1.4 Debates on further constitutional reform

Question 1

3 - (3) (5) (3)

Describe the advantages of further House of Lords reform

Answer 1

• If elected/reformed, would gain democratic legitimacy
  
  • would be accountable to public
  • would be more confident in fulfilling function of challenging govt
  • current conventions and Act that restrict power of HoL are derived from the unelected status of chamber
• Remove powers of patronage
  
  • PMs can pack HoL with allies/donors who will not scrutinise Govt
  • repeated cash for honours scandals - finance to gain power contrasts strong regulation on party funding
  • membership based on political friendship, not experience e.g. Charlotte Owen
  • appts process abused and numbers have ballooned
  • many members of HoL rarely turn up e.g. Lebvedev
• Make HoL chamber more representative
  
  • avg age 70, 6% from ethnic background, class/education skew
  • heriditary peers remain fixed at 92
  • unrepresentative of wider population and therefore cannot act on behalf of whole electorate

Question 2

3 - (3) (3) (3)

Describe the disadvantages of further House of Lords reform

Answer 2

• Elected HoL could cause constitutional ineffectiveness
  
  • if diff parties held majorities in diff chambers, could precipitate gridlock
  • if same party held majority in both chambers, reduces ability of HoL to effectively scrutinise
  • would be problematic at times of health/economic crisis
• Appt system leads to professional chamber
  
  • HOLAC has introduced more experts
  • specialists more equipped to scrutinise than general politicians which are subject to party-whip/re-election considerations
  • HoL reform act 2014 has made it easier to reinvogorate the HoL with new membership
• HoL has become more representative
  
  • removal of most heriditary peers
  • Appts system leads to more representation e.g. Lord Bailey to address disproprtion of black Lords
  • likely to continue in future

Question 3

3 + 1- (3) (3) (4)

Describe reasons why devolution should be extended to England further

Answer 3

• Address asymmetry of UK devolution
  
  • differing powers leads to impact of UK legislation on England being taken less seriously
  • e.g. Barnett formula grants higher spending per capita to other nations
  • English parliament/regional assemblies could simplify constitutional settlement to prevent breakup of union
• Devolution has been success
  
  • Wales/Scotland have been granted greater powers
  • Metro Mayors have been popular → region-senstiive policies e.g. public ownership of buses in Manchester
  • fuels participation (seen in higher turnout rates)
• Strong sense of regional identity in English regions
  
  • regional assemblies could become popular in Cornwall/Yorkshire
  • Cornwall council granted devolved powers over bus services in 2015
  • regional parties like Yorkshire Party could breakthrough
  • meet democratic deficit of over-centralised and distant Westminster

Note: If question only on English Parliament, regional parties could breakthrough more easily in that than in GEs, esp if used AMS

Question 4

4 + 1 - (4) (2) (2) (3)

Describe reasons why devolution should not be extended to England further

Answer 4

• Very little demand for English Parliament
  
  • 533/650 MPs are in English seats
  • more English people content that their interests are sufficiently represented at Westminster
  • evidenced by failure of EVEL and Bristol abolition of mayor
  • therefore constitutional asymmetry non-issue
• Could undermine union
  
  • English Parliament could challenge authority of Westminster, esp if controlled by different parties
  • further reduction of Westminster power to self-serving nation bodies could lead to ‘balkanisation’ which threatens union
• Few parts of England have strong regional identity
  
  • only add to bureaucracy which fuels voter apathy
  • would instead encourage growth of extremist parties like EDL
• Lead to democratic overload
  
  • more bureaucracy, elections, constitutional conflicts
  • encourage voter apathy e.g. comparatively low mayoral turnouts compared to devolved assemblies
  • undermine legitimacy of result - bodies would lack democratic mandate

Additional info is question exclusively on Parliament: Metro mayors may serve as more appr model for devolution than Parliament - 41% of English pop now has one

‘balkanisation’ - national interests could overshadow collective British identity

Question 5

2

Describe the lack of regional identity in England

Answer 5

• NE has strong sense of identity, yet rejected regional assembly by 78% to 22%
• Northern Independence Party won >1% votes in 2021 Hartlepool by-election despite online buzz

Question 6

4 - (3) (3) (3) (4)

Describe reasons why the UK should have a codified and entrenched constitution

Answer 6

• Codification would represent higher constitutional law to entrench civil liberties
  
