Paper 2:
The UK Constitution
Evaluate the extent to which Constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough
1. Parliament: many view the Lord’s reform as incomplete, but many say that what has happened has
given the HoL more legitimacy
House of Lords Act, 1999 reduced number of hereditary peers from 759 to 92 – did not go far enough to
make the HoL useful or of benefit
House of Commons Reform Act – secret ballot to vote people onto committees – means that people are
not just voting in order to be loyal to their party, they get elected because they ask the right questions. It
also means a number of people from different parties will be elected for the committees
Fixed Term Pment Act was meaningless – did work in short term but not in long term (i.e., 2017, 2019)
– removed in 2022
2. Electoral reform: Lack of full electoral reform (especially in England) means representation is distorted
and minority parties often miss out, but Scotland and Wales now use the AMS which is a proportional
system and highlights a move towards better representation in the electoral system
FPTP is still the electoral system used at Westminster and it stops minor parties having representation
and makes people feel as though not every vote count (UKIP won 3.9m votes in 2015 but only 1 seat). If
you are serious about electoral reform, FPTP has to be removed and replaced with a proportional
electoral system such as AMS, which is used in Scotland
AMS has created a fairer representation as every vote is counted and minor parties have a much more
likely chance of winning a seat – such as the Scottish Green Party who currently have 7MSPs but who
struggle to win 1 seat in Westminster
3. Civil liberties: the Human Rights Act does not bind the UK Parliament (it is not fully entrenched);
Freedom of Information is too weak – but overall, they have both been relatively successful and the
Freedom of Information Act in Oct 2021 revealed 2000 police involved in misconduct towards women
Freedom of Information Act, 2000: Government still has the ‘get-out clause’- it can declare information
to be “not in the public interest” and therefore refuse to provide it, such as the Blair-Bush letters
requested by the Chilcot Inquiry over the Iraq War.
However, many people think this has been very significant and it was only in October 2021 that this
reform allowed the public to know that 2000 policy had been involved in misconduct towards women
4. There has been significant judicial reform that has made this more independent and neutral
Judicial Appointments Committee has been given the power to appoint senior judges via the Reform
Act, 2005 – previously the PM did this which confused the legal and executive
BUT PM does have a veto over appointments.
Judiciary still funded by Ministry of Justice- not entirely neutral
Evaluate the view that Scottish and Welsh devolution has been the most significant change to the
constitution of the UK in recent times
1. Devolution has been the most significant change to the UK Constitution because it has given powers to
Scotland, Wales and NI that they have never had before and has gone a long way in enhancing
democracy as they now have power over their own Assembly/Parliament
Wales and the Government of Wales Act, 1998 which gives power to Wales over certain things was seen
during the Pandemic as Wales and England had separate rules – they have control over public health.
This has been a very significant and beneficial change.
Scotland Act, 1998 leads to creation of Scottish Parliament. Also had own rules during pandemic – they
only stopped legalisation of masks on 18th April 2022. Age of voting is 16. Having control over public
health and voting age is clearly very significant.
(However, it has led to Scotland wanting independence (2014 independence referendum) so has not
been the most successful/effective/significant as it has had the opposite of the intended effect)
2. Parliament reform has been the most significant change because it has enhanced democracy by
improving the running of government and making it more fair/efficient
House of Lords Act, 1999 reduced number of hereditary peers from 759 to 92 does enhance society and
is quite significant – yet has not led to further change at the House of Lords Reform Bill was rejected in
2012 and this would have made the most significant reform
, Fixed Term Pment Act made running of government more efficient and gave the public more say in
their PM (rather than having to wait more than 5 years) – yet it has not worked in long term – removed
in 2022
3. Electoral reform has been a significant change as it has created a system of fairer representation in
Scotland and Wales and even in England where FPTP is used, it does stop extremist parties being voted
in
AMS has created a fairer representation as every vote is counted and minor parties have a much more
likely chance of winning a seat – such as the Scottish Green Party who currently have 7MSPs but who
struggle to win 1 seat in Westminster
In 2015, when UKIP won 3.9m votes they only received 1 seat, so it does stop extremist parties.
If you are serious about electoral reform, FPTP has to be removed and replaced with a proportional
electoral system such as AMS.
4. Reform to Civil liberties has also been a significant change as it has enhanced people’s rights within law
and have created more transparency between the government/other important bodies and the people
Human Rights Act, 2000 protects citizens’ rights which is clearly a very important change
Freedom of Information Act in Oct 2021 revealed 2000 police involved in misconduct towards women
5. Judicial reform has created a clearer separation between the judiciary and the executive and has
enhanced fundamental rights of people to have independent judges (who are not biased)
Judicial Appointments Committee has been given the power to appoint senior judges via the Reform
Act, 2005 – previously the PM did this which confused the legal and executive
BUT PM does have a veto over appointments.
