essay plans uk constitution, devolution, HoL

contents

1. Assess the view that the UK constitution needs codifying

2. Assess the view that devolution has been largely unsuccessful

3. Assess the view that the House of Lords needs substantial reform

Assess the view that the UK constitution needs codifying

Intro:

• UK constitution is uncodified, unentrenched + flexible draws from sources like statute law, common law, conventions, landmark decisions, authoritative works + treaties (SCCREW). Codification is the formal process of consolidating constitutional rules into a single, authoritative document. Key considerations include arguments for and gainst codification, flexibility, and parliamentary sovereignty. Whilecodification could enhance clarity and rights protection, it may undermine flexibility and democratic adaptability.

1: UK constitution lacks clarity + accessibility

• Point: uncodified nature makes it difficult for citizens to understand rights + government structure.

• Evidence: The Freedom of Information Act 2000 improved transparency, but government control over ‘public interest’ limits accessibility. The UK Supreme Court’s role is constrained by parliamentary sovereignty, weakening judicial checks.

• Evaluation: If citizens struggle to comprehend rights, democratic engagement suffers. Limited judicial oversight risks government overreach. While codification could improve clarity, it might reduce adaptability in crises.

• Link: Uncodified constitution challenges transparency + accessibility, but alternatives exist to improve accountability.

2: Flexibility allows constitutional evolution without upheaval

• Point: UK adapts to societal changes through incremental reforms.

• Evidence: Devolution (Scotland Act 1998, Wales Act 2014) + human rights protections (HRA 1998, Equality Act 2010) were introduced without codification. Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed when redundant.

• Evaluation: UK’s framework evolves with societal needs. Rigid constitution may hinder reforms. However, reliance on incremental changes can create inconsistencies.

• Link: Lack of codification allows flexibility but may lead to legal uncertainty.

3: Codification would strengthen rights protection

• Point: Codified constitution could prevent government overreach + safeguard rights.

• Evidence: SC ruled Rwanda deportation scheme unlawful, but Parliament passed the Safety of Rwanda Bill 2024. Moves to repeal HRA 1998 + leave ECHR (Suella Braverman’s comments) highlight rights’ vulnerability.

• Evaluation: Without entrenched protections, governments can undermine rights. However, elected governments should have flexibility rather than being bound by a rigid document.

• Link: Codification could enhance rights protection but may limit democratic decision-making.

4: Parliamentary sovereignty ensures democratic accountability

• Point: Elected government should shape constitutional rules rather than be bound by rigid laws.

• Evidence: The Wright Committee reforms (2010) improved parliamentary accountability without codification. Recall of MPs Act 2015 enabled direct democratic engagement.

• Evaluation: Reforms show change is possible without codification, maintaining democratic legitimacy. However, parliamentary sovereignty may prioritise political interests over constitutional stability.

• Link: Sovereignty allows flexibility but risks inconsistent protections.

5: Codification would prevent executive dominance

• Point: Prime Ministers can exploit constitutional ambiguity to expand power.

• Evidence: Boris Johnson’s attempt to prorogue Parliament (R v Miller 2, 2019) showed how conventions can be manipulated. Lord Clarke warned that Safety of Rwanda Bill 2024 exemplifies executive dominance.

  • starmer scheme to let in ukranian refugees - while other countries have quite fixed policies

• Evaluation: Without clear limits, executive overreach is a risk. Codified system could prevent manipulation, but excessive restrictions might hinder decisive action in crises.

• Link: Codification could strengthen checks on power but may reduce government flexibility.

6: Current system provides scrutiny + adaptability

• Point: Parliamentary scrutiny + judicial review check executive power without codification.

• Evidence: HoL has restrained government overreach (e.g., Burns Report 2017). Liaison committee held Boris Johnson accountable during Partygate.

• Evaluation: These mechanisms show scrutiny functions within current system. However, reliance on conventions leaves room for gov manipulation.

• Link: system allows adaptability but doesn’t always guarantee strong checks on power.

Conclusion:

UK constitution’s uncodified nature provides flexibility + adaptability, enabling responsive governance. However, codification could enhance rights protection and prevent executive overreach. In conclusion, reform rather than full codification may be best approach, ensuring both democratic accountability + legal clarity.

Assess the view that devolution has been largely unsuccessful

Intro:

Devolution has transformed UK governance by granting regional authorities legislative powers, yet success remains debated. While it has provided local autonomy + resolved conflicts, issues like Westminster dominance, funding disparities + low public engagement suggest limitations.

1: UK constitution remains unitary despite devolution

• Point: Westminster retains ultimate authority, limiting devolution’s effectiveness.

• Evidence: The Scotland Act 1998 was used in 2023 to block the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Act. Northern Ireland’s assembly has been repeatedly dissolved (e.g., 2002-2007, 2022-2024).

• Evaluation: These cases show that devolved governments lack full autonomy, undermining principle of self-governance. However, Westminster’s oversight ensures national unity + prevents legislative conflicts.

• Link: While devolution grants regional powers, ultimate control remains centralised.

  • another example. west lothian argument. Scottish members voting on English stuff.

2: Devolution has allowed regional governance to address local needs

• Point: Some devolved powers have been effectively used to tailor policies to regional demands.

• Evidence: Manchester gained control over its health + social care budget in 2016. The Local Government Act 2000 allows councils to hold referendums on gaining devolved powers. sadiq khan ulez stuff + implementation mayors can prioritise their areas.

• Evaluation: This flexibility enables regions to determine their governance needs. However, inconsistencies arise as not all areas pursue devolution, creating uneven autonomy. very influential mayors can take control of their region.

• Link: While devolution empowers local decision-making, its effectiveness varies by region.

