UK government essay plans

Evaluate the view that the UK constitution is in urgent need of further reform REMAINING POINTS

• You can have entrenchment without codification, that is that the constitution can remain as it is but it requires say a 2/3 majority in the house of commons to amend or add to the constitution. • This is what Peter Hennessey has suggested would be appropriate to Britain. • This will safeguard rights and not make constitutional change subject to political tampering. • On the other hand, this will remove the flexibility in the constitution and can create gridlock like in the USA. • The devolution points will be a summary of the devolution essay

Evaluate the view that there are more advantages to having a codified constitution than remaining with an uncodified constitution PARA 1

A codified constitution would entrench rights - such as the bill of rights in the US. • At the moment parliamentary sovereignty means that rights are subject to the will of parliament. • A majority can overturn rights. • Dominic Raab, The Justice Secretary is looking to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 - it was in the Queens Speech and so will come to the Commons this coming year. • The right to family life, under Article 8 of the ECHR will not be able to reach court as much as often, with 70 percent of foreign criminals who lodge deportation appeals currently doing so under the terms of the clause. • The Government is proposing to add a 'permission stage' at the start of human rights legal cases. • This plan will mean that before a case can get off the ground, the person whose rights have been violated will have to show they have faced a "significant disadvantage" caused by the abuse of their rights. • Under government plans, the meaning of a right in the Bill of Rights won't be the same as its meaning in the European Convention on Human Rights and UK judges won't even have to take European judgments into account (which they currently have to do) • A 'British Bill of Rights' means that foreign citizens or migrants may not have the same protections. • This Bill of Rights would be harder to interpret as they will be more specifically phrased. The Nationality and Borders Act is one such piece of legislation it allows the government to do the following: • To process asylum claims in Rwanda and for these refugees to not have a right to stay in the UK • The ability to deprive British people of their citizenship without notice (previously they had to give notice but could still do so - eg Shabina Begum) • Asylum seekers that come to the Uk without a visa will be breaking the law and can go to prison.

Evaluate the view that backbenchers have little impact on parliament INTRO

Backbenchers are MPs who are not part of the government or the opposition shadow cabinet. In the last decade, backbenchers have been able to influence politics more due to the increase in unstable governments' having fewer seats and issues such as Brexit causing defiance, which has made some question whether their impact has increased, particularly with the number of backbench rebellions. Former speaker John Bercow was willing to facilitate creative uses of parliamentary procedures in ways that gave backbenchers more power to influence than usual. However, Backbenchers will have less scope to use innovative tactics with the return of a majority government following the 2019 election and new speaker Lindsay Hoyle. However, the 2017-19 parliament may have had a cultural impact in facilitating backbench activism that could be hard to reverse. As they did in the last parliament, backbenchers will now have to focus on using more conventional parliamentary procedures to hold the government to account, influence debate and represent their constituents' interests. Despite this, it is a more convincing argument to suggest that backbenchers do have a large impact on parliament.

Evaluate the view that Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK INTRO

Britain is a parliamentary democracy which means there is a fusion of powers between the Executive and Legislature. The Executive, led by the Prime Minister, is formed from the House of Commons and yet one of the key roles of Parliament is to scrutinise the actions of the Government. To answer this question the following issues need to be considered: legislative scrutiny, the role of backbenchers and question time. Ultimately, it is clear that parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive is woefully ineffective because of the elective dictatorship that is usually formed after a Government has won a clear majority.

Evaluate the view that Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK CONCLUSION

In conclusion it is the case that parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive is largely ineffectual. This is because of the predominant role of the House of Commons and the fact that due to the fusion of powers the Government normally dominates that chamber. Whilst there are exceptions to this rule, they only really occur in the rare occasions when a government does not have a clear majority. The House of Lords does offer detailed scrutiny, particularly of legislation, however it is limited by the structural power the House of Commons has over it. Whilst Select Committees and Question Time are examples of effective scrutiny they do not enable Parliament to enforce change, so are therefore still fundamentally limited. Therefore, it is clear that the dominance of the Executive over the House of Commons ensures that parliamentary scrutiny of the executive is largely cosmetic.

Evaluate the view that there are more advantages to having a codified constitution than remaining with an uncodified constitution INTRO

In the UK we have an uncodified constitution 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 there is not a massive demand to have a codified constitution and an uncodified constitution fundamentally gives the government flexibility which is in the interests of the public. Three sections: 1 a codified constitution protects rights 2 it would place powers in the hands of an impartial judiciary 3 it would clarify the roles and powers of the PM and executive and remove unwritten conventions

Evaluate the view that the conventions on ministerial responsibility no longer apply in practice INTRO

Individual Ministerial Responsibility and Collective Cabinet Responsibility are important conventions, governing the behaviour of ministers. Many of the specific (and vague) details governing the behaviour of ministers and explaining how these conventions apply are set out in the ministerial code, a document written by the Prime Minister, which has recently been altered. These conventions are not backed up by statute law, so their application comes down to ministers. In recent weeks and months, these conventions have been tested, with some arguing that because they are not legally binding, governments can ignore their details. It is clear they no longer apply as they once did.

Evaluate the view that executive dominance ensures parliament has little meaningful control over the legislative process

Judgement - although more effectiveness recently the government still dominates as it controls the timetabling and commands a majority. Three sections: 1. Commons and the legislative process 2. Lords and the legislative process 3. The role of committees in scrutinising pre and post legislation.

