Should the UK Constitution Be Entrenched and Codified? Including a Bill of Rights (OCR A-Level Politics): Revision Notes

8.4.3 Should the UK Constitution Be Entrenched and Codified? Including a Bill of Rights

Does the UK Need a Codified Constitution?

For:

• Clarity and Accountability: A codified constitution would provide greater clarity on the powers and responsibilities of government branches and the rights of citizens.
• Preventing Abuse of Power: It would help prevent abuses of power, such as when Liz Truss's mini-budget led to inflation rates rising to 10.1% due to tax cuts.
• Consistency and Trust: Establishing clear rules can increase public trust and confidence in the political system. It allows the public to hold the government accountable if their rights are violated.
• Protection of Rights: A Bill of Rights in a codified constitution would safeguard individual liberties and limit state power.
• Democratic Process: The public could participate in the creation of the constitution, making the process more democratic.
• Prevention of Discrimination: Codified constitutions can help prevent discrimination and ensure fair treatment.

• Stability: It would make it harder to remove Prime Ministers arbitrarily and create a more balanced government structure.
• Judicial Oversight: A codified constitution would empower the judiciary to safeguard constitutional principles.

Against:

• Flexibility: The current system allows for flexible changes to laws, which can be beneficial. For example, after the Dunblane massacre, the Firearms Act was swiftly enacted to address gun control.
• Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament is ultimately sovereign, and judges using the Human Rights Act (HRA) already ensure some protection of rights. A codified constitution might make judges too powerful.
• Societal Adaptation: The ability to adapt laws, such as Cameron's legalisation of same-sex marriage, shows the flexibility of the current system.

---

Evaluate the View That the UK Does Not Require Any Further Constitutional Reform

For:

• Devolution: Significant reforms like the Scottish Parliament (1999) and the Belfast Agreement (1998) have advanced regional governance and peace.

• Legislative Changes: The House of Lords Act 1999 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have increased transparency and regional power.

• Electoral Reforms: The use of different voting systems (e.g., STV in Northern Ireland) allows for better representation. The 2011 AV referendum's low turnout indicated limited support for further change.

• Representation: Devolved assemblies use proportional representation, improving voter representation (e.g., the Northern Ireland STV system). Against:

• Prerogative Powers: Removal of prerogative powers, like Johnson's attempt to prorogue Parliament, shows a need for clearer constitutional limits.

• Codified Constitution: A codified constitution would provide clearer rights protection and prevent arbitrary government decisions. The current unentrenched laws can be bypassed, as seen with requests for information being denied.

• Electoral Reform: The First-Past-The-Post system remains unrepresentative, with parties like the Lib Dems winning a small share of seats relative to votes.

• Lower Voting Age: Lowering the voting age to 16 could encourage democratic participation, as seen in the high turnout among young voters in the Scottish Independence Referendum.

---

Evaluate the View That Recent Prime Ministers Are Presidents in All But Name

For:

• Commander-in-Chief Powers: Recent PMs, like Rishi Sunak, have exercised significant powers, such as conducting airstrikes without parliamentary approval.

• Prorogation Attempts: Boris Johnson's attempt to prorogue Parliament for an extended period to push Brexit through was an example of presidential-style power. However, the UK Supreme Court blocked this move.

• Patronage Powers: PMs have significant patronage powers, appointing and removing ministers at will, like Sunak appointing Cameron as Foreign Secretary. Evaluation: PMs can lose support if their cabinet members resign, as seen with Johnson and Truss. Against:

• Minority Governments: Theresa May's inability to pass Brexit legislation due to her minority status and Boris Johnson's loss of cabinet support over scandals illustrate limitations on PM power.

• House of Lords: The government faced significant defeats in the House of Lords, such as 128 times in 2021-22, indicating checks on PM authority.

• Commons Approval: Cameron required Commons approval for military action in Syria, showing that PMs must still seek parliamentary consensus.

---

Evaluate the View That the Executive Has Increasingly Limited Powers to Dictate Events and Policy

Paragraph 1:

• House of Lords Scrutiny: The Lords can delay bills for up to a year and have stopped controversial measures, such as benefit cuts and excessive police powers.

• Recent Defeats: The government faced numerous defeats in the Lords, including 14 times in one day on January 17, 2022. However, the Salisbury Convention limits Lords' power to delay manifesto bills, as seen with the Rwanda bill's passage. Evaluation: The Lords' influence can be limited if the government is a minority or coalition, as in 2010 and 2017. Paragraph 2:

• Weak Governments: Weak or coalition governments, like in 2010 and 2017, struggle to pass legislation effectively. For example, May's government struggled with Brexit and ultimately led to her resignation.

• Consensus Required: Cameron needed parliamentary consent for military action, showing limitations on executive power. Evaluation: Majority governments, like Johnson's, can dictate policy more effectively, as seen with Brexit and the Windsor Framework. Paragraph 3:

• Commander-in-Chief Powers: The executive's power to dictate foreign policy remains strong. Examples include Thatcher's Falklands intervention and Sunak's airstrikes against Houthi rebels. Evaluation: Blair's decision to invade Iraq led to significant backlash and his resignation, illustrating the risks of unchecked executive power.

---

Evaluate the View That Although the House of Lords Has Less Power Than the House of Commons, It Exerts More Influence on Government Decisions

Paragraph 1:

• Prerogative Powers: The PM's role as Commander-in-Chief allows significant control over foreign policy, such as Sunak's actions in the Middle East. The Lords have no say in such matters. Evaluation: The PM's patronage powers also shape government, but Lords can influence through advisory roles, like Lord Adonis's economic expertise. Paragraph 2:

• Legislative Influence: The Lords can amend and delay bills, demonstrating their influence on legislation. For example, the Lords prevented intrusive measures in the Public Order Bill and challenged welfare cuts. Evaluation: The Salisbury Convention limits Lords' influence on manifesto bills, while the House of Commons plays a greater role in scrutinising legislation through committees. Paragraph 3:

• Scrutiny and Influence: The Lords exert significant influence through scrutiny, with multiple defeats for the government, such as 14 times on January 17, 2022. They also scrutinise bills like the Rwanda bill. Evaluation: The House of Commons ultimately holds more power, especially through mechanisms like PMQs and select committees.