Constitutional Reform GapFill

Since the raft of constitutional reforms that began in 1997, debates have sprung up over several different areas of the UK's constitutional arrangements and the extent to which further reform is required. We can identify four key debates on further constitutional reform in the UK.

The first is reform of the House of Lords. Following the removal of most   hereditarycross-benchlifeparty-affiliated peers from the Lords in 1999, a debate over whether to make the upper house of Parliament fully or partly elected has become an ongoing feature of British politics. The main arguments in favour of such a move state that having  a second chambera prime ministera hung parliamentan unelected legislature is a historical anachronism that has no place in a twenty-first century democracy, and that an elected upper house would provide Parliament with greater legitimacy and a capacity to represent different parts of the country. The main arguments against reform state that such a move would create complicated constitutional questions regarding the relationship between the two houses, throwing into doubt the issue of primacy, and that the Lords as it is currently organised does a good job of providing expert scrutiny of bills without the constraints of political considerations.

The second is the issue of electoral reform. After several different and more proportional electoral systems were introduced for devolved elections after 1997, the disproportionality of the   proportional representationsingle transferable votefirst-past-the-postalternative vote system used for general elections has been highlighted to a greater extent than had been the case previously. Arguments in favour of reform state that minor parties play an increasingly important role in UK politics but our electoral system denies them representation, instead prolonging an outdated   constitutional conventionmultiparty systemtwo-party systemelective dictatorship and minimising the democratic choice available to the electorate. Arguments against reform state that alternatives to first past the post are complicated and undermine core aspects of UK democracy, such as the  rule of lawsovereignty of parliamentunelected second chamberconstituency–representative link, plus there is no consensus on which electoral system should be used instead. 

A third issue is known as  royal assentthe West Lothian questionthe Salisbury Conventionthe royal prerogative, meaning the ability of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish representatives to vote on English-only matters in Parliament, while English representatives cannot vote on Scottish-, Welsh- or Northern-Irish-only matters. This issue has arisen due to the manner in which   European integrationScottish independencethe Human Rights Actdevolution was implemented after 1997, creating legislatures for all constituent nations of the UK except England. Arguments in favour of further English devolution point to the success of the process in the other nations, plus strong regional identities within England, such as in Yorkshire and Cornwall. Arguments against highlight a lack of demand for such a reform and the uneven strength of regional identities in England, plus the complicated relationship that would be created between devolved English assemblies and the UK Parliament.

One final major constitutional debate within the UK addresses whether or not the country should adopt  a federal systema presidential systeman unentrenched and uncodified constitutionan entrenched and codified constitution, rather than basing its constitutional arrangements simply on law, interpretation and precedent. Arguments in favour of reform highlight the fact that the UK is one of the only countries in the world not to have a codified constitution, and this lack of clear rights means British citizens are highly vulnerable to the executive abusing its powers. Arguments against reform argue that drafting such a document would require complete national consensus, that it would reduce the government's ability to function and be flexible in a crisis, and that it would give too much power to   the governmentunelected judgesdevolved administrationsthe people.