ESSAY PLANS

Evaluate The View That New Labour’s Constitutional Reforms Had A Positive And Significant Impact On The UK Constitution.(30)

PARA 1 - impact on the HoL

• MAIN ARGUMENT - new labour’s constitutional reforms had significant impact on the consitution as it modernised and increased effectiveness of the HoL

• House of Lords reform 1999

  • reduced hereditary peers from 700 to 92

  • this promotes a more even split between Tory and Labour members in the HoL and makes the Lords a more effctive check on the executive

• when there was a Tory majority in the HoL, Thatcher suffered 156 defeats in 11 years. in contrast, Boris Johnson suffered 243 defeats in 3 years

  • crossbench peers (peers that aren’t party political) now hold the balance of power in the HoL, meaning the executive has to reach across party lines when passing legislation

• reduction on hereditary peers allowed room for professionals

  • By removing hereditary peers, the House of Lords can focus on merit-based appointments, ensuring that those with the skills and expertise to contribute to the legislative process are selected. can provide expertise on specific areas

    • James Timpson pioneered a progressive employment program by hiring ex offenders to help them re-integrate into society. he is now Minister of State for Prisons

  • this can increase representation as this could allow for more diverse voices and perspectives to be heard in the House of Lords. This could lead to better legislation and a more effective check on the government

• COUNTER ARGUMENT - there are still many issues w/ the HoL, new labour reforms insignificant

• HoL still unelected and therefore still unrepresentative, and therefore undemocratic

  • vast majority of hereditary peers who have sat in HoL are white men

  • in 2021 nearly half of the hereditary peers had attended the same school, Eton

  • shows how a lot of them are same race and class background, not able to relate to most of the UK. arguably shouldnt make legislation for them

• the UK is the only democratic country to have hereditary legislators

para 1 evaluation

• new labour reforms had a significant impact on the UK constitution as it modernised the HoL. although this is undermined by the fact that hereditary peers still maintain influence in the Lords, the reforms made it more effective and increased its ability to hold the government to account.

• constitution more modern and effective

PARA 2 - devolution

• MAIN ARGUMENT - new labour’s constitutional reforms had significant impact on the consitution as it gave power to devolved nations

• several acts to grant more power to Scotland, Wales, NI

• scotland and wales given primary legislative powers over areas of policy like education, healthcare etc

  • done w/ Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Act 1998

• NI gained Northern ireland assembly (Northern Ireland Act 1998)

• these reforms had significant impact on constitution as it increased representation of people within the devolved nations, satisfying demands of independence

  • decrease of political violence in NI since devolution

  • turnout in devolved elections relatively high. for example average turnout in NI elections is 62%

• COUNTER ARGUMENT - asymmetrical nature of devolution. new labour reforms insignificant

• different parts of the UK have different powers and policies. can be seen as undermining equal citizenship.

  • Scottish and NI parliaments control policing in their areas, while policing in Wales and England is controlled by Westminster

• devolution created West Lothain Question. creating tension between parts of the UK

PARA 2 evaluation

• reforms significant on constitution as they improved representation in NI, wales and scotland

• constitution more representative

PARA 3 - constitutional reform act

• main argument - new labour reform had significance on constitution by enhancing separation of powers and judicial independence

• CRA 2005 impacted constitution by enhancing separation of powers and judicial independence

  • Created the Supreme Court (2009), replacing the Law Lords in the House of Lords. Separated the judiciary from the legislature

• also reduced executive influence over judicial appointment process by creating JAC which promotes transparency

• counter argument - executive still has influence over judiciary. reforms didnt change much

• executive still has influence over parts of the judicial branch

  • in 2017 while Lord chancellor liz truss changed age limit for the post of Lord Chief Justice

• the Lord Chancellor does have a limited power of veto regarding Supreme Court nominations, as well as the right to request a reconsideration from the JAC

• shows how executive still has some influence over the judicial appointments process which undermines the judiciary’s independence

para 3 evaluation

• new labour impacted the constitution by reducing overlap between the judiciary and legislature, enhancing judicial independence

evaluate the view that devolution has been a success

PARA 1 - has allowed for peace/unity

• devolution has been good for NI due to it bringing peace

• done w the Good Friday Agreement 1998 which brought an end to the Troubles and established a power-sharing gov between the DUP and Sinn Fein

• brought peace as opposing sides in NI are able to cooperate, reducing divide between unionists and nationalists

  • There were over 3,500 killings during the Troubles

  • In the 20 years after the Good Friday Agreement, the number of conflict-related deaths was less than 150.

PARA 1 COUNTER - devolution has created tension due to it not being enough

• seen w parl breaking Sewel Convention which undermines the autonomy of the devolved nations

• convention states UK Parliament will would not normally legislate on devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the permission of the devolved govs

  • convention broken most notably w EU Withdrawal Act 2018 (Brexit)

PARA 2 - more representation

• devolved nations use more PR electoral systems so minor parties are able to be more successful

• allows a wider range of political parties to gain representation, including nationalist and regional parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who would struggle to achieve a national majority under the Westminster system.

• increases representation for those that support them 

• SNP has 60/129 MSPs under AMS vs 9/650 MPs under FPTP

• It also encourages cross-party cooperation and power-sharing, particularly in Northern Ireland, making the political system more inclusive.

PARA 2 COUNTER - not actually fully representative, seen w England

• not every area in England has a form of regional government. not fully representative as England is overlooked and lack of local representation

• there are only metro mayors in certain areas like Manchester which doesn’t allow for enough representation arguably

• ALTHOUGH it’s arguable that this isnt an issue

  • in 2004 North East were offered an assembly but 78% voted no

  • regional elections in England have low turnout, w the Tees Valley 2021 assembly election having 34% turnout

• showcases that even though England seems to have been granted little representation in devolution, the people aren’t bothered by it

• debatably MORE representative as the English people have voted that they didn’t want more devolved powers

PARA 3 - more democratic due to focus on regional issues

• in Scotland, the Scottish parl have built 20,000 new homes, made education free

• Infrastructure Act 2024 in Wales

• Mayor of London’s budget for 2024-25 extented free school meals programme (on the back of Marcus Rashford’s free school meal programme)

• devolution has allowed devolved govs to focus on regional issues specifically, allowing them more success

• seen w the Scotland Act/ Government of Wales Act 1998 which granted them primary legislative powers 

PARA 3 COUNTER - not that democratic as England is still overlooked in regional issues

• West Lothian Q - why should Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs be able to vote on specifically English issues in the HoC but not vice versa?

• where the majority of English MPs vote against a measure, but it’s still passed w/ the support of MPs representing constituents who are not themselves affected

  • eg the 2004 legislation on university tuition fees in England, which passed with the help of votes from Scottish Labour MPs despite opposition from a majority of English MPs

• the scrapping English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) is considered undemocratic by its proponents because it removes a mechanism designed to ensure that legislation applying only to England cannot be passed without the consent of a majority of English MPs

PARA 3 COUNTER 2 - devolution undermines parl-sov, not truly democratic

• parl sov is democratic due to legitimacy of parliament being derived from the fact that Parliament represents the will of the people

• undermining seen w Sewel Convention

  • UK Parliament will would not normally legislate on devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the permission of the devolved govs

  • in the 2019-24 parliamentary term Scottish Parliament withheld consent from Westminster 13 times

• BUT this is only a convention, they don’t have to uphold it

  • convention broken most notably w EU Withdrawal Act 2018 (Brexit)