|
|
||||||||
 |
||
 The
Contemporary
British Politics website
Chapter
summaries Note: Full tables of contents listing all subheadings, figures, tables and boxes, together with an index, are provided in Coxall (2003). The following notes are not intended to duplicate this information, but to give provide brief summaries of the main points and arguments presented in each chapter. It is hoped that readers will find them useful. However, inevitably such summaries involve considerable selection and simplification from the discussion in the main text, to which reference should be made if extra clarification is sought. Chapter 1 Politics, Democracy and Power Chapter 11 The Evolving British Constitution Constitutions are important, as they establish the formal rules of the game in which politics is conducted. However, constitutions are not always full and reliable guides to political practice. Moreover, constitutions are not above politics but part of politics. They are not neutral but may systematically favour some interests and neglect others. Britain, unlike nearly all other countries, lacks a constitution contained in a single published document. It is therefore commonly termed ‘unwritten’, although a better term is ‘uncodified’ as parts of the British system of government are written (e.g. in Acts of Parliament). The main sources of the British constitution are statute law, common law and conventions, to which may be added the law and custom of Parliament, European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and works of eminent authorities. Compared with many other constitutions the British constitution is flexible and relatively easy to change, and has long been unitary rather than federal. Key (but contentious) elements include constitutional monarchy, parliamentary sovereignty, representative democracy and the rule of law. While the Conservative Party has generally been committed to the preservation of the traditional constitution, the Liberal Party and its modern Liberal Democrat successors have favoured constitutional reform. Labour in the past seemed less interested in radical reform, but the 1997 Blair government has embarked on an extensive programme of constitutional change. Key constitutional reforms since 1997 include the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and (more precariously) Northern Ireland, the introduction of new electoral systems for devolved assemblies and the European Parliament, the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, the reform (as yet incomplete) of the House of Lords, and reforms of local government providing for a separate executive (Cabinet system or directly elected mayor). Critics argue that the reforms have proceeded in isolation, show inconsistencies in approach and are not informed by any overall vision. The final outcome remains unclear but already the British system of government has been irreversibly transformed. There are considerable implications for traditional constitutional principles, such as the unitary state and parliamentary sovereignty. There may be a need ultimately for a written constitution.
The core executive in British central government is not clearly defined but is generally considered to include the prime minister and Cabinet (with their supporting offices), the major government departments with their ministers and leading civil servants. The prime minister is the acknowledged head of government who has power to hire and fire other ministers, chairs the Cabinet, and directs and organises the whole government machine. As (normally) the leader of the majority party, the prime minister controls the House of Commons, and can request a dissolution of Parliament, effectively determining the date of the election. The Cabinet is the UK’s top executive committee. Although many decisions are now taken in the numerous permanent and temporary Cabinet Committees, the full Cabinet registers acts as the final court of appeal for the whole government machine, and keys issues of major political controversy are resolved there. The Cabinet Office is responsible for servicing, recording, and co-ordinating the whole work of the Cabinet and its committees, and ensuring that decisions are implemented. It has long been alleged that the prime minister has gained power at the expense of the Cabinet, and some have argued that the British executive has become more presidential (particularly under Blair). Yet although there are some indications of increased prime ministerial power, there are still constraints on the exercise of that power. Much depends on personalities and political circumstances. While some argue that the British executive is too powerful and too centralised, others suggest there is a weakness of co-ordination and strategic direction at the top.
The bulk of government decisions are made in Departments. Key figures involved are the presiding minister (usually a Secretary of State) with junior ministers and senior civil servants. The civil service now numbers under half a million. Many of these are now geographically decentralised, and most now work in executive agencies, with some managerial autonomy. Only around 1% of civil servants are in the senior civil service, who may advise ministers. Three traditional features of the civil service are its permanence, political neutrality, and anonymity, although all these are now more questionable than formerly. The civil service has been criticised for bias in its recruitment and processes, which in the past favoured those with a traditional education from a white, male, middle class background. It was alleged that this background coloured their outlook, promoting an establishment bias. Others have criticised the expertise of the civil service, because of their limited experience of the outside world (especially industry and commerce), and their lack of management and professional training. Although efforts have been made to recruit from different backgrounds and more short- term appointments have been made, top civil servants remain predominantly male and Oxbridge. The Thatcher government began a major shift in the organisation and culture of the civil service, reducing numbers, cutting costs (Rayner scrutinies), improving financial management, and ultimately transferring increasing numbers of civil servants into new Executive Agencies with more managerial autonomy. The reforms marked a shift from the old administrative culture to a new managerial culture (the New Public Management). Reforms have been maintained and extended under the Major and Blair governments. The Major government introduced more market testing and the Citizen’s Charter. These initiatives were partly overshadowed by scandals and renewed concern over standards in public life, leading to the Nolan Report, with its seven principles of public life, a Civil Service Code and a revised Code of Conduct for Ministers. Ministers remain responsible for the actions of their department (ministerial responsibility), although the delegation of operational responsibility to Executive Agencies raises some issues. However ministers rarely ‘carry the can’ for failure. Most resignations in recent years have been for personal misconduct, rather than for policy errors, or official errors. The resignation of Estelle Morris in October 2002 involved a rare admission of failure. The relative power of politicians and bureaucrats in British government has been endlessly debated. While the traditional public administration orthodoxy claimed minister decided, while civil servants offered advice and loyally implemented the decisions of their political masters, other perspectives suggested that civil servants had effective power and were the real policy makers, a view popularised by the television series Yes Minister. Yet evidence of ministers forcing through policies against the advice and sometimes the interests of civil servants suggests that ministers can wield power if they choose.
