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