Devolution Reversed since 1997.docx

Evaluate the view that constitutional reform since 1997 is in the process of being reversed. To answer this question we will look at the reforms since 1997 and discuss some of those that have either have been stalled, undermined, weakened or scrapped. The essay is written at the start of Keir Starm...

Evaluate the view that constitutional reform since 1997 is in the process of being reversed. To answer this question we will look at the reforms since 1997 and discuss some of those that have either have been stalled, undermined, weakened or scrapped. The essay is written at the start of Keir Starmer's term and we will have to wait to see what he does in relation to Constitutional Reform. To begin by looking at devolution. Devolution arguably has been expanded, not reversed. The Scotland Act (2017) devolved even more powers than the original devolution settlement in the late 1990s, including the power to set income tax bands, control air-passenger duty and to collect half of the VAT raised in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament also gained more control over welfare, roads, rail and gas and oil extraction. The Wales Act, meanwhile, in the same year established the Assembly and the Welsh Government as permanent features of the UK Constitution. The Welsh Senith, now controls the NHS. It has become a pioneer of new policies such as the banning of single use plastics and the introduction of 20 mile an hour speed limits. All of this may demonstrates that devolution is an ongoing thing where the devolved bodies are claiming more and more power. The creation of Metro Mayors in England has continued apace, including the new mayoralties in 2024 for the East Midlands, for the North East, and for York and North Yorkshire. However, despite the above we can argue a reversal. Wales and Scotland have not received powers in the areas that they wanted. In December 2022, the UK Supreme Court confirmed the limit of the Scottish Parliament\'s power, stating that it could not hold a second independence referendum unless it seeks approval from the Westminster Parliament. The UK government used Parliament\'s reserve powers to block Scotland\'s Transgender Recognition Act, a decision that could set a precedent for future reversals of devolved policy Wales did not receive powers over policing. Devolution also remains stubbornly asymmetric. English votes for English laws was abolished, meaning the West Lothian Question is now a live matter again. Six mayoralties in England have also been scrapped. Voters in Bristol opted to get rid of theirs. From the above me might conclude that Devolution is being reversed in some places in the UK more than others. If we next move on to the HRA (1998), we can certainly say that it remains a highly influential part of UK law. The Act brought the ECHR into UK law. It ended the practice of British citizens having to go abroad to fight for their rights in the European Court of European Rights. The Conservative government shelved plans for its replacement with a watered-down Bill of Rights a couple of years ago. However, the UK constitution remains unentrenched, meaning it is under permanent threat of repeal. New-right Tories have called not only for the abolition of the Human Rights Act, but complete withdrawal from the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights. The previous Conservative government proved itself ready to ignore the Act. The Safety of Rwanda Act disapplied elements of the HRA by preventing them from using arguments within the HRA in British Courts. This arguably has set a precedent for the future where inconvenient rights laws are just simply set aside by draconian government with a large majority. Incompatibility statements issued by the Supreme Court are advisory. All this strengthens the argument that an Act does not have to be repealed to be reversed in practice. Next to look at the Recall Act which involves sacking MPs before an election is due. If an MP is convicted of a criminal offence or if they are suspended from the House of Commons for more than 10 days, then the Common's Speaker can recommend a recall petition to go forward. MPs from all parties have been recalled. Labour\'s Fiona Onasanya lost her seat after her conviction for perverting the course of justice. The SNP's Margaret Ferrier was successfully recalled in 2023 after it emerged that she broke lockdown rules. Conservative MP Peter Bone was recalled after a report confirmed allegations of bullying and sexual misconduct. We can argue that the Recall Act is not in reverse because it is doing the job it\'s set out to do. However, we can also make the arguments, that the provisions of the Recall Act have been abused. The decision on what to do with disgraced MPs has been hijacked by considerations of party politics or partisanship. For instance, despite his involvement in a lobbying scandal in November 2021, Owen Patterson MP was initially supported by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who whipped his MPs to prevent further sanctions. Boris Johnson himself remained an MP for a year after allegations that he lied to Parliament over party gate. Admittedly, he did then resign, avoiding a humiliating recall petition in the process. But these examples show that the provisions of the Recall Act are often not up to the up to the task of providing accountability when they run up against party politics. Indeed, several politicians simply get the Whip removed and remain MP's and example being Matt Hancock, who had the whip removed for continuing to draw an MP salary whilst appearing on I\'m A Celebrity. Next to the Fixed Term Parliament\'s Act, which took away the power of the Prime Minister to call an election. The Act also prevented the Government from tying any piece of legislation to a vote of no confidence thus promoting the independence of MP's. This Act led directly to MP's being able to reject Theresa May\'s Brexit deal, but then still vote to support her and a vote of confidence in her government at the very next day. The fixed term Parliament\'s Act, however, has been repealed, replaced. Therefore, of course it\'s going backwards. In any case, the Fixed Term Parliament Act had many flaws and failed to prevent a snap election, which is what it was supposed to do. Theresa May broke the spirit of the Fixed Term Parliament Act in 2017 by getting Parliament to vote for a snap election. The same happened in 2019 in the winter election. So actually it stopped doing what it was supposed to be doing before its repeal. On to the Freedom of Information Act, which remains on the Statute book and was the law which blew the lid of the MP's expense scandal and revealed how Prince Charles was privately criticizing Government Policy. Despite these examples the FOI Act has been we weakened in recent years. It was arguably already a weak law with the security services exempted from the start. MP's were also exempted in relation to their own correspondence between each other. Blair prevented an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into an arms deal with Saudi Arabia and the government amended the FOI Act to exempt royal correspondence following the 'Spider Memo's that revealed Prince Charles' criticisms. The fact that the Government has powers to undermine the act shows how secretive government continues to be which further suggests that the era of greater transparency suppsedly ushered in is over. So in conclusion we can argue that Constitutional reform is going backwards rather than forwards. Devolution is not being expanded with as much vigour as it once was. The Human Rights Act was attacked by the new Right, especially with calls to leave the ECHR. The Freedom of Information Act has been amended to weaken it and EVEL and the Fixed Term Parliament Act, for example, have been scrapped. Thus, my conclusion is that constitutional reform has gone backwards rather than forwards in recent years. It is in the process of reversal.