  • currently, HRA can be repealed by Act of Parliament/ignored
  • e.g. Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 - circumvent Belmarsh case
  • entrench rights of minorities esp important for multiculturalism of Britain which would only advance
• Authority of UKSC would be enhanced
  
  • could quash laws it deemed ‘unconstitutional’ by referring to higher law of constitution
  • address growing authoritarianism of govt e.g. Police Act 2022
  • safeguard people’s relationship with govt - reinvogorate trust in political system
• Clarify where sovereignty lies to avoid constitutional conflict
  
  • provides clear path for govt to follow in enacting constutitional reform e.g. Gina Miller cases
  • UKSC rulings can be seen through constitutional lense and not partisan one e.g. reaction to Gina Miller II would have been less political
  • esp important given ever-changing constitution with devolution e.g. Gender Recognition Bill - prevent breakup of union
• Encourage greater participation
  
  • huge constitutional change could increase political engagement
  • e.g. turnout in Scotland 7% higher in 2015 than 2010 due to prominence of indyref
  • more clearly defined sovereignty of devolved bodies could drive higher turnout rates for mayoral/devolved elecs
  • meet participation crisis

Question 7

4 - (3) (3) (3) (2)

Describe reasons why the UK should not have a codified and entrenched constitution

Answer 7

• Uncodified nature makes it flexible to change
  
  • can quickly respond to changing social, political and security circumstances e.g. Belmarsh Case - allows for organic change to suit public will
  • e.g. Coalition repealed legislation to introduce identity cards given reduced terrorist threats
  • uncodified nature led to asymmetric devolution which reflects differing levels of demand for greater devolved powers
• More democratic as hands powers to elected representatives
  
  • Parliament accountable to public as opposed to unelected judges
  • Government more equipped to deliver on public will than codified constitution e.g. Gina Miller I
  • prevents constitutional conflict with likely criticism of independent judiciary
• Civil liberties already adequately protected by HRA 1998 and Equality Act 2010
  
  • judiciary used both Acts to check power of executive - prevents creeping authoritarianism
  • govt often follows rulings due to public pressure e.g. Rwanda
  • alows for organic change to address changing social character of UK e.g. Equality Act
• Codification reflects social and political attitudes of people who composed it
  
  • key part of parliamentary sovereignty is that it cannot bind successors e.g. FTPA
  • different govts have different constitutional priorities - important they can deliver on manifesto commitments in future which evidence public will

Question 8

3 - (3) (3) (3)

Describe reasons why the UK should have a British Bill of Rights

Answer 8

• Would secure parliamentary sovereignty over ECHR
  
  • reinforces power of democratically elected body over foreign unelected court
  • allow for organic change as parliament cannot bind successors, unlike fixed ECHR
  • e.g. allows for Rwanda Plan which holds public support
• Rights can be defined in UK political context
  
  • UK has fewer protections on freedom of speech due to multicultural society that other Council of Europe nations lack
  • e.g. Equality Act 2010
  • rights of minorities will only become more important as immigration continues
• Could better entrench rights than ECHR
  
  • British Bill of Rights would gain government and public support
  • therefore government less likely to propose legislation that contradicts its own legislation
  • ECHR would stop being used as political football - focus on protecting rights

Question 9

3 - (3) (4) (4)

Describe reasons why the UK should not have a British Bill of Rights

Answer 9

• Limit ability of citizens to challenge government
  
  • British Bill of Rights introduction would necessitate leaving ECHR
  • British citizens could not use ECHR to appeal decisions
  • e.g. Hirst v United Kingdom (2005)
• Made by government of day
  
  • organic change has limits due to difficulty of passing constitutional reform
  • therefore rights in Bill may be severely restricted, inhibiting protection of citizens and minorities
  • e.g. Police, Crime and Sentencing Act 2022 - de facto permanently reduce right to protest
  • may politicise judiciary as forced to act in partisan way according to law e.g. weaker discrimination laws seen as anti-progressive parties
• Would further enhance power of PM
  
  • PM increasingly presidential and directs government policy e.g. Liz Truss fracking
  • British Bill of Rights would remove checks on PM who is not directly-elected to the role
  • e.g. Boris Johnson attempted to prorogue Parliament despite being unelected
  • status quo effectively checks power and should thus be maintained