Evaluate the view that Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK PARA 1

Legislating is one of the most important roles of Parliament and is therefore an important area of executive scrutiny. This is as under Standing Order 14 the legislative agenda is largely controlled by the Executive. Most bills are Government Bills, with 76.9% of bills from 2015-2021 being tabled by the Executive. This dominance over the Commons agenda is reinforced by the notion of the elective dictatorship - that because of the FPTP voting system most governments have a clear majority and can govern as they please without having to worry about undergoing effective scrutiny. For example, Tony Blair had a majority of 179 and did not lose a single Commons vote in his first 8 years as PM, whilst the average government majority since 1945 has been 57.4 seats. This means that the Executive is normally capable of pushing through its agenda because it consistently has the parliamentary arithmetic on its side. Further to this, MPs are very heavily whipped. This means they rarely rebel against their party leaders. This is because MPs are beholden to their party for their seat and they rely on the patronage of party leaders for personal advancement. This might help explain why since the 2019 General Election there are 321 MPs who have never once voted against their own party. The combination of large government majorities and heavy whipping of backbenchers means that often legislative scrutiny in the House of Commons is ineffective. CA However, there are times when the House of Commons can offer effective legislative scrutiny, usually when the issue is very controversial or is so important that MPs are prepared to defy the whip. For example, whilst in a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP in January 2019, Theresa May's Brexit deal was defeated by a record 230 votes with 118 Conservative MPs rebelling. This shows that,

Evaluate the view that the conventions on ministerial responsibility no longer apply in practice PARA 1

P1 - A convention that states members of the cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them. • This support includes voting for the government in the legislature. This is the so-called 'payroll vote' • If a member of the Cabinet wishes to openly object to a Cabinet decision then they are obliged to resign from their position in the Cabinet. CCR becoming less important • Cameron suspended CCR during the Brexit ref 2016 to keep his cabinet together. • He also suspended it over AV to keep the Lib Dems in government. • Blair did not have votes in his cabinet and so he did not apply the rule faithfully - John Prescott • There are many leaks in cabinet - Blair's cabinet - Gavin W who leaked from the cabinet sub committee over Huawei • Like Major - faced many leaks John Redwood. • In Coalition - 4 occasions there was a dilution of CCR because the govt allowed the lib dems to abstain from govt policy - tuition fees, nuclear power, marriage tax allowance and trident. • Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Minister in the Coalition, also broke collective responsibility convention on several occasions like when he criticised government immigration policies with his "Enoch Powel" analogy in Dec 2013 • Analysis is that in recent years many issues like Brexit and coalition made ccr much harder to implement • PM's have kept the cabinet in the dark about key policy decisions - for example the Brexit Sec under Theresa May, David Davis first heard about the withdrawal agreement when it came to the cabinet (chequers meeting) - role of Olly Robbins. • In 2021- leak from BJ cabinet over lockdown pushed him to make an early announcement. CA • However these claims may be 'exaggerated', because "CCR was suspended in 1975 during the first European

Evaluate the view that the UK constitution is in urgent need of further reform PARA 1

P1 - By parliamentary reform we mean reform to the Commons and the Lords. • The Lords is in need of the following reform : • To remove the cronyism - an appointments system that undermines democracy. • Financier Peter Cruddas gave millions to the conservatives and served as Conservative co-treasurer under then-Prime Minister David Cameron, but resigned in 2012 following a cash-for-access story in the Sunday Times. • The judicial appointments committee questioned the appointment - but they cannot block it. • Johnson appointed Lebedev - son of a KGB agent to the Lords, even after MI6 sent their reservations. • There are now 800 members of the Lords, second only to the people's republic of China. • Reform to an elected chamber gives more people the opportunity to be able to sit in the House of Lords based on merit over patronage. • The Commons is in need of further reform: • The power of the whips should be reduced. • Scheduling of debates should be in the hands of the speaker not the government. • Backbenchers and the opposition are weak. • FPTP • Analysis - the lack of reform means that the UK parliament remains out of sync with other liberal democracies. Democratic deficit. CA Parliamentary reform has taken place • There were the Wright Reforms to the Commons. • The House of Commons works well and there are plenty of spaces for checks on the executive, through rebellions and select committee scrutiny. • The House of Lords may not be elected but do you want it to become a mirror image of the commons with similar composition and career politicians? • There have been reforms to the Lords since 1999, • The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 made provision for members' resignation from the House, removal for non-attendance, and automatic expulsion upon conviction for a serious criminal o ffe

Evaluate how far the power of the executive has been undermined by constitutional reforms since 1997 PARA 1

P1 - P1 - devolution Blair, as part of his democratising reforms, enabled referendums to be held on devolving legislative powers to Scotland, Wales and NI. This has undermined the power of the executive by granting other assemblies powers that used to be held at westminster. Westminster now has no say on certain areas of legislation in devolved assemblies. 1997 resulted in an overwhelming 'Yes' victory, leading to the Scotland Act 1998 being passed and the Scottish Parliament being established in 1999. The Scotland act 1998 - legislated for the establishment of the devolved Scottish Parliament with tax varying powers and the Scottish Government (then Scottish Executive). This has also allowed for Scotland to hold independence referendums, potentially making them completely separate from Westminster, where the English parliament would have no say over any matters. This has been helped by the SNP and its increasing popularity. However, no referendum resulted in independence In 1997, a second referendum, following the 1979 referendum, on devolution, saw the Welsh electorate vote narrowly in favour of establishing a National Assembly for Wales (Senedd) by 50.3 per cent, on a 50.2 per cent turnout. The Government of Wales Act 1998 granted the formation of the National Assembly and granted it a significant number of new powers which included most of the powers previously held by the Secretary of State for Wales and at least 20 national institutions including the Education and Learning Wales, Environment Agency Wales and the Welsh Language Board. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 formally established the Assembly in law, in accordance with the Good Friday (or Belfast) Agreement. This devolution has created voting issues for UK parliament due to west lothian question CA CA - not enough, EVEL, brexit EVEL has partly solved the wes

Evaluate the view that the house of commons is in need of more reform than the house of lords PARA 1

