Effectiveness of Constitutional Reform Flashcards
arguments suggesting that constitutional reforms in the UK since 1997 have been weak, incomplete and require further change
devolution is incomplete
house of lords reform is incomplete
house of commons reform is incomplete
arguments suggesting that constitutional reforms in the UK since 1997 have NOT been weak, incomplete and require further change
devolution is sufficient
house of lords reform is sufficient
house of commons reform is sufficient
devolution is incomplete: why should there be further devolution to England?
devolution has not solved the West Lothian question, which essentially asks whether powers should be devolved to England, so there needs to be further devolution to England
English devolution would tackle this question by bringing an end to the issue of Scottish MPs being able to vote on purely English matters at Westminster but English MPs having no influence in the Scottish Parliament
it would also finally resolve the issues concerning the Barnett formula, which determines funds for public spending in each region but currently awards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland more spending per head than England
consequently, it seems clear that England should have its own devolved body, especially since England is the most prosperous and heavily populated part of the UK, yet the only one without a devolved body of its own - something that seems highly illogical
devolution is incomplete: EVEL is not sufficient
critics would also point to the fact that EVEL (English Votes for English Laws), which supposedly resolves the West Lothian question, does not go far enough because when considering bills which are applicable to England only, English MPs only have the opportunity to veto a bill in its initial stages
for a bill to become a statue, it still requires a majority of affirmative votes from all MPs, including those of non-English constituencies, thereby allowing elected members from the devolved assemblies to vote on bills which affect England only
for instance, in 2015, Scottish MPs were able to block Conservative proposals to lift the existing ban on fox hunting by threatening to vote down any legislation by assembling a coalition of MPs sufficient to block the proposals
devolution has been sufficient, there is no need for further devolution: why is there no need for further English devolution?
there does not need to be further devolution to England
the West Lothian question is not a major problem, which indicates that English devolution is not really necessary
the main reason why the question is of little real concern is because there are only 59 Scottish MPs in Westminster, so they can only alter the outcome of a vote if there is also significant support from English or Welsh MPs - this illustrates that the idea of Scottish MPs encroaching upon the ‘jurisdiction’ of English MPs is not entirely accurate and is not what tends to happen in practice
for example, the defeat of an extension to Sunday trading laws in England and Wales was not just down to the votes of the SNP, but also because several English Conservative MPs and the Labour Party opposed it, suggesting that the result might have been the same in an English Parliament
in fact, the instances where the votes of Scottish MPs have made a discernible difference to the outcome of a vote are actually relatively few
house of lords reform is incomplete: still remains unelected and undemocratic
the house of lords is still unelected and undemocratic - needs further reform
the government ended the right of the majority of hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, but there are still 92 hereditary peers left
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
no agreement was made on making the Lords wholly or partly elected so it continues to lack democratic legitimacy
under the coalition government of 2010-15, some democratisation of the House of Lords took place but this process remains incomplete
house of lords reform is incomplete: the upper house needs more powers in order to be more effective
arguably, further reform to the Lords needs to take place to enable them to have more powers to hold the executive to account
the House of Lords tends to back down as they are not democratically legitimate and want to avoid conflict with the elected government
this was seen in 2017 when after detailed scrutiny, they voted on amendments to the EU bill that had been previously voted down in the Commons regarding residency rights of EU citizens in the UK and a pledge to ensure that Parliament has a vote on the final Brexit deal
however, the Lords eventually backed down and the bill was passed without the amendments as many Lords felt that they did not have the right to pressure the government in such a way, which demonstrates limits on their powers to be an effective check
other limits on the Lords’ ability to check the executive include the Salisbury Convention and the Parliament Act
perhaps making them elected will make them better able and more willing to challenge the executive as they will be democratically legitimate
house of lords reform is sufficient: no party domination, more modern appearance
the Lords does not require further reform
the vast majority of hereditary peers have already been abolished, which has eliminated the ability of any party to dominate the Lords as the majority of these hereditary peers were Conservative supporters
this also gave the Lords a more modern appearance as the majority of the Lords are 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 is sufficient: further reform would damage the Lords’ ability to hold the executive to account
any further reform would restrict their ability to hold the executive to account because the fact that they are unelected enables them to be a very effective check on government
for instance, the party whip is considerably weaker and less influential, meaning that they are freer from party control and can focus more on being an effective check on the executive
this is because once a Lord is appointed they hold that position for life and do not need to stand for re-election every 5 years
in other words, they are not under as much pressure to obey the party whip and align with their party because their careers are not on the line and do not depend on obedience
therefore, the Lords can operate more freely and be an effective check without fear of the consequences on their careers, which could explain why the Labour government from 1999-2010 suffered more than 450 defeats in the Lords
house of lords reform is sufficient: example of the Lords being more assertive and challenging the government
in 2015, the Lords voted to delay planned cuts to tax credits and compensate those affected which raised a constitutional issue because tax credits are a financial issue that the Lords should not be involved in as the Commons has financial privilege over them
however, the Lords still voted to delay and as a result, the government decided to review the cuts and listen to the concerns of the Lords, which illustrates just how effective the House of Lords can be as a check on the executive
house of commons reform is incomplete: government majority on select committees
the House of Commons needs further reform because select committees still lack sufficient power, further reform would enable them to be a more effective check on the executive
the government of the day usually holds a majority in these committees due to the electoral system of first past the post that tends to produce a strong government with a clear majority
the existence of this majority can restrict the committee’s effectiveness because those MPs and peers belonging to the governing party are expected to support their party instead of criticising it which makes it difficult to properly scrutinise and place checks on the government
house of commons reform is incomplete: select committees lack enforcement power
select committees hold no enforcement powers which means that they cannot compel the government to follow their recommendations or force them to take any action
while it’s true that 40% of committee recommendations are accepted, these rarely involve major changes to policy
house of commons reform is sufficient: select committee reforms
house of commons reform has been sufficient and highly successful as select committees are now very important and effective in holding the government to account
for instance, 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
chairs are elected by the whole House instead of being appointed by party whips - in other words they are more legitimate and less restricted by whips which allows them to act more effectively in examining and checking the work of the executive in great depth and detail
these reforms, known as the Wright Reforms, have enabled committees to focus more on improving the work of government rather than acting for their own gain and has emphasised their freedom
house of commons reform is sufficient: examples of select committees being highly effective and important
select committees devote weeks to debating and investigating an issue
for example, in 2018 the International Development Committee have been responsible for scrutinising and examining Oxfam in depth that would not have been able to be achieved in regular parliamentary debates as they cannot dedicate this much time to an issue, which just goes to show how effective select committees can be
