The constitution Flashcards

Question

Outline what is meant by a strong executive

Answer 1

The UK Constitution gives rise to a relatively strong executive branch (government) and a relatively weak legislature (Parliament). This is a result of: * The lack of a separation of powers between the two branches * The electoral system of first-past-the-post, which usually ensures that the government has a majority in the House of Commons (though this was not the case in 2010 — an unusual event when no party won an overall majority) * The extensive arbitrary powers enjoyed by the prime minister (i.e. prerogative powers) * Although the legislature is sovereign, it is the executive that initiates most legislation.

Answer 2

In 1885 AV Dicey identified two key principles of the UK constitution. These were Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law

Answer 3

SCCREW (Statute law, Common law, Conventions, Royal prerogative, External constitutional agreements/treaties, Works of authority e.g Dicey)

Answer 4

* Modernisation. Institutions such as parliament, the executive and the civil service were using outdated and inefficient procedures that demanded reform. * Democratisation. Participation in the political process would be encouraged through electoral reform and greater use of referendums. * Decentralisation. Decision-making powers would be devolved to new institutions in Scotland and Wales, with the role of local government also being enhanced. * Rights. The rights of citizens would be strengthened and safeguarded.

Answer 5

The Labour government party had a huge 179-seat majority in the House of Commons and so felt it could push through the reforms with minimal opposition. It was almost inevitable that such a large project could not be completed, but the government did implement a high proportion of its proposals by the time it lost office in 2010.

Answer 6

* New Labour was open to constitutional reform as part of its plan to modernize British institutions. * Previous Labour governments had focused on economic and social issues, but New Labour was more open to demands from pressure groups like Charter 88. * Blair expected support from the Liberal Democrats, who were committed to constitutional change, particularly reform of the first-past-the-post electoral system. * Conservative governments in the 1980s had no interest in constitutional reforms, which led to pressure for change, especially in Scotland. * Scottish nationalism grew in popularity, and reform was seen as a means of heading off independence. * Accusations of corruption or'sleaze' in the Major governments and Conservatives Party in the 1990s created a climate of opinion questioning the health and integrity of traditional institutions. * Labour Party aimed to bring the UK Constitution into line with European practice in constitutional matters. * The increase in powers of the police and courts was seen as a major threat to rights. * Labour placed a new emphasis on the principle that citizens have responsibilities to their communities and the country as a whole, in return for better understanding and safeguarding of rights.

Answer 7

The Labour government elected in 1997 had an ambitious reform programme. After 18 years in opposition, they pusehed through a range of constitutional reforms that were more far-reaching than anything attempted by governments for generations. Since the end of the Labour government some of these reforms have been developed further. Why did this period see such extensive reform? The Labour government party had a huge 179-seat majority in the House of Commons and so felt it could push through the reforms with minimal opposition. It was almost inevitable that such a large project could not be completed, but the government did implement a high proportion of its proposals by the time it lost office in 2010. Pressure for reform in the 1990s The New Labour Party was sympathetic to the idea of constitutional reform as part of its plan to modernise British institutions. Previous Labour governments had carried out political reforms, such as extending the vote to 18 year olds in 1969 and attempting to pass devolution for Scotland and Wales in 1979. However, it had been primarily concerned with economic and social issues. New Labour was more open to demands from pressure groups such as Charter 88 (later renamed Unlock Democracy), who wanted more open democracy and stronger guarantees of citizens' rights. Before winning a large independent majority in the 1997 election, Blair expected that he might need support from the Liberal Democrats, who were also committed to constitutional change — particularly reform of the first past-the-post electoral system. Too much of the British political system has been seen as undemocratic. The prime targets have been the unelected House of Lords and the unrepresentative electoral system. The Conservative governments in the 1980s had no interest in constitutional reforms. This had helped to build up pressure for change, especially in Scotland, where the population felt ignored by a distant government in London. Scottish opinion rejected a number of Conservative policies. For example, the unpopular poll tax had been trialled there in 1989 before its introduction in England and Wales. Scots nationalism, grew steadily in popularity and reform was seen as a means of heading off independence. Accusations of corruption or `sleaze' in the Major governments and Conservatives Party in the 1990s also helped to create a climate of opinion where the health and integrity of traditional institutions were questioned. During the 1980s there had been fears that the rights of citizens in the UK had been consistently eroded. In fact, the process could be traced back to earlier periods, but the Labour Party concentrated on what had occurred under the Conservatives. In addition, Labour wished to bring the UK more into line with European practice in constitutional matters. There was a general desire to bring the UK Constitution into line with the rest of Europe, all of whose states have special arrangements to protect individual rights. The increase in the powers of the police and the courts that had occurred in the 1980s and 1990s was now seen as a major threat to our rights. The UK government had been brought before the European Court of Huma Rights (which seeks to enforce the convention) more than 50 times since 1966 and had lost most of the cases. Labour placed a new emphasis on the principle that citizens have responsibilities to their communities and to the country as a whole. In return for these responsibilities it was believed that rights should be better understood and safeguarded. Changes under Labour, 1997-2010 The Labour governments focused on five major areas of reform. · House of Lords reform: The government of 1997 wanted to reform the House of Lords quite radically, but had to move in two stages. 1. The first stage was the removal of the hereditary peers and their voting rights. In other words, there would be an all-appointed chamber of life peers and Church of England bishops. There was some obstruction to this and the government had to compromise with the peers by allowing 92 hereditary peers to retain their seats. 2. Stage two was to be an elected, or partly elected, chamber. However, this ran into more obstruction and a lack of political consensus. The measure was, therefore, taken off the agenda. Although the House of Lords Act 1999 did reduce the number of hereditary peers to 92, the House of Lords threatened to use its powers to obstruct and delay reform. It was in return for the Lords’ compliance that the government left a number of hereditary peers in place.

