Evaluate the view that the UK must adopt a codified constitution?
In the UK we have an uncodified constitution (which liberals believe in) meaning ultimate
sovereignty lies in parliament and they can override any decisions. This can be seen as beneficial
due to the flexibility, ability to meet current demands and accountability of MPs but it can also be
seen as damaging as it means the government has the power to make decisions which could harm
our rights. Ultimately opinion polls suggest there is not a massive demand to have a codified
constitution (which Conservatives believe in) and an uncodified constitution fundamentally gives
the government flexibility which is in the interests of the public.
Having a codified constitution would create However, our evolutionary uncodified
stability as it would entrench/protect our constitution provides ultimate flexibility with
rights, as currently with an uncodified regards to our rights, as sovereignty remains in
constitution the rights of citizens are not Westminster, which is arguably even more
protected by a higher law. If these rights were beneficial as it gives the government the power
further entrenched then governments would not to respond to current issues easily. An example
be able to remove rights with a simple majority of how this is beneficial can be seen through the
and easily amend the constitution by simply outlawing of guns after the Dunblane Massacre
passing a bill due to parliament's legal at the primary school in 1996 which led to an
sovereignty - as Dominic Raab is currently Act passed that outlawed handguns - as
attempting with the repeal of the Human Rights supported by a majority of the public - and has
Act. This is specifically prominent in an elective prevented any future school shootings.
dictatorship, as the nature of our FPTP voting Whereas, in the USA, where they have a
system often provides a majority government codified constitution and the second
without a majority vote, which means the amendment of the right to bear arms is
government possesses the power to control the entrenched, it means they cannot change the
rights of citizens who didn’t even vote for them. law easily and school shootings have continued.
For example, the current Conservative Similarly, when social attitudes changed in the
government has recently passed a number of UK, the Cameron government passed the Same
controversial acts, such as: Police, Crime, Sex Marriages Act 2013 which progressed
Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 or Public Order LGBT+ rights. Additionally, even with an
Bill 2023 (which infringes on the right to protest), uncodified constitution our rights can be seen to
Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (infringes on be well protected under the HRA 1998 and
the rights of immigrants), or the Elections Act Equality Act 2010, alongside there being checks
2022 (infringes on minorities right to vote). This on the government (like the media, House of
is very damaging and a codified constitution Lords, select committees, or pressure groups)
would prevent this taking place. that ensure any reduction of rights are
proportional. Consequently, we can see the
flexibility of the UK constitution far outweighs the
codification of our rights as parliament already
safeguard our rights effectively and the benefits
of the flexibility is far greater.
A codified constitution would also be beneficial However, our uncodified Constitution places
as it would place powers in the hands of the power in the hands of elected politicians, who
judiciary who are politically impartial and are accountable to the electorate. They are
trained to do so. Especially since judges have better able to make democratic decisions, with a
security of tenure and independence (due to balance between rights and security, because
CRA 2005) it enables them to make more ultimately they know the political consequences.
impartial decisions, unlike politicians who are Whereas, codification would place too much
always looking to win elections. This means power in the hands of an unelected judiciary -
they can truly guard the constitution and prevent which could create 'tyranny of judges', politicise
the government making decisions which could our judicial system, increase judicial activism,
be motivated by a desire to retain power as and lead to a democratic deficit as they are
opposed to what is best for the public. The last unaccountable. Judges can already use the
few years has demonstrated that elected HRA which means they have a large amount of
politicians have undermined the UK's uncodified power already. Whilst there is the argument that
constitution - like the government's attempts to politicians are biased, they often act in very
prorogue parliament in 2019 in an obvious impartial ways to appease backbenchers - such
, attempt to shut down scrutiny - and we cannot as the Conservatives trying to keep party unity
trust politicians to uphold the rule of law (Iraq by amending the European Union Withdrawal
and Partygate). Thus, a codified constitution Bill with their demands, like establishing a
would place checks and balances on the specific timeframe for the transition period -
government and stop ministers from evading which proves that they are held accountable, at
justice and failing to take responsibility for their very least more so than judges. This makes
actions. This aligns with the liberal belief in a politicians better placed to protect our rights,
clear separation of the branches, preventing the allowing us to argue that the advantages to
tyranny of an overbearing government. having a codified constitution don’t outweigh the
benefits of having an uncodified constitution.
