Constitutional Reform Flashcards
why did 1997 to 2010 see such extensive reform?
Pressure for reform in the 1990s; demands for modernisation and experience of 1979-97 Conservative rule
pressure for reform in the 1990s: DEMANDS FOR MODERNISATION
During the 1990s there were demands for modernisation
Blairs government was sympathetic to the idea of constitutional reform as part of its plans to modernise British institutions
Old Labour adopted some political reforms such as giving 18-year-olds to vote in 1969 but it had been primarily concerned with economic and social issues
New Labour was more open to demands from pressure groups like charter 88 who wanted more open democracy and stronger guarantees of citizens rights
Before winning a large majority in 1997, Blair expected that he would need support from the Liberal Democrats who were also committed to constitutional reform, particularly reform of first past the post
pressure for reform in the 1990s: EXPERIENCE OF CONSERVATIVE RULE
Experience of Conservative rule between 1978 and 1997 was also a factor in the reform seen under the Blair government
Conservative governments had refused to undertake constitutional reforms which helped to build up pressure for change, especially in Scotland where the population felt ignored by the government in Westminster
Accusations of corruption or ’sleaze’ against many MPs in the 1990s helped create a climate of opinion where the institutions were questioned, people believed things needed to change
constitutional reform under New Labour (1997-2010)
After 18 years of Conservative rule, a Labour government under Tony Blair was elected in 1997 and led to a range of constitutional reform
this constitutional reform was more far-reaching than anything attempted by previous governments
what reforms happened under Blair?
devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — Due to growing pressure from these regions
Human rights act 1998 — Defined individual rights and brought the UK more in line with other EU countries
Freedom of information act 2000
House of Commons reform — Cabinet and Parliamentary select committee reform
Register of interests
reform of the council and mayor for London
Judicial reform — Creation of the Supreme Court
House of Lords reform — Getting rid of hereditary peers, democratisation and modernisation
House of Lords reform: what were the main purposes behind this reform?
Democratisation, modernisation and party gain
House of Lords reform: what was the problem with the House of Lords?
The House of Lords is seen as undemocratic as they are unelected
when Labour came into power in 1997 there were many hereditary peers who had inherited their titles — The Lords was dominated by these peers
House of Lords reform: how did the Blair government reform the House of Lords? what were the effects of these reforms?
The government ended the right of all except 92 of the hereditary peers to sit in the Lords
rather than get rid of all hereditary peers the government had to compromise as the Lords threatened to use their powers to obstruct and delay reform
Reduced the influence of labours opponents within the political system as the majority of these hereditary peers were Conservative supporters — No party now had a dominant position in the Lords
Modernisation — This gave the Lord’s a more modern appearance as the majority of the Lords were now life peers who have been appointed on grounds of merit, reflecting a wide range of people from all sorts of occupations including politics, the arts, military and business
House of Lords reform: what was established in 2000?
In 2000 the House of Lords appointments commission was created who took on the role of nominating a proportion of peers who are not associated with a party
However the Prime Minister and other leaders continue to make nominations on party political grounds
House of Lords reform: what are the conclusions about House of Lords reform?
No agreement was made on making the Lords wholly or partly elected so it continues to lack democratic legitimacy
Under the coalition government of 2010 to 15 some democratisation of the House of Lords took place but this process remains incomplete
House of Lords reform was somewhat successful as the vast majority of hereditary peers were abolished and even this was very Difficult as the House of Lords was a long-standing tradition
House of Commons reform: how were select committees reformed?
Reform to select committees which are groups of backbench MPs that scrutinise the work of government departments
In 2004, the chairs of committees were awarded additional salaries to raise their status, thus strengthening select committees
In 2010, a system was introduced to elect members of the select committees as before this they were largely elected by party leaders
Human Rights Act 1998: what did the act do?
Incorporated the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) into UK Statute law, enshrining rights such as right to a fair trial, freedom from slavery and the right to privacy
all further legislation had to be compatible with the ECHR
Judges could not strike down laws that were incompatible with it but could highlight what needs amending by Parliament — declaration of incompatibility
Human Rights Act 1998: what was the significance of the human rights act?
Possibly the most significant protection of human rights in the UK since the Magna Carta
This act was binding on all public bodies including government, all UK courts have an obligation to enforce the convention
Although in order to preserve Parliamentary sovereignty, the convention is not strictly binding on Parliament as Parliament can still repeal it at any time
but any laws that contravene the convention can only be passed if the government declares an overwhelming reason as to why it is necessary to do so
The first genuinely codified element of the Constitution
Human Rights Act 1998: where were the limitations of the human rights act shown?
