However as time has moved on the power shift has been more apparent as different parties have occupied the devolved parliaments and policy has differed from national government. We can see a great example of this when in 2011 the SNP secured a majority in the Scottish parliament. The policy of the Scottish parliament has been hugely different from the Westminster government. The two parliaments clashed over tuition fees as Scottish students will pay no fees where English students will pay £9,000 a year. This was embarrassing with the UK government and caused public anger. The UK government did not have the power to change this because of the constitutional reforms which were implemented under New Labour. This is a great example of where the UK government now has reduced powers.
Under the current coalition government devolution has gone further with the government holding a referendum in Wales to decide whether the Welsh assembly can become a legislative body rather than an organisation who advises government. The result of the referendum was to grant the Welsh assembly the extra powers. Some argue that this again shows the reduction of powers of the UK government in favour of more local institutions which are closer to the people.
However we can see with devolution the UK government still has overall control as they can at any time close down the devolved bodies when they like. As we saw when the Northern Ireland assembly was closed for a while when there was a rise in local problems. In all the devolved bodies the legislation protected the Westminster parliamentary sovereignty and their right to interfere in the devolved bodies. Westminster has not done this however and has kept at an arms length, except when there were problems in Northern Ireland. We can see the power of the UK government from the recent Scottish independence question. The coalition government held the right to make a possible result of a referendum on Scottish independence binding in law. Overall the evidence shows that in the process of devolution the UK government has given up some roles and responsibilities but not real power as they can return the roles and responsibilities at any time.
The Human Rights act was brought in under Blair’s New Labour government in 2000. This act enshrined in UK law the European Convention on Human Rights; this meant that breaches of human rights could be brought to UK courts as well as the European court of human rights in Strasburg. Every new bill that is put to parliament is certified to weather or not the bill is compatible with the human rights act. A new parliamentary committee was introduced called the Joint Committee on Human Rights; it is their job to decide if government bills were given the certification saying they are compliant with the Human Rights act. This is seen by some as taking power away from the UK government and into the new committee. Some argue that it would be very hard for a government to pass a bill if it did not comply with the act.
However some have argued that the act has not reduced the powers of the UK government at all. They argue that unlike in Germany and the US judges were not given the power to annul Westminster legislation that was found to breach the Human Rights act. Judges can only issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ which only means parliament have to consider the judges verdict, they can still easily override it, which takes no power away from the UK government. People also argue the Joint Committee on Human Rights have no real power as they are only an advisory body and do not have the power of the veto. Overall the Human Rights act, like devolution has not reduced the power of the UK government as they have overall power to abolish the act. This is one of the disputed benefits of an uncodified constitution.
As Blair acknowledges in his autobiography the freedom of information act was his biggest regret in government. The act was proposed and accepted on the premise it would create a more transparent government. The act allowed members of the public to request information for public authorities. The act in practice was seen to limit the power of the UK government as they had to make information available to the public. We have seen examples where this act has shown that. For example the expenses scandal was on the back of a freedom of information act request, this was a monumental moment in British politics and has chapped the way people view politicians. People therefore argue that this constitutional reform has reduced the power of the UK government.
However people have argued that the act has not limited government powers as when you look into the act government is protected. For example the act does list 27 exemptions to the public’s right to freedom of information, those 27 exemptions are subject to a public interest test which is interpreted and carried out by the newly created post of information commissioner. However the reason it can be seen to not limit government power is the fact that the UK government have the right to veto the decision of the information commissioner, it has done this on two occasions since the act was passed. It can also be argued that the power of the UK government has not been reduced because of the simple fact that any future parliament could amend the act and remove it from the constitution. This is easy to do because the UK has an uncodified constitution. However many people have argued it would be politically very hard for a government to remove the Freedom of Information act because it would make the government look as if they have something to hide.
The Brown government of 2007-2010 looked into many constitution reforms such as lowering the voting age and changing the voting system but never got round to putting them into place, maybe down to the fact that he did not have long in government and had other bigger issues like the credit crunch of 2008. However one reform that Brown did complete was the introduction of the Supreme Court. The creation of the Supreme Court stopped the link between the government and the judiciary, because in the past the position of Lord Chancellor has been ambiguous, as they have had a role in the cabinet, judiciary and a political party. The highest court of appeal was the House of Lords but is now the Supreme Court.
The constitutional reform arguably reduced the powers of the UK government as they had no direct link between the legislative and the judiciary and because of the introduction of the Judicial appointments commission they no longer appointed judges. Even though the government does have the power to remove this act from parliament it has still reduced the power of the UK government.
Lastly the labour government signed the Lisbon treaty which handed over more powers to the EU such as new powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs. The treaty also removed the national vetoes in a number of areas, including fighting climate change, energy security and emergency aid. This was constitutional reform which was seen as reducing the powers of the UK government. This is one of the only reforms in which the government can not gain the powers it lost back very easily at all. For example if they wish to have a veto over issues such as climate change they would have to get the agreement from all member states, which is touching on impossible. The UK could leave the EU but it would then have no say over EU policy, which would mean a loss in UK government’s power.
The current coalition government has gone through many constitutional reforms. One of their first reforms was the introduction of fixed term parliaments; this meant that the prime minister could no longer decide the date for the next election. This was a problem because it meant the prime minister could abuse their power and call an election when they were most popular, for example Margret Thatcher called an election after the Falkland’s war, and it could be argued this was because she was ahead in the polls. The fixed term parliaments take that power away from government.
This is not the only constitutional reform that was introduced by the coalition that reduced government’s power. They also introduced a new clause in a new EU act which meant every time the government wanted to pass over powers to the EU there must be a referendum. This of course limits government’s power as it means they must ask the public’s views before implementing a policy in these criteria. However people have argued that it does not reduce the power from the UK government as they can just remove the act in parliament.
In conclusion the majority of constitutional reforms since 1997 have not reduced government power because of the UK’s uncodified constitution which makes it easy for the next government to reverse any constitutional change that the last government made. Because this option is always there the power is never really lost only rolls and responsibilities are handed over to a separate organisation to carry out.
