UK constitution Flashcards

Question

Explain labours plan's for human rights reform

Answer 1

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

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

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.

Answer 11

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.

Answer 12

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.

Answer 13

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.

Answer 14

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.

Answer 15

The Constitutional Reform Act had three main effects. 1- Separation of judiciary and government Most importantly, it was seen as crucial that there was a clearer separation between senior members of the judiciary and the government. In the past, the position of Lord Chancellor had been ambiguous. He/she was a cabinet minister and senior member of the governing party. At the same time, the holder of the office was the head of the judiciary and presided over the proceedings in the House of Lords. This placed the Lord Chancellor in all three branches of government. Although the occupant of the role may protest that they understood the difference between their neutral judicial role and their political role as a cabinet minister, suspicions persisted that one role would interfere with the other. This perception of a lack of independence of the judiciary had to be addressed in a modern system. The judicial role of the Lord Chancellor was therefore largely removed. The post was combined with that of justice secretary, a cabinet post, but the holder ceased to have a judicial role; he/she was in charge of justice policy, but not practice. 2- Supreme Court The highest court of appeal had been the House of Lords, meeting as a court rather than as a part of Parliament. The senior ‘Law Lords’ – usually in groups of five- would hear important appeal cases, often with great political consequences. There was disquiet over recent years that it was not appropriate that members of the legislature (i.e. the Law Lords), should also be the highest level of the judiciary. In other words, it was seen as vital that law and politics should be completely separated to safeguard the rule of law. It was therefore decided to take the senior judges out of the Lords and to create a separate Supreme Court. 3- Appointment of senior judges Finally, there was opposition to the continued practice of senior appointments to the judiciary being in the hands of politicians- mainly the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister. There was a constant danger that such appointments might be made on the basis of the political views of prospective judges rather than on their legal qualifications. A Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) was set up to ensure that all candidates should be suitable, using purely legal considerations. The government has the final say on who shall become a senior judge, but this must be approved by the JAC. The most senior appointments- to the Supreme Court- have been placed in the hands of a non-political committee of senior judicial figures.

Answer 16

The Supreme Court was opened in the autumn of 2009 and began work immediately to establish its new independence. In reality, the change to a Supreme Court is partly a cosmetic exercise. The new court has the same powers that the House of Lords did. However, it is symbolically important and the early signs have indicated that it will indeed prove to be a genuinely independent body.

Answer 17

Separation of powers The constitutional arrangement whereby the three branches of government- legislature, executive and judiciary- have separate powers and can control each others power.

Answer 18

The principles of judicial reform have been fourfold. 1- To increase the separation of powers between government, legislature and judiciary. 2- To improve the independence of the judiciary 3- To eliminate the ambiguity of the role of the Lord Chancellor 4- To bring Britain into line with modern constitutional practice.

Answer 19

conservatives and liberal democrats (2010-2015) | Conservatives (2015+)

Answer 20

- fixed term parliaments - elected mayors - elected police commissioners - city devolution outside of london - recall of MPs - Extension of scottish and welsh devolution - referendums

Answer 21

FIXED TERM PARLIAMENTS: When the Coalition government was formed in 2010 there was an overwhelming fear that it would be unstable and not last very long. Id the two parties, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, came into conflict with each other, it would be easy for Parliament to defeat a divided government and to force a general election. In addition, because the power to dissolve Parliament and call an election lay in the hands of the prime minister (by constitutional convention), this power could be used to ‘bully’ the Liberal Democrats into agreement. To avoid this possibility the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed in 2011. It meant there could be disagreement within government without the danger of it falling apart. The Act was also designed to take away the prime minister’s power to call a general election whenever he or she wishes, thus giving their own party an advantage by surprising the opposition with a ‘snap election’. An early election would only occur if a vote of no confidence in the government were to be passed or if a two thirds majority in the House of Commons passed a motion for an early election. This happened in November 2019 with Boris Johnson and with Theresa May in 2017 when she called a snap election. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn felt they could not oppose the motion because they would have appeared weak in avoiding an election. Therefore, the prime minister still has considerable power over when general elections are held.

Answer 22

Elected mayors: The 1997-2010 Labour government’s enthusiasm for reform of local government in general withered quickly after it was elected to office in 1997. Cities, towns and districts were given the opportunity to elect mayors following a local referendum. Few places held referendums and fewer still voted in favour of an elected mayor (originally only 11 places voted for an elected mayor, North Tyneside being one of them.) Local authorities were similarly given the option of changing to a ‘cabinet’ system of government. This involves the creation of a central cabinet of leading coucillors from the dominant party or from a coalition, who may take over central control of the council’s work, making key decisions and setting a general policy. This replaces the former system where the work of the council was divided between a number of functional committees. But again the take up of this system was patchy. It is generally acknowledged that this kind of internal change does not tackle the real problems of local government. These are threefold:- 1- Lack of autonomy from central government 2-Lack of accountability to local electorates 3- Largely as a result of the first two problems, low levels of public interest in local government and politics.

Answer 23

ELECTED POLICE COMMISSIONERS: The most important development under the coaltion government between 201-15 was the introduction of elected mayors in more English cities, together with the provision for the election of new police commissioners. They are accountable for the quality of policing in all English and Welsh areas. It was hoped they would improve the accountability for policing in local areas but this has largely not been the case. Turnout at commissioner elections has been low and few people are even aware of who their local police commissioner is.