3: Public disengagement suggests devolution lacks legitimacy

• Point: Low voter turnout in mayoral elections suggests weak public support for devolution.

• Evidence: Turnout in London mayoral elections has remained low (2024 - 40.5%, 2021 - 42.2%, 2016 - 45.3%, 2012 - 38.1%). Manchester + West Midlands show even lower participation (stat needed).

• Evaluation: If voters are disengaged, devolved institutions may lack legitimacy + fail to represent local interests. However, turnout for national elections is also not always high, so this may reflect broader political disengagement rather than failure of devolution.

• Link: While devolution offers local representation, low turnout raises concerns about its democratic effectiveness.

4: Devolution has resolved regional conflicts + improved governance

• Point: Devolution has contributed to peace + political stability in some regions.

• Evidence: The Northern Ireland Assembly, established by the Good Friday Agreement (1998), helped end The Troubles (1968-1998).

• Evaluation: This demonstrates how devolution can address historical grievances + provide political solutions. However, Assembly’s repeated suspensions highlight ongoing instability.

• Link: Devolution has had success in conflict resolution, but long-term political stability remains uncertain.

5: Funding disparities weaken devolution’s effectiveness

• Point: Devolution has not addressed financial inequalities between regions.

• Evidence: Spending per head in England is lower than in any other UK region.

• Evaluation: Suggests England is disadvantaged despite contributing the most to UK tax revenue. However, devolved regions argue that higher spending reflects greater needs, such as rural infrastructure + economic disparities.

• Link: Financial inequalities remain a major challenge, limiting devolution’s success.

6: Complexity of devolution creates inconsistency

• Point: Different electoral systems + policies create a fragmented governance structure.

• Evidence: Scotland, Wales + the Greater London Authority use AMS, Northern Ireland uses STV, while mayoral elections (until 2021) used SV. The breakdown of the Bute House Agreement in Scotland (2024) also highlights political instability.

• Evaluation: Varying electoral systems complicate UK-wide political cohesion. However, regional differences may justify tailored governance approaches.

• Link: Devolution’s complexity can lead to confusion, but it also allows regional political flexibility.

Conclusion

Devolution has had mixed success. While it has resolved conflicts, empowered local governance + allowed policy experimentation, Westminster dominance, funding disparities + low engagement limit its effectiveness. Its success depends on whether the priority is regional autonomy or national cohesion.

Assess the view that the House of Lords needs substantial reform

Intro:

House of Lords (HoL) remains central institution in UK governance, yet its lack of democratic legitimacy, outdated composition + limited accountability fuel calls for substantial reform. While some argue for its abolition or overhaul, others defend its expertise, scrutiny function + ability to act independently of political pressure.

1: HoL is undemocratic + unrepresentative

• Evidence:

  • HoL members are unelected, with appointments based on patronage rather than merit.

  • Composition is not reflective of UK society: 70% privately educated, average age 71, only 28% women, 2.6% BME.

• Evaluation:

  • Lack of electoral legitimacy undermines democratic accountability.

  • However, appointments allow for experts in various fields who may not seek election.

• Link: While reform could improve representation, expertise remains a key function.

2: HoL provides independent scrutiny + expertise

• Evidence:

  • The Wright Committee (2009) led to reforms that strengthened parliamentary scrutiny.

  • Lords frequently challenge controversial legislation (e.g., Safety of Rwanda Bill 2024).

• Evaluation:

  • HoL prevents hasty government decisions through detailed scrutiny.

  • However, its unelected nature means it lacks public legitimacy.

• Link: While scrutiny is valuable, reform could enhance both legitimacy + effectiveness.

3: HoL allows excessive government influence + cronyism

• Evidence:

  • PMs appoint life peers, often choosing political allies (e.g., Boris Johnson’s peerage list).

  • The Freedom of Information Act 2000 revealed abuses, but government censorship limits transparency.

• Evaluation:

  • The appointment system enables patronage + political bias.

  • However, Lords are not bound by party loyalty in the same way as MPs, allowing independent judgment.

• Link: While the HoL can resist government pressure, reform could reduce cronyism.

4: HoL acts as a necessary check on executive power

• Evidence:

  • The Liaison Committee held Boris Johnson accountable over Partygate.

  • SC, despite limitations, enforces judicial independence (Constitutional Reform Act 2005).

• Evaluation:

  • HoL can challenge the government when necessary.

  • However, ultimate power lies with the Commons due to parliamentary sovereignty, meaning Lords' decisions can be overridden.

• Link: While the HoL has a scrutiny role, its effectiveness remains limited without reform.

5: Current system lacks clarity + consistency in protecting rights

• Evidence:

  • European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled UK breached voting rights for prisoners in 2005.

  • Calls to leave ECHR (e.g., Sunak, Braverman) highlight risks to rights protection.

• Evaluation:

  • Without clear constitutional protections, rights remain vulnerable.

  • However flexible system allows adaptation to changing political circumstances.

• Link: While HoL plays a role in rights protection, reforms could improve its consistency.

6: HoL supports legal continuity + parliamentary sovereignty

• Evidence:

  • uncodified constitution allows for gradual, necessary reforms (e.g., Recall of MPs Act 2015).

  • Common law tradition ensures flexibility without rigid legal constraints.

• Evaluation:

  • UK system allows adaptability in governance.

  • However, lack of formal constitutional protections means rights + scrutiny rely on political will rather than legal enforcement.

• Link: While flexibility is valuable, clearer protections could strengthen democracy.

Conclusion:

HoL requires reform to improve democratic legitimacy, limit government influence + strengthen rights protections. However, scrutiny role, expertise + ability to check government power provide important functions. Extent of necessary reform depends on whether priority is placed on democratic representation or maintaining an independent, expert chamber.