P1 - The main criticism in favour of greater House of Lords reform over the Commons is its undemocratic nature. Because it is unelected, many argue that it lacks the democratic legitimacy needed to be held accountable to the public. Former Labour leader Ed Miliband described how "it fails to represent large parts of the UK''. Consisting of 26 Bishops and an overwhelming majority of white wealthy men, the House of Lords falls short in representing the intersections of a multi-faith and multi-ethnic society. Moreover, the House of Lords Act (1999) removed all but 92 hereditary peers. It should be argued that If the Lords is committed to wholesale reform, this should not be on a piecemeal basis. At the moment, the chamber is appointed by the Prime Minister through her powers of patronage, this gives rise to the claim of cronyism. For Conservatives however, this promotes the ideal of 'change to conserve', the slow, gradual reform of the Lords is vital in preserving its institutional strength. Jeremy Corbyn has called for a "radical overhaul" of the Lords, to deal with the 'democratic deficit'. An elected chamber would address the current democratic deficit, giving the Lords a full mandate to initiate and amend legislation. In comparison the House of Commons, which is democratically elected under FPTP ensures a strong link between an MP and their constituency and thus remains fully accountable to the origin of sovereignty, the people. CA On the other hand, many argue that the House of Lords has experienced sufficient reform and the argument for an elected second chamber is problematic. The House of Lords Act (1999) removed the bulk of hereditary peers. In doing so, this has provided a greater increase of talented individuals who can enrich political debate without party affiliations. An elected second chamber ensues the da

Evaluate the view that the opposition is effective in the House of Commons PARA 1

P1 - The opposition is not very successful at sponsoring bills. • This is because the house of commons is dominated by the government, they have a majority and have control over timetabling. • This reduces the role of the opposition to 'oppose' and they cannot be proactive. They can be described as a 'government in waiting'. • If they want laws to be passed, they can only agitate for this or attempt to amend a bill when it is going through the report stages. • However because the government has an inbuilt majority it can reject these amendments • During the passage of the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill Labour tabled an amendment to the bill that would have stopped it at its second reading, but MPs voted down the move from the opposition party by 359 votes to 225. • Similarly Labour tabled amendments to the Elections bill but it was easily overturned. • Labour also often votes with the government on legislation that is rejected by backbenchers, this was done over the gay marriage act in 2014 and recently in 2021 over covid passports, without the support of Labour the government would have been defeated. CA • However this is not always the case. • When the government has a slim or no majority than the opposition can defeat the government. • Theresa May faced 33 defeats because she was not able to command her party after 2017. Her working majority with the DUP was theoretical and the opposition used this as an opportunity to undermine her. • At the same time the SNP declared they would break their agreement and vote down three bills that May wanted to pass, grammar school, Sunday licensing and fox hunting. • This shows that governments without majorities can defeated.

Evaluate the view that the case for further english devolution is overdue. PARA 1

P1 - metro mayors. There are 9 metro mayors and a 1 additional combined authorities without mayors and one Cornwall 'unitary authority with devolution'. A metro mayor oversees a combined authority, that is many councils come under this mayor such as the West of England and is given more powers. Including Greater London, 41% of England's population (representing 43% of economic output but just 14% of land area) now live in areas with some form of mayoral devolution deal. asymmetric devolution. London Mayor who has enormous powers over transport and planning and also has a London Assembly to help him. These mayors all have budgets and varying degrees of powers over transport, housing, further education and infrastructure. For example Greater Manchester's mayor, Andy Burnham doubles up as a police crime commissioner and has control over local transport. Andy Burnham is calling for 'deep devolution' - argues this will allow areas to flourish. Greater Manchester does have power over transport, but not the West of England for example. This is because it follows the principle of subsidiarity and is in line with many western liberal democracies like Germany. • Subsidiarity is the principle that the best decisions are the ones that are made locally. The analysis is that this is the only way to 'level up' - the criticism of Burnham is that the current agenda relies on Westminster and the Whitehall civil service, that does not understand the north. • Mayors bring energy into an area, like Steve Rotherham and Andy Burnham. CA - The counter is that if metro mayors are meant to increase participation and build greater buy-in then why is turnout so low? WM 2021 - 31% Liverpool city reigon 30%. And the more you send powers to local areas the more you decrease democratic accountability at the centre - people will no longer account

Evaluate the view that executive dominance ensures parliament has little meaningful control over the legislative process PARA 1

P1 - the key reason why it is argued that the government remains dominant in the legislative process is down to government majorities. Elective dictatorship. can argue that in the last parliament many controversial bills were passed that were successful without much scrutiny. • The Elections Act was widely criticised - including by the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee - for reducing the independence of the Electoral Commission via a controversial clause which permits the government to make a 'strategy and policy statement' for the regulator. • The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act transferred control over the calling of general elections from the House of Commons to the Prime Minister. • The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act introduced new restrictions on the right to protest, which were strongly opposed by civil society. • Similar concern greeted the Elections Act's introduction of voter ID, which experts fear risks disproportionately disenfranchising underrepresented groups. • Critics of the Nationality and Borders Act, meanwhile, have warned that certain provisions may breach both the UN Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights. • These were passed easily because of the government's 80 majority. • Likewise it will be able to do the same with the repeal of the HRA with a bill of rights. • Because the government controls timetabling in the commons (something Wright argued should be transferred to the speaker) it can limit the time available for parliamentary scrutiny of often lengthy and complex bills. parliament is built in a way to allow the government to smoothly pursue their policy agenda. For example, the leader of the house (cabinet minister, rees-mogg) these people timetable parliament. Responsible for all the big decisi

Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court is effective at checking on the power of government PARA 1

P1 - • Judicial Review - The process by which individuals (or organisations) challenge the decision of public bodies (also called secondly legislation) • Public bodies are all types of bodies; educational establishments, social services, government departments, local council, Ofsted etc. • Judicial review has to be on actual decisions, so cannot be prompted by judges but by citizens. • Decisions can be judged as ultra vires (beyond ones legal powers) and grounds for challenge are based on unlawfulness, irrationality, unfairness • It is, accordingly, a challenge only to the way in which a decision has been made, and not to the merits of that decision. • In January 2017 a judicial review went to the Supreme Court by Gina Miller on whether the government could 'trigger article 50 without the consent of Parliament'. Ms Miller won, decision was 'ultra vires'. • In January 2017 the Supreme Court rejected a government attempt to stop a former Libyan rebel commander from suing UK officials for their alleged role in his kidnap and rendition. Abdul Hakim Belhadj can take legal action against the then-UK foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and officials from Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6. • The country's top judges unanimously dismissed the government claim of sovereign immunity and cited England's medieval constitutional document, the Magna Carta, in their judgement. • In 2019 the proroguing parliament judicial review demonstrated that judges are independent from political interference. • 2011 councils took Education Secretary Gove to court over his plan to stop the New Schools for Future project - In five of the six council cases, the decision was "so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power", said the judge. • Child Poverty Action Group, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State