Answer 8

The removal of most hereditary peers also gave the Lords a more 'modern' appearance. The majority of its members were now life peers, who were supposed to have been appointed on grounds of merit, reflecting a wide variety of fields of activity, including politics, business, the trade union movement, the arts and the military. No political party now enjoyed a dominant position in the Lords. From 2000 a House of Lords Appointments Commission nominated a proportion of peers who were not linked with a party. However, the prime minister and other party leaders continued to make nominations on party political grounds, and no agreement was reached on making the Lords either wholly or partly elected, so it continued to lack democratic legitimacy.

Answer 9

Electoral reform: Various forms of proportional representation were introduced for elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and European Parliament. However, although the government commissioned a report into the system used for Westminster, chaired by Roy Jenkins (former Labour Cabinet minister, subsequently a Liberal Democrat peer), no action was taken. Supporters of proportional representation concluded that, having won a crushing victory under the old system, Labour had no interest in changing arrangements for Westminster.

Answer 10

Devolved bodies were created for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following referendums in 1997-98 in these parts of the UK. Labour's devolution reforms were a pragmatic package, designed to damp down support for the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) and to bring together the conflicting unionist and nationalist factions in Northern Ireland. Demand for devolution in Wales was always weaker and the Welsh Assembly did not gain comparable powers to those of the Scottish Parliament. The government had no answer to the so-called 'West Lothian question': the anomaly that Scottish MPs at Westminster were able to vote on purely English matters, yet English MPs had no influence over issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Another source of grievance for England was the persistence of the Barnett formula, devised by Labour minister Joel Barnett in 1978, long before devolution. This determines relative levels of public spending for the component parts of the UK on the basis of population. It means that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive more spending per head of population than England. An attempt to set up elected regional assemblies in England was abandoned after the only area in which a referendum was held to test public opinion, the North-East, decisively rejected the idea in 2004.

Answer 11

Human Rights: In 1998, the UK Parliament passed the Human Rights Act, which many saw as the most significant development in the protection of human rights in the UK since Magna Carta. Its provisions came into force in 2000. The Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The convention was made binding on all public bodies, including the government. All UK courts have an obligation to enforce the convention whenever it becomes relevant in any case coming before them. This act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK statute law, enshrining rights such as those to a fair trial, freedom from slavery and degrading treatment, and respect for privacy and family life. All future legislation had to be compatible with the ECHR. Judges could not strike down laws that were incompatible with it but could highlight such legislation for amendment by Parliament. The limitations of the Human Rights Act were demonstrated by the government's decision to 'derogate from' (declare an exemption from) Article 5, which gave individuals the right to liberty and security, in cases of suspected terrorism. The introduction in 2005 of control orders, which allowed the authorities to limit the freedom of movement of such individuals, highlighted the unentrenched nature of the act.

