How Far Have The Reforms Of The Blair Government Addressed Weaknesses In The UK Constitution??

        Burch and Holliday divide up the complex and numerous problems identified as wanting of reform in 1997, into 3 main categories,

1. Devolution and regional reform
2. Freedom of Information
3. Electoral and parliamentary reform and civil liberties legislation.

Each of these was thought through and proposed by a set of 6 Cabinet Committees, which formed the motor formulating reforms in these areas.  Within these categories, Labour proposed 10 constitutional measures in the election manifesto, which can be said to have pushed them ahead in an otherwise close election.

        Firstly, Devolution was a contentious issue, as mentioned earlier, the parties were sharply divided over it.  However, “the Blair government moved quickly to fulfil its election promises on devolution”, a decisive move, as Bogdanor described this particular issue as, “the most pressing constitutional issue of the day…[and] likely to have more profound effects upon the workings of British politics than any other institutional reform”.  What makes this particular issue a problem is its roots in strong national movements, as well as the protracted nature of the argument – apparently originating from “Edmund Burke’s speech on taxation delivered to the House of Commons in 1774”.  Bogdanor goes on to describe devolution as ‘the placing of a weapon in the hands of the Scottish and the Welsh’; giving them the power to govern over themselves for the first time since the 18th century.  This action effectively involves the decentralisation of government through the creation of Scottish and Welsh national assemblies, and whilst these are not intended to replace Westminster, establish a ‘political locus’ in the components of Great Britain.  It is this mediation between nominal power and the maintenance of unity that makes devolution such a problem, and a political issue.  The concerns specifically raised by Bogdanor are concerned with the ambitions of regional representatives within these Assemblies and the possibilities of united dissafections against Westminster, which essentially goes against constitutional theory along with the preservation of the state.  So whilst some saw inherent dangers in this, a need for modernisation in line with national identities and political advances.

        Along the same vein, regional reform was also a large part of the reform plans, after gradual centralisation under Thatcher, local authorities and forms of government were undermined.  The problems were largely structural, economic, and political, in that local councils had less of a role, there were no other political forums such as regional chambers or RDA’s at local level to organise and adjust regional voting boundaries.  This kept the power-base firmly within Westminster with little delegation or dissemination of power, a point made by the Joint Report (1997), which noted that not only was Britain “one of the most centralised countries in Europe”, but that this had been recognised by the public, who were beginning to demand reform.  Brazier tends to equate regional reform and devolution as part of the same movement, reinforced by the fact that Burch and Holliday also physically place them in the same category.  Both are associated with mediating the absolute powers of Westminster, and the inability of the central executive to cope explicitly with all local matters – a task much more suited to regional bodies.  Public recognition of this was what made it a problem, which needed to be addressed with such urgency.

        Another inherent problem that was recognised by 1997 was the lack of provision made for freedom of information, and the increasing ability of the government to hoard information from both Ministers and the Legislature.  Kavanagh identifies the lack of accessibility to information as one of the key features in the undermining of parliament in relation to the executive, Brazier going further by stating (in reference to party beliefs) that this is a principle “essential to democracy”, along with “open and accountable” government.  This prevention of governmental secrecy is therefore also important in maintaining the role (laid out in the constitution) the public play in the political process – without regulation on how much the government can keep private, this role is effectively undermined.  Therefore the problem which this aspect of reform is attempting to correct, is to standardise the dissemination of information in an age when it is more accessible than ever, and promote greater freedom of information, envisaged by the Liberal-Labour agreement.  

        The last area in which problems were identified and reforms intended, is the nebulous issue of parliamentary reform, electoral reform, and civil liberties.  Along with the previous points, these had been altered over time to fit various PM’s and their leadership styles (as mentioned above with Margaret Thatcher), exposing weaknesses in the system.  One of the main problems the Joint Report and the Blair government identified was the Hereditary Peerage system in the House of Lords, which was deemed to be, “indefensible as providing a large part of a House of Parliament”.  This was due to the fact they were unelected, party orientated, and not in line with Blairs reform to  ‘democracy, decentralisation, accountability, community and co-operation’.  Other problems within this sphere were the lack of inclusion of the European Convention of Human Rights (ratified in 1951) and, a new Bill of Rights.  Brazier argues that this Labour’s attitude to these reforms was down to three major reasons,

1. They believed the judiciary had tried to safeguard individual rights under the Conservatives
2. Labour no longer thought that Parliament alone could be relied upon to be the main guarantor of liberty
3. Labour had moved from left to centre.

