UK constitution Flashcards
define codified constitution
codified constitution refers to a constitution that is contained in a single document that was created at a particular time.
- The term also implies that a codified constitution contains a set of laws that are superior to all other laws and cannot be amended except by the special procedure that safeguards them
what is a constitution (in general) ?
Virtually all countries operate their political systems within the constraints of a constitution. In most cases, the constitution of the state is a written document that has been agreed on some particular occasion. Some constitutions are usually described as codified. There are a few countries like the UK that operate without such as specifically written constitution. Even so, these countries have a general ‘sense’ that a set of constitutional rules exist.
state and explain the functions of constitution
Constitutions, whether codified or not, are a vital aspect of most stable political systems. All constitutions, no matter where they exist, perform the same set of functions. These are as follows:-
- They determine how political power should be distributed within the state. This includes federal states where power is divided between the central government and regional institutions, e.g. the USA, or unitary states where ultimate power lies firmly in one place, such as the UK with the parliamentary system. Similarly, constitutions determine the balance of power between governments and parliament, between president and prime minister and between the two chamber systems that are bicameral (two houses of Parliament).
- Linked to the first function, constitutions also establish the political processes that also make the system work. This includes the relationships between institutions and the rules that govern how they operate.
- A constitution normally states what the limits of governmental power should be- in other words, what is the competence of the government. The UK constitution is unusual in this sense, as it places no limits on the competence of Parliament. Being sovereign, Parliament can do what it likes.
The Swiss political theorist Jean Louis de Lolme, wrote in his ‘Constitution de l’Angleterre’ in 1784, that ‘Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man and a man a woman’. This may be a strange statement but it remains true today. Parliament is not expected to act in a dictatorial way, but it has the legal power to do what it likes. By contrast the US government is circumscribed by the US constitution.
- Just as the constitutions limit governmental power, so do they assert the rights of the citizens against the state. Most countries that at least claim to be democratic have some kind of ‘bill of rights’, a statement that prevents the government from trampling on the civil liberties of its citizens
- Constitutions establish the rules by which nationality is established- in other words, who is entitled to be a citizen and how outsiders may become citizens. This also implies that a constitution defines the territory that makes up the state.
- Constitutions have to be amended from time to time. It is therefore essential that a constitution contains within itself the rules for its own amendment. The UK is, once again, unusual in this respect as its constitution changes in two ways. One is through simple parliamentary statute; the other is by the slow evolution of unwritten rules, known as conventions.
Normally states have special arrangements for amending their constitution. In France and Ireland a referendum is needed to approve any changes. In the USA it is necessary to secure a two thirds majority of both houses of Congress and approval of three quarters of the 50 states that make up the Union. The UK has no such methods of amendment; its construction has evolved naturally over the course of history. We therefore have established the six main functions of a constitution. Issues that concern any of these matters are therefore described as ‘constitutional’ in nature.
explain the development, nature and theory of the Uk constitution?
Stages in the development of the UK Constitution
The UK Constitution has gradually developed over time. To some extent this is an unseen process, so slow and subtle that we hardly notice it. Constitutional change is something that concerns lawyers and politicians but few members of the public. From time to time, an event takes place that everyone notices. These events form the main landmarks in the development of the UK Constitution.
The following are some of those landmarks:
- Magna Carta 1215- Little in Magna Carta has survived, save for a few common law traditions and some principles which have been turned into statute law. However, it was a key moment in history. It established that the rule of law should apply and the monarchy should operate within this framework. It was to be centuries before this principle became normal practice, but Magna Carta was an important staging post in the development of constitutional rule.
- Bill of Rights 1689- This Act of Parliament resulted from the replacement of King James II by the joint monarchy of William III and Mary. Parliament was anxious that the new monarchs would not exceed their powers, so the Bill of Rights effectively stated that Parliament was sovereign and would have the final word on legislation and the government finances.
- The Act of Settlement 1701- The Act finally established the rules governing the succession to the throne. It also stated that the monarchs should be a member of the Church of England. However, its main significance was that it established the monarch’s position as the ruler of the whole of the UK- England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (Northern Ireland after 1921).
