Unit 2 model answers

1
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS AS
LEVEL
UNIT TWO
GOVERNING THE UK
“Never, never, never give up”
Winston S Churchill 1874-1965

2
GOVERNING THE UK
50% of AS [25% of A2]
UNIT TWO
SAMPLE QUESTION
Answer one question from Section A and one question from Section B in 80 minutes.
Spend 40 minutes on Section A and 40 minutes on Section B
SECTION A
QUESTION ONE
PRIME MINISTERIAL POWER
“For too long the big political decisions in this country have been made in the wrong
place. They are not made around the Cabinet table where they should be, but they
are taken on the sofa in Tony Blair’s office. No notes are kept and no one takes the
blame when things go wrong. That arrogant style of government must come to an
end. I will restore the proper process of government. I want to be Prime Minister of
this country not a President
(Source: David Cameron, The Times, 5th
October 2006)
“The Cabinet is the committee at the centre of the British political system. Every
Thursday during Parliament, Secretaries of State from all departments as well as other
ministers meet in the Cabinet Room in Downing Street to discuss the big issues of the
day. The Prime Minister chairs the meeting, selects its members and also
recommends their appointment as ministers to the monarch. The present Cabinet has
23 members (21 MPs and two peers). The secretary of the Cabinet is responsible for
preparing records of its discussions and decisions”.
(Source: From a modern textbook)
(a) What criticism is David Cameron making of Tony Blair’s style of decision making in
source 1? [5]
(b) Explain the main functions of the cabinet [10]
(c) To what extent have UK Prime Ministers become “presidential”? [25]
Or

3
QUESTION TWO
THE JUDICIARY
A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the
Government is undermining the civil liberties citizens have taken for granted for
centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country’s
most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has
frightening parallels with Nazi Germany.
Lord Ackner, a former law lord, said there was a contradiction between the
Government’s efforts to separate Parliament and judiciary through the creation of a
supreme court, and its instinct for directing judges how to behave. He cautioned
against “meddling” by politicians in the ways the courts operate. “I think it is terribly
important there should not be this apparent battle between the executive and the
judiciary. The judiciary has been put there by Parliament in order to ensure that the
executive acts lawfully”.
Lord Lester QC, a leading human rights lawyer, expressed concern that the
Government was flouting human rights law and meddling with the courts. The senior
barrister remarked that judges had now replaced MPs as the defenders of basic civil
liberties. “People used to look to their MPs as the first port of call to deal with any
perceived injustice by the executive. Now there is an increasing tendency for people
to look to the judges to protect their liberties”, he said.
(Source: From an article, “Judges liken Terror Laws to Nazi Germany, by Marie Woolf, Raymond
Whitaker and Severin Carrell, published in The Independent, 16th
October 2005)
(a) According to the source, how is the protection of civil liberties being undermined?
[5]
(b) Explain how judicial independence is maintained. [10]
(c) To what extent have civil liberties in the UK been eroded? [25]
SECTION B
Either
3. How effective is parliament in checking executive power? [40]
Or
4. Should the UK’s constitution remain un-codified? [40]

4
UNIT TWO JUNE 2009
Spend 40 minutes on Section A and 40 minutes on Section B.
SECTION A
QUESTION ONE
THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
Citizens need an effective Parliament. They need a body that can call the government
to account, that can ensure that government answers for its actions and the actions
of civil servants. They need a body that can scrutinise and, if necessary, change the
legislative proposals brought forward by government. They need a body that can
ensure that their voice is heard by government when they have a grievance, be it
about the impact of a policy or the absence of a policy. They need the security of
knowing that, if there is a problem, there is a body to which they can turn for help, a
body that can force public officials to listen.
Government needs an effective Parliament. It needs it because its authority derives
from Parliament. The more government distances itself from Parliament, the more it
undermines popular consent for the system of government. It needs Parliament to
give its approval to measures and, prior to doing so, to scrutinise those measures.
Adapted from Report of the Commission to strengthen Parliament
(a) With reference to the source, describe three functions of parliament. [5]
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain why government
needs an effective parliament. [10]
(c) Analyse the main factors that limit the effectiveness of Parliament. [25]
Or
QUESTION TWO
For centuries Prime Ministers have exercised authority in the name of the monarchy
without the people or their elected representatives being consulted. So now I propose
that in key areas important to our national life, the Prime Minister and executive
should surrender or limit their powers. The exclusive exercise of these powers by the
Government should have no place in a modern democracy.
These include:
 the power of the executive to declare war

5
 the power to request the dissolution of Parliament
 the power over recall of Parliament
 the power of the executive to ratify international treaties
 the power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny
 the power to restrict parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services
 the power to choose bishops
 the power to appoint judges
I now propose to surrender or limit these powers to make for a more open twenty
first century British democracy.
Adapted from Gordon Brown, speech in Parliament, July 3rd
2007
(a) With reference to the source, outline the reasons Gordon Brown gave for
proposing that prime ministerial powers be surrendered or limited. [5]
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the ways in which
Prime Ministers are able to control Parliament. [10]
(c) To what extent has prime ministerial power grown in recent years? [25]
SECTION B
Either:
3. How effectively can the judiciary control executive and legislative power in the UK?
[40]
Or
4. “Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough”. Discuss. [40]
UNIT TWO JANUARY 2010
Spend 40 minutes on Section A and 40 minutes on Section B
SECTION A
QUESTION ONE
THE JUDICIARY
“The judiciary is considered to be independent of the other two branches of
government. Judges’ salaries are paid from the Consolidated Fund; this means that
they do not have to be voted upon each year by Parliament. The House of Commons
generally forbids MPs from making any reference to matters before the criminal and
civil courts. By convention, a similar restriction is observed by ministers and civil
servants.

6
For their part, judges by convention do not engage in politically partisan activity, thus
upholding their neutrality. Indeed, they have generally avoided commenting on
matters of public policy. However, the dividing line between judges and politicians
was never quite as sharp as these features would suggest. The most obvious example
to be found in the figure of the Lord Chancellor. Prior to the passage of the 2005
Constitutional Reform Act, he was head of the judiciary, the presiding officer of the
House of Lords and a member of the Cabinet. The 2005 Act, which also proposed the
establishment of a new Supreme Court by 2009, changed this situation, providing for
the transfer of his judicial role to the Lord Chief Justice”.
Adapted from “The Judiciary” by Philip Norton in Politics UK, Bill Jones et al, 6th
edition, Pearson
Education, 2007
1 [a] With reference to the source, describe the measures that exist to maintain the
independence and neutrality of the judiciary. [5]
[b] With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain how the judiciary
has been reformed since 2005. [10]
[c] To what extent are UK judges both independent and neutral? [25]
QUESTION TWO
WHITE PAPER ON THE REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The White Paper sets out the government’s proposals for a reformed second chamber
of the UK Parliament.
The proposals are based on the House of Commons votes for an 80% or 100% elected
second chamber and follow cross-party talks on how this could be achieved.
The White Paper makes proposals for reform in a number of areas:
 Role and Composition
The House of Lords plays a valuable role in holding the government to account and
revising legislation. The reforms would strengthen those roles and make the second
chamber more accessible. The House of Commons would continue to be the primary
chamber in the UK legislature.
 Membership of the chamber
The proposed reforms would create a second chamber with directly elected members,
which would be smaller than the House of Commons. The remaining rights of
hereditary peers to sit and vote in the second chamber would be removed.

7
 Powers of the new chamber
The government proposes no changes to the powers of a reformed second chamber.
 The possible role of appointed members to ensure independence
If it is decided that there should be a 20% appointed element, the government
proposes that its key purpose would be to provide a significant independent element
in the second chamber. A statutory appointments commission would seek
nominations and applications for membership.
The government is also proposing changes to the arrangements for eligibility,
remuneration and accountability.
Source: White Paper, An Elected Second Chamber, July 14th
2008.
2 [a] With reference to the source, what changes to the second chamber are
proposed? [5]
[b] With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the arguments for
a fully or partly elected second chamber. [10]
[c] Make out a case against an elected second chamber. [25]
SECTION B
Either:
3. “The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh its disadvantages”.
Discuss. [40]
Or
4. To what extent does the Prime Minister dominate the political system in the UK?
[40]
UNIT TWO MAY 2010
SECTION A
Answer either question one or question two.
QUESTION ONE
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION
A Possible Codified Constitution for the UK?
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, has used a visit to Washington to hint that Britain
could finally get a codified constitution spelling out citizens’ rights and codifying this
country’s political system. He is already working on a new Bill of Rights and

8
Responsibilities, clearly defining people’s relationship to the state, as part of a wide-
ranging package of constitutional reform. But he has, for the first time, also said that
the Bill could be a step towards a fully codified constitution to “bring us in line with
the most progressive democracies in the world”.
Britain’s constitution has developed in a haphazard fashion, building on common law,
conventions, case law, historical documents, Acts of Parliament and European
legislation. It is not set out clearly in any one document. Nor is there a single
statement of citizens’ rights and freedoms. As Jack Straw put it yesterday, “Most
people might struggle to put their finger on where their rights are”.
Supporters argue that producing such a document could tackle disillusionment with
politics, at the same time as setting new, clear limits on the power of the executive.
Opponents of a codified constitution argue, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, insisting that
the existing arrangements, however piecemeal their development has been, have
worked well in practice. There are, moreover, formidable practical problems to be
overcome before such a document could be drawn up”.
Source: adapted from an article by Nigel Morris in The Independent, 14th
February 2008
(a) With reference to the source, describe three sources of the UK constitution. [5]
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the arguments in
favour of a codified constitution for the UK. [10]
(c) Make out a case against the adoption of a codified constitution in the UK [25]
Or
QUESTION TWO
A CABINET MEETING
Source 1 A Cabinet Meeting
The Prime Minister’s Spokesman began by giving a brief summary of the Cabinet of
the previous day to the assembled press. Cabinet had met for an hour and 40 minutes
that morning. There had been the usual update from Geoff Hoon [Leader of the House
of Commons] on parliamentary business, there had been a brief discussion of the Draft
Legislative Programme being published tomorrow and there was an update from the
Foreign Secretary on the situation in Burma. Most of the Cabinet was spent discussing
the economy in discussion led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, where he
emphasised the global nature of the economic situation we were facing at the
moment – not only the global credit crunch, but also rising oil and food prices.
Source: Prime Minister’s Office press briefing, 14th
May 2008
Source 2 Gordon Brown’s First Cabinet