Answer 12

The Labour government elected in 1997 had an ambitious reform programme. After 18 years in opposition, they pusehed through a range of constitutional reforms that were more far-reaching than anything attempted by governments for generations. Since the end of the Labour government some of these reforms have been developed further. Why did this period see such extensive reform? The Labour government party had a huge 179-seat majority in the House of Commons and so felt it could push through the reforms with minimal opposition. It was almost inevitable that such a large project could not be completed, but the government did implement a high proportion of its proposals by the time it lost office in 2010. Pressure for reform in the 1990s The New Labour Party was sympathetic to the idea of constitutional reform as part of its plan to modernise British institutions. Previous Labour governments had carried out political reforms, such as extending the vote to 18 year olds in 1969 and attempting to pass devolution for Scotland and Wales in 1979. However, it had been primarily concerned with economic and social issues. New Labour was more open to demands from pressure groups such as Charter 88 (later renamed Unlock Democracy), who wanted more open democracy and stronger guarantees of citizens' rights. Before winning a large independent majority in the 1997 election, Blair expected that he might need support from the Liberal Democrats, who were also committed to constitutional change — particularly reform of the first past-the-post electoral system. Too much of the British political system has been seen as undemocratic. The prime targets have been the unelected House of Lords and the unrepresentative electoral system. The Conservative governments in the 1980s had no interest in constitutional reforms. This had helped to build up pressure for change, especially in Scotland, where the population felt ignored by a distant government in London. Scottish opinion rejected a number of Conservative policies. For example, the unpopular poll tax had been trialled there in 1989 before its introduction in England and Wales. Scots nationalism, grew steadily in popularity and reform was seen as a means of heading off independence. Accusations of corruption or `sleaze' in the Major governments and Conservatives Party in the 1990s also helped to create a climate of opinion where the health and integrity of traditional institutions were questioned. During the 1980s there had been fears that the rights of citizens in the UK had been consistently eroded. In fact, the process could be traced back to earlier periods, but the Labour Party concentrated on what had occurred under the Conservatives. In addition, Labour wished to bring the UK more into line with European practice in constitutional matters. There was a general desire to bring the UK Constitution into line with the rest of Europe, all of whose states have special arrangements to protect individual rights. The increase in the powers of the police and the courts that had occurred in the 1980s and 1990s was now seen as a major threat to our rights. The UK government had been brought before the European Court of Huma Rights (which seeks to enforce the convention) more than 50 times since 1966 and had lost most of the cases. Labour placed a new emphasis on the principle that citizens have responsibilities to their communities and to the country as a whole. In return for these responsibilities it was believed that rights should be better understood and safeguarded. Changes under Labour, 1997-2010 The Labour governments focused on five major areas of reform. · House of Lords reform: The government of 1997 wanted to reform the House of Lords quite radically, but had to move in two stages. 1 The first stage was the removal of the hereditary peers and their voting rights. In other words, there would be an all-appointed chamber of life peers and Church of England bishops. There was some obstruction to this and the government had to compromise with the peers by allowing 92 hereditary peers to retain their seats. 2 Stage two was to be an elected, or partly elected, chamber. However, this ran into more obstruction and a lack of political consensus. The measure was, therefore, taken off the agenda. Although the House of Lords Act 1999 did reduce the number of hereditary peers to 92, the House of Lords threatened to use its powers to obstruct and delay reform. It was in return for the Lords’ compliance that the government left a number of hereditary peers in place. The effect: The removal of most hereditary peers also gave the Lords a more 'modern' appearance. The majority of its members were now life peers, who were supposed to have been appointed on grounds of merit, reflecting a wide variety of fields of activity, including politics, business, the trade union movement, the arts and the military. No political party now enjoyed a dominant position in the Lords. From 2000 a House of Lords Appointments Commission nominated a proportion of peers who were not linked with a party. However, the prime minister and other party leaders continued to make nominations on party political grounds, and no agreement was reached on making the Lords either wholly or partly elected, so it continued to lack democratic legitimacy. · Electoral reform: Various forms of proportional representation were introduced for elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and European Parliament. However, although the government commissioned a report into the system used for Westminster, chaired by Roy Jenkins (former Labour Cabinet minister, subsequently a Liberal Democrat peer), no action was taken. Supporters of proportional representation concluded that, having won a crushing victory under the old system, Labour had no interest in changing arrangements for Westminster. · Devolution: Devolved bodies were created for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following referendums in 1997-98 in these parts of the UK. Labour's devolution reforms were a pragmatic package, designed to damp down support for the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) and to bring together the conflicting unionist and nationalist factions in Northern Ireland. Demand for devolution in Wales was always weaker and the Welsh Assembly did not gain comparable powers to those of the Scottish Parliament. The government had no answer to the so-called 'West Lothian question': the anomaly that Scottish MPs at Westminster were able to vote on purely English matters, yet English MPs had no influence over issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Another source of grievance for England was the persistence of the Barnett formula, devised by Labour minister Joel Barnett in 1978, long before devolution. This determines relative levels of public spending for the component parts of the UK on the basis of population. It means that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive more spending per head of population than England. An attempt to set up elected regional assemblies in England was abandoned after the only area in which a referendum was held to test public opinion, the North-East, decisively rejected the idea in 2004. · Human Rights: In 1998, the UK Parliament passed the Human Rights Act, which many saw as the most significant development in the protection of human rights in the UK since Magna Carta. Its provisions came into force in 2000. The Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. The convention was made binding on all public bodies, including the government. All UK courts have an obligation to enforce the convention whenever it becomes relevant in any case coming before them. This act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK statute law, enshrining rights such as those to a fair trial, freedom from slavery and degrading treatment, and respect for privacy and family life. All future legislation had to be compatible with the ECHR. Judges could not strike down laws that were incompatible with it but could highlight such legislation for amendment by Parliament. The limitations of the Human Rights Act were demonstrated by the government's decision to 'derogate from' (declare an exemption from) Article 5, which gave individuals the right to liberty and security, in cases of suspected terrorism. The introduction in 2005 of control orders, which allowed the authorities to limit the freedom of movement of such individuals, highlighted the unentrenched nature of the act. Judicial Reform To enhance the protection of rights and to clarify the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act led to the establishment, 4 years later, of a Supreme Court as the highest court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and (except in Scotland) for criminal cases. Previously senior judges known as the Law Lords, sitting in the House of Lords, had performed this function. The Act also greatly reduced the role of lord chancellor — removing the roles as head of the judiciary and speaker of the House of Lords. This further served to enhance the separation of powers, with the lord chancellor (now ‘Justice Secretary’) no longer taking a lead in all three branches of government. Until 2005 the head of the judiciary was a Cabinet minister, the Lord Chancellor. In what was seen as a breach of separation of powers, he could also sit as a judge in the UK’s highest court. The CRA removed the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary, handing that responsibility to the Lord Chief Justice in line with an agreement struck in the Concordat of 2004. The CRA also created a new Supreme Court, and established the Judicial Appointments Commission. The creation of the Supreme Court was aimed to achieve a clearer Separation of Powers between the legislature and the judiciary. The Court has its own building, the Middlesex Guildhall, on the other side of Parliament Square, separate from Parliament. When the Supreme Court was created eleven of the twelve Justices of the Supreme Court were recruited from the previous top judges (the “Law Lords”). Though they retain their titles they cannot sit or vote in the House of Lords. Future recruits will not be given peerages.