Although the Westminster Parliament is supposedly sovereign in the United Kingdom, and is one of the oldest political institutions in Britain, providing a familiar and reassuring symbol of British democracy, there are doubts about its power and effectiveness. Moreover, it is no longer the only major representative parliament or assembly for the people of the United Kingdom The Westminster Parliament is bi-cameral. Of its two chambers, much the most important is the House of Commons. The Commons can be said to represent the common people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in that its members (MPs) are elected by full adult suffrage. Almost all MPs are elected as party candidates, and their party loyalties shape much of their behaviour. Yet the party composition of the Commons does not reflect the support for parties in the country, not is it a microcosm of the nation, as some parts of the population (e.g. women, ethnic minorities) are underrepresented. Each MP does represent a particular geographical area or constituency, however. MPs also represent a wide range of interests, which can inform debate, but sometimes raises concerns. The government is recruited from the majority party in the Commons, which serves as a training ground for future ministers. Ministers are accountable individually and collectively to Parliament, and the Commons scrutinises the work of government (e.g. through debates, parliamentary questions, and more recently Departmental Select Committees), although there are criticisms of the effectiveness of Commons scrutiny.. A key function is legislation, and the House of Commons devotes much of its time to the consideration of draft legislation. Yet most bills which are proposed and nearly all those which are passed are Government bills, while bills initiated by backbenchers (Private Members’ bills) have a casualty rate. Thus the legislative process in Britain is largely executive-dominated from start to finish. Some reforms have been made to Commons procedures – including the introduction of more specialist committees, and changing the hours of business, but not yet including reform of the antiquated and time-consuming method of voting. The functions and composition of the Upper Chamber have long been controversial and are now in the midst of a contentious reform programme. The House of Lords shares legislative, deliberative and scrutiny functions with the Commons, yet only retains a delaying power on legislation. It is also still the highest court in the UK. For centuries the Lords was composed on Lords temporal (hereditary peers) and Lords spiritual (senior bishops of the Church of England). Law Lords were added in the 19th century and appointed life peers from 1958. While this composition has long been considered indefensible, previous reform proposals foundered. The Blair Government opted for a two stage process of the reform. The first stage - the removal of hereditary peers – led to an initial compromise under which hereditary peer were allowed to elect 92 of their number to serve in transitional House until a new composition was agreed. The second stage of reform is in limbo, following criticism of the government’s plans (based on the Wakeham report) and the failure of the Commons to agree to any of a range of proposals. The main issue is the relative proportions of elected and appointed members. In the absence of consensus on the composition of a new Upper House, the current interim body may continue for some time.
The judiciary is the third main arm of the state. In many political systems, it is kept separate and independent from the executive and legislature, but there is no such clear separation of powers in Britain, although the judicial process is widely considered to be substantially independent of political interference. However, it is not possible to take law and policing ‘out of politics’. Law and order is a major political issue. English law, like law in the USA, is based on common law, although statute law, law passed by parliament, is supreme over common law. Scottish law and the Scottish system of courts is distinctive, and closer to law on much of the European continent, which is based on Roam law. Criminal and civil law is administered through largely separate court systems. The current system of appointment of judges (mainly by the Lord Chancellor) has been much criticised, and has led to a judiciary which is markedly socially unrepresentative. Policing in Britain has also been criticised. There have been accusations of racism and sexism, and high profile cases where the conduct of the police has been called into question. While attempts have been made to broaden recruitment and change police culture, there is still a low level of trust between some police forces and the communities they serve. There are also issues over police accountability, and complaints procedures. There is no comprehensive system of administrative law in Britain. Citizens can however secure redress for grievances against public authorities through the ordinary courts, through a wide range of specialist tribunals and inquiries, and through the ombudsman system. Civil and human rights are additionally protected through the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law through the Human Rights Act. Judges cannot reject laws passed by Parliament (this would infringe the principle of parliamentary sovereignty) but can declare that an Act appears inconsistent with rights under the European Convention, and there is a fast track procedure for changing the law in such cases. What happens if a judge makes such a declaration and Parliament declines to modify the offending law remains unclear.