9
Gordon Brown unveiled an almost completely new Cabinet today, as he attempted to
make good on his pledge for a “politics of change” after the Blair years, including
Britain’s first ever female Home Secretary and its youngest Foreign Secretary in 30
years. As part of a huge overhaul, the Prime Minister appointed Jacqui Smith, formerly
the Chief Whip, as Home Secretary, and David Miliband as Foreign Secretary. As head
of the Home Office, Ms Smith will be in charge of the battle against terrorism, national
security and policing. Standing outside the Foreign Office, Mr Miliband – who was
himself widely tipped as Mr Brown’s rival for the Labour Leadership, before ruling
himself out – said, “I’m tremendously honoured”.
Source: adapted from “Brown shuffles the pack for a new Cabinet” in Times Online, 28th
June 2007
(a) With reference to Source 1, describe two types of issues discussed by the Cabinet
[5]
(b) With reference to Source 2, and your own knowledge, what factors does the Prime
Minister take into account when appointing cabinet ministers? [10]
(c) To what extent is the Cabinet an important body? [25]
SECTION B
Either:
3. To what extent does Parliament control executive power? [40]
Or
4. How effectively does the judiciary protect civil liberties in the UK? [40]
UNIT TWO JANUARY 2011
SECTION A
Answer either Question 1 or Question 2.
QUESTION ONE: HOUSE OF COMMONS
Extracts from three days proceedings of the House of Commons
January 12th
2010
 Questions to the Secretary of State for Health
 Third Reading of the Personal Care at Home Bill

10
January 13th
2010
 Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland
 Questions to the Prime Minister
 Opposition Motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition: “That this House
notes with concern the increase in the number of young people not in employment
or training . . . [continued]”.
 Report presented by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on global security in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
January 14th
2010
 Public Bill Committee on the Financial Services Bill to consider proposed
amendments to clause 26.
(a) With reference to the source, describe two functions of the House of Commons.
[5]
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain how the House of
Commons can control the power of government [10]
(c) To what extent is the House of Commons effective in carrying out its various
functions? [25]
Total 40
QUESTION TWO: PRIME MINISTERIAL POWER
It is often asserted that “the British Prime Minister is not as powerful as he or she
wants to be”. Margaret Thatcher wanted to be dominant and ensured that by
removing her political opponents in the cabinet and replacing them with the people
she could rely on. Tony Blair similarly strengthened his position by including his closest
allies in the cabinet. Prime Ministers who want to be dominant will take their
prerogative powers and stretch them to the limits. This can also be seen in the area
of foreign affairs. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown spent much time attempting to
take a leading role in world affairs, including conducting wars and negotiating
international treaties.
This picture may, nevertheless, be misleading. There are powerful forces which can
be ranged against them. The Prime Minister’s cabinet colleagues can turn against him
or her, as occurred with Thatcher in 1990. In the case of Blair, his position was
undermined by growing criticism within the party, particularly after the 2003 invasion
of Iraq. The media, too, can become hostile. Brown received unfavourable press

11
coverage and he was presented as a weak and indecisive leader. A Prime Minister’s
strength also depends on many factors beyond his or her direct control. These include
the size of the parliamentary majority and the course of world events.
April, 2010
(a) With reference to the source, describe two limitations on prime ministerial power.
[5]
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the Prime
Minister’s prerogative powers. [10]
(c) To what extent can the Prime Minister control the Cabinet? [25]
SECTION B
Either:
3. “The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose”. Discuss. [40]
or
4. Is the judiciary too powerful, or is it not powerful enough? [40]
JUNE 2011
SECTION A
Answer either Question 1 or Question 2
QUESTION ONE
THE JUDICIARY
Study the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
The government was slapped down in a judicial review by the Supreme Court when it
ruled that a Treasury freeze on the bank accounts of suspected terrorists was illegal.
A panel of seven judges allowed a challenge by five men (all suspected terrorists) who
had had all their assets frozen under orders made when Gordon Brown was Chancellor
of the Exchequer. The terrorists’ assets were frozen in 2006 as a result of an executive
order. This had been issued in response to UN Security Council resolutions calling for
steps to be taken to hit the financing of international terrorism. But the orders were
not voted on in Parliament.
Today the Supreme Court ruled that the Treasury had exceeded its powers, meaning
that the orders were unlawful. The justices declared that if the Government

12
considered “far-reaching measures” were necessary to combat terrorism, “it must
first obtain approval for them from Parliament”. The government has responded by
saying it will “fast track legislation” through the Commons to make sure it can continue
to freeze terrorists’ assets.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne said: “It is simply not
acceptable for Labour to behave as if it were a police state and go around arbitrarily
arresting people or confiscating their property without due process under the rule of
law. The Government’s desperation to avoid consulting Parliament is creating bad
laws, legal defeats and hefty bills for the taxpayer. It has to stop”.
Source: adapted from Sky News online, January 27 2010.
(a) With reference to the source, why was the government criticised over the decision
to freeze the assets of the suspected terrorists? [5]
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain judicial review
and its importance. [10]
(c) To what extent is there a conflict between the judiciary and the executive in the
UK? [25]
QUESTION TWO
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Extracts from the document: “The Coalition: our programme for government”.
We will establish five-year fixed term Parliaments. We will put a binding motion
before the House of Commons stating that the next general election will be held on
the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, we will legislate to make
provision for fixed term Parliaments of five years. We will bring forward a Referendum
Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the
Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the
creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. We will bring forward early
legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where
an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing. We will establish a committee
to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis
of proportional representation. We will bring forward proposals . . . for reform of the
House of Commons . . . starting with the proposed committee for management of
backbench business. A House Business Committee, to consider government business,
will be established by the third year of the Parliament. We will ensure that any petition
that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for public debate in Parliament.
Source: “The Coalition: our programme for government”, Cabinet Office, May 2010
© Crown copyright 2010
(a) With reference to the source, describe three proposals that seek to strengthen
parliamentary representation by increasing popular participation. [5]

13
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain how three of these
proposals seek to make the government more accountable to Parliament. [10]
(c) To what extent will the coalition government’s proposals bring about an effective
reform of parliament? [25]
SECTION B
Either
3. To what extent has the location of sovereignty in the UK changed in recent years?
[40]
Or
4. Is the UK Prime Minister now effectively a president? [40]
JANUARY 2012
SECTION A
Answer either Question One or Question Two.
QUESTION ONE
PARLIAMENT
Select Committees
There is a House of Commons select committee for each government department,
examining three aspects: spending, policies and administration. These departmental
select committees have a minimum of 11 members, who decide upon a line of inquiry
and then gather written and oral evidence. Findings are reported to the Commons,
printed and published on the Parliament website. The government then usually has
60 days to reply to the committee’s recommendations.
Following the adoption by the House of Commons of recommendations from the
Reform of the House of Commons Committee:
Departmental Select Committee chairs are elected by their fellow MPs
A backbench business committee has been established with the ability to schedule
business in the Commons chamber and in Westminster Hall on days, or parts of days,
set aside for non-government business.

14
Legislative Committees
Both Houses of Parliament refer legislation to committees for detailed discussion and
approval. These committees are part of the process of making laws. They scrutinise
proposed laws and may consider amendments to improve the legislation.
Amendments approved in legislative committees must be approved by the whole
House.
Source: adapted from www.parliament.gov.uk, October 2010
1 (a) With reference to the source, why are legislative committees needed? [5]
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the ways in which
backbench MPs can call government to account. [10]
(c) To what extent has the formation of a coalition altered the relationship between
parliament and government? [25]
QUESTION TWO
THE JUDICIARY
The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 guaranteed the rule of law. The rule of law is
the foundation of any healthy democracy, in that it establishes that all conduct and
behaviour throughout society should conform to a framework of law. Its principles
include equality before the law and punishment only for breaches of law.
The Constitutional Reform Act drew a better division between the role of the Lord
Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, as well as between the Lord Chancellor and the
House of Lords, which now has its own Lord Speaker. The Lord Chancellor is bound by
oath to preserve the principle of judicial independence.
The Act also created the UK’s Supreme Court. Its opening in October 2009, together
with the other reforms, marked the end of a long process towards establishing the
separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The process by which
judicial appointments are made is also more independent and distanced from
government. Indeed, there is now no meaningful role for the government in the
appointment of judges, except for the most senior. Even in the case of senior judges,
the government’s influence is extremely limited”.
Source: adapted from a memorandum by Jack Straw to the Justice Select Committee, March
2010
2 (a) With reference to the source, what is the rule of law? [5]
(b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain how the
independence of the judiciary is protected. [10]

15
(c) To what extent can judges check the power of the executive and the legislature?
[25]
SECTION B
Answer either Question Three or Question Four
(3) To what extent have constitutional reforms since 1997 reduced the powers of UK
governments? [40]
Or
(4) Are UK Prime Ministers as powerful as is sometimes claimed? [40]
MAY 2012
SECTION A
Answer either Question One or Question Two
QUESTION ONE
PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET
There is no constitutional difference between a coalition government and a single
party government, but working practices need to reflect the fact that the UK has not
had a coalition in modern times.
The initial allocation [in May 2010 after the general election] of cabinet ministerial
whip and special adviser appointments between the two parties was agreed between
the prime minister and the deputy prime minister.
Future allocation will continue to be based on the principle that the parliamentary
party with fewer MPs will have a share of the cabinet, ministerial and whip
appointments approximately in proportion to the size of the parliamentary parties.
The prime minister, following consultation with the deputy prime minister, will make
nominations for the appointment of ministers. The prime minister will nominate
Conservative Party ministers and the deputy prime minister will nominate Liberal
Democrat ministers.
The principle of collective responsibility, save where it is explicitly set aside, continues
to apply to all government ministers. This requires that there is an appropriate degree
of consultation and discussion among ministers, that the opinions expressed and
advice offered within government remain private and that the decisions made by the
cabinet are binding on and supported by ministers.
Source: Adapted from the Cabinet Office, the Coalition Agreement for Stability and Reform, 2010