Answer 24

CITY DEVOLUTION OUTSIDE OF LONDON: The Conservative government that took office in 2015 (George Osborne, its Chancellor in particular) was committed to granting more autonomous powers to large cities. In October 2015 Osborne announced that local authorities would be allowed to keep all its revenues from business rates (local tax levied on commercial businesses) rather than give them giving them to the central exchequer. This gave them considerable financial independence, allowing them to finance important projects and policies. Any city which adopted an elected mayor system would also have the power to increase the levels of business rates and so finance major projects. This represented a first step towards a more independent local government. The next step was to allow one city- Manchester- to control its own budgets for health and social care from March 2016. This represented a budget of £6 billion per annum, previously controlled by central authorities but now in the hands of the Manchester mayor and his/her own government (currently Andy Burnham). If this proves successful, it may be extended to other cities, provided they have an elected mayor. City devolution, both in and beyond London, if it is extended, will begin to look like the US model, where city mayors have considerable control over how local taxes are spent. American mayors are all elected and so are accountable to their local community. Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Tees Valley, North of Tyne and Birmingham are expected to become semi autonomous and have introduced elected mayor- but they all have different levels of power and the picture is complex.

Answer 25

FOR ARGUEMENTS: - Local democracy is closer to the people and will therefore reflect their demands more accurately. - Local needs vary a great deal, so the ‘one size fits all’ suggested by central government control is not realistic. - The UK as a whole is too ‘London-centred’, so autonomous local government may boost local economies and spread wealth and economic development more evenly. - Demonstrating that councils and mayors have significant powers will give a boost to local democracy.

Answer 26

AGAINIST ARGUEMENTS: - Central control means that all parts of the UK should receive the same range and quality of services. - Central government control of finances will prevent irresponsible local government overspending. - Turnouts at local elections tend to be very low, so local government is not accountable enough. - There is a danger that the traditional unity of the UK may be jeopradised.

Answer 27

RECALL OF MPS: The Recall of MPs Act 2015 provided for constituencies to ‘recall’ an MP who had been involved in some kind of misbehaviour. It requires a petition supported by at least 10% of the MPs constituents to set the process in motion. It is a limited measure in that MPs cannot be recalled on the basis of their voting record or their policy statements. If an MP is imprisoned or suspended from the House of Commons, they may be subjected to a by-election, which they would be likely to lose and so lose their seat.

Answer 28

EXTENSION OF SCOTTISH AND WELSH DEVOLUTION: In 2016 the new Conservative government was forced to grant further powers to the Scottish government. This was in response to the surge in nationalist feeling following a close result in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. The new powers included the ability to vary the rate of income tax and some other taxes and to control welfare. This gave a great deal of financial autonomy to Scotland and was known as ‘devo-max’. In Wales, the way has now been paved for future increases in the powers of the assembly. Provided the Welsh Assembly requests legislative powers, it is clear these will be granted.

Answer 29

REFERENDUMS: There has not been a piece of legislation passed in the UK establishing the use of referendums to provide popular consent for constitutional changes. Nevertheless, it has become firmly established that a referendum will be held if any power is to be transferred away from central government in the UK. This transfer could be upwards to the EU or downwards to regional or local bodies. In other parts of the democratic world, referendums are often used as a special arrangement for constitutional reform. In the past Britain has not had special arrangements for constitutional amendments- they have been created either by Acts of Parliament or by the emergence of new unwritten conventions. But referendums are now a regular feature in the UK, so much so that we can describe its use as an important constitutional reform. Three recent referendums demonstrate how important they have begun- 2011-Should the UK adopt the alternative vote system for general elections? 2014- Should Scotland become an independent state? (In Scotland only) 2016- Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?

Answer 30

Devolution- A term referring to the division of powers among regions of the country, while actual sovereignty, or ultimate legal power, remains with the Westminster Parliament.

Answer 31

Quasi-federalism- A system of devolution where it is so unlikely or difficult for power to be returned to central government, that it is, to all intents and purposes, a federal system even though it is not in strict constitutional terms.

Answer 32

Asymmetric devolution- A type of devolution where the various regions have been granted unequal amounts of power.

Answer 33

THE NATURE OF DEVOLUTION: Devolution is an important constitutional development in the context of the UK. It is vital to understand precisely what the term means. A definition for the UK could be this:- Devolution is the process of delegating power, but not sovereignty, from the UK Parliament to specific regions of the country. This is power which can be returned to Parliament through a constitutional statute. Therefore it is a transfer of power without eroding the sovereignty of Parliament. Although it is not expected for any devolved powers to be returned to Westminster in the foreseeable future, the arrangement is not the same as a federal settlement. With a federal settlement, such as the USA, the powers are divided by a constitutional provision and they cannot be changed without a full amendment to the constitution. In other words the division of power is entrenched. Having said that, some have argued that, because the devolution arrangements of the UK were approved by referendums (1997 in Scotland and Wales and 1998 in Northern Ireland), they are to all intents and purposes entrenched. In other words, it is unthinkable that devolved power would return permanently to Westminster without another referendum to approve the measure. This kind of semi- entrenchment has led to some calling devolution in the UK quasi- federalism. One other difference between devolution and federalism in the context of the UK is what is known as asymmetry. In a federal system, each regional government is granted equal powers. In the UK’s system, this is not the case. The UK has what is known as asymmetric devolution. The Scottish government, in particular, has been granted more power than Wales and Northern Ireland, so powers were devolved asymmetrically.