The limitations of the human rights act was shown when Parliament derogated from article 5 which gave individuals the right to liberty and security in the case of suspected terrorism
The 2005 control orders allowed authorities to limit the freedom of movement of suspected terrorists
Highlighted the unentrenched nature of the act And how the government can derogate from it in certain situations and declare that rights no longer have legal standing
Human Rights Act 1998: key provisions of the human rights act
Freedom to life
Freedom from torture
Freedom from slavery
The right to liberty and security
The right to a fair trial
The right to privacy
Freedom of expression
The right to marry
redress against the state if rights are being abused
Freedom from discrimination
The right to equal treatment for all citizens of the EU
Human Rights Act 1998: what did all signatory states have to do?
In addition to all the key provisions, all signatory states had to abolish the death penalty, grant foreigners the same legal rights as citizens of the state, not deny anyone an education et cetera
Human Rights Act 1998: why was the human rights act passed?
Labour felt the need to pass the human rights act in order to bring the UK constitution in line with the rest of Europe which already had special arrangements to protect individual rights
but also because the increasing powers of the police and the courts was seen as a threat to individual rights so this act would better understand and safeguard human rights and prevent against an elective dictatorship
The Wakeham Report (2000)
The wakeham report 2000 detailed a number of recommendations for reform to the House of Lords
Recommended that there should be 550 members of the House of Lords of whom 65, 87 or 195 should be elected
There should be an independent appointments commission — To avoid cash for honours
The House of Lords should be broadly representative of British society
Ministers can be drawn from the Lords as well as the commons
Freedom of Information Act 2000: when was the act introduced?
The Freedom of Information Act was drafted in 2000 but delayed until 2005
Freedom of Information Act 2000: what are the main criticisms of the act?
Considered to be a watered down version of similar measures in operation elsewhere in Europe and far too weak, meaning it was a disappointment to many civil rights campaigners
The security services were exempt while the rest of the government was given a key concession
Governments usually have to justify any reason for suppressing information but in the UK the government still has the right to conceal information
Freedom of Information Act 2000: what are the strengths of the act?
The MPs expenses scandal showed that the act could be effective in revealing ‘secret’ information
In 2008 a request was made to the Information Tribunal to release details of expenses claims made by MPs in parliament
Parliament attempted to block the request through the High Court but failed, the information was then released and immediately leaked to the daily Telegraph
The revelations exposed MPs for abusing the expenses system for their own benefit and many had to give up their seats while Parliament was subjected to widespread ridicule and public condemnation
The expenses system was also radically reformed
City government in London: what happened to the city government in London under Margaret Thatcher’s government? what happened under Tony Blair‘s government?
1985 — Greater London Council (a powerful local government body with wide powers) was abolished by the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher as she was determined to remove power from the ‘socialist enclave’ in the centre of Conservative Britain
1997 — Labour was determined to restore government to London, they introduced the idea that the mayor of London would now be elected and have executive power instead of being appointed by councils
City government in London: what powers does this body have?
The mayor controls the allocation of funds to different uses in London, these funds are distributed and administered by the elected assembly of 25 members
This assembly has the power to veto the mayor’s budgetary and other proposals, as long as there is a 2/3 majority for such a veto
Furthermore, AMS (used for mayoral elections) means that there is no possibility of a single party enjoying an overall majority, thus ensuring that the mayor would face obstruction for controversial measures and that their powers can be controlled
mayors of London have had significant influence over improving community policing, growing the arts scene and vastly improving public transport and housing — They have certain powers of patronage and propose funding and budgetary measures
judicial reform: what did the Constitutional Reform Act do?
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 separated the judiciary and government, established the Supreme Court as the highest court in the land and changed how senior judges were appointed
Previously senior judges sat in the House of Lords but now they had a separate building in the Supreme Court
judicial reform: how did the Constitutional Reform Act separate the government and the judiciary?
The constitutional reform act allowed for the Separation of the judiciary and government
Judges should be independent from pressure by politicians so that they do not deliver biased judgement favourable to the government
In the past, the position of Lord Chancellor was ambiguous, the role crossed all three branches of government so there were suspicions that their roles would interfere with one another
For example they were a cabinet minister, head of the judiciary and sat in parliament
judicial reform: what court did the act establish?
