The Human Rights act (1998):
The Human Rights act was brought in by Labour to incorporate the European Convention of Human rights into British law. The Human Rights act is used to ensure that individual’s human rights are enforced under most circumstances. This allows the powers of government to be scrutinized in any British court, in some ways this is a step forward but in recent cases the Human Rights act has been abused and used to completely contradict its proposals. The recent case of Abu Hamza was a huge set back for the British Government and damaged the reputation of the Human Rights act. It allowed Abu Hamza, a leading terrorist, to claim asylum in the UK. Considering what he has done to damage the world today people believe he should be extradited from the UK but again the HRA has been manipulated to his advantage to allow him to stay in the UK.
This shows the HRA’s lack of success as the people who don’t deserve this protection in the first place use the HRA to almost void themselves of their crimes. So overall we see that the HRA is unsuccessful, as it has seen many gaps that people have used to contradict its purpose.
The Freedom of information act (effective from 2005):
The publics right to see official documentation. This gives the power to see the documentation that the government or organizations have on themselves. For example: not just the government but schools and hospitals. Also the Freedom of Information act also allows for the public access to governmental documentation, this is thought to have been one of the acts successes as it is working towards a more open government. But today information is so widely available that even our government is scared. Tony Blair said ‘it’s the worst mistake of my life’. This reference to the Freedom of Information act clearly shows that MP’s cannot voice their true and legit opinions on matter without being scrutinized. They can be scrutinized via the media. The expenses scandal is a prime example. MP’s expenses were shown to the public and the media set off a huge firework and ripped certain MP’s via complete exposure, but from another perspective this can be seen as a positive as the FOIA stops corruption with funds and expenses. The FOIA also brings a few negatives. The easily obtainable information is a large reason to why MP’s don’t voice their opinion as they may also be pushed into the hot seat for saying something wrong. The lack of MP’s being open could have a negative impact on the way the country is run, as issues may not be rectified and discussed properly. So the two arguments are balanced but as you can see the positive effects of the FOIA are much larger, overall it ensures that MP’s don’t set foot out of line. So therefore seen as a success.
Another constitutional reform is devolution.
Devolution is a process whereby power is distributed. In this case the transition of power to individual institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Devolution allows institutions to focus on themselves; an example of this is the Scottish university fees. This allows less workload on Westminster and parliament; this is a great advantage as institutions can do what’s best for them. Also with devolution it brings the public closer to the institutions via referendums and other political techniques that can gather what the individuals want or believe should be done or changed. So therefore is far more democratic than a central government system. This also looks great for the British government. On the other hand some may argue that conflicts could occur with one institution offering different policies. Again a prime example of this is the university fee situation. With the Scottish university fees covered for students, England’s aren’t. This has caused large controversy over the success of devolution because it’s simply unfair. Also devolution was brought in to allow individual in institutions to govern the people who apply to them. But by law they are still allowed to have a say on problems and discussions that don’t and shouldn’t concern them, issues that will not affect them in anyway. This slows down the process of by which our country is governed. These reasons show how devolution as a constitutional reform can affect our country in negative and positive ways, mainly negative but some argue that it improves the governing of our country via its increase in democracy. So overall we see that it is argued that devolution is mainly un-successful.
Finally the judiciary reform,
It was seen as crucial that there be a clearer separation between senior members of the judiciary and the government due to the fact that the lord chancellor was also a member of the judiciary, there fore had power to implement laws and making them, this caused controversy as he would be open to political influence. The reform took place to prevent this. This had to happen as Britain claim a modern democracy, and that judiciary system was highly contradicting the democratic fashion of Britain. So in 2003 the decision was taken to reform the judiciary. This brings its strengths and weakness’ to whether the reform is regarded as successful. Firstly an advantage is the fact that the judiciary can claim to be fully independent this prevents any political influence upon the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary has improved via the reform as the government has less of an influence on the judiciary’s decisions. Secondly the reform eliminates the ambiguity of the role of the Lord Chancellor, this again separates the judiciary from the government, this brings great success as it portrays a much more democratic system and allows citizens to seek judicial advice easier than the previous system. Lastly the reform brings Britain into line with modern constitutional practice, the JAC was set up in the reform to insure that judges were put to power regarding their qualifications instead of political views. Overall we see the success of the reform through its increase in democracy and prevention of political influence. This reform supports Britain’s proposal of a modern democracy.
Overall we see that the various reforms to our constitutions have been either successful or successful with slight gaps such as the HRA. Many argue for and against the post 1997 reforms. Our constitution allows for flexibility so as time continues the success of reforms shall increase. The reforms above mainly propose an increase in democracy and in many peoples views have delivered success.
by
jackoread (student)