16
1 (a) With reference to the source, outline how coalition government has affected
appointments to the Cabinet [5]
(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain why collective
responsibility is an important aspect of UK government. [10]
(c) How important is the Cabinet? [25]
QUESTION TWO
THE CONSTITUTION
We need wholesale constitutional reform, not piecemeal and compromised change. I
want our democratic structures to be transparent and fair and I want them to be the
basis of our pluralism – this is one of the ways we rebuild trust with the electorate.
For example, I support AV for the Commons and a directly elected Lords using PR.
We also need to look at how the rights and responsibilities of citizens are properly
recognised and codified and how government is held to account. The 1998 Human
Rights Act brought about progress, but the case for a codified constitution remains a
strong one, both for the benefits it would bring and crucially for the process of debate,
discussion and democratic engagement through which it would be brought about. A
codified constitution would be good for increasing citizen power and good for
checking executive power.
On this Labour was too cautious in government. Our 1997 White Paper said “we ought
to think about whether we should have a written [codified] constitution”. Again in
2006 Gordon Brown called for a codified constitution. But words were never turned
into action and we never created a pathway to a codified constitution.
I want Labour to be a party of radical democratic and constitutional reform. This is
how we begin to reshape the way we do politics so that it is more open, more plural
and more real for citizens”.
Source: adapted from David Miliband’s blog, September 2010
2 (a) With reference to the source, outline two constitutional reforms proposed by
David Miliband. [5]
(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain the arguments in
favour of introducing a codified constitution. [10]
(c) To what extent have the coalition government’s proposals to reform the UK
constitution been controversial? [25]
SECTION B
(3) How effective are backbench MPs? [40]

17
(4) To what extent do judges protect individual rights and freedoms in the UK? [40]
JANUARY 2013
SECTION A
QUESTION ONE
The decision to introduce fixed-term Parliaments was one of the key features of the
coalition agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in 2010.
The policy was, in due course, enacted through the Fixed Term Parliament Act, 2011.
The introduction of fixed-term Parliaments had long been advocated by the Liberal
Democrats. It is often claimed that the reform will reduce prime ministerial power,
because it means that Prime Ministers are no longer able to use their prerogative
power to dissolve Parliament and call a General Election when events turn in their
favour. But a fixed-year Parliament also means that they can plan ahead to complete
their programme by a known date in the future.
The issue of fixed-term Parliaments is part of a long-running debate about how
powerful UK Prime Ministers are. In addition to chairing cabinet meetings and
controlling the cabinet system, Prime Ministers have attracted increasing media focus
and become the “brand image” of their party at election time. Some commentators
have gone so far as to claim that UK Prime Ministers have, effectively, become
“presidents”. Concern about the growing powers of the Prime Minister has led,
amongst other things, to calls for a fully codified written constitution, which would
outline the role and responsibilities of the Prime Minister and government. This would
establish clear guidelines for the exercise of prime ministerial powers, rather than
allowing the Prime Minister to determine his or her role as he or she sees fit”.
Source: Edexcel, 12th
October 2011
1 (a) With reference to the source, describe how the introduction of fixed-term
Parliaments affects prime ministerial power. [5]
(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain three reforms,
other than fixed-term Parliaments, which could limit the powers of the Prime Minister.
[10]
(c) To what extent have UK Prime Ministers become more “presidential”? [25]
QUESTION TWO
PARLIAMENT

18
House of Lords
Since the general election, David Cameron has created 117 new life peers, according
to a report from the Constitution Unit at University College, London. This leaves the
House packed to the rafters and prompts “a major concern that if appointments
continue, the House of Lords will simply cease to be able to function”. This will be
because it is too large and cumbersome. The figures in April 2011 were that,
compared to Labour’s 243 peers, there were a total of 311 representing the coalition
partners. But added together this only accounted for 554 of the total 792 peers. The
rest were a mix of crossbenchers, Bishops and others.
But is the Prime Minister doing anything other than adjusting the political balance in
the Lords to reflect the will of the people at the last election? Certainly, the House of
Lords, with its 792 members, eclipses the size of the Commons. The coalition’s
Programme for Government of 2010: stated “Lords appointments will be made with
the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote
secured by the political parties at the last general election. The current system of
appointing peers will therefore remain until the Government’s reforms are in place.
An angry Ed Miliband accused David Cameron back in November 2010 of filling the
Lords with Conservative Party donors – and claimed the move was undemocratic.
Downing Street was unapologetic, saying: “The Government will be bringing forward
a draft Bill proposing a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords”.
Source: Adapted from Cathy Newman article, Channel Four News online, 20th
April 2011
2 (a) With reference to the source, outline two criticisms of David Cameron’s
appointments to the House of Lords. [5]
(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain three
considerations that are taken into account when appointing Life Peers. [10]
(c) Assess the arguments in favour of a largely or wholly elected second chamber. [25]
SECTION B
(3) To what extent have constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 made the UK
more democratic? [40 marks]
(4) In what ways, and to what extent, is the Human Rights Act controversial? [40
marks]
MAY 2013
SECTION A

19
QUESTION ONE THE UK CONSTITUTION
Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate government power. They set out the
structure of government, the major government institutions and the principles
governing their relations with each other and with citizens. The UK is unusual in that
it has an un-codified constitution. Unlike the great majority of countries there is no
single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how
the state works. Its constitutional rules are also not entrenched, as there is no higher
category of constitutional law in the UK.
The UK constitution is derived from a number of sources. For example, the most
important source of the constitution is statute law, law passed by Parliament. By
contrast, conventions are unwritten practices which have developed over time and
regulate the business of governing.
An un-codified constitution has two implications. First, it can make it difficult to know
what the content of the constitution actually is. Second, it is easier to make changes
to an un-codified constitution than it is to a codified constitution. The flexibility of the
UK constitution is evident from the large number of constitutional reforms since 1997,
including the removal of the majority of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords,
the introduction of codified rights of individuals for the first time in the Human rights
Act of 1998, and the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Source: adapted from UK Constitution Unit (www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit)
(a) With reference to the source, outline two features of the UK constitution. [5]
(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain the sources of the
UK constitution. [10]
(c) Assess the strengths of the UK constitution. [25]
QUESTION TWO THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY
Judges are becoming too politicised in their decision-making, encouraged by a
European Court of Human Rights which is progressively shrinking national sovereignty,

20
according to Jonathan Sumption, the newest appointment to the UK’s Supreme Court.
He implied that judicial reviews are in danger of trespassing on “the proper function
of government”. In a speech to fellow lawyers, Sumption said “one of the most
significant constitutional changes” since the Second World War has been the rise in
the political significance of the judiciary, as a result of the increasingly vigorous
exercise of its powers of judicial review”.
Judges are not politically biased, he stressed, but some cases involved them in “dealing
with matters (namely the merits of policy decisions) which in a democracy are the
proper function of Parliament and of ministers answerable to Parliament and the
electorate”.
The introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, through
the 1998 Human Rights Act has, Sumption argued, shifted the boundaries between
political and legal decision-making in such controversial areas as immigration,
sentencing policy, security and policing, privacy and freedom of expression”.
Source: adapted from The Guardian, November 2011
(a) With reference to the source, outline why the increasing use of judicial review is
controversial. [5]
(b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain the main effects of
the Human Rights Act. [10]
(c) Should judges, rather than politicians, be responsible for protecting civil liberties?
[25]
SECTION B
(3) Has the experience of coalition government strengthened or weakened prime
ministerial power? [40]
(4) “The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking
government power”. Discuss. [40]
HOW TO ACHIEVE A TOP GRADE ON UNIT TWO
SECTION A [STIMULUS QUESTION]

21
[a] This only tests AO1 KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING and you are simply
required to explain the significance of three points from the document. In order to
gain 5 marks your two of your three explanations need to be supported with some
APPROPRIATE DETAIL. NO CREDIT WILL BE GIVEN FOR ANY REFERENCES TO
MATERIAL OUTSIDE THE SOURCE. If you can detect any BIAS in the source do
comment upon this; almost no candidates look at who is responsible for the source so
do check who wrote it because that will provide a greater insight into the nature of
the source. There could even be a comparison of two sources and candidates might
be asked to comment on whether is, for example, a conservative or liberal
interpretation and explain their reasoning. If you can do this you will be operating at
an extremely high level. [5]
[b] In order to ensure that you achieve full marks here you must COMBINE
EXPLANATIONS FROM THE SOURCE AND FROM YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE. In order
to ensure that you are successfully doing this you could use phrases like, “The source
highlights a particularly useful argument which, from my own knowledge, is supported
by . . .”
PROVIDE FOUR SUPPORTED EXPLANATIONS TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE! [10]
[c] You answer the essay question in the same way as you would a Unit One essay – in
other words write a very COHERENT STRUCTURED essay which EVALUATES BOTH
SIDES OF AN ARGUMENT BEFORE REACHING A CONCLUSION. Your essay could still
achieve very highly if it made no reference to the source; however if there is material
in the source that it would be appropriate to deploy in your answer you should
certainly do this too. [25]
SECTION B [40 MARK ESSAY]
This must be an extensive essay which thoroughly grapples with the question. Also,
don’t lose time by doing unnecessary spadework. For example, too many candidates
will begin “HOW IMPORTANT IS THE CABINET?” by explaining in their introduction
what it does in exhaustive detail – this gets you no marks – a much better introduction
would be to suggest that the influence of the cabinet, like that of parliament, depends
on CIRCUMSTANCES; in short cabinet is at its strongest when the Prime Minister is at
his weakest and vice versa. And then launch into your essay pursuing this argument.
A good way of introducing the essay might also be to begin with “This is an interesting
question because . . .” and then suggest some of the main arguments that you will be
considering.
In the exam you are going to be marked according to THREE ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES
when you write your 25 marks and 40 mark essays. It is therefore important that you
know what these Assessment Objectives are so that you can fulfil them:
AO1: Demonstrate accurate and relevant factual knowledge [defining terms /
concepts; providing examples; describing institutions / processes; identifying

