2.1.2 Codification and How the Constitution Has Changed Since 1997

why did new labour introduce constitutional reform policies?

-was a growing issue in uk politics
-growth in support for welsh and scottish nationalist movements lead to further devolution
-new labour wanted to look like a modern party that acted as a beacon of hope

what were the 4 key principles of labour’s reforms

-democratisation
-decentralisation
-restoration of rights
-modernisation

what reforms were introduced to the house of lords

-the reforms were undertaken due to hereditary peers, the house of lords being unelected, and the strong conservative majority
-labour wanted to remove heridtary peers and add a second chamber to the house

what year was the house of lords act passed

1999

what did the 1999 house of lords act do

removed the vast majority of heridtary peers reducing them from 777 to 92

what is a life peer and when were they introduced

people who were experts in their field and not necessarily linked to a party
2000

in wha ways was the house of lords reform positive and significant

-undermined the heriditary base of the house of lords
-removed its in built conservative majority
-new life peers made the house more professional and significant
-made house of lords more able to effectively restrain executive power

in what ways were house of lords reforms limited?

-hasn’t gone the whole way, with failed attempts at stage 2 in 2003, 2007 and 2012
-house of lords can still be deemed undemocratic as still unelected (however, counter would be life peers, viewed as being there on merit)
-still 26 bishops in the house of lords as of 2026
-ex prime ministers can still make appointments to the house of lords

arguments for lords being replaced with a second chamber (furhter reform is needed)

-fundamnetally undemocratic—> second chamber should be based upon popular consent

-being elected would embolden the second chamber→ leads to more effective scrutiny of government legislation→ therefore more accountability (vs current unelected nature make it difficult to scruntise legislation and many members simply do not play an active role)

-unlikely that it would have a majority, changing the current system of elective dictatorship

-would be more representative of the electorate due if elected via proportional representation

arguments against the lords being replaced with a second chamber (no more reform needed)

-if the second chamber was elected, it would be able to claim democratic legitmacy and become much more assertive→ would risk causing gridlock in Parliament and prevent important legislation being passed→ would be even more likely if elected at the same time as the commons as each chamber would likely have a different party majority

-current problems with PM appointments could be fixed without resorting to a second chamber

-current system works, why change tradition? the HoL is a less powerful chamber that can still hold the government to account when it needs to

-an elected second chamber would likely to be concerned with party politics more than anything else, e.g. Australia which has a similar system

3 examples of house of lords remform

past→Parliament act 1949, reduced lords’ absolute veto power to a 1 year delaying mechanism

landmark→House of Lords Explusion and Suspension Act 2015→ created legal mechanisms to expel or suspend misbehaving members for any length of time (more of the accountability theme)

post textbook→ Heridtary Peers act, passed in March of 2026. Removed the remaining 92 heridtary peers from the HoL

themes for evaluation for this paper

Modernisation of system
Accountability and scrutiny
Decentralisation of power
Power and soverignity
Enhance democratic representation
Protection of rights

what reforms were introduced for rights

-human rights act of 1998

what did the human rights act 1998 do?

entrenched the european convention on human rights into uk law in effect from 2000

what are the arguments for saying that human rights reforms were positive and significant?

-since the HRA it is claimed the the UK has adopted a rights based culture as all new legislation must be compliant with the act and judges can declare earlier legislation to be incompatible with the act (though they cannot legally compel parliament to make changes due to parliamentary sovereignty)

-parliament has a joint committee on human rights, demonstrating the persuasive influence of the HRA

-limits parlimentary sovereignty and has furthered the Rule of Law in the UK

in what ways are reforms to human rights limited?

-HRA 1998 has been criticised for giving unelected supreme court judges too much power

-may have been used to check other laws but it is not entrenched and could still be repealed by a single act of parliament, whilst also not being binding on a parliament

-right wing critics say that the HRA stops terrorists from being deported→ therefore, it arguably favours undeserving individuals rather than protecting the legitimate freedoms of UK citizens

what is an example of a bill that the government knew broke the human rights’ act but still proceeded with anyway?

2023 Illegal Migration Bill
introduced by suella braverman
there was a note within the bill that stated its provisions would likely be incompatible with the HRA, but the government wanted to proceed with it notheless
happened under conservative rule

possible further reforms for human rights

-replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights→ usually proponated by the conservative party, who advocate for leaving the european convention on human rights
-would make it easier to deport foreign criminals by elevating the right to oublic safety over the right family life.

-doing this would make the uk supreme court the final court of appeal rather than the european court of human rights. Would also weaken the protection of human rights in the UK, as the British Bill of Rights would be a simple act of parliament while the european convention on human rights is an international treaty

what electoral reforms were introduced?

-introduction of devolved assemblies led to various proportional representation systems in scotland and wales, london and northern ireland→ e.g. single transferable vote for the northern ireland assembly, additional member system for the welsh assembly and scottish parliament

how were electoral reforms positive?

-where these more proportional electoral systems were introduced, they led to more proportional election results and fairer representation for smaller parties→ therefore, new labour’s electoral reform can be seen to have improved democracy in the UK
-can be viewed as recognition that the first past the post system is flawed

in what ways was electoral reform limited?

-FPTP electoral system for UK Parliament elections wasn’t changed→ democracy therefore continues to be limited for important UK elections

arguments for a more proportional system being introduced in uk parliament elections

-has shown to be very effective in NI, Scotland and Wales
-would improve democracy in the uk by improving voter choice and being more representative and limiting the dominance of the 2 main parties

arguments against a more proportional system being introduced in uk parliament elections

• a more proportional electoral system (alternative vote system) has already been rejected in a 2011 referendum

• FPTP excludes extremist parties

• FPTP is easy to use and delivers quick results

how likely is further electoral reform

• unlikely

when was new labour (under Blair) elected and how much seat majority did they get?