Evaluate the view that backbenchers have little impact on parliament PARA 1

P1 - • Select committees can give backbenchers significant powers as each one shadows a government department with a role to scrutinise the activities of this department. • Departmental committees - scrutinise the activities of depts. • 1. Running of a dept • 2. Legislation that is to be passed or has been passed by dept • 3. Scrutinise the dept budget • Backbenchers now have influence in Select Committees due to the 2010 Wright reforms which introduced secret ballots for members and most chairs. • Whips no longer play a part in choosing members resulting in independent minded MPs been elected who are more likely to hold that government department to account. • For example, Sarah Woolaston was very critical of the government's health reform in 2015 but under the new system, became chair of the health select committee after predictably not getting a role in government. • The influence of these select committees is very apparent, particularly as Margaret Hodge stated as chair of the Public Accounts Committee that she had "more influence in that role than as a government minister." Many now see select committees as a better career path. • Select Committees write reports after their investigations and their influence is clear as 40% of recommendations are accepted into government policy; 5p plastic bags were introduced by the government after being recommended by the Environment Select Committee. • Committees reports are well researched and can lead to good laws being passed Microbeads were banned in Jan 2018 - environmental audits committee • Jeremy Hunt (Health SC) - sent out a Tweet urging a lockdown in January 2021 and has held the government to account on covid policy. • Dominic Cummings criticises the govt over handing of COVID in an explosive lengthy hearing. • The privileges committee af

Evaluate the view that the house of commons is in need of more reform than the house of lords PARA 2

P2 However, the fact that unelected people can decide on fundamental principles like human rights undermines Britain's claim to be a modern liberal democracy. This strengthens the argument that the House of Lords needs greater reform, perhaps one legitimised with the implementation of a codified constitution. The argument that the House of Lords needs greater reform than the Commons is supported by the claim that the executive dominates it. As the selection of peers occurs via the Prime Minister, the chamber is argued to be a 'half-way house' of appointments. This gives rise to cronyism, where members are elected through political patronage rather than merit, undermining the liberal principle of meritocracy. In August 2014, former speaker of the House of Commons Betty Boothroyd criticised successive prime ministers for filling the second chamber with 'lobby fodder' in an attempt to help their policies become law. If no party has a majority, as would be likely under proportional representation, it would challenge the dominance of the executive. An elected second chamber by proportional representation would also be likely to increase the quality of electoral representation, by avoiding problems created by FPTP such as electoral deserts. Therefore, the HOL needs greater reform to lessen the influence of the executive and ensure democratic legitimacy. CA Nonetheless, an elected second chamber could also lose power to hold the executive to account because peers would be subject to the same dominance as the Commons. As Lords cannot currently be dismissed except for 'major misconduct' (HOL Reform Act 2014), they do not have to worry about government officials 'withdrawing the whip' - essentially, they do not have to toe the party line in order to keep their jobs. They can oppose government decisions. In 2015, George Osborne'

Evaluate the view that backbenchers have little impact on parliament PARA 2

P2 - Another argument is that backbenchers have had a growing role in passing legislation. • Historically backbenchers were largely regarded as lobby fodder and told how to act by their party whips but since 2010, backbenchers have become far more assertive. • Due to the succession of coalition, small majority and then minority governments, backbenchers have had a growing role in ensuring parties reach majorities and therefore cannot be alienated by parties. • Furthermore, debates surrounding Brexit has given many backbenchers a sense of commitment to a cause meaning that backbenchers have become more used to portraying their own beliefs rather than just following the party line, this may facilitate a culture of BB activism which is hard to reverse. • While Tony Blair lost only 4 divisions in the Commons over ten years, Theresa May lost 33 between 2017 and 2019 alone, reflecting how the combination of a minority government and an issue like Brexit results in backbenchers having unprecedented levels of influence. • In the future this is likely to continue as even with a big majority and the issue of Brexit being resolved, 99 Tories still rebelled against Covid passports under Johnson. • And a November rebellion over social care legislation saw 19 Conservative MPs vote against the government and a further 28 reportedly abstain. • Social media has also contributed to BBs being influenced by voters with more scrutiny from the public. CA However there is an argument to say that these examples are exceptions and Boris Johnson hasn't lost a major Commons bill since his election with a majority of 80. • Furthermore, there is a limit on backbenchers' influence as seen in 2019 when 21 MPs were expelled from the Conservative party, confirming Lord Halisham's idea that ultimately governments do have an "elective d

Evaluate the view that the case for further english devolution is overdue. PARA 2

P2 - Another reason why further English devolution is a must is the resentment devolution to the regions has caused in England. This is illustrated by the west Lothian question. Most simply put, it asks why Scottish, Welsh or indeed Northern Irish MPs have the same right to vote at Westminster as any English MP now that large areas of policy are devolved to national parliaments and assemblies in areas such as health, housing, schools and policing. It questions why such MPs can vote on english matters when english MPs cannot vote on scottish or welsh matters. There were two incidents when loyal Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs were needed to vote through Labour government policies because so many of their English colleagues rebelled. In a vote to set up foundation trusts in the English NHS, Blair's majority was cut to 35 because many English Labour MPs rebelled or failed to vote; Blair needed 67 Scottish and Welsh MPs to push the trusts through. • Blair needed similar levels of loyalty in January 2004 to introduce tuition fees, a policy firmly rejected in Scotland by Labour MPs who held the policy of free education for Scots and not for the English. John Reid, then MP for Hamilton and North Bellshill, was appointed Blair's health secretary in 2003 when Holyrood had control over nearly all health policy in Scotland, Iain Duncan Smith called it a "democratic monstrosity". • More-so that more tax payers money is given to Scotland per head than to England. • Recently the SNP sought to vote down 3 English only bills, grammar schools, Sunday opening hours and repealing fox hunting - yet these are devolved. This creates resentment in England. So need more powers. CA - There has already been attempts to deal with this through English Votes for English Laws (EVEL). This was a weak piece of legislation but became overcomplica