22
arguments and theories; ability to demonstrate detailed and / or developed
knowledge.
A02: Ability to assess points in the light of argument and evidence [weighing
statements up; making points and proving / disproving them; making points and
supporting / qualifying them. This is MICRO-EVALUATION and is different to making
a series of unsupported assertions;
A03: Ability to make points in a clear and logical order thereby producing an
appropriately BALANCED ARGUMENT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE ESSAY
[MACRO EVALUATION]
In an essay you can present one side of the argument in its entirety and then respond
with the contrary argument; although probably a better way would be to keep
comparing both sides’ arguments throughout the essay before reaching your
conclusion. NB: You do not need to write an equal amount for both sides of the
argument; for example if you do think one side is more convincing you could focus on
this. A 70% / 30% division would therefore be entirely satisfactory.
THE CONSTITUTION
KEY CONCEPTS: CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTIONALISM, CODIFIED /
UNCODIFIED CONSTITUTION, UNITARY / FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY, POOLED SOVEREIGNTY, DEVOLUTION,
QUASI-FEDERALISM, ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP

23
CONTENT EXPLANATION
Nature of the constitution: A knowledge and understanding of the features of a
constitution and of the benefits of constitutional government, including the
differences between codified and un-codified constitutions, and an understanding of
the nature, sources and key features of the UK constitution.
Sovereignty and the constitution: A knowledge and understanding of debates about
the location of sovereignty within the UK constitutional system, particularly in relation
to the significance of European Union membership and devolution.
Reforming the constitution: A knowledge and understanding of key reforms to the
constitution since 1997, such as Devolution and Lords Reform, and an awareness of
their advantages and disadvantages; and an understanding of the ongoing debate
about constitutional reform, including the possible introduction of a “written”
constitution.
DEFINITION OF A CONSTITUTION
A Constitution may be written or unwritten and yet all constitutions have the same
purpose which is to define the RULES and CONVENTIONS by which a state is governed,
the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT and the
CIVIL LIBERTIES that its citizens possess by right. For example, the US Constitution
requires that a US President’s term office is 4 years, while in the UK it is a constitutional
convention that the Prime Minister should be a member of the Commons rather than
the Lords. The US Constitution also clearly defines the relationship between the
sovereignty that the US states enjoy and that possessed by the federal government
ensuring that there is no overlap, while in its BILL OF RIGHTS it also clearly defines the
LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT and the RIGHTS ALL CITIZENS HAVE IN RELATIONSHIP TO
THE GOVERNMENT.
FEATURES OF A WRITTEN / CODIFIED CONSTITUTION: SINGLE
SOURCE, TWO TIER LEGAL SYSTEM, ENTRENCHMENT, JUDICIAL
REVIEW
A Codified Constitution means that the RULES BY WHICH A STATE IS GOVERNED and
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE GOVERNMENT are
WRITTEN DOWN IN ONE PLACE. An obvious example of this is the CONSTITUTION of
the UNITED STATES which was composed in 1787 and, within its BILL OF RIGHTS

24
[1791], DEFINES the LIBERTIES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS as well as the RELATIONSHIP
between the EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATURE and JUDICIARY.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
Amendment Two
Bill of Rights / the US Constitution
A Codified Constitution also represents the SUPREME AUTHORITY in a state. For
example, the US Constitution opens with the words, “THE CONSTITUTION SHALL BE
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND”. A codified Constitution thus represents a HIGHER
“CONSTITUTIONAL” LAW than parliamentary law and so TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER
STATUTE LAW, ensuring that there are limitations to the sort of laws that a
government may pass. A country with a Codified Constitution thus has a TWO TIER
Legal system in which the law of the constitution cannot be changed simply by statute
law. This ensures that a temporary government cannot undermine long standing
constitutional laws that determine how the state is governed and the protection of
our civil liberties.
FEATURES OF AN UNWRITTEN / UNCODIFIED CONSTITUTION /
VARIETY OF SOURCES / FLEXIBILITY
Like a Codified Constitution an Un-codified Constitution determines how a state is to
be governed as well as the civil liberties that its citizens enjoy. However, an Un-
Codified Constitution is much rarer than a Codified Constitution and DERIVES FROM
A VARIETY OF WRITTEN SOURCES AND UNWRITTEN CONVENTIONS. It is therefore
NOT CODIFIED IN A SINGLE DOCUMENT. Thus the British Constitution comprises a
variety of sources, including PARLIAMENTARY STATUTES, THE DECISIONS OF JUDGES
IN COMMON LAW, WORKS OF AUTHORITY like WALTER BAGEHOT’S “THE ENGLISH
CONSTITUTION” and LANDMARK DECISIONS such as MAGNA CARTA [1215] and the
BILL OF RIGHTS [1689]. An Un-codified Constitution can also be changed simply by
PARLIAMENTARY STATUTE so it is therefore much more FLEXIBLE than a Codified
Constitution and it therefore does not ENTRENCH our CIVIL LIBERTIES within a TWO
TIER LEGAL FRAMEWORK. This means that an Un-Codified Constitution enables
governments, if they have sufficient parliamentary majorities, to quickly introduce
laws which can fundamentally change the rules by which the state is governed or the
individual’s rights in relation to the government. This means that it has often been
referred to as an “ORGANIC CONSTITUTION” since it develops gradually over time. In
recent years, for example, the EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS has
been incorporated into British law, in the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT [2000], while the
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM ACT [2005] confirmed the Separation of Powers by
establishing an independent SUPREME COURT.

25
SOURCES OF UK CONSTITUTION: STATUTE LAW, COMMON
LAW, CONVENTIONS, WORKS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY, EU LAWS AND TREATIES
The UK’s Un-Codified Constitution is not comprised in one document and so derives
from a variety of different sources. For example it comprises, STATUTE LAW such as
the 1928 REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT which enacted UNIVERSAL
SUFFRAGE as well as the COMMON LAW, the judgment of judges in certain important
cases setting a LEGAL PRECEDENT for other courts to follow. WORKS OF AUTHORITY
such as WALTER BAGEHOT’S “THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION” [1867] as well as AV
DICEY’S “AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION
[1885] also comprise the Constitution, as well as LAND MARK DECISIONS such as
MAGNA CARTA [1215] which lays down the principle of our right, as citizens, to TRIAL
BY JURY, as well as the BILL OF RIGHTS [1689] which lays down the PRIMACY OF
PARLIAMENT OVER CROWN which all monarchs since then have had to obey.
The UK Constitution also derives from TIME HONOURED CONVENTIONS such as
INDIVIDUAL and MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY as well as the convention that a Prime
Minister should sit in the COMMONS rather than the LORDS. The SALISBURY
CONVENTION also states that the House of Lords should not block any government
bill that was part of its ELECTION MANIFESTO.
In recent years the UK Constitution has had new sources added to it. For example, in
1973 the UK joined the EEC thereby adding European law to British law and in 1991,
in the FACTORTAME CASE the House of Lords confirmed that European law takes
precedence over British law. The UK has also now incorporated into British law the
1951 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS by passing the HUMAN RIGHTS
ACT. Since 1997 a number of referendums have been used to confirm significant
constitutional changes, such as devolved assemblies in SCOTLAND, WALES and
NORTHERN IRELAND. It has been suggested, too, that the GUS O’DONNELL RULES on
what to do if a COALITION government seems likely will also achieve become a
constitutional precedent for the future.
The role of the Judges in creating law through CASE LAW can be a difficult principle to
understand. It is best illustrated by the case of DONOGHUE v. STEPHENSON in which
LORD ATKIN overturned the existing legal principle that you could only claim
negligence if you had a prior recognised legal relationship with the negligent party. In
this case, a bottle of ginger beer sold with a snail in it had poisoned the plaintiff and
Atkin ruled that we all have a duty of care to our “NEIGHBOURS” – essentially anybody
who might be adversely affected by our negligence. The principle of DUTY OF CARE

26
enshrined in this case has thus become part of case law and is now used as a BINDING
LEGAL PRECEDENT IN SIMILAR CASES.
LOCATION OF SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN THE UK SYSTEM: NATURE
OF SOVEREIGNTY, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY,
IMPLICATIONS OF EU MEMBERSHIP, “POOLED” SOVEREIGNTY
THE DEBATE OVER SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UK
Sovereignty is best defined as a principle of ABSOLUTE and UNLIMITED POWER by
which a state can act in any way that it wishes without its actions being vetoed by a
superior body. This means that a political body has UNRESTRICTED POWER and that
no other authority can control how it manages its INTERNAL and EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.
It has often been claimed that the United Kingdom is a UNITARY STATE which means
that SOVEREIGNTY in the UK is NOT DIVISIBLE and is therefore centred on the
WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT. In a FEDERAL STATE, however, SOVEREIGNTY IS
SHARED between the CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and REGIONAL GOVERNMENT. For
example, in the United States, states like VIRGINIA have certain sovereign powers
which the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in Washington DC cannot interfere with. This
though is not the case in the United Kingdom since the WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT
DOES NOT, IN THEORY, SHARE SOVEREIGNTY. Instead it has ABSOLUTE POLITICAL
SOVEREIGNTY which means that it can pass any ACT OF PARLIAMENT that it wishes
to. It is therefore SOVEREIGN SINCE ANY PARLIAMENT CAN ENACT ANY LAW THAT
IT WISHES. Each new parliament also has total power to pass any new law that it
wishes since we DO NOT HAVE AN ENTRENCHED CONSTITUTION which means that
parliament cannot be stopped from passing an Act of Parliament by ENTRENCHED
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW since we don’t have this sort of law. In other words there is
NO AUTHORITY IN THE UK GREATER THAN AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT SO PARLIAMENT
IS THEREFORE A SOVEREIGN BODY.
UNITARY AND FEDERAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
In a UNITARY STATE SOVEREIGNTY is CENTRALIZED in one place. Thus in the UK, as
a unitary state, sovereignty is centralized on the Westminster Parliament and even
though certain powers have been devolved to regional assemblies, such as the
Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and pooled in the European Union, these
powers could still be RECLAIMED BY PARLIAMENT since Westminster alone is
sovereign. As NEIL MCNAUGHTON has put it, “In a unitary constitution, the central
sovereign power can overrule all other bodies and has the right to restore all political