Answer 34

Federalism is where Legal sovereignty is divided between central government and regional government. whereas devolution is where power but not sovereignty is delegated from central government to regional governments. Federalism is entrenched in the constitution whereas devolution is not entrenched and is therefore flexible Federalism is where the powers granted to regional governments are equal and symmetrical whereas devolution is where powers may be delegated in unequal amounts to various regional governments Federalism is where any powers not specified in the constitution are normally granted to regional governments whereas devolution is where any powers not specified in devolution legislation are reserved to the central government.

Answer 35

Devolved powers fall into three general categories: Legislative powers- This means that the devolved assemblies or parliaments can make laws that will be enforced within territories. Administrative powers- These are powers that have been devolved to regional governments. If refers to their power (and responsibility) to implement and administer the laws and to organize state services. Financial powers- Devolved governments have funds made available to them by the central government so that they can provide services. However, financial devolution takes this further. It allows devolved governments to raise their own funds from taxation or other means, so that they become financially independent. Devolution is not symmetrical in the UK. Scotland does have independent financial powers whereas Northern Ireland does not. Also the legislative power in each of the the devolved countries varies greatly.

Answer 36

THE ROAD TO DEVOLUTION: The first calls for devolution emerged in the 1970s. The Labour government of 1974-79 considered the measure, largely due to the influence of the Liberal Party (the forerunner of the Liberal Democrats). Labour only had a small parliamentary majority, so it relied on Liberal support for much of its time in government. One of the prices of that support was the idea of devolution. The Liberal Party believed that devolution would enhance democracy in the UK and bring governments closer to the people. It was also in response to some early signs of nationalist sentiment in Scotland. Labour was unenthusiastic but went ahead with referendums in Scotland and Wales. The proposal, however, was doomed from the start. Parliament insisted on a safeguard, that for devolution to take place it would be necessary not only that the majority of Scots or Welsh voted in favour, but also that at least 40% of the adult population approved, taking into account non-voters. Wales rejected the proposal anyway, while a majority of Scots voted in favour but the number fell short of the 40% threshold. Devolution was forgotten about for two decades. In the 90’s, circumstances changed. Firstly, there was renewed signs of growing nationalism in Scotland and Wales. Secondly, and coincidentally, Labour was elected to power with a huge mandate to reform the UK Constitution. Devolution was a key part of those reforms. Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, a peace settlement had been reached between the warring Republican and Loyalist communities. In order to cement the peace, a devolution settlement with Northern Ireland was also negotiated. This would allow power sharing to be introduced so that a political settlement could underpin a military peace. Thus by 1997, the stage was set for a full set of devolution proposals and referendums to approve them. At the time when devolution to the UK’s three national regions was being implemented, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, was also floating the idea of devolution to English regions. His plan was to devolve a similar amount of power to the regions as that being transferred to Wales, in other words administrative but not legislative or financial devolution. In order to test public opinion, a referendum was held in the North East in 2004. The voters rejected the idea by a majority of 78% to 22%. This was so clear a verdict that the idea was promptly abandoned. The more recent version of devolution to the regions is city devolution. This is not strictly devolution, but rather the decentralization of some powers to city governments.

Answer 37

ENGLISH VOTES FOR ENGLISH LAWS (EVEL) EVEL was introduced in 2015. It addressed the problem, sometimes known as the West Lothian Question, whereby MPs representing Scottish constituencies in the House of Commons were allowed to vote on issues which only affected England, or England and Wales. This included matters like health, education and criminal law. The system means that the Speaker of the House of Commons may declare that a debate and a parliamentary vote concerns England, or England and Wales only, and that MPs from Scottish constituencies shall therefore not take part. It will be some time before the meaning and significance of the measure becomes apparent, but it does appear to create equality among MPs from all over the UK. A more radical version has been proposed- the creation of a completely separate English Parliament. This would meet separately from the Westminster Parliament and could even be separately elected. It would resolve all ‘England only’ issues. For the time being, this solution is not well supported but it would represent a complete version of English devolution if it were implemented and would place England on the same constitutional status as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Answer 38

SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION: Scotland was a special case. There had been administrative devolution in Scotland since the 19th Century. This meant that a non-elected Scottish Executive administered various services in Scotland on behalf of the UK government. Matters such as health, local authority services and policing were managed separately in Scotland. The country also had its own laws. But there was no Scottish Parliament to pass laws since 1707. Instead the Westminster Parliament made laws for Scotland. So Scotland was arguably partly devolved before 1997. The nationalist sentiment was also much stronger in Scotland than Wales or Northern Ireland, so devolution was all the more urgent a matter.