Evaluate how far the power of the executive has been undermined by constitutional reforms since 1997 PARA 2

P2 - HRA given courts more power - reduced exec power most HRA codified ECHR into British law. Gave the judiciary power to undermine the actions and legislation of parliament. Done through DOI and judicial review. David miranda case, Gina Miller case, Belmarsh case CA parliament is sovereign, no judicial decision is binding, govt can repeal or make any law, Raab looking to create a Bill of Rights. Control orders with belmarsh Raab wants to create a British bill of rights which would specify laws so the judiciary cannot wield much power of interpretation.

Evaluate the view that the conventions on ministerial responsibility no longer apply in practice PARA 2

P2 - Individual ministers are also responsible for their personal and professional conduct • According to Individual Ministerial Responsibility: • Ministers are individually responsible for the work of their departments and are answerable to Parliament for all their departments activities. • They are expected to accept responsibility for any failure in administration, any injustice to an individual or any aspect of policy which may be criticised in parliament, whether personally or not. • In such cases a minister may resign or the Prime Minister may decide to sack them. • Ministers are today less likely to resign over policy failures". • Gavin Williamson over education failures - GCSE and Alevel algorithm • Analysis - ministers throw others under the bus and blame them - head of ofqual or Allegra Stratton (over partygate). • Chris Grayling - gave post Brexit shipping contracts to a company that had no ships and had copied their terms from a tandoori restaurant • Matt Hancock didn't resign over his failings of the covid contracts either and instead resigned when his affair with Gina.C came to light - even after a judicial review that said he acted unlawfully • Patel did not resign over bullying 'breaking the ministerial code'. Even after a civil servant wrote a report saying she has bullied. Johnson did not sack her. • Analysis - Johnson is the final arbiter in applying these convention - no external body that checks on his decisions. Don't have impeachment like in the US. Ministers may be more reluctant to resign as it makes the party appear weak and divided, lacking a clear vision of government. PM loyalty may also play a part, the PM is the final exerciser of deciding who should resign, and boris has been very leniant about this. this is perhaps due to the fact he expects loyalty from his minist

Evaluate the view that the UK supreme court is both neutral and independent INTRO

The supreme court is commonly used in the Uk to resolve key constitutional questions. Judicial neutrality is the idea that judges must not allow their political views and biases to influence their decisions and applications of the law. The supreme court takes the role of concentrating on cases of greater public and constitutional importance, acts as final court of appeal for all UK civil cases from England and Wales and assumes the role of adjudicating whether the devolved legislature and governments have acted within or exceeded their devolved powers . whilst judicial independence is that the judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. Arguably, the UK Supreme Court is independent to a greater extent than it is neutral, despite both judicial independence and judicial neutrality improving in recent years, thanks to the introduction of the Human Rights Act and Constitutional Reform Act. This is because often, the independence of the judiciary conflicts with the appearance of neutrality, meaning that as their independence has grown, their neutrality has been limited on occasion which this essay would explore.

Evaluate the view that Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK PARA 2

P2 - It is clear that some backbenchers are influential and can influence policy. This is particularly the case when a backbencher is seen to be either particularly experienced or have particular expertise. For example, Theresa May (Backbencher of the Year 2021) was able to persuade the government to incorporate her Ten Minute Rule motion on dangerous driving sentences into the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill. In addition, the Wright Reforms of 2009 have increased the influence of backbenchers. Firstly, the Backbench Business Committee provides them with an opportunity to put forward ideas for debate that might provide scrutiny of the government. For example, on the 21/04 a backbench debate was held on the two-child limit for universal credit - a key government policy. Secondly, backbenchers may serve on Select Committees which since the Wright Reforms have seen committee chairs elected by the whole house and select committee members elected by their own party. This has substantially loosened the grip of the whips over Select Committee and increased their independence. For example, the DCMS Select Committee were critical of the Government's Online Safety Bill saying it did not go far enough to tackle harmful content online - despite a Conservative majority on the Committee. Therefore, whilst backbenchers are limited in their ability to provide security of the executive overall this ability is growing, and in addition, there are certain MPs who are able to provide more effective scrutiny than others. Government accepts 40% SC recommendations, Privileges committee - report on partygate. CA There are a number of limits that backbenchers face in attempting to scrutinise the Government in the House of Commons. One is that, unlike most members of the House of Lords, they have to be generalists and not specialists. Backben

Evaluate the view that the opposition is effective in the House of Commons PARA 2

P2 - Opposition parties are allocated 20 days every parliamentary session, during which they can choose the main topic of business and table motions. These are known as 'opposition days'. Seventeen of these days go to the official opposition, and three go to the smaller opposition parties. • In October 2020, Labour used one of its opposition days to put forward a motion to extend free school meals through half-term, following footballer Marcus Rashford's campaign urging the government to do so. The motion was rejected in parliament. • At Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) - held in the Commons every Wednesday that parliament is sitting - the leader of the opposition is called upon to ask the prime minister up to six questions. • However the PM can dodge any answers and has the last word, it lacks the scrutiny of committees. • Other government ministers are questioned in parliament on a rotating basis, for an hour on Monday to Thursday. All MPs can ask questions, but the opposition in particular uses this time to scrutinise the activity of each department. • Front bench members of the opposition may ask several questions on different topics, but all MPs asking questions are entitled to one follow-up question. Oral questions must be tabled at least three days in advance. • This gives some opportunity to scrutinise a department but lacks the forensic follow-up of a select committee. • Over covid the opposition was largely ineffective. CA The Marcus Rashford motion was rejected in parliament but allowed Labour to keep the issue in the public eye. The government later reversed its position. • Labour recently tabled a motion to get the commons privileges committee to investigate whether Johnson lied to parliament, this was successful because Johnson smelling a backbench revolt, dropped his opposition to it.