Answer 13

The Coalition government 2010-2015 had an ambitious constitutional reform agenda- this was unusual since conservatives are not traditionally in favour, but their leader David Cameron was unusual in being a reformer, however bringing the rest of his party with him would prove difficult. * The coalition agreement between the two parties, which launched the new government in May 2010. Areas of agreement included openness to further devolution to Scotland and Wales and to parliamentary reform, including a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords. * Failed because of party disagreement: Plans for a mainly elected House of Lords were dropped after a rebellion by 91 backbench Conservative MPs. The Liberal Democrats, who were the more committed of the two parties to a democratically chosen upper house, retaliated by blocking the implementation of legislation designed to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. The effect would have been to produce a smaller number of constituencies, of more equal size, so that that all votes would have had more equal value across the country. Labour claimed this was a form of gerrymandering since it favoured the Conservatives. * Electoral reform failed to win a referendum.: A referendum was held in May 2011, The Conservatives campaigned strongly to retain first past the post, while the Liberal Democrats argued for the adoption of the Alternative Vote (AV), only to see their proposals rejected by 68 per cent of those who voted. This was a major disappointment for the Liberal Democrats, because a central aim of joining the coalition had been electoral reform-. They had wanted the proportional Single Transferable Vote system, but had opted for AV under pressure form the conservatives * A British Bill of Rights: The Conservatives wanted to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights, however the Liberal Democrats were enthusiastic supporters of the act. This meant no agreement could be found. The Conservative manifesto at the 2015 general election pledged to revisit the issue, but it did not appear in Theresa May's first Queen's Speech- since Brexit now dominated the political agenda

Answer 14

A referendum was held in Wales in March 2011 on proposals to grant further powers to the Welsh Assembly. This resulted in the Assembly receiving direct law-making power in all of the 20 policy areas that had been devolved to it, without the need to consult Westminster. The Scottish Parliament received more powers under the 2012 Scotland Act, including borrowing powers, the right to set its own rate of income tax and control over landfill tax and stamp duty. In September 2014 a referendum was held in Scotland on proposals for independence, resulting in a 55 per cent vote to stay in the UK. In the course of the campaign, Prime Minister David Cameron and the leaders of the other main UK parties pledged to grant more powers to the Scottish Parliament.

