Debates on Further Constitutional Reform

Since 1997, the United Kingdom has undergone significant constitutional reforms, fundamentally altering the structure and operation of the state. However, debate continues as to whether these reforms have gone far enough or whether further change is necessary. This discussion encompasses the effectiveness and limitations of reforms since 1997, the appropriate extent of devolution within England, and the question of whether the UK should adopt an entrenched and codified constitution, potentially including a bill of rights.

An Overview of the Extent to Which Individual Reforms Since 1997 Should Be Taken Further

The landscape of constitutional reform in the UK was notably transformed by the Labour government elected in 1997, initiating a suite of changes including devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Human Rights Act 1998, the establishment of the Supreme Court, the reform of the House of Lords, and the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Yet, each of these reforms has prompted debate regarding their sufficiency and completeness:

Devolution: While devolution has provided significant autonomy to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, critics argue that the arrangements remain asymmetrical and piecemeal. For instance, the West Lothian Question persists, as Scottish MPs can vote on matters affecting England, without reciprocal rights for English MPs regarding Scottish affairs. The current settlement has also failed to quell calls for Scottish independence or to resolve tensions in Northern Ireland.

House of Lords Reform: The House of Lords Act 1999 reduced hereditary peerages but did not complete the transition to a wholly or mainly elected chamber. Many contend that the Lords remains insufficiently democratic and reforms should be extended to enhance legitimacy and accountability.

Human Rights Act 1998: Incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law has been lauded for protecting civil liberties. However, some politicians and commentators advocate further reform, either to strengthen rights' protections or, conversely, to replace the Act with a British Bill of Rights that better reflects domestic priorities.

Freedom of Information Act 2000: While a significant step in promoting transparency, ongoing debates concern the extension of its scope and the tightening of exemptions.

The Supreme Court: Established in 2009 to separate the judiciary from the legislature, the Supreme Court has enhanced judicial independence. Yet, some argue for further codification of its powers and clearer guidelines on its relationship with Parliament and government.

Many analysts argue that the 'piecemeal' approach since 1997 has led to a lack of coherence, confusion, and unresolved tensions. Thus, there is ongoing debate about whether these reforms should be consolidated and deepened; potentially through a wholesale constitutional review.

The Extent to Which Devolution Should Be Extended in England

Devolution in England remains markedly less developed than in the other nations of the UK. London has an elected Mayor and Assembly, and various metro-mayors exist in city regions (such as Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region), yet there is no system of regional government or parliament equivalent to those in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

There are several perspectives on the future of English devolution:

Support for Extended Devolution: Proponents argue that further devolution would address the so-called "English Question" and enhance democratic accountability by bringing decision-making closer to local communities. Possible reforms include the creation of regional assemblies, strengthened powers for metro-mayors, or the establishment of an English Parliament.

Arguments Against Further Devolution: Critics suggest that further devolution could lead to policy incoherence or an unbalanced union, increasing costs or adding more bureaucracy without clear public demand. The defeat of proposals for regional assemblies; most notably the North East referendum in 2004 suggests limited appetite for such reforms.

Intermediate Options: Some propose a middle ground, such as enhanced powers for local authorities or further fiscal devolution, without creating new layers of government.

Ultimately, the future of English devolution remains unresolved, with ongoing debate about whether a symmetrical structure across the UK is either feasible or desirable.

Whether the UK Constitution Should Be Changed to Be Entrenched and Codified, Including a Bill of Rights

The UK famously possesses an "uncodified" (sometimes called "unwritten") constitution, comprised of statutes, conventions, works of authority, and common law. Repeated calls have been made for the UK to adopt an entrenched, codified constitution, which would clarify and protect fundamental principles and rights.

Arguments for a codified and entrenched constitution include:

• Clarity and Accessibility: A codified constitution would make the rules of the political system clearer and more accessible to citizens, politicians, and judges.
• Protection of Rights: Entrenchment would prevent governments from easily overturning fundamental rights or constitutional rules, reinforcing the rule of law.
• Modernisation: Many argue that the UK's current arrangements are outdated, illogical, and overly reliant on convention.
• Bill of Rights: A codified constitution might include a formal Bill of Rights, potentially strengthening individual freedoms and offering a higher standard of rights protection than current arrangements.

However, there are arguments against codification:

• Flexibility: The current constitution is highly flexible, allowing for rapid adaptation to changing circumstances. Critics of codification argue that entrenchment would make needed reform more difficult and slow.
• Political Culture: The UK's political culture is steeped in parliamentary sovereignty and convention; codification might undermine these traditions.
• Lack of Consensus: There is little agreement on the content of a potential codified constitution or Bill of Rights, raising questions about legitimacy and public support.

Summary

Debates about the future of constitutional reform in the UK remain live and contested. While significant changes have been made since 1997, many consider these reforms incomplete or inconsistent, and further reform is often advocated. The issues of English devolution, the structure of the House of Lords, rights protection, and the question of codification are likely to remain central features of British constitutional debate for years to come.