27
power to itself”. This has happened, for example, when Westminster suspended the
Northern Ireland Assembly, while parliament also retains the right of withdrawing
from the EU by passing a new act repealing the act by which we joined.
A good example of a FEDERAL STATE is the UNITED STATES since in this country
SOVEREIGNTY IS SHARED BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON DC and the
50 STATES. Thus, when the US CONSTITUTION was agreed by delegates from the
original 13 states in 1787, as well as giving certain powers to the central government,
such as foreign policy and defence, the states decided that they would retain
sovereignty over more regional issues such as policing, education and criminal law
[which is why some states have the death penalty and others do not].
However, to suggest that sovereignty purely resides in parliament would be
misleading. PARLIAMENT does possess LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY, because no parliament
may bind its successor, but, sovereignty is increasingly dispersed within the UK and
with the European Union, while the PEOPLE themselves possess POLITICAL
SOVEREIGNTY.
POLITICAL VERSUS LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY
It was pointed out by AV DICEY as long ago as 1885 that there is, in terms of
constitutional theory, always going to be a SOVEREIGNTY GREATER THAN
PARLIAMENT and that lies with the PUBLIC. In short, whereas Parliament may indeed
pass any law that they wish [LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY], the voters enjoy POLITICAL
SOVEREIGNTY and this is greater because Parliament’s sovereignty is LEASED to it by
the voters and since parliament is ultimately ACCOUNTABLE to the public in a
GENERAL ELECTION they, necessarily, enjoy ULTIMATE SOVEREIGNTY. Similarly, the
public also exercise political sovereignty in a referendum. Parliament could, legally,
does enact the result, but once the public express their views in a referendum
Parliament could hardly ignore the result.
ROYAL PREROGATIVE
However, PARLIAMENT’S LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY is also quite flexible and may not be
as total as we might think. The Royal Prerogative is now in the hands of the Prime
Minister and this means that in certain areas parliament is not sovereign. These areas
include numerous PATRONAGE POWERS such as appointing ANGLICAN BISHOPS and
LIFE PEERSl, while when the Prime Minister negotiates foreign treaties, such as
refusing to give greater economic powers over EU states to the European Commission
in December 2011, he is not accountable to parliament. In short, even today there are
certain areas where Parliament still lacks sovereignty because that sovereign power is
possessed by the Prime Minister, while in exceptional circumstances the MONARCH
HERSELF could reassert her SOVEREIGN ROYAL PREROGATVE. If, for example, a Prime
Minister refused to call a General Election after 5 years the monarch would have the
sovereign right to dismiss the government, while if there was no obvious party leader

28
able to secure a majority in the House of Commons, the Monarch could then select a
Prime Minister whom they believed would be most likely to have the CONFIDENCE OF
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. GEORGE VI, for example, did this when, in 1940, he
appointed WINSTON CHURCHILL rather than LORD HALIFAX as Prime Minister.
The location of sovereignty is always changing, too. For example, it has always been
the case that the Prime Minister could use the Royal Prerogative to decide on the
DATE OF THE GENERAL ELECTION or whether or not to commit British forces to WAR.
However, DAVID CAMERON has now abandoned the right to determine the date of
the next General Election as being undemocratic and it will now be the first Thursday
in May 2015. Similarly the PRECEDENT has been set for PARLIAMENT having the right
whether or not to commit British troops to war; Blair allowed such a vote in 2003
[IRAQ] and Cameron did so again in 2011 [LIBYA] and then in 2013 [SYRIA].
THE UK’S MEMBERSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Since the UK joined the EUROPEAN UNION we have also had to accept a growing
number areas, such as TRADE, FISHING and AGRICULTURE, on which decisions on the
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS [the 27 relevant ministers of the EU meeting in Brussels or
Strasbourg] are taken by QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING. This means that even if
Britain opposes a policy we will have to accept it. We could not refuse to implement
the law since, in 1991, the FACTORTAME CASE declared unequivocally that
EUROPEAN LAW TOOK PRECEDENCE OVER THE 1988 MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT and
that consequently British courts must implement European law over British law. In
short, we have POOLED OUR SOVEREIGNTY with 27 other EU countries so it is no
longer focused on just the Westminster Parliament. This naturally affects parliament’s
sovereignty since it makes clear that European law is now greater than parliamentary
statute law and that, given a choice, British courts would have to adhere to European
law. Westminster does though, significantly, still remain SOVEREIGN OVER KEY AREAS
THAT DEFINE A NATION STATE such as DEFENCE, FOREIGN POLICY, TAX and
IMMIGRATION where member states still retain the VETO. The passing of the LISBON
TREATY has, of course, pooled sovereignty even more. However, it has also been
suggested that Parliament could reclaim sovereignty by passing an act of parliament
that renegotiated or even withdrew us from membership of the EU.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT [INCORPORATION OF THE EUROPEAN
CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS INTO BRITISH LAW
British courts can now refer to the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT in order to protect our civil
liberties and there have been numerous occasions when the judges have used the Act
to protect our civil liberties. The highest court of appeal for issues concerning human
rights has thus become an EXTERNAL COURT, the EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN
RIGHTS in STRASBOURG.

29
However, the Human Rights Act still falls far short of being a codified constitution
which really would limit parliament’s sovereignty. As it stands the Human Rights Act
is, in fact, no different from any other act of parliament and so can parts of it can be
SUSPENDED BY A FRESH ACT OF PARLIAMENT [as happened to when Article 5 was
suspended after 9/11 enabling the government to hold terrorist suspects indefinitely
without trial]; while DAVID CAMERON has even said that he would like to REPEAL THE
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. At the same time, if a new law is deemed to be in conflict with
the Human Rights Act the judges should flag this up by issuing a FORMAL STATEMENT
OF INCOMPATIBILITY but, since no parliament may bind its successor, parliament
could ignore this warning. In short, there is much evidence to suggest that the Human
Rights Act does not really limit parliamentary sovereignty. Over prisoner voting, too,
Parliament has refused to comply with Strasbourg’s demands that prisoners should be
allowed to vote suggesting that sovereignty has not actually shifted to Strasbourg.
The UK has been on a collision course with Strasbourg since 2005, when the ECHR
ruled that a ban on all prisoners voting was a breach of human rights, following a
challenge by convicted killer John Hirst. In February 2013, MPs voted by 234 to 22
to keep the blanket ban, in response to a government proposal to give the vote to
offenders handed a custodial sentence of less than four years. Mr Grayling, the
Justice Secretary, has told MPs they ultimately have the power to maintain the
current ban, but there would be a "political cost" in doing so.
BBC News, 14th January 2014
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF DEVOLUTION
This is provides clearer evidence for a change in the location of sovereignty. In theory,
Westminster did not lose any of its sovereign power when it DEVOLVED POWER to
the SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, WELSH and NORTHERN IRISH ASSEMBLIES over
domestic issues, since if you devolve power that means that you can take it back when
you wish. Thus, when power sharing was not working in Northern Ireland,
Westminster was legally able to re-impose direct rule.
However, devolution is an EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS and it would seem increasingly
impractical that Westminster really could consider dissolving the Scottish Parliament
when it has now been in operation for ten years and has a DIRECT MANDATE FROM
THE VOTERS OF SCOTLAND TO GOVERN THEM, while the WELSH ASSEMBLY has
further increased its powers, further undermining Westminster’s sovereign powers
and re-establishment of DIRECT RULE over NORTHERN IRELAND would be politically
unacceptable in the province. In short one could argue that the constituent members
of the UK are in the process of achieving de facto sovereignty and Scotland may,
indeed, achieve full independence in 2014

30
REFERENDUMS
This is similar to Devolution. At least in theory Parliament could ignore the result of a
referendum because of parliament sovereignty; however, in practise, this could cause
significant problems and could lead to a clash between the public [POPULAR
SOVEREIGNTY] and Parliament [LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY] which Parliament would
probably want to avoid. For example, if the Scots voted for independence in a
referendum or if the public had voted for AV for Westminster Elections in 2011 it
would have been very difficult for parliament to have ignored the will of the public,
even though a referendum is, at least in theory, simply CONSULTATIVE.
GLOBALISATION
It could also be argued that our membership of some INTERNATIONAL
ORGANISATIONS as well as the impact of GLOBALISATION has RESTRICTED BRITISH
SOVEREIGNTY. For example, the UK has to obey the trading rules of the WORLD
TRADE ORGANISATION; while the government has to support the principles of
ARTICLE 5 [COLLECTIVE SECURITY] of NATO. It has also been pointed out that the
British government does not have complete sovereign power over many international
economic issues and as the Italians and Greeks have learned a government can be
brought down by GLOBAL CAPITAL FLOWS rather than by its own people. It is an
interesting question, too, to what extent parliament is sovereign over the internet and
that this has certainly diluted almost all states’ claims to sovereignty.
When I was elected in 1950, parliament controlled “the purse” i.e the budget; “the
sword” i.e the army and thirdly, parliament could not bind its successors because
every parliament could repeal every law passed by its predecessor. Today none of this
is true [and parliament and people have accordingly lost sovereignty]. The framework
of our economic policy is now global, i.e the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. This
is especially true today when the IMF is being given even greater authority.
Similarly, the sword – our defence policy – is subsumed within NATO dominated by
the United States; the Americans have military bases here which they can use without
the need of parliamentary approval and the technology for our nuclear weapons is
supplied by the Americans. It is upon the Americans that we depend for the satellite

