinkering with working hours and

PMQs• Gordon Brown did propose a more radical shift in the balance of power away from the PM and

Govt. towards the HOC - but this = difficult - changes = not implemented• Attention = shifted to reform of pay and expenses system following the MPs expenses scandals

in 2009 [following which Labour MPs Elliot Morley, Jim Devine , David Chaytor are being taken to court]

• A new system = introduced whereby the issue of expenses and MPs pay = placed in the hands of an independent commission

• The 2009 scandal = seriously damaged reputation of the HoC [note: two Labour Peers and a cross bencher - Lord Paul , Baroness Uddin and Lord Bhatia are also being taken to court for expenses issues)

• However, despite the impact at the time - these measures = little long term impact and therefore cannot be seen as a major parliamentary reform


Background/Motivation• Blair/Brown - By 97 reform of the HOL was overdue - no longer

acceptable in modern democracy for part of legislature to be based on hereditary peerages

• Labour = afraid its legislative programme might be obstructed by a Conservative 2nd chamber

• Labour had a massive majority and could push the reforms through• Even after Blair’s reforms (removal of all but 92 hereditary Peers in

2000 under the House of Lords Act 1999) - still further demand for reform especially after the loans for lordships scandal in 2006

• HOC vote in March 2007 = overwhelming majority for elected 2nd chamber (Hansard = DC voted against it)

• Now a good degree of cross party consensus about reform• Coalition Govt: - Under new coalition - both Lib Dems and

Conservatives = under represented in HOL - only way to rectify is to create more new life peerages - but this = ‘considered politically toxic’ and has been ruled out

• In Conservative mainfesto = “mainly elected” HoL wheras Lib Dems = “wholly elected” second chamber

• June 2010 - at PMQs DC announced that HoL reform was to proceed and that a draft motion would be put before the HoC before the end of the year Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton



How successful?• This removed the automatic

Conservative majority in the HOL

• It enhanced Democratic Legitimacy

• Criticised that only ‘phase 1’ has been implemented - need for further reform

• HoC reforms = piecemeal• Lack of substantive

Parliamentary reform = seen as “major hole” in Blair reforms [Heywood]

Effects of Reforms• By House of Lords Act 1999

number of hereditary peers = reduced to 92

• This removed the automatic Conservative majority in the HOL

• It enhanced Democratic Legitimacy

• However - reform remains unfinished



Future?• DC announced a cross party committee would put a draft motion put before the HOC by the end

of the year on HOL reform• ‘We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper

chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election’. Coalition Programme for Govt. (GPG)

• We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of backbench business. A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament. - CPG

• We will establish five-year fixed-term Parliaments. We will put a binding motion before the House of Commons stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, we will legislate to make provision for fixed-term Parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour. - CPG


Spotlight on Judicial Reform

Reforms There were three main reforms:• (1) The position of the Lord Chancellor was retained but its holder no longer presides over the

House of Lords and is no longer head of the courts system• Instead the Lord Chief Justice (a non political post) became head of the judicial system• The post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs was created in the cabinet (to advise

the cabinet on constitutional issues)• (2) A new Judicial Appointments Commission was set up to propose candidates for promotion to

senior judicial positions - this ensures that there is no political influence over the decision• The Govt. has the final say on who shall be a senior judge but this must be after approval by

the JAC• the commission can prevent politically motivated appointments• (3) The Law Lords who formed the House of Lords Court of final appeal were separated in 2009.