- The Acts of Union 1707- This abolished the separate Scottish Parliament and so established the modern UK. Of course devolution of power to Scotland in 1998 brought back the Scottish Parliament, although it was still not the sovereign body in the country.
- The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949- These two Acts settled the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Before 1911 the two houses were, in theory at least, of equal status. In 1911 the House of Lords lost its powers to regulate public finances and could only delay legislation for 2 years. It could no longer veto proposed legislation for good. The 1949 Act reduced the delaying period to 1 year. As a result the House of Commons is very much the senior house.
- The European Communities Act 1972- This was the Act that brought the UK into the European Community, which later became the European Union. The UK joined in 1973. This Act was consigned to history when the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016. It was however, for nearly 50 years, a key feature of the UK Constitution.
The European (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017-This gave parliamentary consent to the UK’s exit from the European Union.
The Withdrawal Act- 31st January 2019 and officially left EU in 2021
There have been many other key moments in constitutional development and many of them will be described in other lessons in this topic and further notes. They show the changing role of the monarchy and the growth in the authority of Parliament and the improved protection of citizen’s rights.
Explain the nature and theory of constitution - the key principles concerning the constitution and their status and the different types
Codification
The UK Constitution is not codified. It is not contained in a single document. This is not the same as saying that it is unwritten- in fact much of the UK Constitution is now written, e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights is a well known document. Constitutional statutes are also written.
To be a codified constitution is has to have three features:-
It is contained in a single document, It has a single source and was therefore created at one moment in history, even if it has since been amended and
the constitutional laws contained in it must be clearly distinguished from other non-constitutional laws.
Virtually all modern countries have a codified constitution. The famous US Constitution, which millions of US citizens have travelled to Washington DC to see in its original form, is perhaps the earliest example of a modern codified constitution.
The UK is very unusual in not having one. The main advantage of a codified constitution is that it is a clear document with which all citizens can identify and which can be examined when there is any doubt over its meaning. However the key principle is not whether a constitution is codified; rather it is whether it is entrenched.
explain the term of entrenchment
Entrenchment
A constitutional principle whereby constitutional rules are safeguarded against change by a future government or legislature. It means in practice that constitutional change requires special arrangements which are more difficult to make than the passage of normal laws.
The UK Constitution is not entrenched as Parliament can change it by a simple Act. However, most democratic constitutions are entrenched in some way.
explain the term of parliamentary sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty
This principle, established after 1689, means that the UK Parliament (not the Scottish Parliament) in Westminster is supreme within the political system.
Only Parliament can grant power to other bodies and it can legislate on any matter it wishes. Its laws cannot be overridden by any other body, even the government or the monarch.
It also means that the current parliament cannot bind any future parliament. Each newly elected parliament is sovereign and cannot be bound with what has gone before.
explain entrenchment
Entrenchment:
This is a rather more important principle that codification. Entrenchment is the device that protects a constitution from short term amendment. It is important because constitutional change makes a fundamental and important difference to the political system of a country. The constitution is too important to be placed in the hands of a temporary leader or government. A country must be sure that any proposed constitutional change meets two tests
That there is widespread popular support for it. That it is in the long term interests of the country
An example is the guarantee of human rights that exists in most states. It may be in the interests of a particular government to set aside some of these rights by amending that part of the constitution that deals with civil rights. But this would clearly damage the long term interests of the people.
Similarly, a dictatorial government might seek to grant itself additional powers to protect its own position. If this occurred democracy in general might be under threat.
To ensure that the two tests are met, special arrangements need to be established. Thus a referendum ensures popular support for change, while special parliamentary procedures can ensure that constitutional amendment is in the long term interests of the state.
Again the UK is unusual. It is not possible to entrench constitutional principles. This is because the UK Parliament is sovereign. The sovereignty of Parliament asserts that each individual parliament cannot be bound by its predecessors, nor can it bind its successors.
