"Constitutional Reform Since 1997 Has Not Gone Far Enough." Discuss.

991 Words4 Pages
“Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough.” Discuss. I agree with the view that constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough to a large extent. The House of Lords Act of 1999 has reformed the House of Lords, the Human Rights Act of 1998 was an important area of constitutional reform, as well as the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and the devolution of powers. The electoral system used in the UK has also been subject to discussion over reform however all constitutional reform can be said to have not gone far enough. The House of Lords Act of 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. This meant that the House of Lords could be seen as more legitimate as both unelected and not appointed peers would be seen as undemocratic and illegitimate. The removal of hereditary peers means that the House of Lords are more confident in their role in scrutinising and blocking legislation as they feel more legitimate. An example of the House of Lords exerting this role is the blocking of NHS reform which led to the government rethinking and amending plans, as well as the Hunting Act 2004. However reform of the House of Lords could be said to have not gone far enough, 92 hereditary peers still remain in the House of Lords, and the Liberal Democrats call for a wholly elected upper chamber, to make Parliament fully accountable. The House of Lords are also limited in the fact that they can only delay legislation for up to a year and therefore not able to check executive power as much as they should be able to. The Human Rights Act 1998 is another example of constitutional reform. The Human Rights Act adopted the European Convention of Human Rights and set it as UK statute law. This allows for citizens to be clearer on the rights and freedoms they possess. This was an important piece of legislation as it also provides checks to
Open Document