Evaluate the view that executive dominance ensures parliament has little meaningful control over the legislative process PARA 2

P2 - The Lords has a number of limitations • The Parliament Acts • The Salisbury Conventions • These guarantee the primacy of the commons. • Of the 34 government bills passed during the 2021-22 session, six completed ping-pong only in the week of the prorogation itself. • These included the Elections Bill, Judicial Review and Courts Bill, Nationality and Borders Bill, and Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - leading Labour's Lords Chief Whip to accuse the government of 'backload[ing]' the session with 'very controversial bills'. • These could not be carried over to the new session - meaning that the Lords were left with a choice between capitulating over their amendments, or risking the blame for causing a major government bill to fall. • Also the government is 'stuffing' the Lords with conservative peers, Johnson has appointed over 80 recently, breaking the promise of May that the government would appoint moderately. • The Lords usually does not play ping-pong for long. CA • Because the Lords houses experts and prominent individuals, they can sometimes embarrass the government to change its mind. • The House of Lords has persuaded the government to make policy changes on a diverse range of issues. These include: relocating unaccompanied refugee children from Europe to the UK • banning smoking in cars that carry children • ensuring that children with special educational needs are afforded the same legal protection in academies as in other mainstream schools. • The House of Lords inflicted record levels of defeats upon the government in the 2021-22 session, with the total of 128 easily outstripping the 114 seen in the previous two-year session, and an extraordinary 12 defeats in a single day of ping-pong on the Nationality and Borders Bill. • Amongst these were multiple - typically ra

Evaluate the view that there are more advantages to having a codified constitution than remaining with an uncodified constitution PARA 2

P2 - The last few years has demonstrated that elected politicians can abuse their positions or undermine the constitution in return for populism. • The government's attempts to prorogue parliament in 2019, and obvious attempt to shut down scrutiny was successfully challenged in courts. • Judges have security of tenure and independence (CRA 2006) that enables them to make more rational and independent decisions. • Politicians are always looking to win elections. • In the US, judges of the supreme court act as guardians of the constitution. • If a future government decided to radically change the UK, there are currently very few safeguards. • Most modern liberal democracies - the supreme court acts as a check on the other branches. Because judges are impartial and independent. • Analysis: you can link the judiciary being guardians of the constitution to liberalism - it allows for a separation of the branches, preventing the tyranny of an overbearing government (synoptic link) • Judges are impartial and that means they believe in the rule of law, recent events have shown that we cannot trust politicians to uphold the rule of law (Iraq and Partygate). CA • Uncodified Constitutions place the power in the hands of elected politicians • Who are accountable to the people • They make the balance between rights and security because ultimately they know the political consequences. • They are able to make democratic decisions and are held accountable at elections and through parliamentary committees. • Judges have to be above this accountability, so there are few public mechanisms to hold them in check. • At the moment we do not have judicial activism as the accusation is made against the US supreme court that now has a conservative bias. • Judges remain 'above the fray' and that is a better system.

Evaluate the view that the opposition is effective in the House of Commons INTRO

The term 'opposition' can refer to the parliamentary opposition: all the political parties in parliament that are not currently in government. It can also refer to the official opposition, which generally only includes the second largest party in the House of Commons, whose members sit to the left of the Speaker. Because of First Past the Post, it is often difficult for the opposition to have much of an impact over votes in the chamber, because almost always the government has an inbuilt majority. This can change when there is a minority government, when there are big issues that divide the governing party or when parties have slim majorities, the situation that existed between 2010 and 2019. However it is usual that the opposition have little impact upon parliament.

Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court is effective at checking on the power of government PARA 2

P2- • The Human Rights Act 1998 allows judges to declare legislation passed by Parliament 'incompatible' with the European Convention of Human Rights. • Since the Human Rights Act came into force on 2 October 2000, UK courts have made 29 declarations of incompatibility, • The most controversial was the Belmarsh Judgment (2003) • Most recent in 2019 the R (on the application of Joint Council For The Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department that deemed the right to rent scheme incompatible with article 14 of ECHR - • R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keiden) v Secretary of State for the International Development - Sections 1 and 3 of Civil Partnership Act 2004 (to the extent that they preclude a different sex couple from entering into a civil partnership) are incompatible with article 14 of ECHR • David Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department - Terrorism Act 2000 Sch 7, stopping and questioning • Analysis - this is a powerful check on the government. CA Declarations of incompatibility are not like strike down powers that the US supreme court has - because the declaration does not change the law immediately and it does not define how the law must change. • Parliamentary sovereignty remains - only parliament can change the law. • After Belmarsh, control orders were introduced. • -These broadened detention without charge - 52 individuals were subject to control orders - initially in Belmarsh it was only 9. • Govt can tweak the law but not be faithful to the spirit of the judgment • After a DOI judgment Cameron said 'I am appalled by the Supreme Court ruling. We will take the minimum possible approach to this ruling'. • Govt is planning to Remove DOIs for secondary legislation • These have slowed down in recent years . • Most cases do not lead to a d

Evaluate the view that there are more advantages to having a codified constitution than remaining with an uncodified constitution PARA 3