The final reason which a codified constitution However, our uncodified constitution allows for a
could be seen as more beneficial is because it strong decisive government and allows them
would clarify the roles of the PM, cabinet and to act in a nimble way to respond to current
parliament and the relations between them. issues. The government already has
The current lack of clarity allows for the Prime conventions that provide a guide of how to act
Minister to not abide by the 'Good chaps' theory and the flexibility to suspend these, such as
(Peter Hennessey) and exercise too much the suspension of collective cabinet
power. This is clearest with Blair who was able responsibility during the Brexit referendum
to break cabinet government for his entire 10 which allowed MPs to campaign freely and
years and run a sofa cabinet whereby he allowed the public to make the decision they
conducted one to one meetings rather than with deemed best. Likewise, it has allowed the
the whole cabinet (which is not fair as it government the flexibility to give wider
prevents free debate around the proposal of devolution to the UK, the flexibility to create new
new laws which is certainly not in the interests ministries (e.g. Minister of Brexit Opportunity or
of the public), or Johsnon who has rewritten the Minister of COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment), or
ministerial code to dilute grounds for dismissal removing all but 92 hereditary peers under the
and whose controversial actions were House of Lords Act 1999. Therefore, it can be
repeatedly reported on in the media. Instead, a argued that the flexibility an uncodified
codified constitution would provide clearer constitution provides is more important and
separation of powers and clarify the role of enhances democracy as it allows for greater
government as it would place into statute the democratic participation and
many conventions and prerogative powers decision-making, because it enables the
of the PM that are ill defined and subject to government to respond to the evolving
constant abuse - which would hold them needs of the people.
accountable and prevent this kind of cabinet
fiasco. Therefore, a codified constitution would
be better as the central purpose of a constitution
is to limit government power.
In conclusion, an uncodified constitution provides ultimate flexibility to governments and their ability
to act flexible means they can respond to the needs of the public which an uncodified constitution
doesn’t provide. Moreover ministers are held accountable whereas judges aren’t, by having a
codified constitution we would be giving far too much power to an unelected, unrepresentative
body. Finally codification would remove sovereignty from parliament and whilst it would solidify our
rights we elect MPs to do this for us and it would show a lack of faith in our ministers. Thus it is
completely justified to argue that the benefits of a codified and entrenched constitution do not
outweigh the benefits of an uncodified and unentrenched constitution.
Evaluate the view that since constitutional reform have been weak, incomplete and
require further change / OR has made the UK more democratic?
Since 1997, there have been extensive Parliamentary reforms to Lords & Commons. For
example, to the Lords the most significant reform has been the House of Lords Act 1999 which
removed all but 92 hereditary peers. This has made the UK more democratic as it addressed the
issue of unelected peers, has helped make Lords more representative as instead of membership
being based on birthright it changed appointments towards individuals with diverse backgrounds or
expertise, and increased accountability. It has continued with the House of Lords Reform Act 2014
(which allowed members to resign voluntarily, removed Lords for non-attendance, and automatic
,expulsion of members upon conviction for a serious criminal offence) or the House of Lords
Expulsion and Suspension Act 2015 (where the House can take action through its Standing Orders
and has the ability to suspend or expel members upon a resolution of the House). Additionally, to
the Commons, the Wright Reforms 2010 strengthened select committees and gave backbench
MPs more influence in parliamentary decision-making processes - which has helped democracy as
it has increased the accountability of the executive through scrutiny or rebellions over government
actions/policy. However, equally it can be seen that Parliamentary reforms to Lords & Commons
have not gone far enough. This is especially true with the Commons who are in need of further
reform, such as: backbenchers and the opposition are weak, the power of the whips should be
reduced, and scheduling of debates should be in the hands of the speaker not the government.
Although in 2011 there were attempts to change the electoral system to AV in the referendum, this
failed so FPTP remains - which creates disproportionate outcomes and is undemocratic. Even to
Lords, although a fully elected Lords could be undemocratic in itself as it would create gridlock with
Commons, despite Blair wanting to remove all hereditary peers 92 remain. There needs to be
further reform to have an elected chamber with no hereditary peers, as it gives more people the
opportunity to be able to sit in the House of Lords based on merit over patronage, and would
remove non-active members (as there are currently too many at 800, second only to the people's
republic of China). Likewise, there needs to be further reform to the appointments system as it is
clear the Judicial Appointments Committee are too weak as they can question appointments but
cannot block them - resulting in cronyism e.g under Johnson, Peter Cruddas gave £3 million to the
Conservative party and became a Lord, and he appointed Lebedev (son of a KGB agent) even after
MI6 sent their reservations. Additionally, despite the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 creating a five
year period between general elections and removing power away from the Executive, it was
repealed in 2022 so this prerogative power remains - which is undemocratic as it is unstable and
can be used for political advantage through snap elections. Therefore, although there has been
significant parliamentary reform, it has not gone far enough - meaning thet UK parliament remains
out of sync with other liberal democracies and creating a democratic deficit.
In 1998 Blair created the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This
was more democratic as it meant the Executive could no longer make decisions on all matters that
affect the 3 nations. Since then, the Welsh and Scottish governments have been given even more
powers. Senedd Cymru now has secondary legislative powers and tax-raising powers through the
Wales Acts of 2006, 2011, 2014, and 2017. The 2011 Act gave them primary legislative powers,
2014 changed the name from the Welsh Assembly to the Welsh Government and granted more
fiscal autonomy, which was continued in 2017 which gave them tax-raising powers and made their
government a permanent part of the UK's constitution so only a referendum can remove it.
However, Scotland Act 2012 and 2016 has given Holyrood primary legislative and tax-raising
powers - they have 'devolution max', Westminster only reserves powers over foreign policy,
defence, immigration and monetary policy as otherwise Scotland would become a nation state.