[opened autumn 2009]• Instead they sit as a new Supreme Court in a different building (Middlesex Guildhall)- this

removes the confusion about their role• The new court has the same powers as the HoL - however it is symbolically important and early

signs are that it will indeed prove to be a genuinely independent body• The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal and the constitutional court for the UK• The SC cost an estimated £32M to build Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton


Background/Motivation• It was seen as crucial that there be a clearer separation between the senior members of

the judiciary and the government• In the past the position of the Lord chancellor had been ambiguous - he was a cabinet

member and a senior member of the ruling party - yet at the same time he was head of the judiciary and presided over the proceedings in the HoL = placed him in all three branches of government

• The occupant of the post might say that he/she understood the differences between the neutral judicial role and the political role as cabinet minister - this was difficult to maintain

• This perception of lack of independence needed to be addressed in a modern system• In addition, as senior judges were appointed by the PM and the Lord Chancellor (both party

politicians) = no guarantee that the judiciary would be free form political influence - this placed the principles of the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary under threat

• It was also confusing and potentially unjust that the highest appeal court - the House of Lords - should be made up of judges who were also members of the legislature and who therefore had a placein the making as well as the implementation of the law

• In nearly all modern democracies it is firmly established that the judiciary, which upholds the rights of citizens, controls the artibrary power of government and maintains the principles of justice and the rule of law should be totally independent of govt - this clearly did not exist in Britain

• It had always been an aspiration of the Labour Govt that took power in 1997 and In 2003 momentum grew for reform

• The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 put the proposals into effect


Spotlight on Judicial ReformHow successful?• The measures were

criticised at the time as they were said to have been rushed through without proper thought -

• However, thus far according to McNaughton = “the early signs have indicated that it will indeed prove to be a genuinely independent body”

Effects of Reforms• The Supreme Court opened in

autumn 2009• The principles of judicial

reform - 4 fold - to increase the separation of powers between the Govt. legislature and judiciary/ to improve the independence of the Judiciary/ to eliminate the ambiguity of the role of Lord Chancellor/to bring Britain into line with modern constitutional practice


Spotlight on Judicial Reform

Future?• The implications of the SC are far reaching - there is a possibility

that it might establish itself as the SC in USA has - as a court that was able to interpret Parliamentary legislation as being against the Constitution or European legislation - this may therefore put the sovereignty of parliament into question as the judiciary moves into a new powerful position of being able to comment on parliamentary law.

• Cameron has said that he will consider proposals for local referendums to choose community punishments.


Spotlight on Freedom of Information

Reforms • Bill when introduced = watered down version - security services =

completely exempt• Rest of govt = key concession = gives govt the right to conceal

information if it feels that it might prejudice the activities of govt - therefore onus is on the ‘outsider’ to prove that a document should be released (not on the govt. to prove that it should be suppressed)

• An Information Tribunal (IT) was also set up = can rule on what information can and should be released

Effects?• Public has had access to certain govt material since 2005


Background/Motivation• Lack of being able to gain information - one of the areas where

British constitution lagged behind USA and Europe• Labour, supported by Lib Dems made firm commitment to

remedy this • However, the legislation was a disappointment to campaigners• Freedom of Information Act = introduced in 2000 - right for

citizens to see information about themselves held by public bodies [actually only became a right = 2005]

• Two strands - firstly - a right= given to citizens to see information about them held by public bodies (schools, medical records etc) = uncontroversial

• Second strand = right to see documents held by govt and its agencies = right to see into the workings of Govt

• The ability to suppress information was to be limited while the media and Parl = much greater access to information - hopefully in theory leading to more open Govt

• If implemented in full - would have led to and end of British culture of secrecy in Govt


Spotlight on Freedom of Information

How successful?• Civil rights groups saw that the new Act as virtually useless - however one

major development illustrates its power - in 2008 - request to the IT to release details of expenses claims made by MPs

• Parliament attempted to block the request through the High Court but failed

• The information was released and was reported by the Daily Telegraph = revealing widespread abuse of the expenses system - led to modern day ‘witch hunt’ by Press - with far reaching results

• Many MPs had to resign and the expenses system was reformed• Despite fears - the Information Tribunal has proved to be more

sympathetic to FOI than was at first envisaged by critics• Tony Blair has subsequently said that the Act was a mistake as it limited

Govt powers to act decisively Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton


Spotlight on LondonReforms • In 2000 the GLA was established (Under the Greater London Authority Act