Answer 39

SCOTLAND ACT 1998 In 1997 a referendum was held in Scotland to gauge support for devolution. The Scots voted overwhelmingly in favour 74% to 26% on a 60% turnout. The following year the Scotland Act was passed, granting devolution. It was implemented in 1999 and the first Scottish Parliament was elected. The main powers that were devolved to this parliament, and the executive which was drawn from it were as follows:- Power over health, education, roads and public transport, to make criminal and civil law, policing, local authority services, vary the rate of income tax up or down by 3%, other miscellaneous powers. At the same time, a new electoral system was introduced for the Scottish Parliament- the additional member system. The government of Scotland would be formed by the largest party in the parliament or by a coalition. The first minister, leader of the largest party, would head the government.

Answer 40

SCOTLAND ACT 2016: After the start of the 21st Century, Scottish nationalism continued to grow in popularity, so much so that a referendum on full independence was held in 2014. Though the Scots voted against independence, it was clear that there was an appetite for greater devolution. This was reflected in the second devolution stage. This was the Scotland Act 2016. The Act included the following measures:- Widening of the areas which the Scottish Parliament could pass laws, power over the regulation of the energy industry being transferred to Scotland, control over a range of welfare services including housing and disability, control of half of VAT receipts collected in Scotland, control over income tax rates and control over all receipts from income tax, control over air passenger duty and control over its revenue, control over some business taxes. The Act represented a large transfer of powers and independence of action. It means that the Scottish government now has an enormous amount of administrative, legislative and financial autonomy. It still stops well short of independence, but it does go a long way to making Scotland feel like a separate country, in charge of its own future. The UK’s decision to leave the EU in 2016 has once again destabilized the Scottish situation. The problem is that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain. For many Scots the only way to stay in the EU now is to demand full independence.

Answer 41

WELSH DEVOLUTION: The referendum on Welsh devolution in 1997 was a close run thing. The majority was only 50.5 to 49.5 on a low turnout of around 50%, so only a quarter of the Welsh electorate actually voted in favour of devolution. It was therefore no surprise that considerably fewer powers were devolved to Wales than Scotland.

Answer 42

Government of wales act 1998: This Act set up the elected Welsh National Assembly, and a Welsh Executive to be drawn from the largest party in the assembly and headed by a first minister. The assembly had no powers to make or pass laws and the country was to be given no financial control. Devolution in Wales was therefore purely administrative. The Welsh government now runs a number of services but cannot pass laws relating to those services. It does have the power to decide how to allocate the funds it receives from central government between various services. The main areas of government devolved to Wales include- health, education, local authority services, public transport, agriculture. Without being able to raise taxes or finance, the Welsh government relies on an annual grant from the UK government.

Answer 43

Government of wales act 2014 : Nationalist sentiment did not grow in Wales after the first stage of devolution. There were demands for further devolution though after 2010. The fact that the Liberal Democratic Party was part of the coalition government after 2010 helped the process, as the Lib Dems supported further decentralized power. There were also fears that if considerable new posers were devolved to Scotland, the difference between the powers of the Welsh and Scottish governments would be too wide. There had been a small increase in devolved powers through the Government of Wales Act 2006, but it was in 2014 that a significant change came about. Government of Wales Act 2014 included the following provisions- There would be a referendum in Wales to decide whether the government of Wales should have partial control over income tax. The Welsh government was granted control over various taxes including business taxes, stamp duty charged on property sales and landfill tax. The government of Wales would have limited powers to borrow money on open markets to enable it to invest in major projects and housing. The following year, in 2015, the UK government announced that the Welsh government could take control of some income tax, up to £3 billion per annum, without approval of a referendum. It appears that Welsh governments in the future will enjoy a good deal of financial as well as administrative devolution.

Answer 44

NORTHERN IRELAND DEVOLUTION: Northern Ireland is very different to Wales and Scotland and the devolution process reflected this. This is because the devolution settlement was part of the wider resolution of 30 years of conflict between the Republican (or Nationalist- largely Catholic) and Loyalist (or Unionist- largely Protestant communities. There had been government in the province between 1921 and 1972, with a Northern Irish Parliament (often known as Stormont where it met) and government in control of such issues as education, welfare, health, policing, much criminal and civil law, housing and local government. With increasing sectarian violence breaking out in the 1970s, the Parliament was dissolved in 1972.

Answer 45

BELFAST AGREEMENT 1998: Also known as the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 restored the province’s devolved powers. In place of the Parliament, an assembly was to be elected using PR instead of FPTP. The reason PR was introduced was to ensure that all sections of a divided society would gain representation. Meanwhile the Northern Ireland Executive was based on power sharing. This meant that all major parties were guaranteed ministerial places. This was to try and head off any possibility of future armed conflict. Powers devolved to Northern Ireland include the following: The passage of laws not reserved to Westminster, education administration, healthcare, transport, policing, agriculture, sponsorship of the arts. To emphasize the fact that devolution in the UK is not a federal system, the UK government dissolved the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2002 in the face of increased tension between the two communities and the failure of ministers from the two communities to cooperate with each other. This suspension lasted until 2007. Devolution in Northern Ireland remains fragile, although Nationalists in the government continue to campaign for more powers to be devolved. However, progress is likely to be slow, as the Loyalist, unionist community is not enthusiastic about home rule. Stormont was also dissolved between January 2017 and January 2020 and hopes of a lasting power sharing arrangement remain difficult.