Judiciary still funded by Ministry of Justice- not entirely neutral
Evaluate the extent to which the UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose
1. Too easy to change
The Human Rights Act could be removed at any time and Conservative governments have expressed a
desire to do this.
Terrorism Act, 2006
2. Adaptable in times of crisis/flexible
In 1997, New Labour responded to greater demands for (law) self-rule in the regions by setting up the
NI Assembly, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament via referendum and simple acts of Parliament.
Major change away from London-centric government
Major change to House of Lords – removal of all but 92 hereditary peers to modernise the chamber
Fixed term Parliament 2010 – changed the basis on which the elections were held – first coalitions since
1945; needed to look stable. Able to deviate if 2/3 MPs want it – e.g., 2017, 2019 - removed
Prime Minister John Major introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 after Dunblane Massacre
Following the 2011 riots, the Conservative government under Cameron were able to change the right to
bail - as there was a huge number of perpetrators of crime at this time (also a breach of human rights)
3. Prerogative power has been transferred into the executive power of the Prime Minister.
In 2003 intervention into the Iraq War went ahead regardless of the opposition of a large proportion of
the general public and a number of MPs too.
4. Fusion of power enables efficient government – people know what they are getting
The executive is drawn from the majority party in parliament (Boris has a majority so can pass
legislation that he needs to, such as to do with covid which was crucial). The MPs of that party are
expected to vote for the government’s program of legislation. In close votes, the ministers’ votes could
be crucial. The problem of separation of powers is it can cause gridlock through divided government. US
presidents are frequently confronted by Houses of Congress, controlled by opponents, especially after
midterms. In 2012, Americans votes for a divided government, which could achieve little.
5. Lack of clarity
Two recent cases highlight this: could UK leave EU without consulting Parliament? Did crown
prerogative apply here? Could the PM suspend Parliament ahead of a key vote?
In both cases, (see sheets on case studies) the judges had to intervene (argument we should know the
answer)
This highlights the lack of clarity in fundamental areas of the government – the ‘good chap’ approach
based on convention and fair play did not work
Whilst flexibility makes it easy to extend rights it also makes it easy to remove them, e.g., Blair’s Terror
Bill 2005 suspended the basic principle Habeas Corpus (- cannot imprison people without trial) for 28
days – he wanted 90 and was only stopped by House of Lords and proximity of an election. More
examples: Belmarsh (prison terrorists indefinitely)
, This highlights the need for a Bill of Rights to act as a safeguard, which in turn, gives more power to
judges and bring them closer to the American model
6. Produces strong governments with clear majorities
The UK constitution can be changed by an act of Parliament, which makes the government in power
stronger and have greater legitimacy and allows it to pursue its programme of government – such as
with mask mandates or stay at home orders in UK
Evaluate the extent to which the advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh its disadvantages
Arguments for a codified constitution Arguments against a codified constitution
The major principles of the Constitution would be A codified constitution would be less responsive and
entrenched (such as human rights), safeguarding adaptable than an uncodified one. Since 1997, many
them from the interference by the government of the constitutional reforms have been enacted to update
day the constitution.
In 2006, the Terrorism Act allowed 28 days Prime Minister John Major introduced the Firearms
detention without charge for Terrorist suspects – a (Amendment) Act 1997 after Dunblane Massacre
clear violation of human rights and habeas corpus
Devolution in Scotland in 1998 led to creation of
Scottish Assembly
Fixed Term Parliament Act in 2010 – removed in
2022
With an entrenched constitution, individual liberty The US has had an entrenched Bill of Rights for
would be more securely protected. centuries, but it did not stop African Americans being
lynched without trial – entrenched constitutions do
Despite the Human Rights Act, rights are still not
not guarantee people’s rights in practice
adequately protected since they lack entrenchment –
any government could remove this. The last two
Conservative Party manifestos have clearly outlined
a desire to remove the HRA
The power of the executive would be constrained by Government may be more effectively constrained by
a rigid, codified document. Codification would regular elections than by a constitutional document
provide a counterbalance to the power of the
The Fixed Term Parliament Act holds the
executive
government to account as every 5 years they know
In 2003 intervention into the Iraq War went ahead that the people will have a vote and therefore they
regardless of the opposition of a large proportion of cannot do anything disagreeable. Removed in 2022
the general public and a number of MPs too – having
In the US this is also true and is exacerbated by mid-
a written constitution may have stopped this
terms etc.
In a codified system, independent judges are able to Judges are not the best people to regulate the
protect the constitution to ensure that its provisions constitution because they are unelected and socially
are upheld unrepresentative. An uncodified constitution
protects against the tyranny of the unelected
In the Obergefell v Hodges case, judges ruled to
judiciary. In an uncodified constitution, judges can
legalise gay marriage in all states, upholding citizen
still protect the constitution – such as the Article 50
rights granted in the Constitution
and Proroguing Pment cases. In the US, judges.
