The Sovereignty of Parliament in the UK - Essay Example

? How far the reforms introduced by the last labour government enhance or detract from the rule of law, democratic accountability or the sovereignty of parliament in the U.K. The last few years has seen United Kingdom undergoing a series of insightful constitutional changes. During the tenure of the Labour Party from 1997-2010, many constitutional reforms were introduced in UK. One criticism that has been bought against the Labour party’s reform agenda is that it was not well-synchronized and there were no definite set of guiding principles behind it but it is already clear, going by the impact of this change over the last decade that the British democracy has changed for good. The changes have bought positive impacts from the view point of parliamentary democracy, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Two such reforms, introduced under the Labour Party reform agenda, are the House of Lords act, 1999 and Freedom of Information, 2000. The former reform was introduced with the goal to make the House of Lord more representative as well as democratic whereas the later was created to make the government operations more open and increase the democracy and sovereignty of the nation1. UK is a nation that follows parliamentary democracy i.e. the members who form the government body are also members of either of the two Houses of the Parliament (though there are a very few exceptions to this) and, the government of Britain is answerable to the Parliament as it owes its very existence to the Parliament. The Parliament of UK is also a sovereign parliament i.e. the legislative body is superior to any other government body inclusive of executive or judicial bodies. In the United Kingdom, it is the Parliament which decides the laws and the work of the judges is to interpret it. They cannot themselves make a law2. Under the House of Lords reform, the right to sit and vote held by the hereditary peers was to be ended but the legislative powers of the House of Lords was to remain the same. No particular political party would then have majority in the House of Lords and its composition will be a reflection of the percentage of votes cast in the last General Election. When the first phase of this reform came, all but 92 of the then present hereditary peers were removed from the House of Lords. 3 This law positively affects the British democracy, as proposed by many scholars. According to the result of a poll, the British MPs too have favored a fully elected House of Lords in comparison to the traditional composition citing that a step like that will have a major impact on the British constitutional reform. The government of Britain was previously divided into commons and the lords i.e. the there existed a “lower house” or popularly the “House of Common” which comprised of elected members and on the other hand there existed the “upper house” or the “House of Lords” who were unelected. The Lords believed themselves to be privileged who had either been put to the coveted seat by their fathers who sat on those chairs in the past or by the ruling party of their time. This arrangement was totally in contrast with the idea of democracy. The ultimate decision making power used to rest with the Lords and only when their decisions differed considerably with those of the Commons, the attempt to rule out those decisions used to be made. This highlights the existence of a large section of society with no important voice in the legislative process of the nation. This shows a democratic split. In a truly democratic country, problems like this would have never emerged. Therefore, it can be said that the House of Lords Act, 1999 was a step towards enhancing the democracy of the nation. (Britain’s Deficient Democracy) The reformed House of Lords is more confident, authoritative and it is broadly a representation of the society it seeks to serve. It contains people from different parts of the United Kingdom, from varied professions, from all ethnic and religious communities, both men and women and hence it will be better from the democratic point of view. It aims to add substance to both parliamentary democracy and increased accountability of the executives of United Kingdom4. The House of Lords Act also enhances the Rule of Law, which states that the rights which have been given to any individual are set legal rules and are not the mere wish of the authorities. Whether a person is at fault with a law or not will be decided by the court alone and the punishment will be same for everyone irrespective of their position in the society. The success of Rule of Law depends mainly on the impartiality of the judges. By making House of Lord more diversified, the probability of proper implementation of the Rule of Law increases. Again, the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 greatly changed the rights and responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and also changed the process of judicial appointment in England. It also led to the birth of a new Supreme Court which was to replace the appellate committee of the House of Lords along with the Privy Council’s judicial committee5. Another major reform during that period was the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It gave the public the right to access information which was previously held by the public authorities alone. The question asked can be on any subject and unless there is a very good reason, the public body needs to provide the information in not more than 20 official working days. This right is not an end in itself but a means to the end. When this reform was introduced, there was uncertainty regarding the fact that to what extent will the “open government and participatory democracy” be useful in meeting the ultimate objective. The main reason behind this was that Britain has always had excessive confidentiality and this used to suit the ministers and policy makers alike but used to deprive the citizen of Britain from certain rights to information, which had for decades been taken for granted in nations like United States and Sweden. Again, on the other hand, there are certain sections of government like Ministry of Defense, Intelligence and Home Officers who will not be willing to part information and support “open government”. Therefore, Britain has undergone slow and steady transition from the “official secrecy to freedom to information”6. This Act has increased the sovereignty of parliament. FOI (Freedom of Information) Act has increased the regular supervision of the government because of the questions raised by the citizens as well as the ministers. The government has become more accountable. The individuals have been given the power to hold the people who are in power accountable for their actions and the presence of Information Commissioner, who is independent and not under some ministers and looks into the cases where information has been denied, further helps the cause. Moreover, the incidence where the expenses incurred on the MPs had been revealed, has removed the doubts that were initially there regarding the effectiveness of the Freedom of Information Act7. According to Professor Philip Cowley, the government’s check on the proper working of the nation and the role of the House of Commons has increased like never before. This has increased the efficiency of the system and has reduced the chances of corruption considerably. Most scholars have welcomed this legislation which is promoting the culture of openness of governmental work and policy making. If people will be informed about the political decisions and rules that will have an impact on their lives, then the democratic process of the nation will improve. It will no longer be easy for anyone, be it the politicians or other officials to make adjustments to suit personal interests. Therefore, this reform is a step towards a more democratic nation8. By reviewing the constitutional reforms which were introduced by the Labor Government during the period of 1997-2010, it can be said that this period has been very important from the point of view of constitutional change in Britain. The impact of both House of Lords Act and the Freedom of Information Act has had positive impact on the sovereignty of parliament, democratic accountability as well as the rule of law. References 1) Seidle, F.L. and Docherty, D.C., Reforming parliamentary democracy, Canada: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2003 2) Turpin, C. and Tomkins, A., British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011 3) Overview of the UK system of government, directgov, retrieved on Oct. 15, 2011 from: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Centralgovernmentandthemonarchy/DG_073438 4) Britain’s Deficient democracy, Centre for Citizenship, 2011, retrieved on Oct. 15,2011 from: http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/demdef.html 5) Would a wholly elected House of Lords strengthen British democracy?, The Telegraph, 2007, retrieved on Oct. 15,2011 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1544817/Would-a-wholly-elected-House-of-Lords-strengthen-British-democracy.html 6) Freedom of Information Act 2000- progress Towards Implementation: Oral and written evidence, Britain: Stationery Office, 2004 Read More