1999 )• and the post of Mayor created and elections were held for both (Ken

Livingstone - elected Mayor) [powers = extended under the GLA Act 2007]• However, the legislation which enabled this to happen was criticised as it

seemed to not give either the GLA or the elected Mayor a significant amount of political power

• The Mayor/GLA has important responsibilities for areas such as transport, planning, economic dev, environment, culture media and sport

• The Mayor controls the allocation of funds to different uses in London and such funds are then distributed and administered by the elected assembly of 25 members

• The assembly has the power to veto the Mayor’s budgetary and other proposals [provided it has a 2/3 majority for such a veto]


Spotlight on LondonReforms • The Mayor has powers of patronage [can give jobs/roles to people] - but

again the assembly can veto this. [Assembly = acts as scrutiny to the Mayor]

• This is a classic example of the system of ‘checks and balances’ of the US model.

• The Mayor is elected every 4 years by the Supplementary Vote System• The electoral system used for the Assembly = Alternative Member

System [as used in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly] (14 elected by FPP and 11 from party list)- means that no one party can enjoy an overall majority in the assembly [composition as of October 2010 - 11 Conservative; 8 Labour; 3 Liberal Democrat; 2 Green; 1 independent]

• This ensures that the Mayor always faces obstruction for controversial measures - this was particularly evident after the 2004 elections when although re-elected as Mayor, Ken Livingstone had to face the fact that the majority of the members of the GLA were Conservative Copyright © 2016 Active Educaton


Background/Motivation• The previous London-wide Local Government Body -

the Greater London Council (GLC) was abolished by Margaret Thatcher in 1885 (GLC = too socialist)

• London was then divided into 33 boroughs - with some services which had previously been overseen by the GLC being handed to Quangos

• Labour was determined to restore government to London when it returned to power in 1997 - to give back a ‘voice’ to London

• This was to be done in addition to the election of a London Mayor with substantial executive powers.

• A referendum was held in 1998 in which the people of London voted in favour of the Greater London Authority and elected Mayor.


Spotlight on LondonEffects of Reforms• The office of London Mayor was granted relatively limited power under the legislation

- not as powerful as Mayors of New York or Paris• However Mayor Ken Livingstone (Labour 2000 - 2008) was influential- Congestion

Charge; London Olympics (only one element - but his support = critical to success); influential in gaining CG approval for a crossrail system in London; secured funding to increase number of police officers in London

• However Livingstone did lose battle with central government over privatisation of London Underground system

• Election of 2008 = Boris Johnson (Conservative) elected Mayor - he = influential in leading developments to make London more cyclist friendly and promises to improve the bus system

How successful?• Can be viewed as one element in the New Labour programme of constitutional reform

and modernization,• Criticised because not enough power - Mayor has influence rather than power• BUT because of high profile of the role - this influence is strong


Spotlight on London

Future?• The Coalition have announced the closing of the Government Office for

London ( a Cental Government Unit with a budget of approx £20M previously dealing with things like crime prevention and community projects). It is proposed that many of the functions of this body will be taken over by the GLA

• Boris Johnson, current Mayor of London = “Despite providing this world city with clear leadership, the mayoralty has few formal powers, despite substantial informal powers. This will no longer do ... It is time to act and, with a new coalition government strongly supportive of devolving powers, we must seize the day for London” (Financial Times)

• Coalition Govt. plan to give more powers both to the Mayor (including increased control over the budget and housing regeneration) and the Assembly


Spotlight on Local Government

Reforms • Towns, Cities and Districts have been given the

opportunity to elect Mayors if a local referendum shows that there is popular support

• Local Government = given the option of changing to a ‘cabinet’ system of government - with a central cabinet of leading Councillors making key decisions and setting general policy [previously = committee system]


Background/Motivation• Labour showed much enthusiasm for reform of Local

Government before being elected in 1997 - but shortly afterwards - this enthusiasm seemed to wither



Effects of Reforms• In first few years very few localities held referendums - take up

of idea = ‘patchy’• Of those that did hold a referendum - few voted in favour of an

elected Mayor (only 11 by 2005)• Take up of option of cabinet style system is again ‘patchy’How successful?• Take up of new measures - not as enthusiastic as had been

thought• Does not tackle the real problems of Local Government: Lack of

autonomy from CG; lack of accountability to local electorates; very low public interest in Local Government politics



Future?• In the section on communities and Local Government

the coalition say that they will: create directly-elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities. And devolve more power and financial autonomy to local government.