The act also established the Supreme Court
The highest court of appeal had been the House of Lords
it was seen as vital that law and politics should be separated to safeguard the rule of law so it was decided to take the senior judges out of the House of Lords and create a separate Supreme Court
judicial reform: how was the appointment of senior judges changed?
Appointment of senior judges was reformed
Previously senior judges were appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister but such appointments can be biased and based on the political views of judges rather than on legal qualifications
So a Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) was set up to prevent this
The JAC must now give approval before someone is appointed as a senior judge
judicial reform: what were the aims of judicial reform?
The aims of judicial form included separating powers, democratisation and reducing political bias
The branches of government should be independent of each other
electoral reform: what electoral reforms were made?
Various forms of proportional representation were introduced for elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh assembly, Northern Ireland assembly and European Parliament
The government did commission a report into the electoral system used in Westminster but no action was taken
Some argue that labour was hesitant to change the electoral system because they benefit from FPTP so wouldn’t have any interest in proportional representation when they already have such a huge advantage under the current electoral system
reforms under the 2010-15 coalition: what were the main reforms that took place?
Lib Dems and Conservatives had some common ground on constitutional reform — both open to further devolution, Parliamentary reform including House of Lords reform et cetera
but they did disagree on many things
The main reforms that happened under the 2010 to 15 coalition include... • devolution • fixed term parliaments act 2011 • House of Commons reform • recall of MPs act 2015 • AV referendum
reforms under the 2010-15 coalition: DEVOLUTION
further Devolution to Wales — Referendum held in 2011 on proposals to grant further powers to the Welsh assembly which resulted in the assembly receiving direct lawmaking power in all of the 20 policy areas that had been devolved without needing to consult Westminster
further Devolution to Scotland — Scottish parliament received more powers under the 2012 Scotland act including borrowing powers, the right to set its own rate of income tax and control over landfill tax and stamp duty
In 2014 a referendum was held on Scottish independence in which 55% voted to stay in the UK, in return Cameron pledged to grant more powers to Scotland
Devolution to England — English votes for English laws (EVEL), which was a solution to the West Lothian question, a measure concerning England can only be passed and approved by a ‘grand committee’ of English MPs, this was first used in January 2016 to pass a housing bill without the involvement of Scottish MPs
reforms under the 2010-15 coalition: FIXED TERM PARLIAMENTS ACT 2011
The fixed term parliament act 2011 limited the Prime Minister’s power and ended the Prime Minister’s historic power to choose the date of a general election
It established the rule that a new Parliament must be elected on a fixed date at five year intervals (the first Thursday in May every five years) in order to give the government a guaranteed period to implement their policies
An early election can only be held if 2/3 of MPs vote for one or the Prime Minister loses a vote of no confidence and fails to form a new government within a 14 day period
However Theresa May showed that it is possible to get around the act by calling an early election in June 2017, just two years after the last one (she obtained a 2/3 majority of votes in favour of the election being called early)
reforms under the 2010-15 coalition: HOUSE OF COMMONS REFORM
Chairs of select committees that scrutinise the government were to be chosen by MPs instead of having their selection be influenced by party leaders
A backbench business committee was created which chooses topics for debate including some proposed by the public in E petitions (e.g. the debate on the Hillsborough disaster)
These were known as the Wright Reforms as they were all suggested by Tony Wright
reforms under the 2010-15 coalition: RECALL OF MPS ACT 2015
The recall of MPs act 2015 states that if an MP is sentenced to a custodial sentence or suspended from the House of Commons for more than 21 days, a by-election is triggered if at least 10% of constituents in that MPs constituency sign a recall petition
This allows voters to have legal means of removing scandalous MPs who refuse to resign their seats
reforms under the 2010-15 coalition: AV REFERENDUM
Parliamentary voting system and constituencies act 2011 provided a UK wide referendum on a new electoral system for use in Parliamentary elections, known as AV
also involved a Reduction of the House of Commons from 650 MPs to 600 and a change to constituency boundaries
However this referendum resulted in a large ’no’ for AV (68% voted against it)
areas of disagreement under the coalition: HOUSE OF LORDS AND HOUSE OF COMMONS BOUNDARY REFORM
plans for a main elected upper house were dropped after 91 backbench Conservative MPs rebelled against it
Lib Dems were more committed to a democratically chosen upper house and so retaliated by blocking the implementation of legislation designed to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 as it would have mainly favoured the Conservatives
This legislation would have produced fewer constituencies of more equal size so all votes would have more equal value across the country
When the coalition ended, the Conservative party confirmed that the reform would be introduced in time for the 2020 general election — This was before Theresa May called an early election in 2017
areas of disagreement under the coalition: ELECTORAL REFORM
2011 — Referendum held on whether to change the voting system to AV, the Lib Dems initially wanted STV but had to settle for AV after negotiations with the Conservatives
The Conservatives campaign strongly to keep FPTP while Lib Dems campaigned for AV
AV was rejected, with 68% voting against it, which seemed to be a vote against the Liberal Democrats rather than against AV itself
areas of disagreement under the coalition: RIGHTS
Conservatives wanted to replace the human rights act 1998 with a British Bill of Rights whereas the Lib Dems were determined to retain the act
A commission tasked with investigating the issue failed to find a way forward
the 2015 Conservative manifesto pledged to revisit the issue
DEVOLUTION: does the UK need further reform?