31
navigation system that enables them to be targeted. Thirdly, within the European
Union laws are made by the Council of Ministers, on which a British minister sits, but
once made they apply throughout the European Union without necessitating the
approval of national parliaments, including our own. Our parliament cannot repeal
individual European laws even if voters elected a House of Commons specifically
committed to do so.
The British parliament is therefore no longer sovereign in law and the British people
who elect it are no longer able democratically and peacefully to restore their control,
through parliament, of the purse or the sword or the statute book. In short, Britain
has now become, in European terms, a big local authority, and this is one of the factors
which has led to a certain cynicism about us as a self-governing democracy, and raises
doubts about the value of voting. Because if we are a democracy the people must be
sovereign and the government must be its servant and not its master.
Tony Benn “Letters to My Grandchildren”, 2009
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it would be misleading to argue that Westminster is sovereign. Indeed,
where sovereignty lies in the UK has always been controversial with POPULAR
SOVEREIGNTY and the ROYAL PREROGATIVE providing an alternative to
parliamentary sovereignty, while in recent years constitutional changes to the UK such
as our entry into the EUROPEAN UNION as well as the changing relationship between
the CONSTITUENT PARTS OF THE UK and the increasing use of REFERENDUMS has
made it even more difficult to clarify where sovereignty lies. In short, even though, at
least in theory, no parliament may bind its successor the competing claims of
sovereignty in the 21st Century make it more problematic to exactly define where
sovereignty lies.
DRAWBACKS OF AN UNCODIFIED CONSTITUTION: ELECTIVE
DICTATORSHIP, WEAK CHECKS AND BALANCES, WEAK
PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
The LIBERAL DEMOCRATS and CHARTER 88 both argue very strongly that the UK
ought to have a CODIFIED CONSTITUTION since our existing Un-Codified Constitution
does not provide us with any SAFEFUARD FOR OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES against the
government. OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE THEREFORE NOT ENTRENCHED AND ARE
CONSEQUENTLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE.
Critics of the UK’s un-codified constitution argue that it leaves the basic structures
of our constitutional arrangements, and the rights of the individuals, vulnerable to
the whims of the government enjoying a majority in the House of Commons. The

32
government, it is argued, should work within the framework of the constitution and
not see it as a political football, something to be kicked about to suit its own
preferences. The government should be the creature of the Constitution and not
the other way round.
Lord Norton of Louth, Politics Review 2013
The arguments that our civil liberties need to be protected in a Codified Constitution
have also become more vocal in recent years since it has been widely felt that both
Conservative and Labour governments have been undermining our civil liberties;
shifting the balance of power in favour of the government and away from the
individual, even though their POPULAR MANDATES have been essentially non-
existent. In 2005, for example, only 35.2% of the 61.3% of us who voted, voted for a
Labour government and yet Blair and Brown were still able to significantly restrict our
civil liberties.
If though we did have a Codified Constitution, like most other countries, we would
have a TWO TIER form of law and so these NEW CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS would
protect us against the dangerous innovations of statute law!
Since the mid 1990’s there have been serious concerns that both Labour and
Conservative governments have been able to restrict our civil liberties. In 1994
MICHAEL HOWARD’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, for example, dramatically undermined
British civil liberties by allowing the police to carry out “STOP AND SEARCH” even if
they had no evidence that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed,
while it also ended the convention that, if arrested, you cannot INCRIMINATE
YOURSELF BY REMAINING SILENT. Instead, the police could now DRAW CERTAIN
INFERENCES FROM YOUR SILENCE.
In 1997 MICHAEL HOWARD’S CRIME SENTENCES ACT then set MANDATORY
SENTENCES which judges have to give for certain crimes. This naturally involved a very
significant interference by the government within what had previously been the
domain of the judges and further highlights the government’s growing attempts to
increase its power within the state.
Labour further infringed civil liberties since taking office in 1997. There were many
examples of this including the 2003 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT which has overturned the
principle of “DOUBLE JEOPARDY” allowing you to be TRIED TWICE FOR THE SAME
CRIME if fresh evidence is forthcoming; even though this undermines a key principle
of Magna Carta, while the act also allows certain trials to take place WITHOUT A JURY
(another assault on Magna Carta) in serious fraud cases or where there are fears the
jury might be tampered with.
The WAR AGAINST TERROR has, of course, further enabled the government to
interfere with our civil liberties. The PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT [2005] allows
the Home Secretary to impose “CONTROL ORDERS” on people the government
suspects may be involved in terrorist activities, even though this undermines another

33
fundamental principle of MAGNA CARTA which is TRIAL BY JURY. The Coalition said
that it would reform this draconian regime but, in fact, its new TERRORISM
PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION MEASURES [TPIMS] are very similar.
The SERIOUS ORGANIZED CRIME AND POLICE ACT [2005] bans UNAUTHORIZED
PEACEFUL PROTEST WITHIN A ONE KILOMETRE ZONE SURROUNDING
WESTMINSTER and it can be extended throughout the UK, as required. As a result of
this act, “Maya Evans and Milan Rai were arrested at the cenotaph on Whitehall for
reading out the names of UK soldiers and civilians killed in the War in Iraq”. [Liberty
Website]
MPs have voted to back plans to allow more civil courts to examine secret
intelligence in private, despite calls for more safeguards. MPs from all sides had
tried to press for so-called secret courts to be used only as a last resort. But the
government successfully saw off the challenge. Cabinet minister Ken Clarke said it
was "common sense" for sensitive evidence to be admissible in trials without
intelligence sources being exposed. Two Labour amendments, which attempted to
introduce extra safeguards, were defeated by 297 to 226 and by 298 to 225 -
government majorities of 71 and 73 respectively. Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq
Khan said he was "disappointed" with the result, but would look to the House of
Lords to "bring some balance to the government's plans" when the legislation
returns there. BBC News 4th March 2013
GEOFFREY ROBERTSON QC has also pointed out that we need a Codified Constitution
to protect those MINORITIES who, in times of national emergency could easily
become victims of a TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY [such as YOUNG MOSLEMS
following 9/11]. He refers to them as “Classes of persons insufficiently numerous to
wield electoral power but large enough to attract resentment”.
Therefore, a CODIFIED CONSTITUTION would make it much more difficult for
governments to undermine civil liberties in the way that they have been doing so
successfully. It would also, hopefully ENCOURAGE POLITICAL ACTIVISM because we
would no longer simply have negative rights, but POSITIVE RIGHTS and so, knowing
what they were, we would be more likely to value and defend them.
A Codified Constitution would also PRECISELY DEFINE WHERE SOVEREIGNTY LIES IN
THE UK, as well as providing a solution to the many constitutional anomalies in the
British state. Indeed, given the huge number of constitutional changes introduced by
Labour since 1997 a Codified Constitution would be very useful in DETERMINING

34
WHERE EXACTLY SOVEREIGN POWER LIES IN THE UK. For example, if we had a
Codified Constitution it would settle, once and for all, the WEST LOTHIAN ISSUE and
the exact relationship of the devolved assemblies to Westminster. The status of
REFERENDUMS within the UK would also be clarified, while a Codified Constitution
could also define where sovereignty lies at Westminster; at a time when all the main
parties are in favour of introducing an elected element into the Lords. A Codified
Constitution would provide, too, the opportunity to examine the ROYAL
PREROGATIVE powers that the PRIME MINISTER still enjoys and decide whether such
powers are in accordance with liberal democratic values.
By providing us with a TWO TIER LEGAL SYSTEM a Codified Constitution would finally
clarify the role of the BRITISH JUDICIARY. At the moment their role in protecting our
civil liberties and determining the exact relationship between the legislature,
executive and judiciary itself is severely undermined by the fact that they cannot refer
back to a Codified Constitution. It is this that has ensured their powers are still quite
limited in protecting our civil liberties. A Codified Constitution would though provide
them with clearer authority to decide on important issues of civil liberties, since the
LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION would clearly take precedence over ordinary statute law.
Finally, the un-codified nature of the UK Constitution means that, although dramatic
changes to it have taken place in recent years, there has been NO OVERALL SENSE OF
PURPOSE OR CONSISTENCY to them. A codified constitution would, therefore provide
a more unified approach to constitutional reform; reducing confusion and
contradiction. As the HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL
REFORM put it in 2011, “We have no structural thinking going on about the interaction
between the composition of the Houses of Parliament, the electoral system, the
courts and so on. We have no thinking about how all this fits together into a system
of government”.
STRENGTHS OF THE UK’s UNCODIFIED CONSTITUTION:
ORGANIC AND ADAPTABLE, RESPONSIVENESS TO PUBLIC
OPINION
Supporters of our un-codified constitution say that it can adapt to a changing world
without major upheavals. It is therefore said that Britain’s constitution is “organic”.
This means that it is rooted in society, not separate from society. Thus, when society
and its 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 simply develop to take account of social and political
change.
Neil McNaughton “Government and Politics for AS”
There are also strong arguments in favour of retaining our Un-codified Constitution.
Its supporters argue that an UN-CODIFIED CONSTITUTION IS MUCH MORE FLEXIBLE

35
than a codified constitution so therefore government (which is, of course, accountable
to the public) can RESPOND VERY QUICKLY TO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES without
being RESTRAINED BY THE DEADHAND OF AN INFLEXIBLE CODIFIED CONSTITUTION.
There are many examples of this. In the 1960’s the reforming Labour Home Secretary,
ROY JENKINS, supported the introduction of a number of liberal reforms which
fundamentally altered the nature of British society, such as the ABOLITION OF THE
DEATH PENALTY and the LEGALISATON of both HOMOSEXUALITY and ABORTION. All
of these very important (and popular) reforms could be introduced simply by an ACT
OF PARLIAMENT without the cumbersome process of changing a Codified
Constitution and so they showed parliament being able to quickly respond to the
changed mood of the public. In short the FLEXIBILITY OF AN UNCODIFIED
CONSTITUTION HAS ADVANTAGES OVER A RIGIDLY INFLEXIBLE CODIFIED
CONSTITUTION!
“We have a suppleness, a fluidity and a pragmatism to our arrangements, which
many constitutional experts around the world recognise is a strength”.
Nick Clegg, 2011
More recently, the FLEXIBILITY of our Constitution has also made it relatively easy for
governments to respond to CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES; so that, when it became
clear, that there were significant demands for DEVOLUTION in SCOTLAND, this could
be catered for very quickly with a simple Act of Parliament only being necessary to
establish a PARLIAMENT in Edinburgh. DEVOLUTION was, similarly, introduced very
quickly into NORTHERN IRELAND with the GOOD FRIDAY PEACE AGREEMENT when
it became clear that this would be the key to eradicating violence in the province.
The flexibility of the Constitution also raised no difficulties when it came to establish
a COALITION GOVERNMENT in MAY 2010; even though the last time that one had
been established was in May 1940! The fact, too, that the principle of COLLECTIVE
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY seems no longer to be operational once there is a
Coalition shows the capacity of our un-codified Constitution for gradual evolution.
The CABINET SECRETARY, GUS O’DONNELL, was also able to draw up highly effective
plans for the SMOOTH TRANSITION of power to a coalition, even though these were
relatively uncharted constitutional waters. In particular, he urged the Conservatives
and Liberal Democrats to quickly form a government for fear of delay provoking
market instability.
PETER HENNESSEY, a leading historian of the UK Constitution argues in favour of an
un-codified constitution because its very vagueness is an advantage in enabling us to
muddle through a series of potential crises; such as the 2010 establishment of a
coalition, the introduction and then modification of acts of parliament protecting the
country from the changing terrorist threat, as the changing relationship between the