Answer 15

As a concession to English opinion, the Conservative government that took office in May 2015 offered a solution to the West Lothian Question. Under 'English votes for English laws' (EVEL), if a measure that concerns only England (or England and Wales) comes before the House of Commons, it can pass only with the approval of a 'grand committee', consisting solely of English (or English and Welsh) MPs. The measure was used for the first time in January 2016, to pass a housing bill without the involvement of Scottish MPs.

Answer 16

This ended the prime minister's historic power to choose the date of a general election by establishing that a new parliament must be elected on a fixed date, at five-year intervals. An earlier contest can be held only if two-thirds of MPs vote for one, or if a prime minister loses a vote of no confidence and fails to form a new government within a 14-day period. This reform suited the interests of both partners in the coalition by giving the government a guaranteed period in which to implement their programme, free from speculation about the date of the next election.

Answer 17

The coalition implemented reforms recommended by a committee chaired by Labour MP Tony Wright, which reported before the 2010 general election. Chairs of House of Commons select committees, which scrutinise the activities of government departments, were to be chosen by MPs, rather than have their selection influenced by the party leaders. A backbench business committee was created, which chooses topics for debate, including some proposed by the public in e-petitions. The first such debate was triggered by people seeking justice for the 96 Liverpool football supporters who died in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.

Answer 18

The West Lothian Question refers to the perceived imbalance between the voting rights in the House of Commons of MPs from Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies and those of MPs from English constituencies following devolution. It has been so-called since Tam Dalyell, the former MP for West Lothian, famously raised the question in a debate on devolution to Scotland and Wales on 14 November 1977.

Answer 19

This was a response to the fact that voters had no legal means of removing scandalous MPs who refused to resign their seats. It means that if an MP is sentenced to a custodial sentence, or is suspended from the Commons for more than 21 days, a by-election is triggered if at least 10 per cent of constituents sign a recall petition.

Answer 20

The EU referendum, Triggering Article 50 and the withdrawal form the EU has had a huge impact on the constitution. You could argue that sovereignty has been returned to Parliament. With drawl from the EU will have an effect on the relationship between the UK government and the devolved governments. The UK voted to leave the EU in 2016 and officially left the trading bloc - it's nearest and biggest trading partner - on 31 January 2020. However, both sides agreed to keep many things the same until 31 December 2020, to allow enough time to agree to the terms of a new trade deal. It was a complex, sometimes bitter negotiation, but they finally agreed a deal on 24 December.

Answer 21

* The withdraw bill converts EU legislation into statute law. This mean it can be amended or replaced by Parliament. * Governments are free to make treaties and trade agreements with countries outside the EU. This has returned this power to Parliament. * Joining the EU meant that EU law would be supreme over UK law- this was clearly established by the Factortame case. From 2021 Parliamentary law is again supreme. * In its White Paper published on 2nd February 2017, the government stated in Chapter 2 entitled ‘Taking control of our own laws”, that: “The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that”. * Now that it's no longer in the EU, the UK is free to set its own trade policy and can negotiate deals with other countries. Talks are being held with the US, Australia and New Zealand - countries that currently don't have free trade deals with the EU. * There will be no role in the UK for the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which is the highest court in the EU. (except in N Ireland) * Disputes that cannot be resolved between the UK and the EU will be referred to an independent tribunal instead.

Answer 22

The Conservatives’ 2015 general election manifesto made few promises regarding constitutional reform — quite the reverse, in fact. On Lords reform, for example, the manifesto stated that ‘While we still see a strong case for introducing an elected element into our second chamber, this is not a priority in the next Parliament.’ That said, it should be noted that the new Conservative government delivered on most of the election promises it had made in the field of constitutional reform within 2 years of taking office in a single-party government. The Scottish government was given greater fiscal (financial) autonomy under the Scotland Act 2016 — see the case study below — and the Wales Act 2017 gave the Welsh Assembly tax-raising powers, further cementing the primary legislative authority that devolved institutions in Wales had been granted in the wake of the 2011 Welsh referendum. Moreover, although the controversial Barnett formula has been left in place in the wake of these and earlier reforms, English MPs were given special privileges in respect of those matters affecting England alone (a form of ‘English votes for English laws’), as promised in the Conservative manifesto. ‘English votes for English laws’ The 2013 report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons (known as the McKay Commission) recommended that only English MPs should be allowed to vote on measures identified as affecting only England. Changes to House of Commons standing orders made in 2015 meant that this form of ‘English votes for English laws’ came into effect. It was used for the first time in January 2016, when only MPs representing English constituencies were permitted to vote on some elements of a Housing and Planning Bill. The system was abolished in 2021.

