Discuss the View that Parliament is no longer of central importance in the contemporary British system. Discuss.

        However, European integration does not mean that the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is dead. Parliament retains the power to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. For instance, when debating Section Two of the Act, (instructing British Courts how to apply Community Law), in 1972, Parliament widely agreed that this was the case.  Furthermore, if Parliament passed an Act explicitly overriding European Law, it is likely that the British courts would enforce the Act. Also Treaties have to be approved by Parliament, such as Maastricht, which was painfully slow to pass due to opposition from backbench Conservatives.  Yet when talking about Parliament in the context of importance within the British political system, it is undeniable that Parliament’s role needs to adapt to European membership. It needs to become more efficient in the scrutiny of European documents, proposals and legislation, through Select Committees, debates on the floor in both Houses,  or in the European Standing Committees. Europe is now a central feature of British political life. Parliament needs to acknowledge this and play a vitally important role in the scrutiny of European legislation.  

        It has also been argued that Devolution has undermined both Parliament’s sovereignty and its representation. The creation of a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh assembly, a strategic authority in London and possible eventual assemblies in the English regions have all had a profound effect on Westminster. Brought in under a wave of constitutional reform by the Blair government, devolution has questioned the role of Parliament, most notably, the role of MPs who represent a constituency in a devolved region. Better known as the ‘West Lothian question’, there is a debate about the role of Scottish and to a lesser extent Welsh and Northern Irish MPs. For example, issues of responsibility for the Scottish Parliament include housing, education and the environment. Issues, which account for a large proportion of a MPs constituency work. Therefore, it could be stated that the role of these MPs are now largely defunct. It has also led to the growing call for ‘English votes for English laws’. The notion of an English Parliament, or regional assemblies as the current Labour government are planning, will further marginalize Westminster and take further legislative powers away from it. Many believe that this is the start of the road to a federal state.

        Yet while it is true to say that devolution has established bodies with their own legitimacy and power, Westminster retains absolute sovereignty. This was a point made explicit in devolution legislation.  It can also suspend or abolish devolved bodies, such as is the case with the current suspension of the Northern Irelands Assembly over alleged IRA spying within the Northern Ireland office.  Devolution also enables Parliament to concentrate on such key areas of national importance as taxation, defence and foreign policy. With such a rapid growth in government business in recent times, giving certain legislative autonomy to regions will enable Parliaments roles of legislation and scrutiny of the Executive, in those key areas of public policy to be more efficient. For example, both Houses can devote more time to such pressing issues as combating terrorism and debating the possible conflict with Iraq. Devolution has not destroyed Parliament’s importance.

        Another key area to examine when discussing Parliament’s importance, are certain Prime Minister’s general contempt for the functions of Parliament. There are a plethora of examples during both the premierships of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, which suggest a significant undermining of both the legislative and Executive in Parliament. Firstly, during Thatcher’s reign, the Speaker of the Commons, Bernard Weatherill constantly had to persuade her to come to the Commons to report on policy decisions. However, her contempt for her Cabinet was more remarkable. During the Westland Affair, Michael Heseltine, her Defence Secretary, resigned because she prevented his wish of the Cabinet Economic Committee to consider a European rescue package for the troubled Westland helicopter firm. He called it a, “breakdown of constitutional government”. Her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson also resigned, in 1989, due to the superior influence her economic adviser, Sir Alan Walters, had over her on economic policy.

This dislike of cabinet government has continued under Tony Blair. For example, cabinet meetings are few. They rarely last an hour and there is no proper agenda.  In addition, the growing power-base of his Number Ten staff, including Director of Communications, Alistair Campbell and Chief of Staff, Jonathon Powell, have an increasing role in policy formulation. Powell had a personal role and input into such policies as in Northern Ireland and Kosovo.   It is the growth of theses ‘Special Advisers’ and and their growing power and influence which has undermined the idea of cabinet government under Blair. Furthermore, with regards to Parliament itself, he is an infrequent visitor. He increasingly prefers to make government announcements outside Parliament and he has changed Prime Minister’s Questions from twice to once a week. Sceptics also argue that the reforms made to the House of Lords, with the removing of hereditary peers, (who were largely non-partisan), has removed the last significant check of his behaviour.  Without the Prime Minister attending Parliament and increasingly side stepping the checks and scrutiny of Parliament, its role and ultimately its importance to the political system is undermined.

This problem is compounded by the growing apathy of the British public to Parliament. With turnouts at elections rapidly decreasing, (59.4 per cent at the 2001 General Election), and surveys showing that people are losing interest in politics, it surely must partly be due to the current state of Parliament. Huge Parliamentary majorities of the government and weak opposition parties have made people deeply cynical about the effectiveness of their representatives. Furthermore, with the media uncovering such political scandals as ‘Cash for Questions’, it is also argued that they are more of an effective check on the executive. Also, with referenda planned on such key policies as monetary union with Europe and electoral reform, it could be argued that Parliament is incapable of making decisions of that magnitude.

It is a problem, which to a certain extent, is now being addressed at Westminster. Recent reforms have been made to the Commons working hours, which modernisers claim, will make the Chamber more relevant and ‘up to date’ to the voting public. Furthermore, the growing support for electoral reform, highlighted by the 1998 Jenkins’ Commission, could change elections to a form of Proportional Representation, thus making the composition of Parliament more in line with electorates wishes. However, more needs to be done. Such areas as a solution to the composition of the House of Lords and new methods to make the Executive more accountable to Parliament needs to be devised, if Parliament wishes to remain the forum of the country, in which the views of the public find voice.

Such political developments as Devolution, European membership and the growth of ‘presidential government’, have, to a certain extent, undermined the Diceyan view of the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. However, this does not mean that it is no longer of central importance to contemporary British politics. Parliament still has the crucial roles of legislation, representation and the scrutiny of the Executive to perform. These new developments should provide the impetus for reform and parliamentary evolution to the new political climate and enable it to retain its position as a vital component of the British political system.