Although Stormomt only having primary legislative powers can be seen as undemocratic and
needing further reform, there is not as much demand for it as the other countries and it is important
for the unity of Northern Ireland - as powers such as firearms are retained in Westminster due to
their history of The Troubles. There has also been devolution in England like the Localism Act of
2011 which devolved more power to local communities and created new directly elected English
mayors in several cities (like London, Bristol, Liverpool, and Manchester ), or the Cities and Local
Government Devolution Act 2016 which created metro mayors - improving local democracy.
However, it can be seen the devolution hasn't gone far enough - especially in England who don't
have their own parliament, the mayor's don't have many powers and there are only 9 metro
mayors. Likewise, Scottish residents and parties like SNP want devolution to go further, as despite
having the maximum it has not squashed desire for independence after the 2014 referendum.
Additionally despite EVEL being used since 2015 in an attempt to fix west lothian question, this was
unsuccessful as it was abandoned in 2021 by the Conservatives who brought it in, showing its
weakness. Therefore, devolution can be seen to be weak as instead it has just further increased
asymmetrical devolution and dissatisfaction.
Brexit can be seen as a significant constitutional reform. This can be seen to have gone far enough
as we no longer have pooled sovereignty in the EU and instead sovereignty has been returned to
the UK and parliament. Therefore, most of the UK is no longer subject to the EU and EU courts.
The use of a referendum has made this reform even more legitimate - as it was through popular
, sovereignty. However, even after Brexit the constitutional reform can be seen as weak and hasn't
gone far enough. For example, around 4000 EU laws still remain on statute through statu\tory
instruments in the UK. Likewise, in Northern Ireland they are still in the single market, and they are
subject to EU trade law (which applies above UK law) and the European Court of Justice. This
means the UK now struggles with trade in a part of its own country and there is a customs border
between the rest of the UK and NI. Brexit was also supposed to 'give back control of our borders'
but net migration has hit an all time high, and opponents of Brexit argued it would lead to greater
restrictions on rights - which it has. This suggests the constitutional reform hasn't gone far enough
as sovereignty has not been fully returned to the UK and parliament and it has undermined the
unity of the UK (SNP has used Brexit as a further argument for independence given that Scotland
voted to remain, and it may possibly lead in the future to an unified Ireland).
Judicial reforms have been effective. There has been an increase in the protection of rights, with
the HRA in 1998. Since then, we have had Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Equalities Act
2010, Same Sex Marriage Act 2013 etc - which has been helped by the flexibility of our uncodified
constitution. Due to the HRA 1998 it has put ECHR into UK law allowing the judiciary to protect
rights like right to privacy, family life and a fair trial, and allowed judges to issue a declaration of
incompatibility. This forces the government to take action as it wishes to preserve the U.K.'s image
as a country who uphold human rights and is a rights based culture e.g. the Abu Qatada case
where the government had to accept the ruling under the ECHR that his deportation conflicted with
the convention. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 established the Supreme Court, ensuring
separation of powers between judiciary and the legislature, which has led to an increase in judicial
reviews and political activism e.g. ruling against the government concerning the Article 50 case and
the prorogation of parliament in 2019. These reforms have increased the ability of the judiciary to
protect human rights. However, arguably these judicial reforms have not gone far enough. The
judiciary does not actively have any powers of enforcement or ability to strike down laws, nor can
the declaration of incompatibility force government to change their actions. This limits their role in
acting as a check on powerful parliament and the protection of human rights - as seen by the
erosion of rights by e.g. the Communications Data Bill (aka "Snoopers Charter") 2012 which aimed
to increase government surveillance powers, or Police Bill etc… Therefore, there is a need for
further constitutional reform through the entrenchment of a codified constitution.
Metro mayors
Extend powers of metro mayors (e.g. on the Metro mayors don't increase participation well
same level as London or more + there are only as turnout is very low at usually below 40%. e.g.
9 so a larger number across the country): in 2021 in Greater Manchester turnout was 34%
Helps bring energy into local areas e.g. Steve The more powers local areas have, the more it
Rotherham (Liverpool) and Andy Burnham decreases democratic accountability at the
(Manc). Burnham is calling for 'deep devolution' centre & people will no longer account central
which he argues will allow areas to flourish & is government
the only way to 'level up'
Covid showed us that having different rules in a
The more local communities are given 'soft geographical space that's fairly close to one
powers' the more they will reconnect with another is confusing e.g. different tiers for
democracy and feel a part of decision making different areas
Subsidiarity = the best decisions are the ones = What is currently in place is enough + works
that are made locally, as Westmnister does not well
understand the north
Evaluate the view that select committees are an effective means of scrutiny in parliament?
Select committees are bi-partisan committees in both Commons and Lords that are primarily
responsible for scrutinising the government. Since 2010 Wright reforms (made the Parliamentary
Backbench Committee, and membership of select committees now determined by MPs in a secret
ballot rather than whips), there has been a radical shift away from the executive in the Commons,
