Evaluate The View That The Constitutional Reforms Introduced By New Labour Should Be Taken Further.

Introduction

• ‘New Labour’s Constitutional Reforms’ refers to a number of reforms introduced by Tony Blair’s governments, including the Supreme Court, Human Rights Act 1998, House of Lords Reform, Electoral Reform and Devolution

Paragraph Focus

• Para 1 = House of Lords

• Para 2 = Devolution

• Para 3 = Human Rights Act 1998

Para 1 = Weaker Argument - Shouldn’t Be Taken Further

• it can be argued that the House of Lords shouldn’t be made elected, as if it was it would be able to claim democratic legitimacy and be a lot more assertive

• This would risk causing gridlock in Parliament and prevent important legislation from being passed.

• This would be especially likely if it was elected at a different time to the House of Commons and if it was elected using proportional representation.

• The current appointed nature of the House of Lords can be seen as an advantage, as life peers have a lot of expertise in different areas and can therefore provide effective scrutiny.

• Baroness Brown of Cambridge Julia Elizabeth King, for example, is the current chair of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology

Para 1 = Stronger Argument - Should Be Taken Further

• one way in which New Labour’s constitutional reforms should be taken further is through making the House of Lords elected

• It can be argued that the House of Lords should be replaced with an elected second chamber as is fundamentally undemocratic and in a democracy houses of Parliament should be based on popular consent.

• This is a view supported by Keir Starmer who in 2024 announced plans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a new democratically elected second chamber.

• they will include removing politicians’ power to make appointments to the Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber that represents the UK’s nations and regions to safeguard devolution

Para 2 = Weaker Argument - Shouldn’t Be Taken Further

Para 2 = Stronger Argument - Should Be Taken Further

• a key potential further reform to devolution is introducing further devolution to England.

• A key problem with the current system of devolution is that it is asymmetric, with England lacking the level of democratic representation that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

• An English Parliament would complete devolution within the UK, making it symmetrical and granting the English population the same level of representation as the rest of the UK.

• This would allow for the policy preferences of English people to be represented, such as has been the case in Scotland.

• The Scottish population is more left wing than the rest of the UK and the Scottish Parliament has been able to represent this in policies such as free tuition fees and higher income tax

Para 3 = Weaker Argument - Shouldn’t Be Taken Further

• it can be argued that an entrenched Bill of Rights would simply increase the power of unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative judges to police the constitution

• It is arguably better if Parliament resolves such issues and is accountable to the people, as is currently the case.

• Further, it can be argued that the Human Rights Act in fact currently provides a robust framework for protecting the rights of British citizens

• all new legislation must be compliant with the act and judges can declare earlier acts of parliament incompatible with it

• For example, The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was declared incompatible with Articles 5 and 14

Para 3 = Stronger Argument - Should Be Taken Further

• it can be argued that this reform should be taken further as it fails to effectively protect rights in the UK.

• The HRA may be used to check other laws, but it is not entrenched and could still be repealed by a simple act of parliament

• Parliamentary sovereignty is therefore still in tact.

• The Illegal Migration Bill, for example, was introduced with a note stating that there was a likelihood it would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act but the government wanted to proceed with it nonetheless.

• It can therefore be argued that it should be taken further by introducing a British Bill of Rights and entrenching it as a part of the constitution by giving the Supreme Court the power to strike down laws passed by Parliament that break it