Assess the Most Important Constitutional free essay sample

New Labour came into power on May 1st 1997 and pledged to undertake the most radical shift in constitutional arrangements which would reform British constitution. Majority agree that this was a momentous period of constitutional change, arguably the most important period of constitutional change in Britain since the introduction of universal suffrage. However others think that it was too radical, too unplanned and too unfinished. By the end of its first term (1997-2001), the Balir government had enacted a substantial reform programme. One reform introudced after 1997 was devolution. The centrepiece of Labour’s programme of constitutional reform was undoubtedly this. Referendums had been held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland regading whether they should have their own Parliaments and devolved government. Devolution will almost certainly have an impact on the wishes of the people who live there to see complete independence for their country. Once devolution had been granted, complete independence would see an opportunity to point out how good that country is at self-government. It would also lead a renewed push for independence it is better for Scotland and Wales as they get to run a minority themselves without so much interference by our incompetent government. In Scotland’s first year it passed eight bills into acts and eleven bills were going through the parliamentary process. Therefore, in 12 months 19 issues relating to Scotland were either finalised or going through the process of being accepted or not. On average, the House of Commons passed one or two acts a year that directly related to Scotland. In this sense, the Scottish Parliament has been very successful as they managed to set things straight. One of the major arguments against devolution is that it will be the start of the break-up of the United Kingdom; that from small beginnings (if devolution can be seen as ‘small’) the ultimate fate of this country will be regional authorities with more devolved power in the counties – this may appeal to those who want more authority in counties like Cornwall, but many see this as the start of the break up of the United Kingdom with a massive loss of central authority. Another reason as to why it can be seen as unsuccessful is that for the Scottish, they are not allowed to interfere with English laws apart from those that concern them, for example agriculture and education. This can be seen as unfair because the British can make amendments to Scottish laws, this may lead to another reason why the Scottish should have their independence. Overall it can be seen as a success for parts of England as they were entitled to independence. In a 1997 poll, people in Scotland were asked whether they felt they were Scottish or British. They answered as followed that 63% indicated that they felt that they were Scottish or more Scottish than British. This would fit in with the Marshall model – those who felt that they were Scots would wish for their own Parliament. So it accomplished the wishes of the Scots making it a success for the Scottish population. Another reform introduced after 1997 was the Human Rights Act (1998). The Human Rights Act was implemented in 2000 but was the basic rights that each human being is entitled to, for example, fundamental rights, procedural rights and qualified rights. Some people may find this unnecessary as it is common sense to know what rights you are entitled to and that having it printed as an act could debatably have been a waste of time and the act could have just been uncodified. On the other hand people can say that the Human Rights act was very successful as it made adamant about what our rights are as humans. It helped to promote diversity as it outlined equal opportunities, regardless of colour. It promoted togetherness, hence there would be equity and equality so it introduced diversity means peace and no prejudice / discrimination or violent acts against those with different colour. It also helped vulnerable people who needed protection; it stopped them from being exploited as they knew what rights they were entitled to. The Human Rights Act of 1998 overall was a success due to the fact that it finally guaranteed basic human right for the British people and led to a protection and recognition of individuals rights. New Labour introduced another reform in 1999 which was A Freedom of Information Act. This act was an Act of Parliament that creates a public right to access to information held by public authorities. This can be seen as a positive aspect of the constitutional change as it prevents the government from being too secretive. The revelations about MPs expenses would not have been available to the Daily Telegraph had the parliamentary authorities not been preparing a document for FOI release; and there have been many other disclosures that have served to highlight stories many would wish to hide – such as Princes Charless black spider memos to government ministers. December 1997 the government issued a White Paper entitled ‘Your Right to Know’ which stated that ‘unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance and defective decision- making’. This shows that it was successful because the public can see what is happening with the people who are meant to be representing their constitutions. For some, they would argue the fact that passing the act wasn’t a success as it is seen to be a waste of time and money, with requesters complaining that important information is all too often redacted. Or that it is withheld by authorities who are keenly aware of the news value of the material they hold. They could argue that sometimes information is simply lost for three or even four years in a slow appeals process as the information commissioners office is swamped with cases. From this a conclusion can be drawn that it wasn’t a success due to the wastage of money and time when things are purposely delayed. Overall it can be said that the passing of this act has been a success due to the fact that information can be revealed however something’s take time to come out within the process. Reform of the House of Lords had long been on Labour Party agendas and had plagued British politics for a hundred years, with relatively progress achieved until recently. The problem had been that historically it has been a largely hereditary and non-democratic Chamber. New Labour decided to take power away from those who were born into it and govern it to people who have earned it. This would have been good in the public eye as it would indicate that exceptional people who have been selected will serve in the House of Lords. However, the reform was left unfinished and the intention was that the initial changes would only be miniscule. The Labour Government’s proposal for a partly appointed, partly selected chamber was widely ‘rubbished’ and they handed the issue over to a committee of both houses. But they failed to come up with an acceptable alternative and the issue remains unresolved. So, the reform was mainly unsuccessful due to that it was incomplete†¦If many British people can accept that to be a royal you have to either marry or be born into it then it should have been understandable for Lords to be born into Lordship. Nevertheless, it was fair to stop hereditary lords. In conclusion as to what was the most important constitutional change introduced in UK since 1997; devolution was by far the most influential, radical and valued reform. It changed how the country is governed and it definitely had a massive impact upon the Scottish population. It signaled that the Scottish are not English and that they now have their own identity. Many people believe that the change was overdue and much needed. Devolution has given more say to the regions and made them happier with their places in the UK.