Answer 46

Devolution is pointless unless it makes some kind of difference in how the countries if the UK are governed. In the early days there did not seem to be a great deal of impact. This may be because Wales and Scotland were both effectively governed by the Labour Party at the same time that Labour were governing the UK. It was hardly surprising that differences were not immediately apparent. Later, as the SNP grew in strength in Scotland and Plaid Cymru gained a foothold in Wales, did differences begin to emerge. In Northern Ireland, devolution was hugely significant , not least because the minority Republican community now enjoyed a share of political power. There are important distinctions (see next slide), but the more significant distinctions will come once financial powers are devolved. With the ability to levy their own taxes and the freedom to spend the revenue as they wish, the devolved authorities will have the power to introduce more fundamentally distinct policies.

Answer 47

SCOTLAND : - The dominant party is the SNP - Personal care for the elderly is free. - Prescriptions are free (but this is under threat). - There are no university tuition fees for Scottish students. - There are greater restrictions on fox hunting. WALES: - No school league tables are published - There are free prescriptions for everyone under 25. - There is free school milk for the under 7’s. - Greater help is provided for the homeless. - More free home care is provided for the elderly. NORTHERN IRELAND: - The Republicans and Loyalists have to cooperate in government under permanent power sharing. - Gay marriage is not recognized (this is about to change). - There are greater restrictions on abortion. - Prescriptions are free (this is about to change) - A large proportion of schools are based on either Catholicism or Protestantism.

Answer 48

Assessment of devolution is possibly too early to be conclusive. We can attempt some sort of assessment and we can look at the arguments in favour and against devolution, but it will take at least a generation before we can make a definitive judgement. One question has largely been answered. It was assumed that devolution would reduce nationalist sentiment and prevent the break up of the UK. In Scotland this has certainly not happened where nationalism has grown, not declined. Long term due to demographic and political changes, this may be the case in Northern Ireland too. In Wales there has never been a great enthusiasm for independence and this remains true. Whether devolution is responsible for the continued indifference to nationalism is difficult to assess.

Answer 49

The Barnett Formula: A way of adjusting the finance made available to devolved governments from UK tax revenues to into account of the fact that needs, in terms of health and welfare, for example, vary from one country to another. In effect, English tax revenues subsidise expenditure in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to adjust for their greater needs.

Answer 50

ASSESSMENT OF DEVOLUTION: Positive indications: - The UK has not broken up - The peace has largely held up in Northern Ireland - There remains widespread public support in all three countries for devolution (not reflected in voting turnouts). No serious proposals have been made to reverse it. - Devolution has made some decisive differences Negative indications: - Scottish nationalism is endangering the UK - Turnouts in elections to devolved assemblies have been low, suggesting political apathy. - The introduction of PR systems has inhibited decisive government in the three countries. - The three countries still have to receive a subsidy from the Treasury to maintain their services (the Barnett formula), in other words they are not yet fully self-supporting.

Answer 51

Federalism- A constitutional principle that divides sovereignty, or ultimate power, between central government and regional governments. Federalism normally occurs when a number of separate powers come together to form a single state. A federal arrangement preserves some of the original states’ autonomy. The USA, Germany and India are examples.

Answer 52

Codified constitution- 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 that cannot be amended except by a sceptical procedure that safeguards them

Answer 53

TIMELINE: 1997- Devolution of power to Scotland and Wales 1998- Human Rights Act, Devolution of power to Northern Ireland, Registration of Political Parties Act 1999- House of Lords Act, Greater London Authority Act (elected mayor). 2000- Freedom of Information Act 2005- Constitutional Reform Act (Supreme Court). 2006- Government of Wales Act (law making powers granted). 2010- Elections of House of Commons select committees, introduction of House of Commons Backbench Business Committee 2011- Extension of Welsh law-making powers, Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2015- Recall of MPs Act, Introduction of English votes for English laws (EVEL) 2016- Scotland Act (extends Scottish devolution), the UK votes to leave the European Union 2017- Elected mayors introduced in Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool.

Answer 54

STATUTES: Equal Franchise Act 1928- established full and equal voting rights to women Life Peerages Act 1958- introduced the appointment of life peers to add to hereditary peerage Human Rights Act 1998- incorporated the codified European Convention of Human Rights into UK law Scotland Act 1998- established a Scottish Parliament with legislative powers House of Lords Act 1999- abolished all but 92 of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords Freedom of Information Act 2000- introduced the right of all citizens to see all official documents not excluded on the grounds of national security Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011- replaced the prime minister’s power to call an election at any time with the rule that elections should take place every 5 years, unless Parliament passes a vote of no confidence in the government.

Answer 55

Conventions: The Salisbury Convention states that the House of Lords should not block any legislation that appeared in the governing party’s most recent election manifesto. Collective responsibility means that all members of the government must support official policy in public or resign or face dismissal (though occasionally suspended for national debates such as the referendum on UK membership of the EU in 2016). Government formation is based on the rule that, following an election, the Queen must invite the leader of the largest party in the Commons to form a government

Answer 56

HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES AND AUTHORIAITIVE WRITINGS: The sovereignty of Parliament establishes the supremacy of Parliament in legislation. The rule of law states that all, including government itself, are equal under the law. Constitutional monarchy is a principle that the monarch is limited in its role and can play no active role in politics. The ‘O’Donnell Rules’ of 2010 establish how a coalition government may be formed.

