Topic 5.8 Debates on Future Constitutional Reform Flashcards
Give three proposals for constitutional reform
-devolution for England
-introducing a Bill Of Rights to replace the HRA
-a codified constitution
Devolution for England
Despite the elections of city and regional mayors, and the establishment of new political structures such as the Greater London Authority, devolution in England has been far more limited than in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Devolution for England
2 options to address England’s limited powers in comparison to Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland
Two options for addressing this issue are to have an English Parliament or regional assemblies.
Arguments for establishing an English Parliament
England is the only nation in the UK not to have its own parliament, which has created resentment.
It could sit outside of London, reducing that city’s political dominance and potentially reducing the North-South divide.
An English Parliament would permanently resolve the West Lothian question. It would clarify what is meant by ‘English-only issues and leave the Westminster Parliament free to focus on truly national issues. The EVEL measure, introduced in 2015, did not go far enough, as non-English MPs can still vote on English-only matters.
It can be argued that English identity and culture has been under threat from immigration and multiculturalism. An English Parliament would promote and preserve this.
Arguments against establishing an English Parliament
If every nation in the UK had its own parliament, it would raise the question of what the UK Parliament is for.
It would not give any more autonomy to the different regions in the UK. The people of Cornwall are likely to feel as distant from an English Parliament in, say, Nottingham as they are from the UK Parliament in Westminster.
The West Lothian question or English question has already been addressed by EVEL in 2015, which strikes the right balance between acknowledging that English MPs should have a greater say on matters relating to England and accepting that all laws passed in England have a considerable knock-on effect for the rest of the UK.
Well under 20% of the public support the creation of an English Parliament, according to the latest opinion polls. Polls also suggest that most English voters say they wish to be governed from the Westminster Parliament.
The idea behind regional assemblies in England
The idea behind regional assemblies is that in each region in England there would be established an elected body with responsibility for a number of policy areas. These bodies would enjoy roughly similar power to each other.
Arguments for regional assembles for England
Supporters of regional assemblies claim they would better reflect regional identity than the UK government. They argue that central government frequently fails to understand regional sensitivities. They might point to an example such as the ‘pasty tax’, proposed by the government in 2012, which could have affected West Country businesses.
Regional authorities, rather than Westminster, are best placed to take decisions on tax and on other matters that involve regional needs.
It would resolve the problem of asymmetric devolution. Currently, only some cities and metro regions have enjoyed devolved power in England. Regional assemblies would resolve this asymmetry by creating a more federal system.
This would therefore correct the ‘democratic deficit’ that the current arrangements produce.
There is cross-party support for regional devolution in England, as shown by a recent report supporting this model by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee of the House of Commons.
Arguments against regional assembles for England
Only a few regions have a strong regional identity, such as Yorkshire and the West Country.
Having regions in charge of taxes could lead to damaging tax competition in a bid to lure businesses to specific regions.
Asymmetric devolution is an appropriate model for a country such as the UK and a nation such as England. Some regions feel well served by the Westminster Parliament while others do not and so it is right that devolution is applied on a case-by-case basis. The new assemblies might result in a competition for power among existing devolved bodies.
There is only limited public support for regional assemblies. Voters in the northeast overwhelmingly rejected a North East Assembly in a 2004 referendum.
Replacing the HRA w a British Bill of Rights
Ever since the passing of the HRA in 1998, there has been Cristian form both sides of the political spectrum
Right wing criticism on HRA
Right-wing criticisms have focused on the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):
+ They claim that the Human Rights Act extends the scope of the ECHR still further, allowing domestic as well as foreign courts too much power over the decisions of elected politicians.
+ Therefore, a Bill of Rights could reduce the role that the ECHR and the
courts play in domestic decision making.
Left wing criticism on HRA
Notably liberal politicians
believe that the Act does not go far enough in defending the rights of the citizen against the state.
entrenched.
They believe that anything that replaces the Human Rights Act should be entrenched
Conservative and liberal commentators both commonly desire for…
The HRA 1998 to be replaced by a British Bill Of Rights
-although their visions of what that would contain are markedly different
Arguments in favour of replacing the HRA with a British Bill Of Rights
Critics of the uity of “judicial overreach both Strasbourg and the uk are guilty of udicial overreach, weighing into areas that they say should be for elected politicians to decide.
A Bill of Rights could clarify convention rights and how they should be applied in the UK. For example, the phrase
“degrading treatment and punishment’ contained within the
ECHR could be more narrowly defined.
Some rulings have been deeply unpopular, such as Hirst v United Kingdom (2005), where the ECtHR found that the UK had breached prisoners’ rights by banning them from voting.Advocates of a Bill of Rights argue that it would restore faith and trust in a less interfering judiciary.
It is argued that the Strasbourg court and the HRA undermine the sovereignty of Parliament. For example, under Article 46 of the ECHR, the UK is required to implement the judgments of the ECtHR.
Some argue that a Bill of Rights would reflect the balance between rights and responsibilities in a twenty-first-century world. For example, it could recognise the right to privacy but allow governments flexibility to counter terrorism, much of which is orchestrated through encrypted messages on social media platforms.
Left-wing supporters of a Bill of Rights argue that it does not have to reflect a Conservative tradition but instead a more liberal and tolerant one.
The current HRA lacks entrenchment. This is why it can be altered and likely weakened by the 2019 Tory manifesto pledge to ‘update’ the HRA.
Arguments against the replacing the HRA with a British bill of rights
Supporters of the HRA and ECHR argue that Conservatives overstate the influence of the ECtHR and that they do so because of a wider dislike of European influence and of citizens’ rights more generally.
An exercise in ‘clarifying rights could lead to rights being qualified and reduced where government and Parliament think fit.
Human rights laws will inevitably frustrate governments in order to protect rights. To supporters of the HRA, that’s no bad thing.
Parliament chooses which rulings to follow. Despite its ruling on allowing prisoner rights, Parliament is yet to change the law.
Those against scrapping the HRA argue that any repeal of the Act will signal a British retreat from the postwar human rights architecture, which they claim has done much to encourage the nations of Europe and beyond to adhere to basic human rights standards.
There is no unity on what would go into a British Bill of Rights. The fact that the HRA has been attacked by the left and the right could show that it gets the balance right between protecting rights and preserving parliamentary sovereignty.
The codification debate
The arguments as to whether the UK Constitution should be codified mainly focus on the trade-off between flexibility and greater protection of rights.