Although the main focus of the study of British politics continues to be Whitehall and Westminster, increasingly British government and policymaking appears multi-layered, with key decisions being made and influenced at levels both above and below UK central government. The most important of these other levels of government today is the European Union. The process of closer European political and economic integration began soon after the end of the Second World War. A prime aim was reconciliation and the avoidance of further damaging conflict within western Europe, although economic benefits were also anticipated. British governments were not initially involved in key developments towards European integration. Britain did not become part of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, nor the European Economic Community established by the same six countries in 1958, because of perceived wider interests associated with the British empire and Commonwealth and the ‘special relationship’ with the USA. Economic and political problems led to a reassessment, and British governments sought membership of the EEC in 1961-3, 1967, and finally and successfully in 1973. However the commitment of British governments and people to the European ideal has appeared less than wholehearted. Since its establishment the European Community has progressively extended its boundaries and size, from the original six member states to fifteen by 1995, with the largest enlargement yet to follow in 2004. Closer economic and political integration has led to more common policies, the establishment of a single market in 1986, and a single European currency for twelve member states, not including Britain. Although other member states have periodically had problems with European Community/Union, Britain has sometimes appeared an awkward partner. There have been differences over the level of Britain’s contributions to the European budget, over agriculture and fisheries policies, over the Social Chapter, and over the Euro. British governments have emphasised the economic benefits of membership of the EC/EU and played down its political implications, seeing the EU as an intergovernmental association of sovereign states rather than a supranational institution. The implications of further European integration for national and parliamentary sovereignty have become increasingly contentious in British politics. British foreign policy has often been torn between the conflicting pressures of its American and European allies. Only the Liberals and Liberal Democrats have been consistently pro-European. The two major British parties have almost reversed their positions on Europe. Although Conservative governments took Britain into Europe, and have been associated with key developments, the party has become substantially Euro-sceptic, while Labour, previously divided over Europe and committed to leaving the European Community in 1983, has become more pro-European (although the Blair Government has continued to delay a decision on the Euro). Despite the continuing political differences over Europe, many areas of policy have been progressively transformed by membership of the EU, while Britain’s trade with the European continent has continued to expand, while that with the rest of the world has relatively declined. British political parties have become part of European party groups in the European parliament, many local councils, other public bodies and countless pressure groups now seek to influence policymaking at Brussels as well as Westminster and Whitehall. British government and politics has thus become increasingly Europeanised.
While Britain’s membership of the European Union has given a significant supranational element to British government and politics, the ongoing process of devolution has involved a significant decentralisation of power and policymaking in Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales. Although the end-result of the peace process in Northern Ireland continues to be unclear, and the prospects for English regional devolution seem somewhat problematic, the United Kingdom already appears to be less of a unitary state, and moving towards a quasi-federal governmental system. In Northern Ireland the British government is committed to devolving power to a Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. However, continued deep divisions between the unionist and nationalist communities and declining support for the peace process among unionists has delayed progress, and led to the suspension of the Assembly and Executive and resumption of direct rule. Following strong support for a Scottish Parliament and government in a referendum in 1997, a Scottish Parliament was elected in 1999 and a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition government took office. The Scottish parliament has legislative and tax-varying powers, and a wide range of functions have been devolved to the new Scottish executive. Scotland has pursued distinctive policies on university finance and care home charges, and devolution seems bound to lead to more policy differences with England. The Welsh voted for devolution by a narrow margin. The Welsh Assembly lacks primary legislative powers and tax varying powers, and the record of its devolved government (initially minority Labour, than a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition) has been contentious. However, despite the initial divisions over the need for a Welsh Assembly and government, there are increasing demands for further devolution of powers. The pattern of devolved government remains asymmetrical, with different powers, institutions and electoral systems in those parts of the United Kingdom affected. Moreover, the process of devolution has scarcely extended to England. One possible solution to the ‘English question’ - the establishment of an English Parliament - has been rejected by the Labour Government, which has fitfully pursued English regional devolution instead. Yet although the establishment of Regional Development Agencies has involved some further administrative devolution, outside London there has been no effective political devolution involving elected assemblies. The long-term outcome of the devolution process remains unclear. Britain could become a quasi-federal or fully federal state. Alternatively devolution could lead to separation and the break-up of Britain. The record of devolved institutions and their relationship with the UK government may clearly have a significant influence on the outcome, although ultimately it will depend on issues of identity and allegiance, and more particularly whether a pattern of joint or multiple loyalties within a multi-level system of government can survive and thrive, or citizens will feel obliged to choose between more exclusive allegiances. In the United Kingdom there have long been elected local councils responsible for a wide range of services, and these have been joined by a rising number of other (largely appointed) local public bodies, concerned with specific functions or services. These local arms of the state increasingly feel obliged not only to co-ordinate with each other, but also the private sector and the voluntary sector in the delivery of local services and the development of new initiatives. Local governance is a term now widely used to describe this growing pattern of multi-agency and partnership working, in part to distinguish if from the old world of local government, focusing largely or exclusively on elected local councils. Elected local councils have been subject to major changes over the last forty years. Their structure has been wholly or partially transformed several times, involving considerable dislocation and public confusion. Their internal decision-making has been subject to similar change, culminating in the introduction of either directly elected mayors or local cabinet systems. Numerous changes have been imposed on their finances, including the unhappy saga of the poll tax. Some of their functions have transferred to other public bodies or the private sector, and as their role as service providers has become eroded, more emphasis has been placed on the council as an enabler or community leader in partnership with others. Even so, many important decisions continue to be taken at local level, by local councils, by other public bodies (such as Hospital Trusts, Primary Care Trusts, Learning and Skills Councils) and by partnerships and networks. The power and influence of various participants in this complex world of local governance will depend on the range of resources each controls and on the effectiveness with which various interests are represented.