P3 - A codified constitution will clarify the role of government. • It will place into higher law the many conventions and prerogative powers that are ill defined and subject to constant abuse. • Blair was able to break cabinet government for his entire 10 years and run a sofa cabinet (as dubbed by Lord Butler) whereby he conducted one to one meetings and not have proper minuted meetings through the cabinet. • Never once did he have a vote (John Prescott's claims) • The problem today is the constitution was designed to be applied by 'good chaps' - honourable people that apply the spirit of the constitution. (Peter Hennessey) • This good chap doctrine no longer applies. • Johnson repeatedly misinformed parliament over parties at number 10. • He did not sack Priti Patel, who violated the ministerial code by bullying a civil servant. • This is because ultimately these conventions are not statute. • Johnson has rewritten the code to dilute grounds for dismissal. • This lack of clarity allows for Prime Ministers to exercise a great degree of personal power and discretion. • A codified constitution would address this problem. Like in the US where there are clear rules setting out the role of the President and rules regarding impeachment CA The current system allows for nimble government. • Government are not bound by old rules made a long time ago but can change and reform where necessary. • The House of Commons was overhauled after the Wright Reforms 2010. • The House of Lords Act removed all but 92 peers. • Even Blairs excess was corrected after the Iraq War inquiry or after Sue Grey's report, Johnson was forced to restructure Number 10. • We have the flexibility to create new ministries (the minister of Brexit opportunity or splitting of the Home Office in two). • Also more devolution ha

Evaluate the view that executive dominance ensures parliament has little meaningful control over the legislative process PARA 3

P3 - Bill committees have a role in scrutinising legislation at committee stage. • They are setup to look at a bill line by line • The government and opposition appoints directly to these committees • So they are packed with loyalists • The government can limit the time given to these committees through a majority vote, as Cameron did over gay marriage • Amendments can also be rejected at report stage when the amendments comes to the house. • Select committees have a role in scrutinising legislation pre and post. • Pre-legislative scrutiny is the detailed examination of an early draft of a Bill that is done by a parliamentary select committee before the final version is drawn up by the Government. • It is however rare for this to happen, the government would rather submit a bill to parliament first, this ensures they can get it passed without too many changes. • And the committee recommendations whether pre or post are non-binding CA The government will accept 'reasonable' amendments to a bill made by a bill committee • Amendments are more successful when you have a slim majority or a minority government, as the government needs to make concessions to get legislation passed. • This was seen during May's time, where substantial changes were made to her withdrawal agreement to try and satisfy as many MPs as possible. 40% sc recommendations are taken by the government. Microbeads 2018.

Evaluate the view that the opposition is effective in the House of Commons PARA 3

P3 - Here you can talk about what we have already addressed. • But emphasise the role the opposition • You can for example cite the Public Accounts Committee chair Margaret Hodge who said she was more effective as chair of the committee then she ever was as a Blair government minister • Yvette Cooper refused a shadow cabinet post, instead opting to chair the Home Affairs Select Committee. • The bi-partisan nature of these committees allows opposition to act in a way that is harder to dismiss.

Evaluate the view that backbenchers have little impact on parliament PARA 3

P3 - It could be argued that backbenchers have significant influence in holding the government to account through PMQs and Urgent Questions. • John Bercow has been referred to as "the backbenchers champion" as in his first 5 years as speaker he allowed for 159 Urgent Questions compared to just 42 in the five years before under Speaker Martin. • This growth in Urgent Questions in combination with the weekly PMQs gives an opportunity for backbenchers to ask difficult questions to government ministers and the Prime Minister in order to highlight important issues and hold the government to account. • Many backbenchers in a social media age want to show themselves to be fighting for their constituents. • Particularly in PMQs, backbenchers have shown themselves to be ready to ask difficult questions, such as when David Davis told Johnson "for god sake resign," and PMQs is no longer a place where all backbenchers show absolute loyalty. Furthermore there have been a growing number of BB groups that act like a US style caucus - a voting block • 1922 Committee - an established influential grouping - led by Graham Brady - responsible for triggering a leadership contest after 55 letters are submitted. • The One Nation caucus - estimated 110 Conservative MPs are members - led by Damien Green MP. • The European Research Group (ERG) - challenged Theresa May • The Covid Recovery Group (behind the 99 rebellion) • The Northern Research Group - behind the big spend agenda • These backbench groups are very influential in parliament • The Covid Recovery Group wrote a letter to Boris Johnson in January 2021 stating his "leadership will be on the table" if he did not publish an exit strategy for the current lockdown. CA However, often backbenchers do not act autonomously. • Most backbencher questions from the governi

Evaluate the view that Parliament is effective at scrutinising the Executive in the UK PARA 3

P3 - One of the most important mechanisms of parliamentary scrutiny is Question Time. The most prominent example of question time is Prime Ministers Questions which takes place at 12.00 on Wednesdays. PMQs sees the PM questioned by Government and Opposition MPs with the Leader of the Opposition given six questions. PMQs is however both the most visible and the most theatrical form of Question Time. MPs spend significant time trying to score political points rather than scrutinise the Executive in detail - for example Diana Johnson's recent question that over 'partygate' saying that the PM 'was trying to convince people he was a stupid rather than dishonest'. Whilst the questions are often political, so are the answers, with the Prime Minister being able to avoid giving a detailed response. As such PMQs gives a bad indication of how effective Parliament is in its function of scrutiny. Boris Johnson and Keir starmer - Jimmy Saville. An example is that Jeremy Corbyn asked Theresa May about whether she was to blame for the destruction of the 'Windrush' generation's landing cards during one PMQs session, in which May refused to answer that question and decided to just use her answers to blame the last Labour Government. Not as effective as select committees. CA Tony Blair considered the experience as a 'terrifying ordeal,' which shows how tough the experience if for a Prime minister as Blair was considered to be very effective in PMQs. Importantly, however, it must be noted that PMQs is just one form of question time and the others that take place at the start of the parliamentary day from Monday to Thursday are far more productive. MPs can ask a department any question and can also table questions in advance or in writing, therefore encouraging a more detailed response. Further, since the speakership of John Bercow, the

Evaluate the view that the case for further english devolution is overdue. PARA 3

P3 - Possibly what England needs is a fully fledged English parliament like that of Scotland and Wales. • It would equalise the powers across the regions and cover all of England. • Would make Britain more look like a federal system. • An English parliament then would look at uniquely English issues - this parliament can consists of mayors from across the country. • It will resolve the asymmetrical devolution CA - the problem with an English parliament is that it will take power away from local people and place it in a centralised authority. • What would be the position of Westminster mps? It would be redundant and the whole idea would be very costly • Westminster is already dominated by English MPs • Sovereignty would then lie in many places - and the Westminster parliament would be no more than symbolic. • Turnout would decline even more. Voter fatigue. • England is too small to have devolution - it will confuse matters because people live and work in multiple cities. • Interim Judgement - having devolution through metro mayors makes more sense than having a parliament that is distanced from the people.

Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court is effective at checking on the power of government PARA 3

P3 - The HRA is phrased in a vague and open way - allowing for a judicial interpretation • 1. Right to life • 2. Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment • 3. Right to liberty and security • 4. Freedom from slavery and forced labour • 5. Right to a fair trial • 6. No punishment without law • 7. Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence • 8. Freedom of thought, belief and religion • 9. Freedom of expression • 10. Freedom of assembly and association • 11. Right to marry and start a family • 12. Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms • 13. Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property • 14. Right to education • 15. Right to participate in free elections • Allows for judge made law. • Eg Afghan hijackers case 2006 - • Abu Qatada judgements. Gives greater power to the judiciary to interpret the consitution and provide an effective check on government where necessary. CA • Dominic Raab, The Justice Secretary is looking to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 - it was in the Queens Speech and so will come to the Commons this coming year. • The right to family life, under Article 8 of the ECHR will not be able to reach court as much as often, with 70 percent of foreign criminals who lodge deportation appeals currently doing so under the terms of the clause. • The Government is proposing to add a 'permission stage' at the start of human rights legal cases. • This plan will mean that before a case can get o ff the ground, the person whose rights have been violated will have to show they have faced a "signi ficant disadvantage" caused by the abuse of their rights. • Under government plans, the meaning of a right in the Bill of Rights won't be the same as its meaning in the European Convention on Human Rights and UK jud

Evaluate how far the power of the executive has been undermined by constitutional reforms since 1997 PARA 3

P3 - parliamentary reform Made select committees by secret ballot - no influence of PM on select committees. Gave more power to backbenchers - backbench business committee Select committees are able to force the government to amend/create legislation and hold the executive to account. 40% SC recommendations are taken into account Committee reports are well researched and can lead to good laws being passed Microbeads were banned in Jan 2018 - environmental audits committee. Also, 5p paper plastic bags being banned was a recommendation from the environment committee. HOL - greater legitimacy - no where near undermining the power of the exec as the commons CA still parliamentary majority, bill committees. Govt not bound by the confirmation hearings (heads of public bodies go to SC and questions and before becoming head of that body, SC grill them, and recommend whether they should be appointed. E.g Last ofsted head - Caroline Spellman - education select committee said she is not fit to head ofsted but govt put her in anyway. PM can appoint Bill committees The Government still has a parliamentary majority on committees. PM can avoid committees - Boris avoided the Liaison committee 3 times in 2019.

Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court is effective at checking on the power of government

Three sections: 1. Judicial review 2. Declarations of incompatibility 3. Judicial interpretation of the HRA and common law

Evaluate the view that the conventions on ministerial responsibility no longer apply in practice PARA 3

Partygate has revealed the problem. • IMR is a convention that is interpreted by the PM and he has the right to make a decision when it is broken what sanction to take. • But what if the PM is responsible for breaking the code? • Over partygate he has been accused of lying to parliament. • The ministerial code has recently been revised by the Prime Minister, as he is being investigated by the privileges committee of parliament with the report due to be published on the evening of 7th june 2022 • Boris Johnson has weakened the rules on standards in government so that ministers found guilty of breaching the ministerial code will no longer be expected to resign. • The updated code says it would be "disproportionate" to require ministers who break the rules to resign and lays out an alternative range of punishments such as a temporary salary reduction or a public apology. The new code says: "Where the prime minister determines that a breach of the expected standards has occurred, he may ask the Independent Adviser for confidential advice on the appropriate sanction. The final decision rests with the prime minister". and "Where the prime minister retains his confidence in the minister, available sanctions include requiring some form of public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period" CA • In the document, Johnson has also refused to give Lord Geidt, his independent adviser on ministerial standards, the power to launch his own investigations — something which had been demanded by a number of ethics bodies. • The committee on standards in public life had previously called for Geidt to be given powers to launch investigations himself. However, the prime minister has refused and Geidt will have to seek his "consent" to initiate inquiries • He also rewrote the foreword to the c

Evaluate the view that the UK supreme court is both neutral and independent PARA 1

The UK Supreme Court can be considered as being neutral: Successful Judges are a more independent, neutral body - not linked to the government - separation between the judiciary and the executive and parliament - 3 different branches. Judges have a lot to lose if they are impeached (security of tenure and job) the more judges are neutral the less they are in the spotlight. Direct democracy = citizens having a day and holding branches of government to account. E.g London riots 2011 citizens were unhappy with sentences. 1989s trade unions and miners sentencing. Rule of law - judges should be free from bias to uphold rule of law and treat every citizen equally and give people a fair trial (rights and obligations ) or uk citizens under new labor act in 1990s. SCs have the ability to scrutinise the PM / Gov in the public eye - the reason they can do this is because of the security of tenure; they can not be fired by the PM which is good because the SC can now really hold the government to account. This can be seen in "Declaration of incompatibility" - they can declare this on the government if they try to bring in a law that violates another law.

Evaluate the view that the UK constitution is in urgent need of further reform INTRO

The UK constitution has undergone a number of substantial reforms in the past few decades, starting with Labour but continuing with the reforming conservative governments. However this reform has been piecemeal and has often created more problems. It will be argued that a bi-partisan constitutional consensus needs to be achieved to reform the constitution in three key areas, parliamentary reform, an entrenchment of the constitution without codi fication and finally greater and symmetrical devolution. This cannot wait and thus it is clear that further reform is urgent and necessary