Answer 57

Most common law concerns the principles of rights and justice. These have mostly been replaced by the European Convention on Human Rights. However, some of Parliament’s powers and procedures are contained in common law. Interestingly, the definition of homicide still resides in common law. The prerogative power of the prime minister, exercised on behalf of the monarch, are essentially common law powers, which have never been codified.

Answer 58

TRADITION: The practices and traditions of Parliament.

Answer 59

FOR ARGUEMENTS: - A codified constitution would represent a higher constitutional law, which would entrench the British people’s civil liberties and so protect them from arbitrary government. - The Human Rights Act 1998 does not do this because it is an Act of Parliament and so Parliament can suspend its provisions or repeal it. - The authority of the Supreme Court would be enhanced since it would be able to quash laws which it deemed ‘unconstitutional’ by referring to the higher law of the constitution. - A codified constitution would clarify the relationship between the various branches of government and establish where sovereignty lies. - The rights of minorities could be recognised in a codified constitution. This is especially important in a multicultural society, in which many alternative lifestyles exist. - By codifying rights, the public could become more politically engaged since they know what their relationship with government is.

Answer 60

AGAINIST ARGUEMENTS: - The uncodified nature of the British constitution means that it is very flexible and can quickly respond to changing social, political and security circumstances. - An uncodified constitution is more democratic because it puts power in the hands of elected representatives who are accountable to the electorate, rather than unelected judges. - Civil liberties are adequately protected by common law and by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. The judiciary has successfully used both of these Acts to protect and develop civil liberties. - A codified constitution reflects the social and political attitudes of the people who composed it. It cannot keep pace with the way in which society changes in the way that an uncodified constitution can. - The lack of certainty and ambiguity in the British constitution is an advantage since it has allowed for the changing relationship between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in response to the will of the public. This would have been more difficult to achieve if the constitution had been codified.

Answer 61

The position with regard to constitutional reform in Britain at the start of the 21st Century is paradoxical. On the one hand the years after 1997 have seen the greatest constitutional changes in the UK since probably 1832, and some have suggested that maybe even since Parliament became sovereign in 1688. Although as previously shown the amount of change has been impressive, some political commentators feel that the record of reform has been disappointing, mainly to progressive politicians in all three parties. We will divide the constitutionals reforms into three sections- successes, partial successes and failures.

Answer 62

SUCCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: Reform of the judiciary- possibly the greatest success has been the reform of the judiciary, created by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The Supreme Court has been established and the senior judiciary is now seen as genuinely independent of government. This is regarded as a key element in the improved protection of human rights and brings the UK closer to modern conceptions of democracy. Devolution- This has proved to be popular, especially in Scotland. Support for greater autonomy has also grown in Wales where the original referendum on whether to introduce devolution was only passed with a very narrow majority on a low turnout in 1997. There have also been problems with the government of Northern Ireland, but at least devolution has helped to retain a fragile peace since the 1990s after 30 years of the Troubles. The Freedom of Information Act- though disliked by successive governments, this has proved invaluable in extending the media’s ability to investigate effectively the work of the government and other public bodies. It has also allowed citizens to prevent injustices by accessing the formerly secret information held about them.

Answer 63

PARTIAL SUCCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: The Liberal Democrats and constitutional pressure groups such as Unlock Democracy and Liberty see reform as only half completed. They point out the following gaps in the programme needed to make Britain a truly modern democracy. The House of Lords- The new, largely appointed House of Lords falls short of being properly accountable, authoritative and representative. Only a fully elected second chamber, it is argued, is acceptable. However, there has been some benefit in terms of making the Lords more professional and effective in checking government power and improving legislation. The House of Commons- As a whole it remains ineffective and inefficient. Lack of government accountability is seen as a fundamental problem and only a reformed , revitalized House of Commons can provide this. However, the select committees are considerably more effective since their reform. The Human Right Act- Though a vital development, has not been given the political status it needs. The fact that the European Convention cannot overrule Acts of Parliament means that rights can still be trampled on by powerful governments. The anti-terrorism measures that were enacted after 9/11 attacks on the US were seen as a case in point, as were the measures to increase police and intelligence services powers of surveillance over private communications in 2015-16. Devolution- Is widely seen as a success, though many reformers in Scotland and Wales still argue that it did not go far enough. The problem, however, is being addressed, with further powers having been transferred after 2016. It is only a partial success because the long term relationship between the UK as a whole and its national regions ha never been permanently established. It remains fluid and controversial with the constant threat of the break up of the UK hanging over it.

Answer 64

FAILURES OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: Electoral reform- Perhaps most importantly, governments have filed to deliver electoral reform for parliamentary or local elections. It is this measure that is most often seen as the way in which the political system can be fundamentally changed for the better. Reform of the second chamber- The failure to introduce a democratic, elected, second chamber remains a negative record for all the major parties. There is a widespread consensus that the second chamber should be fully or partly elected, but no government has been able to implement meaningful reform.

