1.2 - Constitutional reform under Labour, 1997–2010

Lords reform and legitimacy

Changing membership of a legislature can alter its legitimacy and behaviour without changing all its formal powers.

Before reform, hereditary peers formed a major part of the House of Lords. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed most hereditary sitting rights, while a compromise temporarily retained 92 excepted hereditary peers. The number is a description of that historical settlement, not today's membership rule. The Lords Library's account explains both the 1999 exception and its later removal.

The aim was to reduce the role of inherited status in national law-making. The House became much more dependent on appointed life peers, alongside the bishops. This removed a significant source of hereditary Conservative strength and made it harder to defend the chamber simply as an aristocratic institution. It did not make the Lords elected, and appointment could still raise concerns about patronage and accountability.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission, established in 2000, recommended non-party-political life peers and scrutinised the propriety of nominations. It did not independently choose every party-political member or end the prime minister's role in appointments. The Commission describes its functions.

Distinguish composition from power. The 1999 Act changed who could sit; it did not replace the Parliament Acts with equal legislative authority for the Lords and Commons. Nevertheless, a chamber with less hereditary membership could regard its scrutiny as more legitimate and be more willing to challenge ministers. That is an argument about political influence, rather than an automatic increase in its statutory veto.

A balanced assessment separates two standards. If success means reducing inherited law-making privilege, the reform achieved a major change. If it means creating direct democratic accountability for the second chamber, it remained incomplete. Expertise and independence can support an appointed chamber; those qualities do not themselves provide an electoral mandate.

Electoral diversity

Labour introduced different methods of representation for new and existing institutions rather than replacing every election system.

The new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly used the Additional Member System (AMS): constituency members were supplemented by list members to reduce disproportionality. The Northern Ireland Assembly used Single Transferable Vote (STV), enabling ranked preferences and representation through multi-member constituencies. London combined an AMS Assembly with a mayor initially elected by Supplementary Vote (SV). From 1999, European Parliament elections in Great Britain used regional closed party lists; Northern Ireland retained STV. The Commons continued to use First Past the Post (FPTP). The Commons Library traces the introduction of these systems.

The mechanism explains the effect. Under FPTP, winning pluralities in individual constituencies can produce a large seat majority without a corresponding majority of votes. Proportional list representation or top-up seats can give smaller parties representation that better reflects their support. That may encourage coalition or minority government and make cooperation important. It does not guarantee equal political influence for every voter or a particular coalition after every election.

SV was a preferential system for choosing one office-holder; it was not proportional representation. Its historical inclusion in this reform programme must also be separated from later legal changes to mayoral elections. Likewise, Wales's current system has changed since its original AMS settlement.

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 established the Electoral Commission and a framework for regulating party and referendum finance. Constitutional reform therefore also concerned the rules governing political competition, not just the formula converting votes into seats. The Electoral Commission explains its statutory role.

The Jenkins Commission recommended an “AV plus” alternative for Commons elections, but Labour did not implement it. Parliament's 2010 account distinguishes the recommendation from an enacted change. A defensible judgement is that reform diversified representation beyond Westminster but preserved the electoral system governing the main source of executive power.

Devolution and asymmetry

Devolution created new centres of decision-making with different powers and political purposes.

Following the 1997 Scottish and Welsh referendums, the Scotland Act 1998 created the Scottish Parliament and executive, while the Government of Wales Act 1998 created the National Assembly for Wales. The institutions began operating in 1999. Scotland received substantial primary law-making powers over devolved matters. Wales initially received executive and subordinate legislative functions, rather than an equivalent general power to enact primary legislation. Law Wales explains the original Welsh settlement.