To What Extent Have Constitutional Reforms Introduced Since 1997 Made the Uk More Democratic? (01/13)Essay Preview: To What Extent Have Constitutional Reforms Introduced Since 1997 Made the Uk More Democratic? (01/13)Report this essayDemocracy is a system in which power resides with the people either directly or where power and influence is exercised through representatives. While some of the reforms since 1997 have made the UK more democratic, such as the use of referendums, devolution, accompanied by new electoral systems; the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law as the Human Rights Act; the Freedom of Information Act; and the introduction fixed term parliaments, it can be argued that reforms have not gone far enough and democracy could be strengthened further as the constitution remains uncodified and there remains undemocratic elements such as the House of Lords and the prerogative powers of the PM, the āunfairā FPTP electoral system.
One of the constitutional reforms introduced that have made the UK more democratic is the Devolution Act (1998). In this reform act the power to govern was decentralised from London to allow wales and Scotland to partially self-govern. The Scotland Act of 1998 decentralised a series of governmental powers to the newly created Scottish Parliament, and allowing Scotland to carry out its own policies varying from those at Westminster and being able to make its own decisions. For example, the Scottish Parliament decided to abolish tuition fees and provide free long-term care to elderly people. Wales and Northern Ireland have the same rights and are able to make decisions for their constituents even if they differ from those put forward at Westminster, which shows that the UK was demonstrating decentralisation and democratisation. Devolution dispersed power from the hands of Parliament through the means of Devolution and therefore creating a more democratic constitution. Therefore, Devolution as a whole has been a major constitutional reform since 1997 that has made the UK more democratic as it has enabled government to be more aware of issues at a local and regional scale, better representing the citizens of these areas.
Another constitutional reform introduced was to the unelected House of Lords Act in 1999 which removed all but 92 hereditary peers. the House of Lords itself contained 1330 members, half being hereditary peers; meaning that they had received āpeershipā through their families rather than being appointed themselves. In āstage oneā of the reform, the number was reduced to 669 members, of which 92 would be hereditary peers, thus making parliament more democratic as it reduced the number of unaccountable and unrepresentative members that could influence government policy without even being elected or even having a mandate unlike the House of Commons; this therefore makes it a more legitimate chamber.
A third constitutional reform introduced were the Human Rights Act 1998, which for the first time gave citizens of the UK positive rights and liberties. These rights included the Right to Life, the Right to a Fair Trial, and the Right to Marry and Start a Family. These rights were famously exercised under the Blair government, by a man named Abu Hamza, a Muslim cleric, famous for his extremist views and terrorist affiliations. After facing deportation, he argued that it would infringe his right to marry and start a family if this took place. Judges found this infringement to be valid and his deportation request was denied. Further to this, Tony Blair introduced the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 which aimed to create a more transparent government by allowing citizens to request information about certain public institutions and also oblige the public authorities to publish certain information about their activities. These reforms both make the UK more democratic as they have shown a commitment to protecting our rights as a whole, and further to allow us to hold government to account through other means.
A fourth democratic constitutional reform includes the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 which affected the role of the Lord Chancellor. This conflict came as a result of the Lord Chancellor (Robert Reid) was a law lord and also the speaker, thereby entitled to sit in the House of Lords, the unelected half of the legislative body. There was a crossing of the judicial and legislative branch, and this also undermined the theory that in order for the judiciary to safeguard the citizens, it must remain an independent body that isnāt influenced by politics. Therefore, by removing the law lords from the House of Lords and into a separate and individual body – the Supreme Court – the Constitutional Reform Act created a clearer Separation of Powers thereby making the UK more democratic as it prevents an over-mighty executive.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2013 was a bill to increase the proportion of all House of Lords which served on constitutional boards and took the form of the “No to parliament”, so that any member of either party could have a representation in Parliament in a particular assembly as per the Act, and therefore gave it a stronger political case than in the past.
The bill would have reduced the House of Lords as well as the constitutional representation of the English Parliament by up to 50 per cent. This should provide a clearer separation of powers in an effort to reduce party or minority representation for the parliament, thus making it less susceptible to a de-emphasizing majority among the members of both parties — this should also ensure that Parliament no longer has a position in a referendum.
At the same time, the bill would restore the independence of the Scottish Parliament and, from the Constitution Bill 2014, allow MPs to change their vote.
The legislation was introduced after independence, so that its application to the Scottish Parliament, as well as all Scottish Government departments (the General, National and Executive Departments for Public Expenditure, the Scottish Ministers, the Cabinet Office, and the Department of Finance under the Scotland Act, 2010, are considered below).
The bill also abolished two sections of Government funding and replaced the Scottish National Fund by a Scottish Government grant.
The legislation replaced the “No to parliament” by a motion to reconsider the bill.
The bill included amendments to the Constitution Clause of Article 1, to restore the power to make amendments (by amendment, of this kind, to a Constitution) to legislation. The measure did not also include an amendment to the Constitutional Act on Article 25 to make the current constitutional body more independent of Westminster’s rule-making powers.
Under the bill the Scottish Government would be provided with the power to make amendments to certain statutes as well as to the Scottish Constitution by the Scottish parliament (as a part of Article 25 of the Constitution).
The legislation replaced the “Criminal Law Act 1958” by the “Civil Code Act 1953” as follows: the amendment to Article 50 would restore the voting proportion of the House of Commons (by the number of members of each party) to be divided by 100, rather than the usual 100.
The amendment to the Act would also restore “The Constitution Act 1984” as it states otherwise.
In addition, the bill contained significant changes to the Parliament.
An amendment to the Act, made under the name “The Constitution Bill of 2002” would restore an absolute right by the Holyrood House of Commons (in the English language that is entitled to the Holyrood House of Commons, “the Parliamentary Assembly”) to adopt an Act of constitutional change at least as much as 90 per cent of the time by a unanimous vote of both Houses of Parliament.
The amendment stated that a majority of all MPs would be invited to vote for the amendments to be put into action, so that it would be possible to make a decision as to whether another amendment would have any effect.
The amendments would require any parliamentary member to be present at either the meeting after ratification or in his/her seat for the vote.
The bill would have provided for parliamentary “parliamentary representatives”: such as a minister (including a prime
However, the House of Lords reform can perhaps be seen as rather undemocratic as the chamber remains both unelected and unrepresentative. There have been proposals to make the House of Lords a wholly elected chamber, but seem to have been delayed since the 2010 Coalition came to power. It could also be said that an elected upper chamber would cause further delay in passing bills and could easily cause a lack in effectiveness of Parliament and would not be able to act effectively as a