This means in effect that every new parliament is able to amend the constitution as it wishes. All Parliament has to do is to pass a new parliamentary statute, using the same procedure as for any other statute. It can be done in as little as two days.
It is obvious that the government with a majority in the House of Commons and the mandate of the people given to it in an election will mean that a government can dominate Parliament. A dominant government can effectively control the constitution.
An example of executive power was demonstrated when the UK Parliament passed the Human Rights Act in 1998.
state the range of sources that influence UK’s constitution as the Uk constitution is not codified
- Parliamentary (constitutional) statutes:
- Constitutional conventions:
- Historical principles and authoritative writings
- common law
- customs and traditions
Explain parliamentary (Constitutional) statutes
Parliamentary (Constitutional) statutes:
These are Acts of Parliament that have the effect of establishing constitutional principles.
The Human Rights Act 1998 is an example, as is the Parliament Act 1949, which established limitations to the House of Lords and the Scotland and Wales Acts which devolved power to those countries.
One of the distinctive features of the UK’s constitutional arrangements is that a constitutional statute looks no different from any other statute. Because Parliament is sovereign and can amend or repeal any statute, all statutes look alike and have the same status. The wording of a constitutional statute does not contain the words, ‘This is a Constitutional Statute’.
In most countries a constitutional statute is clearly differentiated from other laws and is superior to them.
Explain Constitutional conventions
Constitutional Conventions:
A convention is an unwritten rule that is considered binding on all members of the political community. Such conventions could be challenged in law but have so much moral force that they are rarely, if ever, disputed.
Many of the powers of the prime minster are governed by such conventions. It is, for example, merely a convention that the prime minister exercises the Queen’s power to appoint and dismiss ministers, to conduct foreign policy and to grant various honours, such as peerages and knighthoods, to individuals.
It is also a convention (known as the Salisbury Convention) that the House of Lords should not block any legislation that appeared in the governing party’s most recent election manifesto.
A new convention that seems to be emerging is that the prime minister must consult Parliament before committing British armed forces to serious action. This was not the case before David Cameron appeared to accept it when seeking approval for air action in Syria in 2013. Parliament, on that occasion refused to sanction action.
Explain Historical principles and authoritative writings
Historical principles and authoritative writings:
Similar to conventions, these principles have become effectively binding because they have been established over a long period of time.
The most important is the sovereignty of Parliament. We could add a similar concept which is parliamentary government- the principle that the authority of government is drawn from Parliament and not directly from the people.
The rule of law is a more recent development, originating in the second part of the 19th Century. The rule of law establishes, among other things, the principles for equal rights for citizens and that government itself is limited by legal limitations.
On the whole, historical principles are attributed to important constitutional theorists such as Blackstone (parliamentary sovereignty and A.V. Dicey (rule of law). The rules on how to form a coalition are now an authoritative constitutional work, having been drawn up by the then Cabinet Secretary, Gus O’Donnell, in 2010
Explain common law
Common Law is a largely Anglo Saxon principle. It refers to the development of laws through historical usage and traditions. Judges, who occasionally must declare and enforce common law, treat it as any rule of conduct that is both well established and generally acknowledged by most people.
The most important application of common law has concerned the protection of basic rights and freedoms from encroachment by government and/or Parliament. The right of people to free movement and to gather for public demonstrations, for example, are ancient freedoms, jealously guarded by the courts. So, too, was the principle that the Crown could nor detain citizens without trial.
For the most part, common law principles have been replaced by statutes and by the European Convention on Human Rights, which became UK law in 2000. But from time to time, when there is no relevant statute, the common law is invoked in courts by citizens with a grievance against the government.
The prerogative powers of the prime minister are considered common law powers. They have never been codified or put into formal legislation.
These powers are exercised by the prime minister on behalf of the monarch and include commanding the armed forces, negotiating foreign treaties, calling general elections and making appointment to government.
Explain customs and traditions
Customs and traditions:
Similar to common law, constitutional traditions and customs govern many of the rituals of parliamentary government.
The procedures of both houses of Parliament are traditional in nature, as are some of their rituals.