Answer 23

Some significant changes have undoubtedly taken place, particularly in Scotland. These include the abolition of upfront tuition fees for university students, the reintroduction of free long-term care for the elderly and higher teachers’ pay. Local government elections have also been changed with the introduction of the proportional single transferable vote (STV) voting system. The Welsh Assembly has pioneered new initiatives in childcare and early years policies, and has abolished prescription charges. It has also reorganised the NHS to bring it in line with local government boundaries in Wales. The impact of devolution in Northern Ireland was limited by the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly between 2002 and 2007 (following a number of earlier, shorter suspensions between 1999 and 2002). However, the restoration of power-sharing between the DUP and Sinn Féin is likely to provide the basis for the development, over time, of a distinctive approach to domestic policy.

Answer 24

The ‘West Lothian question’ was recognised as a consequence of devolution by the former MP for West Lothian, Tam Dalyell. It is the issue that England constituency MPs cannot vote on many matters affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, however, Westminster MPs from these regions can vote on matters which potentially only affect England. This has been partially addressed by the change to the passing of legislation. Following a second reading, a bill which involves England only can be vetoed and make no further progress if a majority of MPs representing English constituencies decide to. Also, an extended range of powers is being devolved to a range of city-regions based on major cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol, often led by a directly-elected Mayor. For example, Labour’s Andy Burnham was the first elected Mayor of Greater Manchester in 2017. This change has had the effect of strengthening the powers of regional governments of the UK.

Answer 25

9th March 2016 – The Conservative Government proposed to relax Sunday Trading Rules in England and Wales. The Government’s motion was defeated by 317 to 286 votes. Had 59 SNP MPs not voted against the change, the government would have won by 21 votes. The SNP did this despite the issue not directly affecting Scotland. 14th March 2018 - 8 DUP MPs voted with the Conservative Government to remove thousands of Free School Meals in England. Their decision would not impact their constituents in Northern Ireland, as this is a devolved issue.

Answer 26

There had been administrative devolution in Scotland since the nineteenth century. What this meant was that a non-elected Scottish Executive administered various services in Scotland on behalf of the UK government. Matters such as education, health, local authority services and policing were managed separately in Scotland. The country also had its own laws. However, there had been no Scottish Parliament to pass these laws since 1707. Rather strangely, it was the UK Parliament in Westminster that made the laws for Scotland. So Scotland was partly on the road to devolution before 1997. In addition, it should be noted that nationalist sentiment was much stronger in Scotland than it was in Wales or Northern Ireland, so devolution was all the more urgent a matter.

Answer 27

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

Answer 28

The 1997 Welsh devolution referendum was a close-run affair, with only a quarter of the electorate voting in favor. The Assembly Members (AMs) represent the Welsh people, make laws on areas devolved to Wales, and hold the Welsh government accountable. The Assembly is smaller than its Scottish counterpart, with 60 members. The Welsh government was originally located within the Assembly but was formally separated in 2006. The Welsh Assembly has no powers over income tax and borrowing, unlike Scotland. Since the 2011 referendum, the Assembly has been able to pass laws in all 20 devolved areas, without regard to the views of the UK government. The Government of Wales Act 1998 established an elected Welsh National Assembly and a Welsh Executive, but it had no powers to make or pass laws.

Answer 29

Devolution in Northern Ireland was established in 1998 as part of the Good Friday Agreement, aiming to unite the two main communities: unionists who want to keep Northern Ireland within the UK and nationalists and republicans who want a united, independent Ireland. The process of devolution has been uneven, with the Northern Ireland Assembly being suspended by the UK government in London on multiple occasions due to a breakdown of trust between the Unionist and republican groups. The Assembly, located in Belfast, consists of 108 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) elected by Single Transferable Vote, ensuring representation of both sides and adopting a power-sharing system of government. The executive is headed by a First Minister and a deputy First Minister, with seats allocated in proportion to the parties' strength. The Assembly can legislate on reserved matters, such as financial services, broadcasting, consumer safety, and firearms, with the consent of the Northern Ireland Secretary. The UK government dissolved the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2002 in the face of increased tension between the two communities and the failure of ministers from the two communities to cooperate with each other. The suspension lasted until 2007.The Assembly was in a period of suspension until January 2020, after it collapsed in January 2017 due to policy disagreements between its power-sharing leadership, particularly following the Renewable Heat Incentive scandal.