The changes outlined in earlier chapters involve a cumulative revolution in the British system of government and politics. Many of the old established principles of the British constitution have been called into question. The new British state appears more complex and multi-layered. Yet there is some disagreement among academics as to where the changes are going, and how the evolving British state should now be characterised. For some, it appears that the British state, and particularly that part involving control by elected politicians, has been shrunk. Part of the restructuring of the state has involved the transfer of more activities to appointed agencies or quangos at every level. The delegation of many of the operational responsibilities of central government departments to executive agencies may be seen as part of the same process. Ministers are directly responsible for less. There has been a reduced role for the public sector in general and an increased role for the free market, as a result of privatisation, contracting out, and marketisation. The state it is argued should steer not row, and enable others – semi-autonomous public bodies, business, or the voluntary sector – to provide services. Yet despite this apparent ‘hollowing out of the state’ there are still increasing political pressures on central governments to intervene, even in the provision of services which have been extensively privatised (such as public transport), or decentralised (such as education). Governments are judged on the delivery of services, whether they are directly responsible or not. One consequence has been the growth of regulation – of recently privatised industries (e.g. rail transport), of decentralised public provision (e.g. health and education), and of the private sector (e.g. financial services, agriculture). Thus some have described the contemporary British state as a ‘regulatory state’. Another major issue has been government secrecy and the relative lack of openness of the British state. One object of concern here is the control and accountability of the secret services, but there is a much wider issue of open government generally, which critics argue has not been satisfactorily addressed by the Labour Government’s Freedom of Information Act. To an extent it appears that the British state is being eroded from above and below – from above by globalisation, by international and multinational organisations, and by the European Union, from below by demands for more devolution and decentralisation. Thus the old unitary British state centred on the world of Whitehall and Westminster is being replaced by a new more complex pattern of multi-level governance.
Earlier chapters have focused on political and governmental institutions and the wider political environment in which these operate. This chapter is concerned with the policy process, how particular issues arise, how the debate over them is shaped and influenced, and how decisions are made and reviewed. A key question is over how issues get onto the political agenda. Governments may seem able to dominate the political debate and substantially control the agenda, through its own news management and ‘spin’. Yet governments can easily lose control even of issues they have raised themselves, while other issues arise out of unforeseen events and scandals. Different interests within the community will try to push their own issues to the top of the policy agenda. Pluralists argue that the apparent ability of countless groups to raise policy issues and influence policy decisions demonstrates the wide dispersal of power within the political system, although others suggest a systematic bias which effectively denies a voice to many interests. Thus entrenched interests may have a veto power over the policy agenda, enabling them to avoid debate on issues which might adversely affect them. Rival theories of decision-making include the rational model associated with Herbert Simon and incrementalist theories linked with Charles Lindblom, as well as various mixed models. Policy-making is often described as a cycle involving a number of stages, such as agenda setting, policy formation, policy decision (often involving legislation) implementation and adaptation and feedback. Political leadership may be crucial factor in policy making, with different leaders exhibiting very different styles. The source of policy advice may clearly do much to shape policy decisions. Governments have often sought to widen sources of advice beyond the civil service, drawing on party research, establishing independent commissions or committees of inquiry, listening to and sometimes establishing sympathetic ‘think tanks’, bringing in their own special advisers as a counterweight to permanent civil servants. Whatever decisions are reached, there sometimes appears to be an ‘implementation gap’ between policy and its effective execution, partly perhaps because of intrinsic problems with the decision, but partly also because central government inevitably has to rely for implementation on others, such as local government or other public agencies, and their ‘street-level’ officials, and sometimes the private or voluntary sector. There may also be problems of insufficient financial or other resources for effective implementation, or unanticipated consequences which may even make the policy counter-productive.
|
||