The practice of allowing the Queen to announce the legislative programme for the coming year (the so called Queen’s Speech) is such a tradition, as are many rules of the debate.
state the main motivations behind constitutional reform since 1997
- democratisation
- decentralisation
- stronger protection to rights
- modernisation
Explain democratisation as a motivation behind constitutional reform
DEMOCRATISATION:
Too much of the British political system has been undemocratic. The prime targets have been the unelected House of Lords and the unrepresentative electoral system. Neither of these two aims, however, have been achieved.
It is true that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland use proportional electoral systems, but the main measure- reforming the system for general elections- failed following an unsuccessful referendum in 2011.
A small reform of the House of Lords, namely the removal of most of the hereditary peers, has been made, but the main measure, to elect the second chamber, remains in doubt.
Under the coalition government of 2010-2015 some democratization of the House of Commons took place, but this aspect of reform remains incomplete.
Explain decentralisation as a motivation behind constitutional reform
DECENTRALISATION:
Here a lot of progress since 1997 has been made.
Devolution dispersed power from central government considerably in 1998. Since then all the administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have received additional powers.
The introduction of elected mayors in London and other cities has helped move power to local centres.
The introduction of elected police commissioners (PCC’s) after 2012 will also help to decentralize control over the police.
In 2016 devolved powers over health and social care were also granted to Manchester.
Explain stronger protection rights as a motivation behind constitutional reform
During the 1980s there had been fears that the rights of citizens in the UK had been consistently eroded. In fact, the process could be traced back to earlier periods, but the Labour government from 1997 onwards concentrated on what had happened under the Conservatives.
Labour also wished to bring the UK more in line with European practice in constitutional matters. The party therefore proposed the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
In addition, the Freedom of Information Act was seen as essential in a drive to create more open and accountable government.
These tow developments are now having a major impact on the safeguarding of rights in the UK.
Explain modernisation as a motivation behind constitutional reform
MODERNISATION:
Governments since 1997 have all sought to bring the British Constitution into line with other modern arrangements which exist in Western democracies.
Certainly the stronger protection of rights and the right to obtain official information for citizens brings the UK into line with most other democracies.
The idea of fixed term parliaments is also in line with most other democracies.
Referendum use has grown in the UK, bringing the UK in line with a common European practice.
The failure to reform the second chamber or to codify the constitution means that the British system remains ‘traditional’ rather than ‘mode
Explain what is meant by hereditary peers
Hereditary peers- Members of the aristocracy who owe their title to birth, in other words they inherit their titles from their father.
Some titles go back deep into history. Ninety two such peers have a right to sit in the House of Lords.
Constitutional and general reform during 1997-2010 was made by which party and was their main motivation behind it?
When the Labour Party was elected to power in 1997 it had grand plans for reform of the constitution.
It was committed to completing most of the changes with 5 years. This was ambitious, and mainly because the party had a huge 179 seat majority in the Commons, so it could push through the reforms with minimal opposition.
It was almost inevitable that such a large project could not be completed, but the government did implement a high proportion of its proposals by the time it lost office in 2010.
What did the labour party want to change or introduce during 1997-2010?
- devolution
- parliamentary reform
- house of commons / house of lords
- human rights reform
- electoral reform
- voting reform
- changing the voting (electoral ) system
- freedom of information
- city government in london
- reform of the judiciary
- judicial reform
Explain labour’s plans for reform in relation to devolution
Devolution- this was a key element of Labour’s post 1997 reform programme.
Explain labour plans for parliamentary reform (House of commons and lords)
Parliamentary reform:
The House of Lords
The government in 1997 wanted to reform the House of Lords quite radically, but had to move in two stages:-
A- The first stage was the removal of hereditary peers and their voting rights. In other words, there would be an all-appointed chamber of life peers and Church of England bishops. There was some obstruction to this and the government had to compromise with the peers by allowing 92 hereditary peers to retain their seats.
B- Stage 2 was to be an elected, or partly elected, chamber. However, this ran into more obstruction and a lack of political consensus. This measure was therefore taken off the agenda.
