Evaluate The View That The Constitutional Reforms Introduced By New Labour Should Be Taken Further.

Question 1

P1: HoL Agree

Answer 1

1. New Labour’s Reform Was Incomplete Intended two-stage reform: Stage 1: Remove hereditary peers, only partially completed (92 remain).Stage 2: Create an elected second chamber,never implemented due to lack of consensus.
2. An unelected chamber contradicts democratic principles.Supported by Keir Starmer, who in 2022 proposed replacing it with a democratically elected chamber. Criticisms include handing peerages to ‘lackeys and donors’ (e.g. donors like Evgeny Lebedev, David Harding).
3. Labour’s 2024 Reform Proposals: Remove hereditary peers, introduce a mandatory retirement age (80), improve appointments for quality and regional representation.Labour introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill but hasn’t yet implemented other proposals.
4. Elected chamber would enhance legitimacy and empower scrutiny of legislation.
   Many Lords are inactive: 13% rarely attend; Lord Sugar has voted in only 1.96% of divisions.Proportional representation would prevent majorities and reduce “elective dictatorship.”

Question 2

P1: HoL Disagree

Answer 2

1. Risk of Gridlock. An elected second chamber could claim democratic legitimacy and become more assertive.Institutional conflict and gridlock, especially if:Elected at different times from the Commons.Elected using proportional representation (likely to result in different party majorities).
2. Life peers are often subject specialists who enhance scrutiny.Lord Mair, a civil engineering professor, chairs the Lords Science and Technology Committee.Expertise helps fix technical problems in legislation that the Commons may miss.
3. Cs lacks time and focus for detailed scrutiny due to electoral pressures.Lords improve legislation: e.g., 64 amendments accepted to the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act (2023), including technical refinements like requiring consent rather than mere consultation.
4. The Lords use their delaying powers to amend or challenge government proposals but defer when there is clear public or Commons support.Example: In 2001, Lords defeats led to removal of incitement to religious hatred from anti-terrorism law. In 2024, Lords withdrew opposition to the Rwanda Bill after six rounds of “ping pong,” respecting the elected chamber’s primacy.
5. An elected chamber may become dominated by partisan politics, undermining the quality of scrutiny. U.S. Senate, where extreme partisanship between Democrats and Republicans has often blocked progress.

Question 3

P2: Devolution Agree

Answer 3

1. Current devolution is asymmetric.English population to shape policy in line with their preferences, just as Scotland does (e.g., free tuition, higher tax rates).
2. Instead of a national English Parliament, extend regional/city-based devolution across England. Greater Manchester under Mayor Andy Burnham has gained significant powers, including over healthcare.
3. Existing devolved governments have demonstrated competence—especially during COVID—so further powers could enhance local responsiveness.Scotland could gain more control over areas like transport, welfare, and taxation (closer to “Devomax”).This would allow better alignment with public opinion and local priorities.The SNP supports devolving immigration policy to reflect Scotland’s distinct needs.

Question 4

P2: Devolution Disagree

Answer 4

1. There is little public appetite for an English Parliament or regional government.Only 27.7% voted in Birmingham’s 2012 mayoral referendum, with a 58% “No” vote.Many English regions (e.g. Berkshire) lack distinct regional identities, unlike Scotland or Wales.
2. An English Parliament could rival the UK government, creating constitutional friction.
   England’s size (85% of UK population) would make it overly dominant in a federal structure, unlike balanced federations like the USA.
3. Devolved governments have not always delivered strong outcomes.Scotland’s education performance has declined under SNP rule (PISA scores).The Northern Ireland Assembly is often suspended due to political deadlock (e.g., Sinn Féin vs DUP), undermining its stability.
4. Progress Has Already Been Made
   64% of England is now under some form of devolved authority (e.g., metro mayors), covering over 90% in the North

Question 5

P3: HRA Agree

Answer 5

1. While the HRA brought ECHR rights into UK law, it is not constitutionally protected.
   Parliament can repeal or override it through a simple majority due to parliamentary sovereignty.This leaves rights vulnerable to political will.
2. The Illegal Migration Bill (2023) proceeded despite acknowledging it likely breached the HRA and international law.The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act (2024) further sidelined the HRA:It forces UK authorities to treat Rwanda as safe for deportation.It removes the right to judicial review based on the HRA or international law.
   It allows ministers to ignore emergency rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.
3. Supreme Court Lacks Power to Enforce Rights. UK courts can declare laws “incompatible” with the HRA, but Parliament is not obliged to change them. This weakens the judiciary’s ability to safeguard fundamental rights.
4. Rights protections should be entrenched in a written constitution.This would empower courts (e.g. the Supreme Court) to strike down legislation violating rights.It would shift the UK closer to constitutional protection of rights, limiting executive overreach.

Question 6

P3: Disagree HRA

Answer 6

1. Entrenching a Bill of Rights would increase the power of unelected and unaccountable judges.Judges could make politically sensitive decisions about how rights are applied.
   This risks undermining democratic principles by shifting power away from elected representatives.Constitutional questions are better settled by Parliament, which is accountable to voters.
2. HRA provides a solid framework for protecting rights in the UK: All new laws must comply with the HRA.Courts can declare existing laws incompatible, which prompts parliamentary review.Public authorities are legally bound to act in accordance with HRA rights.
3. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutinises legislation to ensure compatibility.In A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was found to violate Articles 5 and 14.
4. The current HRA maintains the balance of power by upholding parliamentary sovereignty, it avoids transferring final constitutional authority to the courts.