YES
Scottish independence has revived since the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016
The SNP has called for a new referendum on independence, arguing that the wishes of people in Scotland have been ignored as they wanted to remain in the EU but now have to leave
Devolution is not uniform, it is uneven and asymmetric in how powers have been delegated to different regions — A federal solution would create uniformity and equality as devolution would be more symmetrical
England is the most heavily populated part of the UK yet the only region without a devolved body — EVEL does not really resolve the west Lothian question and only make Scottish MPs second class representatives at Westminster, weakening the unity of the UK
DEVOLUTION: does the UK need further reform?
NO
most English people do not make a distinction between England and Britain as a whole, seeing Westminster as their Parliament
Devolution has already enabled regions to implement policies that meet the needs and wishes of the people at a local level, further devolution is not needed
Devolution has helped to end violence between unionist and nationalist communities by creating a power sharing system of government in Northern Ireland, further reform is not necessary
ELECTORAL REFORM: does the UK need further reform?
YES
electoral reform in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has produced more proportional results in elections, Westminster should have this too
FPTP means that small parties are unrepresented and also allows a government to win the majority of seats without the majority of votes, this is unrepresentative and nonproportional and does not reflect the preferences of the electorate
ELECTORAL REFORM: does the UK need further reform?
NO
The rejection of AV in the 2011 referendum indicates that there is no public desire to see electoral reform extended to Westminster
FPTP usually delivers strong governments with a clear mandate and preserves a valuable link between MPs and their constituencies
HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM: does the UK need further reform?
YES
the House of Lords lacks democratic legitimacy as none of its members are elected, reform is incomplete as 92 hereditary peers still remain in the upper house
not reflective of modern society, as well as out of step with other western democracies
HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM: does the UK need further reform?
NO
There is now an upper house with only 92 hereditary peers, the vast majority is based much more firmly on merit and experience
Keeping the Lords largely unelected and allowing them to retain permanent membership means that they have greater assertiveness in holding the government to account
An elected chamber would mirror the House of Commons and produce a house dominated by professional politicians rather than a range of expertise, this would arguably defeat the point of having House of Lords
The Lords is a deep rooted tradition dating back centuries and should not be reformed further
GREATER PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: does the UK need further reform?
YES
The human rights act needs to be strengthened as governments can currently take away important liberties with a simple majority vote in parliament, citizens need stronger protections against government action
the conservatives would like to see the human rights act replaced with a British Bill of Rights which would make the Supreme Court the final judge of citizens rights
GREATER PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: does the UK need further reform?
NO
The 1998 human rights act has already brought the UK into line with the rest of Europe by incorporating ECHR into national law
HRA provides greater protection of rights without threatening Parliamentary sovereignty
The act is unentrenched so can be modified when required e.g. 2005 control orders
The uncodified nature of the Constitution allows for flexibility
post-2010 reform: evaluation
SUCCESSES
2012 Scotland act was implemented, granting Scotland more powers
Further legislative powers given to Wales in 2011
Fixed term parliaments act 2011
Recall of MPs act 2015
Statutory register of lobbyists act 2014
Petitions to force issues onto Parliaments agenda
EU act 2011, making future EU treaties subject to referendum lock
post-2010 reform: evaluation
FAILURES
AV referendum defeated in 2011, with 68% voting to reject it, no change to the electoral system
Elected second chamber — The House of Lords reform bill was withdrawn in 2012, the House of Lords still remains partly unelected and undemocratic
House of commons not reduced to 600 MPs in 2013
Interparty talks to reform party funding — failure
Only 2 out of England’s 12 largest cities opted for elected mayors