Answer 30

* On 10 May 2022, plans to increase the number of MSs from 60 to 96 were unveiled, as well as the scrapping of first past the post, which is currently used to elect 40 of the 60 Members of the Senedd (MSs). Drakeford said these changes were required as "report after report" had demonstrated that the Senedd in its current form "cannot do the job in the way that people in Wales have a right to expect it to be done". Welsh Lib Dem leader Jane Dodds criticised these plans, claiming that they would disproportionately impact smaller parties. * On 8 June 2022, the Senedd voted 40-14 in favour of expanding the number of MSs * In 2023, the reform bill committee heard reforms included taking 32 new constituencies created that will be used in the next general election and pairing them to create 16 Senedd constituencies – with each returning six members in multi-member districts. Opposition to the proposed closed-list voting system was expressed by some Labour and Plaid Cymru representatives, while opposition to the overall expansion of the Senedd was expressed by some Labour representatives and the Conservatives

Answer 31

Proposed Electoral Reform 2024- The Scottish Parliament has published a proposed Electoral Reform Bill aimed at improving Scotland's democratic processes. The bill includes provisions for piloting electoral innovations like digital polling cards and powers for emergency elections. It also allows foreign nationals on a time-limited visa to stand as candidates in Scottish Parliament and local government elections. If passed, the legislation would ban intimidation of campaigners and electoral workers. The bill also proposes changes to campaign rules for election fairness, transparency, and controls against foreign spending. It does not extend candidacy rights to 16- and 17-year-olds.

Answer 32

* Frequent changes: Local government in England has been frequently reorganised, with local authorities merged or newly formed according to the particular policy of the government of the day. * Few powers little autonomy: The revenue-raising powers of English councils are extremely restricted. They mostly rely for their funding on a block grant from central government. The gain additional revenue from council tax, but the amount by which this can be increased is controlled by Whitehall. Some authorities, such as Bath and North East Somerset Council, have asked central government for the power to introduce a levy on local tourism and short-term holiday lettings, essentially a tourist tax. By 2023, though, no such levy had been implemented. The limited power may explain....... * No enthusiasm for elected mayors: Directly elected mayors has not met with much enthusiasm. In both Torbay and Hartlepool, the role was abolished follwing referendums. In Hartlepool in 2002, and again in 2005 and 2009, they elected H’Angus the Monkey, the Hartlepool Town football club mascot — or, more accurately, the man wearing the suit, independent Stuart Drummond.

Answer 33

YES * England is the most prosperous and heavily populated part of the UK, but it's the only one without a devolved body. Under the 1978 Barnett formula for deciding on levels of public spending, England receives less per person than the other parts of the UK. A federal solution would promote greater equality between the different parts of the UK * EVEL makes Scottish MPs second-class representatives at Westminster, weakening the unity of the UK. It doesn't really resolve the West Lothian question. * Devolution has led to policies to meet the differing needs of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish peoples, so why would it not work for England? * There is a strong regional identity in some parts of the UK, for example in Devon and Cornwall. This could be a basis for regional assemblies which might co-ordinate local policies and attract inward investment.

Answer 34

No * England's size and wealth mean that it would dominate a federal structure. Also how would an English parliament relate to Westminster? For example, a separate English executive could clash with the UK government over the handling of domestic English issues. EVEL may have resolved the West Lothian question. It has been used at Westminster to pass a housing bill in 2016. Scottish MPs dislike it but its introduction has not thus far caused the UK to break up. * Opinion polls have suggested support for an English Parliament but this is only when people are asked. There is limited evidence that there is really a groundswell of opinion in favour of one, in contrast to Scotland before 1997. * The defeat of Blair's proposals in 2004 suggests that there isn't a strong enough sense of identity across the UK to make regional assemblies viable

Answer 35

It is simply not possible because of the sovereignty of Parliament it is not possible to create entrenched 'higher law .Parliament, cannot bind itself. However, if a new means was created- such as a constitutional convention followed by a referendum- this might be possible- but this would still need to be legitimised by Parliament as with all referendums-Or would the popular sovereignty of the referendum entrench the new constitution politically if not legally? The end result could never be a sovereign constitution as exists in the USA. It may be impossible simply because there is no political consensus (agreement) on what it would look like. Writing a new constitution can be a torturous process even for 'new 'nations-one with deep seated traditions of class and ideological politics would find it impossible. Would the new constitution ensure limited government - a conservative principle or the right s of citizens to social services and free health care - a labour principle. And both dominant parties would hesitate to embrace any change which allowed there position to be challenged such a electoral reform. Note how Labour lost interest in PR when it was in power. There is no overwhelming desire for codification - there is always going to be more pressing issues and the size scope and changes which codification would entail make it a time consuming and unappealing proposition. Popular opinion tends only to favour change when the old system is clearly broken., which is why most new constitution follow a new beginning or a political crisis.