Along with this, the voting system was acknowledged to be outdated, but apparent disagreements within the Labour party prevented this from being adopted as constitutional reform (Robin Cook was a staunch advocate for proportional representation, but Blair was “personally not persuaded of change”). In such a broad and fundamental sphere of politics, there were many problems identified, not all of which were translated into policy.

        The basis of all these problems, as well as the Conservative interpretation of them was that they not only heavily centralised government power, but in the light of Blair’s ‘new politics’ were seen to threaten ‘democracy and accountability’.  This may also be seen as part of an intentional separation from the Old Labour government and Conservative rule, in that it was radically different to previous policy (even though it incorporated previously failed elements).  From these three broad areas in which the constitution was seen to be flawed, Labour presented 8 general reform proposals in their 1997 Election Manifesto.  They promised to:

1. Remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and greater party political balance among life peers.
2. Modernise the House of Commons
3. Hold a referendum for the voting system in the House of Commons
4. Introduce a Freedom of Information Act
5. Devolve power to Scotland and Wales
6. Introduce an elected Mayor and assembly, and a regional development agency (RDA) in London
7. Introduce RDA’s and regional assemblies in England, and legislation to allow people to decide if they wanted direct regional government.
8. Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.

It is therefore crucial to ascertain whether these pre-election promises have actually been but into effect after 7 years of New Labour.  After declaring “a sovereign Westminster Parliament will devolve power to Scotland…and Wales”, a generally vague statement, it can be said that labour did act on its promise.  Burch and Holliday argue these were put into effect almost immediately, referenda in both Scotland and Wales being held on the 11th and 18th of September, 2 months after Labour coming into power.  Whilst the new structures created follow the idea of devolution, they do have different rights  - the Scottish parliament having “legislative powers and extensive executive powers, whereas the Welsh assembly has executive powers previously covered by the Welsh Office”.  The first elections were held in May 1999, verifying Labour’s fulfilment of this issue.  In a similar vein, the concentration on local government, and plans regarding this, also managed to address the election promises, “We will encourage democratic innovations in local government”.  This is largely through the Local Government Act, 2000, obliging councils to restructure.  As well as this, The reform of the House of Lords has been similarly effective, initially stating this would be done as, “an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended”.  Burch and Holliday propose that whilst the legislation came into effect in 1999, amendments were made, maintaining the presence of 91 life peers for a ‘temporary stay of execution’.  It could, however be said that Labour’s inability to provide a replacement institution has led to a prevalence of party ‘cronies’ that is, if anything, worse than the peerage system.  With regards to the introduction of the ECHR laws, and electoral reform, Burch and Holliday also insist that whilst the former is being delayed, electoral reform has been addresses through the introduction of an independent committee, alongside reform to the House of Commons.  Lastly, if not actually implemented, the subject of the Freedom of Information bill has been consistently acknowledged, and draft bills published (eg by Jack Straw in 1999).

        All in all, Burch and Holliday have it that in general, Labour have fulfilled many of their initial election promises, “Labour has carried forward its manifesto commitments, and in some cases, notable Scotland, developed them further and more quickly than was expected”.  Some matters are still to be brought to resolution, especially reform of the House of Lords, electoral reform, and freedom of information, but have still been acknowledged.  This relative commitment to addressing the manifesto pledges initially made, may be due to the fact that it was the issue of constitutional reform that was seen to distinguish Labour from the other parties, both contemporary and of old.  This gave Labour the edge, and by failing to fulfil such radical promises, it would be apparent that they in fact weren’t as radical as once thought, which could be fundamentally damaging to the Blair government’s image.