Evalute The View That New Labour’s Constitutional Reforms Had A Positive And Significant Impact On The Uk’s Constitution

Question 1

What are new labour policies and by who?

Answer 1

Introduced by Tony Blair including the Supreme Court, human rights act 1998, House of Lords reform, electoral reform and devolution

Question 2

Why can it be argued that the House of Lords act was a positive?

Answer 2

Removed hereditary peers to 92 and replaced them with life peers. This can be seen as significant as it undermined the hereditary basis of the House of Lords and removed its in-built Conservative majority, with crossbenchers ensuring no single party can get
a majority. As a consequence, the House of Lords is now more independent of the executive
and better able to limit the power of the government.
Tony Blair was defeated just 4 times in the House of Commons, all of which were in his last term, but was defeated 353 times in the House of Lords.
As the reforms meant that the hofl have greater legitimacy,it also embodies them to stand up to gov on key issues such as defending human rights. E.g ten defeats in the hofl in 2001 led to the gov to remove incitement of religious hatred as an offence from its anti-terrorism legislation,

Question 3

Argument against the House of Lords having a negative impact?

Answer 3

Insignificant as the House of Lords remains unelected and therefore, undemocratic.
E.g new labour attempted a two-part plan to remove hereditary peers= 1.remove all hereditary peers 2. Replace the lords with an elected second chamber.
Not only was stage one not fully carried out as 92 hereditary peers remained, stage two didn’t happen at all due to disagreements over how the new chamber should look like.
Limited legislative powers
E.g the parliaments act 1922 and 1949 prevent the lords from voting down any financial bills and can only delay legislations for a yr, reinforced by the Salisbury convention- prevents the House of Lords from voting down any legislation that fulfils a commitment in the governing party’s election manifesto.

Question 4

Arguments for devolution

Answer 4

Devolved sig powers to Scotland, wales, NI and the Greater London Authority.
E.g snp abolished prescription fees and tuition fees. Control over public services like transport and agriculture- ‘service devolution’
Sig impact over the constitution bc they created govs closer to the people and therefore improves democracy- closer mp-constituent link.
Andy burnham and Manchester’s health plan and Cornish buses- 9 metro mayors.

Question 5

Arguments against devolution

Answer 5

Devolution was asymmetric
Crucially, no English parliament or substantial representation of England was introduced, which can be seen as creating a democratic deficit and providing no effective outlet for English identity.
Undermine equal citizenship and as different citizens have different levels of representation , are subjected to different laws and polices.
E,g Scottish and NI parliaments control policing, whilst policing in wales and England is controlled by the uk parl.
Manchester and Cornwall have more power than other counties.
Negative impact bc it created the West Lothian question- tensions as Scottish MPs can vote for English matters even if it doesn’t affect their constituents but English MPs can’t do the same in the Scottish parliament.

Question 6

For human rights

Answer 6

Human rights activists 1998- enshrined the ECHR into uk law, in effect from 2000, meaning that rights can be defended in uk courts rather than having to go to Strasbourg. The rights protect right to life, right a fair trial and prohibition of torture.
Positive as the uk has developed a ‘rights-based culture’
Hj vs ht v home office 2010 and in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, part of the anti-terrorism, Crime and security act 2001 was declared incompatible to articles 5 and 14 of the human rights act by indefinitely imprisoning suspected foreign crimes like in the belmarsh case.
Further rule of law

Question 7

Against hrs

Answer 7

Not fully entrenched in the uks uncodified con, over stated its sig as it can be repealed
Illegal migration bill was introduced by Home Secretary suella braverman in 2023 with a section 19 note stating that there was a likelihood the provisions of the bill will be incompatible with HRA and international law, but the gov still wanted to proceed.
Not a strong foothold for hrs to begin with, not everyone is protected- undemocratic.