Answer 36

It will educate and inform Our uncodified constitution makes it difficult to learn about our rights, and how government works. In America it is relatively easy for school pupils to learn about their system of government and constitutional rights because all of the necessary information is contained in the codified US Constitution. The first articles establish and explain the powers of the different branches of government, while the Bill of Rights explains the rights of the people. In contrast, our uncodified constitution has so many different sources, including statute laws, common law, unwritten conventions, EU law and authoritative texts, that it is much harder for the public to understand. However… the Human Rights Act (1998) has raised the general awareness that rights exist and the specific understanding of some rights- like the right to family life. The Human Rights Act (1998) has given UK citizens a clear and concise list of rights, which can be defended in UK courts. However, these rights are not fundamental law, and the UK Supreme Court cannot strike down any laws that undermine them. Also the Cabinet Manual has unofficially codified many of the most important rules and conventions that the government operates by. Although it has not been approved by Parliament and does not have clear legal standing. Also significant is the fact that many previously vague royal prerogative powers have recently been defined and limited by statute law, giving them a much clearer written source. Conventions are too weak We are overly reliant on unwritten conventions that are not legally enforceable and that few understand. The Government broke conventions when it prorogued Parliament in 2019 and when it threatened the amend the Brexit agreement and break international law. Conventions are not legally enforceable. The Scotland Act (2016) formally recognised the existence of the Sewel Convention - the rule that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without first seeking the consent of the Scottish Parliament. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that it could not enforce this convention, after the Scottish Government argued that a legislative consent motion was required before the UK Government could begin the process of withdrawing the UK from the EU. It is also argued that that matters as important as the role of the monarchy, the use of ancient prerogative powers such as prorogation, and the circumstances under which the UK enters into armed conflict, are left to unwritten conventions that could ultimately be broken. However…conventions are not often broken, offer a degree of flexibility, and are arguably inevitable. Convention exist in countries with codified constitutions-such as the USA where conventions govern the existence of the cabinet, deference to senators when appointing in their state (Senatorial Courtesy). The convention that US presidents serve only two terms latest until 1940. The strength of many conventions in the UK is evident by how rarely they are broken – they often stand the test of time and are respected and upheld. It is not necessarily the case that a codified constitution would be more reliable, or that it would prevent conventions from developing in the first place. It would protect the separation of powers- and an independent judiciary. Mostly in the UK the argument is that a separation of powers should protect the judiciary- whose appointment can still be vetoed by the Justice Secretary and whose judgements are can be set aside by Parliament. However, while the separation of executive and legislature is a feature to the US constitution it is not adopted by the vast majority of democracies. The US Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers. Any members of the executive branch cannot also be members of the legislative branch, meaning the President can propose bills, but is unable to vote in Congress. Both Houses of Congress must agree on bills for them to become law, and the Supreme Court can strike down laws that conflict with fundamental constitutional laws. In contrast, our executive and legislative branches are fused, with the prime minister and other government ministers able to sit and vote in the House of Commons. The House of Lords can only delay bills, and has even more limited power over ‘money bills’. The Supreme Court cannot strike down laws due to Parliamentary sovereignty and our lack of fundamental laws. A new codified constitution could more clearly separate power between the three branches of government, creating new, stronger, checks and balances. However the argument for separation of legislature and executive tend to face the prospect of gridlock and and entrenched constitution might lead to judicial activism. In the US there is gridlock when the president and Congress, or the two houses of Congress, can't reach an agreement. Any attempt to weaken the government’s influence in the House of Commons, or to strengthen the House of Lords, could make it much harder for elected governments to carry out their manifesto. A codified constitution would also politicise the judiciary, which would need to interpret the language of the static, codified constitution, and determine whether laws are constitutional. This could lead to accusations of judicial activism, where unelected judges are accused of using questionable interpretations of the constitution to promote their own political agenda.

Answer 37

In April 2024, the human rights charity Amnesty International accused the UK parliament of “deliberately destabilising” human rights through the Safety of Rwanda 2024, the Public Order Act 2023 (right to protest) and Sunak’s plans to criminalise rough sleepers. The 2017 Burns report called for a reduction in the size of the House of Lords, and term limits for members, suggesting that the HOL is still in need for constitutional reform. During the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst it could be argued that the PM Boris Johnson curtailed individual rights through the Coronavirus Act 2020 which gave ‘emergency powers’ to the government. Our freedom of assembly and freedom of movement were curtailed by lockdown restrictions. However, this was necessary to stop the spread of the pandemic.

Answer 38

average age of lords is 71 70% of Lords received private education only 28% are women only 2.6% are BME

The constitution Flashcards

(63 cards)