Answer 65

DEMOCRATIC IMPROVEMENTS: The judiciary can now be said to be genuinely independent Through regional and city devolution, power has been decentralized Proportional representation for elections to devolved regional assemblies has improved representation Elected mayors improve local democracy Citizens’ rights are now better protected Freedom of Information has been established The increased use of referendums has extended popular democracy The introduction of fixed term parliaments has weakened executive power DEMOCRATIC FAILURES: The electoral system of FPTP for general elections remains grossly under representative in its outcomes The House of Lords remains an unelected, undemocratic part of the legislature The prerogative powers of the prime minister remain indistinct and largely unconfined The largely reformed House of Commons remains weak and unrepresentative The UK Constitution remains uncodified, creating uncertainty and lack of public understanding, and retaining the danger of excessively powerful government.

Answer 66

FOR ARGUEMENTS: - It would extend democracy and improve democratic accountability by bringing government closer to communities. - Devolved government could better reflect the problems specific to regions. - It would help to prevent excessive differences between living standards and the quality of life in different parts of the UK. - It might improve local participation in politics. AGAINIST ARGUEMENTS: - It would create a new layer of government which would be expensive. - It would create a need for too many elections, promoting voter apathy. - There are few signs of any great demand for such devolution. - Regional devolution might create greater divisions in society, promoting disunity rather than unity.

Answer 67

Should the UK introduce a codified constitution? It is mainly Conservatives who oppose such a proposal. However, Labour governments have also avoided the issue. Labour has instead preferred to make incremental changes to the constitution , gradually introducing new legislation such as the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Devolution Acts and House of Lords reform, to create a clearer set of arrangements. But like the Conservatives, Labour does not believe the time is right for a fully codified constitution. Ranged against these two main parties are the Liberal Democrats, small progressive parties and pressure groups like Unlock Democracy and Liberty. They present a number of powerful arrangements in favour of coming into line with nearly all other modern democracies by writing a new UK Constitution. In particular they are all concerned with the need for robust human rights and controls on the power of government.

Answer 68

RETAINING AN UNCODIFIED CONSTITUTION: - Flexibility Supporters of the current arrangements say that the flexibility of the constitution is a positive quality. The constitution can, they say, adapt to a changing world without major upheavals. It is said that the UK constitution is ‘organic’. This means that it is rooted in society, not separate from society. When society’s needs and values change, the constitution can do so automatically without undue delay or confusion. Parliament can pass a new Act relatively quickly and new unwritten conventions can develop to take account of social and political change. As the authority of the British monarchy gradually declined from the 18th Century, to be replaced by elected bodies- government and Parliament- no specific amendments needed to be made. Power and authority simply moved naturally away from the Crown towards government and Parliament. Many of the so called ‘prerogative powers’ of the monarch have been taken over by the prime minister- to declare war, negotiate foreign treaties, and to appoint ministers for example. The power of the monarchy to make law had already been lost in a peaceful process known as the Glorious Revolution in 1688-89. In countries where such powers are codified and entrenched, changes have tended to cause major upheaval and even violent revolutions. 19th Century France or Germany between the two World Wars would be examples. Since the 1960s the position of the prime minister has become more significant , largely as a result of media concentration on the importance of that office. Here again the growth in prime ministerial power, largely at the expense of the cabinet, has been a gradual and natural process. After the 9/11 attacks on New York in 2001, the threat of international terrorism became more acute. Had the UK had an entrenched and codified constitution, it would have been extremely difficult for Parliament to pass a wide range on anti-terror measures because of too many constitutional constraints. (The same applies to the stubborn refusal in the US to introduce stricter gun laws in case such a measure falls foul of the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms). When the 2010 general election failed to produce an outright parliamentary majority for any one party, there was some confusion about what should be done in the absence of any codified rules. Such an event had not occurred for over 70 years. The system was flexible enough to adapt. A new set of principles was quickly drawn up and a coalition government was formed relatively smoothly. 2- Executive Power Because constitutional safeguards in the UK are weak or absent, government can be more powerful. This can be viewed positively or negatively. Supporters of the current uncodified constitution argue that, on balance, it is better to have a government that can deal with problems or crises without too much inhibition. They point to the US where governments and Congress are frequently prevented from acting decisively by the fear that the constitution will prevent them doing so. The constant battle against crime in the US has been compromised by such constraints. Conversely, the constitutional weakness of the Congress in controlling the military powers of the president has created much tension. In the UK, the relationship between government and Parliament is flexible; in countries with codified constitutions it tends to be fixed and can inhibit effective governance. 3- Conservative pragmatism The typical conservative attitude to the UK Constitution suggests that it has served the country well for centuries. There have been no violent revolutions and no major political unrest. Change has occurred naturally and when it has been necessary rather than when reformers have campaigned for it. Furthermore, conservatives say codifying the constitution would be extremely difficult and the meagre benefits would not be worth the problems incurred. Conservatives often say of the UK uncodified constitution, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. 4- The dangers of politicizing the judiciary A codified constitution would involve the courts, the Supreme Court in particular, in disputes over its precise meaning and application. As seen in the US, many of these issues would be intensely political. There may be conflicts over the exact powers of government, the nature of rights, relations with the EU ore between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Bringing judges into political conflict conflicts puts the independence of the judiciary into jeopardy. As with arguments over the proroguing of Parliament in 2019, disputes like these can arise in an uncodified constitution, but they would be more frequent with a codified constitution. In other words the constitution would be judiciable. The problem with such a development is that judges are not elected and therefore not accountable. Critics point out that such political issues should not be resolved by judges –it is for elected representatives to make the final decision on constitutional meanings.