1997
179 seat majority

what is the speculated reason that labour abandoned a more proportional voting system?

their political successes and majorities in elections
179 majority in 1997 and 166 majority in 2001
highlights one of the problems with constitutional reform, that a government is unlikely to proceed with constitutional reform if it benefits their political interests over the national interests

which devolved body was given the most powers?

scotland

what type of controls was Scotland granted?

most public services like health or education

in what ways were devolution reofrms positive and significant

-improved democrcy in the uk→ created governments closer to the people of the devolved bodies
-reduced the soverignigty of the uk parliament by giving significant powers to other legislative bodies
-devolution in northern ireland kept the peace after the troubles→ therefore it could be said that it kept the UK together as a whole?

in what ways were devolution reforms negative and not far enough?

-wales was initially given very little powers
-has arguably increased tensions between different parts of the uk
-failed to stop growing independence movement in scotland
-was asymmetric, with there being no English Parliament or substantial representation of England, therefore creating democratic deficit

potential further reforms for Scotland?

-few further powers can be given as Scottish Parliament already has a great amount of power
- as more powers are given, the more prominent the West Lothian question becomes

potential further reforms for Wales?

-welsh indepedence is growing in popularity, with 32% polls in 2026
-may have been influenced by COVID which demonstrates Wales could diverge from England sucessfully

further reforms for england

-further reform is possible to be introduced due to the aysmmetric nature of devolution in england
-may even solve the west lothian question and increase english representation

which government introduced the Sct 2005

Blair’s

what was the sct creation inteded to do

modernise the judicary by moving towards a speeration of powers

in what ways were the sct reforms positive and significant?

brought the uk in line with most of europe by clearly separating the legislature and the judiciary
→ this increased the independence of the uk’s highest court and made it more effective in holding parliament and the government to account
→ therefore can be seen as improving the rule of law

in what ways were the sct reforms limited

still lacked power to strike down laws passed by parliament

however, the supreme court could legally be abolished with a simple act of parliament→parliamentary sovereignty is therefore still intact

potential further sct reforms

unlikely

other minor constitutional change (hint its an act made by new labour)

Freedom of Information Act 2000

good of FIO introduced

-improved rights of citizens as they could access more info that bodies held about them
-arguably increased government transparency→ MPs Expenses Scandal was found out via FIO

counters for FIO being good

too weak as the government can turn down requests if they judge it would have negative impacts

what minor change occured in the house of lords in 2002

new labour mandated the PM to be questioned bi annually by the house of commons liaison select committee

what consitutional reforms did the lib dem + conservative coalition pass

-fixed term parliament act→ PM couldn’t call a snap election→ repealed in 2022 by Johnson’s government

-MPs now vote for the chairs of select committees rather than them being chosen by the whips
-public was given more power over decisions via e petitions→ 10k signatures and MP backing required for it to be debated though, also no gaurantee as far as I know

how many people voted in favoru of devoltion in wales 2011

64%

what act gave scotland more tax raising powers post 2015

scotland act 2016
→ also lowered voting age to 16

why was EVEL created

to address the west lothian question

when was EVEL introduced

2015
by conservatives

what is EVEL an example of

further reforms and english devolution

when was EVEL scrapped

2021
by Johnson’s governent

critisms of EVEL

created 2 tiers of MP
created unnecessary complications

when was recall of mps act introduced

2015

what did the recall of mps act give voters

more power over removing mps who refused to resign
→ example of direct democracy that increased the soverignity of the people

recent example of the recall of mps act being used

Margaret Ferrier (2023): Recalled after breaking COVID-19 rules and receiving a suspension from Parliament.

arguments for the codification of the constitution

executive would be better checked
would encourage public engagement in politics
current one is too easy to ammend
would effectively protect rights

how would codification lead to the executive being better checked

• parliament could better check and restrain the executive

• makes the government more accountable to the people’s democratically elected representative

• supreme laws could strike down laws passed by parliament if it breaks the ocnsitituion

how would codification encourage the public to engage in politics

• would help citizens to hold government accountable by clearly spelling out what powers each branch has

• a bill of rights may give citizens greater understanding about their political rights

how would codification lead to the constitution being less easy amend?

• any statutue can be repealed by parliament, thus it is arguably too easy to amend

• entrenchment would protect the constitution from political interference from an overarching executive and make it more likely that potential reforms are fully debated before being enacted
  
  

how can recent events be used as an argument for codifying the constitution

-division of powers is very unclear in Britain, with Brexit being very centralised and devolved bodies having little say in the matter despite it having a serious impact on their future

arguments against codification

makes it flexible
makes us able to deal with emergencies
produces strong governments that can effectively pass laws

why does the flexbility that uncodififed give mean it is good

• allows britain to evolve gradually

• allows us to react to unsual circumstances well

• many reforms (like house of lords reform) could be introduced without codification

why does the ability to deal with emergencies that uncodififed give mean it is good

-can suspend elections during wars, deal with challenged security measures such as post 9/11
-therefore the system can develop better and Britain can be kept up to date
→ emergency measures to respond to COVID show this well

why does producing strong governments that can effectively pass laws mean that uncodififed is good

• governments can carry out their legislative programmes unobstructed by checks and balances unlike states with codified constitutions

• voters can be sure that governments elected will actually enact their manifesto and pass laws promised