36
UK and the EU and the shifting balance of self government towards the constituent
parts of the UK.
Sometimes the very fact that a Constitution is un-codified allows for the ORGANIC
DEVELOPMENT of society. For example if the British Constitution was codified, it
would have been an obstacle to the gradual development of Scottish self-government,
similarly since 1973 our relations with the EU have been able to gradually develop and
this would have been much more difficult if we had had a Codified Constitution
defining exactly where SOVEREIGNTY lay within the UK. In short the FLEXIBILITY OF
OUR CONSTITUTION IS ITS GREAT STRENGTH SINCE NOTHING IS SET IN STONE AND
THEREFORE EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE!
The way in which Parliament has been able to RESPOND VERY QUICKLY to the
TERRORIST THREAT since 9/11 and 7/7 might also be regarded as one of the strengths
of our un-codified constitution. Parliament has thus been able to enact laws which
protect the country without being constrained by constitutional safeguards which
might not be appropriate at a particular time of national emergency. For example,
CONTROL ORDERS [PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT, 2005] and the laws against
“GLORIFYING TERRORISM” [PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT, 2006] might be seen
as entirely justifiable attempts by the government to protect the nation from further
terrorist outrages. As the imminence of the terrorist threat seems to have resided [at
least for the time being] the coalition has also been able to modify some of these laws
in response to changing circumstances; for example the replacement at the beginning
of 2012 of Control Orders with more moderate TPIMS.
There is also a significant danger that we can MISINTERPRET a CODIFIED
CONSTITUTION or that the circumstances of the modern world may be so different to
those when the Constitution was written as to make it dangerously counter-
productive. For example, the 2nd AMENDMENT to the US CONSTITUTION lays down
that, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. It might now though
be argued that, unlike in 1791, there is no pressing need for US citizens to be able to
possess guns and that this, in fact, has contributed to the USA’s high murder rates.
ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT GUN CONTROL HAVE THUS ALWAYS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL
BECAUSE THEY COME UP AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION! Similarly, in 1857 the US
SUPREME COURT ruled in the DRED SCOTT CASE that SLAVERY in the USA could NOT
BE RESTRICTED by reference to the 5th AMENDMENT [see below].
“No person may be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law!”
5th Amendment to the US Constitution, 1791 [Bill of Rights]
It has been argued that a major constitutional change, such as a codified constitution,
should only be introduced in response to clear public demand. This is not the case,
while it is hardly proven that a Codified Constitution would reduce public apathy; after

37
all the US does have a codified constitution and yet significantly fewer Americans vote
in general elections than in the British do in their general elections.
In short a Codified Constitution can become FOSSILIZED. Parliament, on the other
hand, is REPRESENTATIVE OF SOCIETY TODAY and also ACCOUNTABLE TO SOCIETY
TODAY and so the fact that a simple Act of Parliament may be enacted to rectify our
Constitution means that we are never under the DEAD HAND OF TRADITION and that
our Constitution is always RESPONSIVE TO CHANGES IN SOCIETY. One could argue
too that since there has to be a General Election every five years if we do not like how
the Constitution has been changed we can vote in to power another government
which may better protect our civil liberties. In other words, with an Un-codified
Constitution the ELECTORATE remain the final arbiters which it could be argued is
MORE DEMOCRATIC than giving this power to UNELECTED JUDGES who are
INTERPRETING A DOCUMENT PRODUCED FOR A BYGONE AGE!
Finally, it is difficult to agree on those rights which should be enshrined in a Codified
Constitution. A right to freedom of speech can be abused, as well as freedom to
assemble, while should it include social and economic rights as well as political rights?
This last point would likely stir up a very bitter debate between the left and the right
of British politics. Even the RIGHT TO LIFE would be controversial; how would this
relate, for example to the debate on ABORTION and ASSISTED SUICIDE?
Even habeas corpus can be dangerous in time of national emergency and should a
RIGHT TO PRIVACY really be enshrined in a constitution if this interfered with PRESS
FREEDOM and the ability of the government to use surveillance to try to foil terrorist
atrocities.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS SINCE 1997: DEVOLUTION, PR
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, REFERENDUMS, EVALUATING PAST AND
POSSIBLE FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS
In 1997 New Labour was swept to power and a significant part of their commitment
to CHANGING BRITAIN DEPENDED UPON MODERNISING THE CONSTITUTION.
Conservative governments had not been much interested in constitutional reform and
so in 1997 TONY BLAIR was determined to update the Constitution making it MORE
DEMOCRATIC and providing GUARANTEES FOR OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. He also wanted
to DECENTRALISE power away from Westminster in order to engage the public more
with politics [STAKEHOLDER SOCIETY].
Since then many constitutional reforms have been introduced which have
transformed the United Kingdom – the Scots now have the right to determine most of
their DOMESTIC AFFAIRS and they have taken advantage of this to introduce the
PETITION SYSTEM and a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, as well as introducing
radical measures such as FREE CARE FOR THE ELDERLY. Similarly, since 1998 there
has been PEACE in NORTHERN IRELAND because of POWER SHARING which is, of

38
course, a dramatic achievement. There is an ASSEMBLY to in WALES with increased
powers of domestic government.
Similarly the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, although not a HIGHER LAW, has significantly
increased JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, making our judges much more prepared to protect our
civil liberties against the government. The FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT has also
provided citizens with a great deal more access to hitherto secret information, most
famously MPs’ expenses. Thus, it could be argued that there has been a dramatic
transfer of power away from the government to the individual through, for example,
devolution as well as greater safeguards from arbitrary government as illustrated by
the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT and the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
There is no doubt that these reforms have significantly changed the way in which the
UK is governed; it is less certain though whether these reforms have had more of a
positive or negative impact on British democracy and civil liberties. A particularly
significant criticism of New Labour’s reform programme is that many of the reforms
were HASTILY INTRODUCED AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES NOT SUFFICIENTLY
THOUGHT THROUGH. The “ECONOMIST”, for example, has referred to Labour’s
constitutional reform programme as, “A frenzy of constitutional reform which needs
to be underpinned by some unifying political vision”. In other words, the
consequences of these reforms have been so badly thought through that the
Constitution has become confused and in some instances our democratic rights have
been threatened.
The intellectual support for the theory that New Labour was too hasty in introducing
so many constitutional reforms in such a short period of time is provided by the
eighteenth century political philosopher, EDMUND BURKE, who was similarly
dismissive of those who were too easily thrilled by the sudden changes wrought by
the FRENCH REVOLUTION; changes which Burke was right in thinking would ultimately
have disastrous consequences, “Society is indeed a contract . . . it is a partnership . . .
not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who
are dead, and those who are to be born”.
On the other hand, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS and supporters of the pressure group,
CHARTER 88, argue that Labour did not do enough to reform the Constitution. In
1997 and again in 2001 TONY BLAIR had MASSIVE LANDSLIDE MAJORITIES over the
Conservatives and yet he did not take advantage of these to introduce the sort of FAR
REACHING and COHERENT REFORM PACKAGE which would really have
TRANSFORMED THE CONSTITUTION.
According to ANDREW HEYWOOD the main failings of the ongoing constitutional
reform programme is that the reforms have been too piecemeal to be really effective;
this was especially true of the changes Tony Blair introduced from 1997-2007, “There
was no constitutional blueprint that informed Blair’s reforms, which may have given
the programme greater coherence and clearer goals. Instead, the reforms were
individual solutions to particular problems. For instance, possible links between
devolution and Lords reform (perhaps allowing constituent nations and regions to

39
have representation in a reformed second chamber) were not sufficiently discussed
or explored. The reforms also failed to provide a solution for the problem of elective
dictatorship, arguably the central weakness of the UK’s constitutional system. The
major “hole” in the Blair reforms was thus the lack of meaningful parliamentary
reform which might have given the legislature more real influence. It was notable that
the government retreated on issues that could have brought this about – electoral
reform at Westminster and an elected and more powerful second chamber. Also, no
mention was made of the possibility of a codified constitution or an entrenched bill of
rights”.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS SINCE 1997
HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
In some ways the removal of the hereditary peers in 1999 is like the 1832 Reform Act
which, for the first time, enlarged the electorate to include some of the middle class.
The number of new voters, as a result of the 1832 Reform Act, was very small, but a
very important PRECEDENT had been set. It was the same in 1999 since the removal
of the hereditary peers established that the Lords had to be modernized to make it
more representative of society today.
Unfortunately though, having removed all but 92 of the hereditary peers, Labour
lacked a CLEAR VISION of what the Lords should then look like. As a result of this,
most of the new LIFE PEERS have been appointed by the leaders of the main political
parties; in particular the Prime Minister. A criticism of House of Lords reform so far
has therefore been that it has actually increased the PATRONAGE POWER of the
PRIME MINISTER, without actually making the Lords more democratic! When the
Coalition was established, NICK CLEGG was thus determined to transform the Lords
into a primarily ELECTED CHAMBER. Indeed, he referred to the un-elected Lords as,
“An affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy”;
maintaining that the un-elected Lords was a potent symbol of a “CLOSED SOCIETY”
which is radically in need of reform.
Clegg thus proposed that the membership of the Lords be restricted to just 300; 80%
of whom should be elected to serve a single term of 15 years – with a third of the seats
up for election every five years, using the Single Transferable Vote.
Having a democratic Lords is though very controversial and a rebellion by Tory
backbenchers has ensured that the Coalition will not now be able to proceed with a
bill to make the Lords primarily democratic. Supporters of a democratic Lords argue
that the Lords need to have a DEMOCRATIC MANDATE in order to have LEGITIMACY.
The Lords would also be ACCOUNTABLE to the public which is a key element of a
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, while by having a democratically elected Lords the UK would
no longer be acting in defiance of the EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