Answer 69

1- Human Rights At the top of the reformer’s shopping list is the need for stronger safeguards for individual and minority rights. The UK has adopted the ECHR through the Human Rights Act 1998, but this remains weak in that it can be overridden by Parliament. Parliament remains sovereign and no constitutional legislation can remove that sovereignty. With a codified constitution. Parliament could not pass any legislation that offended human rights protection. 2- Executive Power We have seen that conservatives and others have wished to retain the powerful position of government in the UK. Liberals and other reformers argue that executive, governmental power is excessive in the UK. They say over powerful, governmental power threatens individual rights, the position of minorities and the influence of public opinion. A clear, codified constitution would inhibit the apparently irreversible drift towards greater executive power. In particular, supporter of a codified constitution suggest there is no real ‘checks and balances’- a principle upon which the US Constitution is based. It is argued that Parliament needs to have more codified powers to enable it to control government on behalf of the people. 3- Clarity Most citizens of the UK do not understand the concept of a constitution. This is hardly surprising as there is no such thing as the ‘UK Constitution’ in any concrete form. There is, therefore, an argument for creating a real constitution so that public awareness and support can grow. If people know their rights and understand better how government works, this might cure the problem of political ignorance and apathy. See the separate sheet that shows what a UK Constitution may look like if it were codified. It gives an idea of how much clearer it would be than the current imprecise organisation. 4- Modernity As we have already learned the UK is unusual in not having a codified constitution. Many people regard this as an indication that the UK is backward in a political sense and has not entered the modern world. This became more pressing when the UK joined the European Community (n argument that has now receded). 5- Rationality As things stand, constitutional changes occur in an unplanned, haphazard, arbitrary way. If the constitution were codified and entrenched, amendments and developments would be made in a measured, rational manner, with considerable democratic debate. Arguably, the UK is in the process, since 1997, of creating a codified constitution, bit by bit. It may never be contained in a single document for the foreseeable future, but increasingly large parts of the constitution are now both written and effectively entrenched.

Answer 70

The arguments for introducing a codified constitution: The aspects of the constitution that conform to this analysis are as follows:- The ECHR, brought into law by the Human Rights Act 1998, is effectively a bill of rights. Although it could be fully or partly repealed in the future, this seems politically unlikely. The Devolution Acts of 1998 codify the powers enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh, Northern Irish and Greater London Assemblies. The public’s right to see public information is codified in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 The status and conduct of political parties is now codified in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Important constitutional changes are effectively entrenched by the fact that they have been approved by referendum and can therefore be repealed by referendum. The Electoral Commission has created a codified set of rules for the conduct of elections and referendums. The old saying, or perhaps criticism, that the UK Constitution simply evolves and remains in the control of the parliament of the day is out of date. Since 1997, when a new Labour government started the process of constitutional reform, the UK Constitution has gradually become increasingly written and codified. Yet it remains fundamentally an uncodified constitution in the strict sense of the word. Constitutional reform will have to continue in the UK. Apart from the effects of leaving the EU, the UK has to deal with the continuing pressure for the decentralisation of power to the regions and away from London. If the multi-party system persists, there will be continuing pressure for electoral reform. It is also difficult to imagine how the bloated House of Lords, dominated by people who have merely received the reward of a peerage for political loyalty, can continue in its present form.

Answer 71

It would clarify the nature of the political system to citizens, especially after changes such as devolution and House of Lords reform. The UK would have a two tier legal system and so constitutional laws would be more clearly identified. The process of judicial review would be more precise and transparent. Liberals would argue that it would have the effect of better safeguarding of citizens’ rights. It might prevent the further drift towards excessive executive power. The UK needs to clarify its relationship with the EU It would bring the UK into line with most other modern democracies.

Answer 72

Should the UK introduce a codified constitution- arguments against The uncodified constitution is flexible and can easily adapt to changing circumstances such as referendum use and the changing role of the House of Lords. If codified, constitutional changes would be difficult and time consuming. It can also respond quickly to a changing political climate. Conservatives argue that it is simply not necessary, the UK has enjoyed a stable political system without a constitution. As the UK operates under a large number of unwritten conventions, especially in relation to the monarchy and the prerogative powers, it would be difficult to transfer them into written form. The lack of constitutional constraints allows executive governments to be strong and decisive. A codified constitution would bring unelected judges into the political arena.

Answer 73

House of Lords - Proposals to introduce an elected second chamber or reduce the powers of the unelected House of Lords. Electoral system - Another indecisive general election result may renew calls for PR, but it remains a remote possibility. Devolution -Extensions of devolution to Scotland and Wales are in progress. The main developments involve devolution to city regions, together with more elected mayors. Human rights - Further protection of rights seems unlikely. The Conservatives would like to replace the European Convention with a British Bill of Rights but this does not have widespread support.