Persuasive Essay: Constitutional Reform Since 1997 Has Not Gone Far Enough

📌Category: Government, Great Britain, Politics, World
📌Words: 1484
📌Pages: 6
📌Published: 21 February 2022

Since 1997 there has been some major constitutional reform that has shaped the UK’s constitution. Constitutional reform is the process of changing the way the United Kingdom is governed. It could include devolution, House of Lords reform, and changes to the judiciary's operations.  My opinion is that constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough.

Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough. The most significant change to the UK constitution is the devolution of power within the United Kingdom. Due to these changes being made devolution is considered a major part of the UK constitution. Devolution is the transfer of powers to the subnational assemblies from the central government. In 1998 Tony Blair introduced The Scotland Act that allowed, which established a Scottish Parliament and executive which devolved several powers allowing Westminster to Scotland. These included local government, housing, environment, law, education health and income tax. In addition, Northern Ireland and Wales obtained devolved assemblies however these had less power than the Scottish Parliament. This reform shows significant change to the UK’s constitution has the four nations of the UK are more fairly represented by having their own assemblies or parliament. Some negative aspects of this are has created unfairness between the four nations due to how is it fair the Scottish Parliament has more power than the Northern Ireland and Wales assemblies and that the reforms weren’t enough due to Westminster being superior. Another negative aspect is it is uncertain whether non- English MPs in Westminster should be voting on issues only relating to England. In 2014 when Scotland said no to independence Scotland Act 2016 was created transferring more powers over to Scotland such as varying the rate of income tax, having the right to receive 50% of the proceeds in VAT gathered in Scotland, determining abortion laws, deciding air passengers duty and determining speed limits and the Scottish parliament is a permeant feature of the UK constitution. Further devolution includes the 2017 Wales Act which included further devolution since the 2006 Act such as more control over the taxes and makes the Welsh Assembly a permanent part of the UK constitution. This is a positive as power is more evenly equal across the UK. Some people would disagree as its making Westminster less powerful when the 2016 Scotland Act and the 2017 Wales Act. Since 1997 there has been major change in devolution although England does not have its own Parliament, MPs from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales sit in Westminster and vote on English issues. There has been a claim that England is underrepresented in devolved assemblies since there are no English MPs. Further action should be taken to set up an English Parliament do to discuss just political matters that concern England and not the whole of the UK. A counter argument would be if England doesn’t need its own parliament due to Westminster being located in London. This is wrong because England needs its own parliament due to it being underrepresented because MPs from Scotland, Wales and NI vote on matters that only concern England when that doesn’t happen in other nations of the UK. Overall, since 1997 there has been a lot of devolution reform which as helped keep the UK together as a whole. I would definitely think there needs to be more reform due to England being underrepresented by not having its own parliament and the fact that other MPs not from England can vote on issues that only concern England and that can’t happen in the Scottish parliament or the Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly.

Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough. In 1999 the Blair government introduced legislation to reform the Upper House 1,300 peers were eligible to attend the House of Lords. The majority were hereditary peers which meant that there right to sit in the House of Lords derived from there membership of one of the aristocratic families of the UK. The hereditary peers outnumber the life peer, who had been appointed to the Lords as result to the service to the nation. The changes that the reform included were all but 93 of the hereditary peers were removed. The Act reduced the House of Lords membership 1,330 to 669 which were mainly life peers, only life peers can now be appointed to the Lords, all Lords appointment are now made by the independent commission instead of the prime minster. A positive of the reform was that the most undemocratic element of the House of Lords has been largely removed and abolishing most of the hereditary peers, Labour in effect ended the inbuilt Conservative majority in the chamber which meant it would be harder for future Conservative governments would be scrutinised more effectively. Negatives included that the reform was supposed to be the first stage of two stage process, which would eventually lead to a party being partly or fully elected chamber. The second stage hasn’t happened. Also, the Lords doesn’t have enough power to hold the government to account as it is constrained by the Salisbury Act (meaning it can’t block manifesto items) and by Parliament Acts can only delay them. However, in 2014 more reform was introduced to the House of Lords which was enacted during the collation government which was actually a private members bill which let members of the House of Lords to resign or retire. Those who regularly didn’t attend or if they were imprisoned can be excluded. This is known as the House of Lords Act 2014. A counterargument would be that the House of Lords is democratic due to the majority of the members being life peers and elected by an independent commissioner and not the prime minster. This is wrong because even know the House of Lords is members are mainly life peers they are not elected by members of the public in an election like the House of Commons. Overall, the House of Lords has gone through a lot of constitutional reform but it hasn’t been completed due to the second part where it becomes an elected or part-elected chamber. It needs to be reformed more so it has the ability to challenge the government because currently it can’t do that to an extend and the House of Lords needs to be reformed more to become an elected chamber so it represents a fair proportion of the people’s views and to be able to challenge the government more easily.

Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough. In 2005 a major piece of constitutional reform took place under the Blair government which was the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Although the Judiciary should be separate from legislation and the executive, there were many “loopholes” in the UK’s constitution. Before the act was introduced The Lord Chancellor was not only head of the judiciary but was also a mender of the cabinet and presided over the House of Lords. The most senior judge also sat in the House of Lords but could not vote. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 guaranteed separation of powers. The act included the following: it ended the House of Lords’ judicial function and in its place created the Supreme Court. It opened in 2009 and the way in which members dispense justice has proved to be more transparent and clear than in the Law of the Lords, it took the 12 most senior judges out of the House of Lords and put them in the Supreme Court, It also guaranteed the independence of the judiciary, taking the appointments of judges out of political hands, and replaced the lord chancellor, a cabinet minster, as head of judiciary by the lord chief of justice a senior judge. Positive is the Supreme Court have been it is a separate institution from parliament, it enjoys greater independence and is willing to challenge the government e.g it prevented Boris Johnson from proroguing parliament for political reasons in September 2019. A negative is that the Supreme Court does not have much power than the body it replaced. It can only interpret laws passed by Parliament whereas in the USA it can strike down laws that are deemed to be unconstitutional and The Supreme Court is only allowed as much power as it is given by Parliament, and the power it currently has can be taken away. A counter argument would be the Supreme Court has enough power currently because it holds the government accountable to its actions e.g. it prevented Boris Johnson from proroguing parliament for political reasons in 2019. This is wrong because Parliament is sovereign to the Supreme Court meaning parliament has more power over laws than the Supreme Court does. Overall, the creation of the Supreme Court has been successful, but it needs to be reformed more by making it more sovereign than parliament meaning it will have more of an effect in claiming to see if a law could be unconstitutional and holding the government to account would be more effective. 

In conclusion, there has been a lot of constitutional reform since 1997 such as devolution across the UK, major reform in the House of Lords and the creation of the Supreme Court. But theses Acts and Laws have not been reformed enough such as devolution within the UK has made the UK stronger as a whole but has left England unrepresented and the House of Lords reform not being completed fully and that parliament is sovereign to the supreme court. All of theses changes have led to major constitutional change in the UK but these laws and acts to be reformed further to make the UK’s democracy run smoother.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.