Although the House of Lords Act 1999 did reduce the number of hereditary peers to 92, the House of Lords threatened to use its power to obstruct and delay reform. It was in return for the Lords’ compliance that the government left a number of hereditary peers in place.
It should be emphasized that, although the 1999 Act was a limited reform, it did have the effect of making the Lords a largely appointed chamber. The much higher proportion of peers who held their position on merit rather than by birth meant that the Lords became a more professional and efficient body.
House of Commons
Reform of the Commons has been piecemeal and superficial. The main reform concerned the departmental select committees of the House of Commons.
These committees of backbench MPs which scrutinize the work of the government departments are becoming more important and have enjoyed some enhancement in status.
In 2004, the chairs of the committees were awarded additional salaries to raise their status. In 2010, one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government was to introduce a system for electing members of the select committees. Before the reform they had largely been chosen by the party leaders. Election of members (by other MPs) has increased their independence of mind and action.
Also in 2010, a Backbench Business Committee was established. This gave MPs control over 20 parliamentary days to debate issues of their choosing. This represented a small increase in backbench influence and control.
Explain labours plan’s for human rights reform
Human Rights reform
In 1998, the UK parliament passed the Human Rights Act, possibly the most significant development in the protection of human rights in the UK since Magna Carta was drafted nearly 800 years before. Its provisions came into force in 2000.
What the Act did was to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The convention was made binding on all public bodies including the government. All UK courts have an obligation to enforce the convention whenever it becomes relevant in any case coming before then.
In order to preserve the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the convention is not strictly binding on the UK Parliament, though any law passed that contravenes the convention can only be passed if the government declares an overwhelming reason why it is necessary to do so.
In practice therefore, the terms of the ECHR are now binding in all parts of the UK.
The ECHR contains 18 articles that establish the freedoms
What factors led to the labour government incorporating ECHR into British law
A number of factors led the Labour government that came into office in 1997 to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law:-
There was a general desire to bring the UK Constitution into line with the rest of Europe, all of whose states have special arrangements to protect individual rights.
The increase in the powers of the police and the courts that had occurred in the 1980s and 1990s was now seen as a major threat to our rights.
The UK government had been brought before the European Court of Human Rights (which seeks to enforce the convention) more than 50 times since 1966 and had lost most of the cases. Although the decisions of the court are not legally binding, these cases had been an embarrassment to the government.
The government stressed the idea of active citizenship. This concept included the principle that citizens have responsibilities to their communities and to the country as a whole. In return for these responsibilities it was believed that rights should be better understood and safeguarded.
It was part of the devolution settlements that the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies and the Scottish Parliament should be bound by the convention. This was designed to reassure the citizens of these nations that devolution would not threaten their rights.
Therefore the Human Rights Act (passed in 1998) made the European Convention on Human Rights part of UK law in 2000.
The Human Rights Act marked a change not just in human rights in the UK but also in constitutional development. For the first time there was a genuinely codified element of the constitution and it was safeguarded by the fact that its terms were not set by Parliament. Instead the ECHR was set by an external body- the Council of Europe. It was also interpreted and enforced by European judges – the European Court of Human Rights.
The UK did not lose any sovereignty by passing the Human Rights Act. Parliament can repeal it at any time and so the ECHR would no longer be enforced. The Conservatives when they came to power in 2015 were committed to replacing the Act with a new British Bill of Rights.
Explain labour’s plans for electoral reform
Electoral reform
Since the 1960s the issue of electoral reform has been a persistent political issue.
Reform could take three forms:
- The franchise- that is the right to vote- might be changed. In practice the only issue here is whether the voting age should be reduced to 16.
- The way in which people vote and the rules concerning voting might be reformed
- The electoral system might be changed. The system refers to the way in which votes are converted into seats won. The system used for general elections as we know is FPTP.
Explain’s labours plans and attempts for voting at 16
Votes at 16
The age at which citizens are entitled to vote in the UK was last changed in 1969 when it was reduced from 21 to 18.
