1.4 - Further constitutional reform
Calls for constitutional reform depend on what a constitution should achieve and how well existing changes have worked. This lesson evaluates the reforms since 1997, further English devolution, and the arguments over codification, entrenchment and a bill of rights in 1.4, using evidence checked on 2 October 2026.
Success and further reform
A reform can achieve its immediate purpose while leaving a wider constitutional problem unresolved.
Choose a clear criterion before judging success: democratic accountability, effective scrutiny, protection of rights, territorial responsiveness or stable government. Then explain the reform's mechanism, assess relevant evidence and identify what the evidence cannot establish. “There was an Act” proves enactment, not that every intended benefit occurred.
| Reform area since 1997 | Case that reform succeeded | Case for taking it further, with a relevant limit |
|---|---|---|
| House of Lords | The 1999 Act removed most inherited membership; the 2026 Act ended remaining hereditary entitlement. | Appointment still lacks direct electoral accountability and raises patronage concerns. An elected chamber could improve legitimacy, but competing electoral mandates might weaken Commons primacy. |
| Electoral reform | New proportional or mixed systems broadened representation outside the Commons; regulation of political finance became more systematic. | Commons FPTP remains capable of disproportionate seat outcomes. A proportional replacement could improve representation, while coalition formation and the constituency relationship raise rival concerns. |
| Devolution | National institutions and later extensions permit distinctive policy and more territorial accountability. | Powers and resources remain uneven, and consent disputes or interrupted power sharing can weaken governance. Greater autonomy might address grievances but does not automatically settle independence demands. |
| Human Rights Act | Domestic legal remedies and obligations on public authorities strengthened rights protection. | Rights are not comprehensively entrenched against later legislation. Stronger protection could constrain majoritarian abuse, but opponents stress democratic control and the power of judges. |
| Supreme Court | Separating the final appellate court from the Lords clarified judicial independence. | Organisational separation does not itself guarantee access to justice or settle every executive–judicial dispute. More judicial power also requires explaining how judges remain within a legitimate constitutional role. |
Parliament records the end of hereditary membership; the Commons Library traces voting-system changes; the Supreme Court reform account identifies institutional separation. The devolution and rights mechanisms are developed below.
Election timing adds an example of reversal. The 2011 fixed-term rules limited a prime minister's control of early elections, but the 2022 Act repealed them. Predictability and limits on executive advantage can support fixed terms; the capacity to escape parliamentary deadlock can support flexibility. The reversal is evidence that the UK can reconsider constitutional design, not proof that either arrangement was wholly successful. The enacted repeal establishes the current rule.
The central distinction is institutional reform versus achieved outcome. Enlarging a legislature may provide capacity for scrutiny; whether scrutiny becomes effective depends on use of that capacity. Giving a region more responsibilities may improve responsiveness; whether it can deliver depends on resources and accountability. Explain these conditions when reaching a judgement.
If you sit in 2027: Issue 3 expressly asks how far the reforms should be taken further. Issue 4 also expressly asks how successful they have been. Assessing achievements and limits helps either task; answer the particular question rather than treating further reform as automatically desirable.
Extending English devolution
Further English devolution should be judged by which decisions move, to whom and with what resources.
The case for extension begins with responsiveness. Transport, housing and economic development often cross council boundaries, so regional institutions can coordinate policies around real commuting and investment patterns. Directly elected mayors can make responsibility more visible and provide an electoral route to replacing a regional executive.
Greater Manchester's completed local bus-franchising programme by January 2025 is evidence of real regional control. It supports a claim about the transfer of decision-making; better journeys or value for money require further outcome evidence. The Combined Authority's implementation account should be read with its institutional perspective in mind.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 creates a statutory framework for strategic authorities and different categories of powers. This is an enacted extension of the framework, not evidence that every area already has equal institutions or capacity. The government's explainers describe the categories and London's distinct position.
The opposing case concerns resources and accountability. A regional body may receive responsibility without sufficient money or freedom over revenue. Wealthier and poorer areas may differ in their ability to deliver services. Mayors can also concentrate attention and influence, so local assemblies, councillors or scrutiny committees need the capacity to challenge them. More elected offices do not automatically make the correct institution easier to identify.
An English Parliament would address England-wide legislative representation more directly than city-region mayors. It could clarify England's voice within the Union, but England's population and economic weight could create a powerful rival to UK institutions. Regional devolution responds to differences within England and avoids that single competing centre, while leaving the West Lothian question only partly addressed.
A reasoned position might support wider transport and skills powers where regional scale improves coordination, coupled with funding and scrutiny. Another might favour a clearer national settlement. The quality of the judgement depends on explaining the proposed power and its consequences, rather than assuming that every decentralising change improves democracy.
Codification and entrenchment
Collecting constitutional rules and protecting them against easy amendment are separate design choices.
A constitution sets the rules of authority and the relationship between government and people. Codification would collect the central rules into one constitutional document. The UK is uncodified, with many written legal and political sources. Entrenchment would give fundamental rules higher status and require special amendment procedures; the UK is generally unentrenched, allowing constitutional change through ordinary legislation.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account