Spotlight on Human Rights

Reforms• HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 - made the

ECHR part of British law = binding on virtually all public bodies, in virtually all circumstances and can be enforced by any British court of law

• Came into force in 2000



• A number of factors led the Labour party to incorporate the ECHR into British law: a desire to bring the British constitution into line with the rest of Europe;

• increase in powers of the police and courts in 80s and 90s = major threat to our rights;

• British Govt. = brought before EC of HR 50 times since 1966 and had lost most = embarrassment

• New Labour = active citizenship - principle that citizens have responsibility for their communities - in return they needed guaranteed rights;

• it was part of the devolution settlements that the new assemblies should be bound by the ECHR



Effects of Reforms• Act states that ECHR is binding on virtually all public bodies in virtually all

circumstances: devolved bodies; Local Govt; Govt ministers, civil servants and depts.; all government executive agencies; all quangos; any other organisation engaged in public business (including schools, the media charities etc)

• Actions of the above can be scrutinised by the courts and declared illegal• EXCEPTION - Parliamentary legislation - to continue principle of PS - the ECHR

cannot be considered superior to Parliament• A minister who introduces new legislation to Parl must make a declaration as to

whether the Govt believes that the proposal is compatible/incompatible with the Convention

• If = incompatible - this will be taken into consideration during the debate• If the Bill still receives Parl approval (despite the declaration) it will have to be

enforced by the courts• The European Court of Human Rights may declare an Act to be in breach of the

convention - but this is not binding in the UK



How successful?• In some senses HRA = “an extremely radical example of constitutional reform” [McNaughton] - Some

commentators = it is the most important development since the Great Reform Act of 1832• First example of the codification of rights in the UK in modern British history (magna carta 1215)• Huge advance in protection of individuals against the state• Critics however - it does not go far enough• It preserves PS and therefore Parl legislation = exception to its jurisdiction = failure to deal with a fundamental

problem in UK Constitution = enormous power of Govt and its ability to control Parliament [Elective Dictatorship]

• If it had been binding on Parl legislation it would have been a major check on governmental power• 2004 - contradiction to criticisms that the Act = too weak - Under anti terrorism legislation 2001 Security

services = granted power t detain without trial British citizens who = suspected of carrying out terrorism - 8 = held in Belmarsh - appealed on grounds that this detention went against their HR and contravened the ECHR - they were successful

• However, Parliamentary Sovereignty = Govt did not have to obey this judgement• ECHR = not binding on Parliament - BUT Govt felt it had to act and the legislation = amended so that

safeguards were added• Belmarsh case suggests that the passage of the HRA = more dramatic than envisaged in constitutional terms• In 2005 rules on deportation of foreign terrorist suspects also had to be amended - ECHR - forbids use of torture

- implies should not deport anyone who = likely to be tortured• Govt - had to gain assurances that deportees would not be tortured • HRA therefore ‘tied’ govt. hands in its efforts to deal with terrorist infiltration



Future?• 18 May 2010 - Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) = that two men

allegedly involved in a terror plot could not be deported to Pakistan.• tabloid and conservative media in Britain has reacted with rage at the decision,

alleging that European Human Rights legislation is endangering the British public.• The case is already being used by those who want to see the repeal of the Human

Rights Act • Formerly Tory policy = repeal of the HRA. • Now, however, leading Conservatives are backing away from this stance, and the

coalition government is talking only about a review of "existing measures and obligations."

• ‘We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties’ CPG


is it accurate to say that 'the uk constitution is no longer fit for purpose' (june 2013)

Education