In the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, for the first time in British history, 16 & 17 year olds were entitled to vote. It was a great success and led to renewed calls to extend the lower age to all elections.
An attempt to include the measure in the referendum on EU membership in 2016 failed, and the issue was taken off the agenda. It continues to be a future possibility.
Explains labours plans for voting reform in relation to low turnout
Voting reform
Low turnout at all elections has been a concern for policy makers. Various proposed reforms have been suggested, the most persistent of which is the idea of making voting compulsory.
Voting is compulsory in Australia and has led to turnouts of over 90%. However, like votes at 16, compulsory voting does not enjoy sufficient support to progress.
Measures have been taken to make postal voting easier and it is possible that online voting will be introduced in the future. This is problematic given the possibilities of fraud on the internet, but it is the main idea that might have a positive effect.
Explain what is meant by electoral system
Electoral system
An electoral system is the mechanism by which votes at elections are converted into seats awarded to candidates and parties.
Many different electoral systems are used in the democratic world.
Explain labour’s plans for changing the voting (electoral) system
Changing the voting (electoral) system:
The UK came close to introduce a new voting system in 1974 when the Liberal Party (the forerunner of the Liberal Democrats) won enough seats in Parliament to promote the issue. However, neither Labour nor the Conservative Party would support the proposal and it was abandoned.
The issue re-emerged in 1997 when devolution was being considered.
There were to be new elected assemblies introduced in Wales and Northern Ireland and a parliament in Scotland. The question was: what electoral system should be used?
It was decided at an early stage that the system used should reflect the party systems in those countries and should avoid domination by one or two parties, as was the case in England.
It was agreed that forms of PR should be used. If FPTP had been adopted, Wales and Scotland would have been dominated by Labour and the Unionists would have controlled Northern Ireland.
In the event AMS was used for Scotland and Wales and STV for Northern Ireland.
When a coalition government was formed in 2010, the junior coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, insisted that electoral reform should be considered as a price of co-operation. They wanted PR introduced, but the Conservatives were opposed.
A compromise was reached, which involved a referendum being held in 2011, not on PR but on a less radical reform, the introduction of AV (alternative vote). The referendum rejected the proposal decisively. Once again the issue of electoral reform for general elections was set back for a generation.
The unsuccessful attempt in 2011 to reform the electoral system for general elections is perhaps the greatest failure for reformers since 1997. However, PR is now commonly used for sub-central elections in the UK and formerly for elections to the European Parliament, so it is not true to say that no reform has taken place.
Explain what is meant by freedom of information
Freedom of Information
This is a principle of legislation, since 2000 in the UK, which states that all citizens have a right to see certain kinds of information held by public bodies, including the NHS, schools, and universities, as well as all levels of government.
The main kinds of information available are: information about the citizen him or herself (but not other citizens); factual information, statistics and reports held by government bodies; information held by parliamentary bodies and the minutes of meetings by non-confidential bodies.
Information can be withheld if it mat jeopardise national security of the efficient running of government.
Explains labour’s plan for freedom of information
Freedom of Information
The lack of any citizen’s right to obtain publicly held information was one of the features of the British Constitution that that lagged behind the European and US experience in the 1990s.
The Labour Party, supported by the Liberal Democrats, made a firm commitment to introduce such a measure.
The legislation, when it appeared in 1997, proved to be a disappointment to civil rights campaigners.
There are two strands to freedom of information.
The first gives the right to citizens to see information that is held about them by public bodies. These include government, schools, medical bodies and other institutions of the welfare state. This has been relatively uncontroversial. Indeed, the right to view records held on computer files had already been established under the Data Protection Act 1998. The main disappointment here was that this right would not come into existence until 2005.
The second strand has caused more problems. This concerns the right to see documents and reports held by government and its agencies. In other words, there was to be a public right to see inside the very workings of government. The ability to suppress information was limited, while the media and Parliament would have much greater access to information. In theory, this represents a major move towards more open government. If implemented in full, freedom of information would have virtually ended the culture of secrecy in government.