40
An elected Lords would also remove outrages, whereby LORD RUDDOCK, for example,
could be appointed to the legislature, in the New Year’s Honours List 2011, having
donated £500,000 to the Conservative Party!
“We are not talking about a big bang overnight transition here – we are talking about
electing the new House by thirds, with a transitional period of 10 years. Having laws
made by people who are elected by those who have to obey the laws isn’t a very
radical concept in the 21st century, I wouldn’t have thought, and was supported by all
three parties in their manifestoes”.
Mark Harper, former Constitutional Reform Minister, BBC News 30th December 2011
It has been argued, too, that its DEMOCRATIC MANDATE would enable the Lords to
hold the government accountable much more successfully since, at the moment, it is
clear that only the Commons have democratic legitimacy so the Lords can only delay
legislation for one parliamentary session. Equally, the age of the Lords are excessive
[and they serve until death] so elections would, hopefully, reduce the age of the Lords
thereby making it more representative of society today.
However, critics of an elected Lords point out the dangers of having two
democratically elected Houses of Parliament. This could mean them both claiming
primacy over the other. This could therefore lead to GRIDLOCK if competing parties
ended up dominating each of the Houses, or [and probably worse] a significant failure
of SCRUTINY if the same party ended up dominating both Houses.
Professor VERNON BOGDANOR, one of the country’s leading constitutionalists has
argued that, if elected, the Lords “would be much more likely to use its powers” which
would create a great deal of un-resolvable conflict with the Commons, especially as
we do not have a codified constitution which lays down exactly where sovereignty lies.
LORD NORTON further supports this view, pointing out if both Chambers were elected
this would dangerously “FRAGMENT ACCOUNTABILITY”.
“It can therefore be predicted, I think, with some certainty, that an elected upper
house would be much more powerful in practice than the current House of Lords and
that would make Britain more difficult to govern. The outcome could well be gridlock,
such as has occurred in countries like Australia, which has a directly elected upper
house and the United States. We don’t have a formal constitution, we have no formal
provision how to deal with gridlock, and unlike Australia we cannot dissolve the upper
house – how would a deadlock be broken?
Vernon Bogdanor, BBC, 30th December 2011
It has also been argued that by electing the Lords, parliament will lose the WISDOM
of many LIFE PEERS who have a WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE of POLITICS [LORD HURD,
LORD PRESCOTT], BUSINESS [LORD SUGAR], SCIENCE [LORD WINSTON] and the ARTS

41
[LORD BRAGG]. Such figures would be VERY UNLIKELY to put themselves forward for
election and so the Lords would end up being filled with MORE PROFESSIONAL
POLITICIANS. This would, in turn, ensure that there were FEWER CROSS BENCHERS
since the political parties would come to dominate the Lords have they have
dominated the Commons, while as the WHIPS increased their influence so the
REPUTATION OF THE LORDS for INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT would diminish.
Indeed, one of the most pressing criticisms of the House of Commons is that it is too
dominated by POLITICAL PARTIES and the STRANGLEHOLD OF THE WHIPS. If the
Lords were to be elected it is, of course, very likely that political parties would
dominate these elections thereby bringing Party dominance into the House of Lords
thus reducing genuine political debate. [NB It is generally recognised that the quality
of political debate is particularly high in the House of Lords]. “A wholly elected second
chamber would not have room for the independent element that those who sit on
these Benches provide and by which those who have discussed these matters set great
store”. [Lord Armstrong, March 13th 2007]
Representation in the House of Lords
2014
Labour 220
Conservative 221
Liberal Democrat 99
Crossbenchers 181
The informed wisdom of debate in the House of Lords is thus highly regarded, since a
third of the members of the Lords make decisions based on principle rather than party
loyalty. As the Lords now stand, it is clear that the Commons has a LEGITIMACY that
it cannot challenge. However, the way in which the Lords has the power to force the
Commons to RECONSIDER a CONTROVERSIAL BILL is extremely useful, since it
provokes the Commons to rethink an issue, without challenging its legitimacy. There
are numerous examples of the Lords provoking a rethink in government policy over

42
contentious bills and a large government defeat in the Lords will often provoke a
major, and probably appropriate, government rethink of policy, as Gordon Brown did
when he decided not to continue with his plans for 42 DAY DETENTION and
SUPERCASINOS in deprived areas after significant defeats in the Lords.
I have always believed, and I thought this was a fairly general view, that the House of
Lords justified its existence by being a very effective revising chamber. Its primary
purpose was to scrutinise and improve government legislation, not, like the House of
Commons, to be a party political slanging shop. It succeeds in being an effective
revising chamber largely due to the quality and variety of its inmates”.
Lord Glasgow
The government has suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords over its plans for
new injunctions to tackle anti-social behaviour in England and Wales. The
government wants to replace ASBOS with IPNAS which a court could impose on
anyone engaging or threatening to engage in anti-social behaviour, defined in the
bill as “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”. But a
cross section of peers has argued that the threshold was too low and could put
“fundamental freedoms” at risk.
The House thus voted by a 178-majority in favour of an amendment to reinstate the
"harassment, alarm or distress" test used for Asbos. Former police chief constable
Lord Dear, who tabled the amendment, claimed the injunctions could apply to noisy
children, street preachers, carol singers, and nudists.
BBC News, 8th January 2014
House of Lords SELECT COMMITTEES are, for the same reason, very highly regarded
and so their reports are well-informed and influential. For example, a House of Lords
Select Committee, chaired by the former Health Secretary, LORD FOWLER, has stated,
for example, that efforts to stop the spread of HIV/Aids in the UK are "woefully
inadequate" and a new awareness campaign is thus required.

43
A major parliamentary report into the London 2012 Olympics warns that the prospect
of an “effective and robust” legacy from the Games is in jeopardy unless there is a
change in government approach. The House of Lord Select Committee on the Olympic
and Paralympic Legacy says the Games were an “outstanding success”, but urges the
government to appoint a minister with overall responsibility for producing legacy
benefits which, it warns, “are in danger of faltering”.
The committee, which took evidence from Mayor of London Boris Johnson, former
Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell, and former Games organising committee chairman
Lord Coe among others, recommended that a minister be given responsibility for the
Olympic legacy, enabling greater co-ordination across Whitehall departments.
BBC News, 18th November 2013
Adoptive parents in England should have a legal right to support, a House of Lords
report argues. Adopted children may have behavioural problems which are not
resolved "simply by being adopted", says the Lords Committee on Adoption
Legislation. Adoption service bodies should have "a statutory duty" to provide post-
adoption support, says the committee. BBC News, 6th March 2013
The current system of appointment has also ensured that WOMEN and ETHNIC
MINORITIES are actually better represented in the House of Lords than they are in the
Commons so if the Lords were to be elected it is quite likely that its membership might
actually become less representative of contemporary society.
One of the newest members of the House of Lords is Lord Loomba. A self made
millionaire he now concentrates his energies on the Loomba Foundation, a charitable
organization which helps poor widows and children and which he set up in memory of
his mother, who was widowed at the age of 37. According to Lord Loomba, “I am not
a politician, but I have a huge expertise on social problems. The House of Lords is a
platform to discuss and understand different sorts of problems”.
BBC News, 28th February 2011

44
Finally, there is also the fear that the British public are already overburdened with
elections [Westminster, Europe, Devolved Assemblies and Local Elections] and that
too few would bother to vote for the Lords creating the worst case scenario of an
elected Lords but without a SUFFICIENT MANDATE to be able to claim real
LEGITIMACY, “Whatever the process by which Members were elected, I wonder
whether the British voting public have sufficient enthusiasm for electing Members of
a Second Chamber to go out to vote for them. I suspect that the British public are
beginning to suffer from election fatigue. A second Chamber elected on the votes of
about a quarter of the electorate would lack the democratic mandate and the degree
of democratic representativeness and authority that such a Chamber ought to have”.
[Lord Armstrong, March 13th 2007]
ASSESS THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE FURTHER
REFORM THE HOUSE OF LORDS [40]
Those who support an elected House of Lords, like Nick Clegg, argue that in a modern
liberal democracy it is profoundly wrong that the Upper Chamber of Parliament should
be un-elected. This sort of “CLOSED SOCIETY” is entirely anachronistic and
undemocratic and reform is thus urgently needed to give the Lords a real MANDATE
and DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY. However, the House of Lords, in-spite of the fact, and
perhaps because of the fact, that it is un-elected contains a great deal of WISDOM and
EXPERTISE and it is interesting to note just how little popular enthusiasm there is for
the reform of the House of Lords.
Clegg has further argued that, by having an elected Lords, the United Kingdom would
no longer be acting in defiance of the European Convention on Human Rights which
lays down that legislatures ought to be elected, while the public would now have the
right be able to vote for their legislators in the Upper House which would, at last,
provide us with a fully democratic political process. As MARK HARPER, the former
Constitutional Reform Minister, put it, “Having laws made by the people who are
elected by those who obey the laws isn’t a very radical concept in the Twenty First
Century”.
An elected Lords would also significantly reduce the excessive PATRONAGE POWERS
of the Prime Minister who has the lion’s share of appointments to the Lords and,
controversially, at the beginning of 2012 appointed Tory Party donor, LORD
RUDDOCK, to the Upper House. An elected Lords would also have the legitimacy

Unit 2 model answers

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Unit 2 model answers

Similar a Unit 2 model answers (16)

Más de Matthew Bentley

Más de Matthew Bentley (20)

Último

Último (20)

Unit 2 model answers