Explain the freedom of information act 2000
The Freedom of Information Act 2000
As with electoral reform, the new Labour government of 1997 proved to be less enthusiastic about reform once it was in office that it had been when it was in opposition.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was a watered down version of similar measures in operation elsewhere in Europe. The security services were exempt, while the rest of government was given a key concession. The ‘normal’ situation is that governments have to justify any reason for suppressing the information.
The UK version gives the government the right to conceal information if it feels it might prejudice the activities of government.
In other words, the onus is on the outsider to prove that a document or other information should be released.
An Information Tribunal was also set up. The tribunal can rule on what information can and should be released. This tribunal has often proved to be more sympathetic to freedom of information than was envisaged.
When the Freedom of Information Act was passed, human rights campaigners thought it was too weak. Experience has now told us otherwise.
One major development has shown us its power. In 2008 a request was made to the Information Tribunal to release details of expenses claims made by MPs. Parliament attempted to block that request through the High Court but failed. The information was released and leaked to the Daily Telegraph.
When the revelations were made in the newspaper, it became clear that there had been widespread abuse of the generous expenses system. As a result, a kind of witch hunt was undertaken, in which hundreds of MPs were accused of ‘milking’ the system for their own benefit (though most claimed successfully that they had operated within the rules). The results of the revelations were far reaching. Many MPs were forced to give up their seats. Parliament was subjected to widespread ridicule and public condemnation, and the expenses system had to be radically reformed.
The Freedom of Information Act also proved to be significant in areas such as healthcare, defence procurement and local authority procedures.
It is therefore, one of the most important constitutional reforms of recent times.
Explain what is meant by city government and city devolution
City government and city devolution
The transfer of wide powers to cities and city regions, led by an elected mayor with extensive control over the budget and some tax raising powers.
Explain labour’s plan for city governments in london
City government in London
In 1985 the Greater London Council (GLC), a powerful local government body with wide powers and responsibilities, was abolished by the Conservative government. Prime Minister Thatcher was determined to remove from power what she saw as a socialist enclave in the centre of Conservative Britain.
Labour, when it returned to power in 1997, was determined to restore government to London, a measure that has been seen as an extension of local government rather than devolution. In addition, a new innovation was to be introduced. This was the election of a mayor with a considerable degree of executive power.
Elected mayors were unheard of in British history. In the past, mayors had been holders of ceremonial offices, appointed by councils with no executive power at all.
In 2000, following a decisive referendum in which the people of London approved the introduction of an elected mayor and assembly, elections were held for the two new institutions. However, the legislation seemed to ensure that neither would enjoy a hugely significant amount of political power.
The mayor controls the allocation of funds to different uses in London, that are distributed and administered by the elected assembly of 25 members. But at the same time, the assembly has the power to veto the mayor’s budgetary and other proposals, provided that there is a two-thirds majority for such a veto.
Similarly, while the mayor has powers of patronage, controlling a variety of appointments, the assembly has rights of veto. This was a classic example of the introduction of a set of ‘checks and balances’ on the American model.
Also the electoral system used for the assembly- AMS- meant there was no possibility of a single party enjoying an overall majority. This ensured the mayor would always face obstruction for controversial measures.
The office of London mayor was granted relatively limited power under the legislation. The holder of this office cannot be said to enjoy a similar position to powerful mayors in New York and Paris, for example.
However, within those limitations it could be said that Ken Livingstone and his successors Boris John and Sadiq Khan have been involved in several significant developments in London.
Accepting that the mayor possesses influence rather than power, Livingstone and Johnson were wholly or partially instrumental in various initiatives such as improved community policing, the growth in the arts in the capital, and vastly improved public transport.
explain what is meant by the independence of the judiciary
The independence of the judiciary
The constitutional principle that the judges should be independent from pressure by politicians so that they do not deliver judgements favourable to the government.
explain the reform of the judiciary in relation to labour’s plans of reform during 1997-2010
Reform of the judiciary
At the start of the 21st Century, there was growing concern that the judiciary, that is the senior levels of the court system, was in need of reform. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was passed to address these issues.
