The Constitution (Edexcel A Level Politics): Exam Questions

The fact that the UK constitution is not clear has made recent political crises worse. The legal status of referendums in relation to parliamentary sovereignty is not obvious. The constitution fails to properly protect fundamental rights; the Human Rights Act is not entrenched and does not have any special protection – the Act could be repealed or updated. The constitution fails to properly detail the position of the devolved bodies as was clearly exposed by Brexit and this risks the UK splitting apart. Some sort of federal arrangement is needed to give entrenched protection to devolution. It is important that the people should write the rules which govern them and be easily able to refer to the laws and principles of the state.

If democracy requires that we write our own constitution, each generation must be given the same opportunity and this would destabilise the constitutional order. Would we really want the devolution settlement, the Human Rights Act, and the electoral system rewritten every two decades? Written constitutions quickly go out of date and the current constitution has shown itself flexible enough to deal with the political crisis created by Brexit. The best way to enable a clear understanding of the constitution is to draft legislation in an accessible fashion, like the Human Rights Act, not codification. Codification also results in divisive questions which don’t need to be asked, such as whether or not we should have a monarchy. Finally, codifying the constitution would risk giving too much power to the judiciary by enabling judges to become more involved in our political processes.

Source 2

Devolution has won legitimacy in Scotland and Wales by giving people more policy choices since they are now governed closer to home; also, public trust in government has been improved. However, turnout in devolved elections has been lower than in general elections. In Northern Ireland, devolution has delivered peace and an Executive and Assembly, although these devolved institutions have been suspended on more than one occasion.

In narrowing the democratic deficit elsewhere in the UK, devolution transferred a legitimacy problem to England. The West Lothian question remains problematic. England’s only devolution has involved mayors being created with some executive, spending and strategic powers though lacking the public support that underpins devolution elsewhere. Inconsistently, much of England has no devolution at all.

In terms of the unity of the UK, some people in Scotland and Wales saw devolution as a path to independence, while others saw it as a means of preserving the place of Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement allowed both supporters of a united Ireland and supporters of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union to support the measure. However, Brexit has strained devolved governments’ relationship with Westminster.

Source 2

Without entrenchment, it is too easy for a government with a simple majority to make significant constitutional changes which may threaten our fundamental rights. Entrenchment would require a written, codified constitution where constitutional changes would entail special procedures such as a two thirds majority in parliament or a referendum.

Many of the fundamental principles of the UK’s political system exist in conventions, which are not enforceable. Significant constitutional reforms were begun by the Blair government but these are incomplete and we lack a comprehensive vision for the structure and rules of the political system. With our hereditary head of state and an appointed second chamber, the UK is out of step with other modern democracies.

However, we are regarded as one of the most democratic countries in the world. The constitution has changed dramatically from an all-powerful monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary sovereignty. Much of our uncodified constitution has been written into our laws. Our rights have been respected and updated by politicians and protected by an independent judiciary. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that there is no higher ‘constitutional law’, and that parliament can legislate to respond flexibly to threats, such as terrorism.

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger united than apart. Yet today, the Union is threatened by continuing demands for independence and also the tensions and inequalities created as policies diverge between devolved bodies – over health, education or tax, for example.

Power has been devolved in an uneven way: a power-sharing executive, a national assembly or parliament, a combined authority, or English Votes for English Laws. The cumulative impact of devolution on the unity of the United Kingdom has not been properly considered. The benefits of unity and the Union have been taken for granted. A coherent vision for the shape and structure of the United Kingdom is required, without which there cannot be constitutional stability.

On the other hand, devolution has been achieved without undermining our unitary state and without the need for federalism or codification of our constitution. The four nations are ‘stronger together’, in a relationship of clear mutual respect. Although nationalism remains strong in the devolved nations, devolution has satisfied some demands for self-government, avoiding a break-up of the union. Policy divergences reflect local democracy and identities, while maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom.

Article 1

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley … proposed a confederal approach in which the three nations and the Province [Northern Ireland] agree to pool their sovereignty for certain purposes. This has something in common with the approach of the Constitution Reform Group … The group produced the Act of Union Bill, an earlier version of which I introduced in the previous Parliament, and an updated version of which was published last year.

This seeks to replace the present top-down method of devolution with an approach in which the constituent parts of the UK would decide which powers they wished to pool for greater solidarity and effectiveness. This is to suggest not a new written constitution but a way of dealing with what I describe as the imperial condescension of Whitehall towards the constituent parts of the UK.

For as long as the concept has existed, doing devolution has been difficult, requiring as it does the accommodation of ancient national pride and aspiration within structures of robust and effective co-operation.

Source: extract taken from a House of Lords debate, 'United Kingdom: The Union' (speech of Lord Lisvane), 23 June 2022. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

It is also important that the dimension of England is addressed. We recognise that England is very much the largest component of the union, but it is also very diverse. The shortcomings of governance in England are real, and part of the tensions we are talking about, but a federalism based on English regions is not something that anyone really believes is the way forward.

… [W]e all know that a tidy federal solution to the governance of the UK is not easy to achieve, even if there were a will for it, which there is not. However, that does not excuse us for not striving for a relationship among the component parts of the [UK] based on consensus, mutual respect, fair shares and, as has been said repeatedly, co-operation—all ultimately reinforced by a legal constitutional settlement and dispute resolution mechanism.

… [I]t is not about more power; it is about attitude and engagement. However, there must be a backstop with some kind of recourse and dispute resolution mechanism, because we have seen how the [UK] Government behave without one in relation to the devolved Administrations.

Source: extract taken from a House of Lords debate, 'United Kingdom: The Union' (speech of Lord Bruce of Bennachie), 23 June 2022. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

People have referred to John Major, and I was his press secretary when we went through the period of real concern. This led to the Nolan principles, which led to the publication of … Questions of Procedure for Ministers. These are things that go back a long way. … So he started this process off of thinking about how we improve trust in politics by laying down some codes about ethical standards.

… I was tasked by Gordon Brown—a Labour Prime Minister—to start this process. It came to fruition in 2011 with David Cameron as Prime Minister, who signed it off with the full support of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats. It has always brought parties together in trying to come up with something which basically codifies where we are, in the absence of a written constitution, and can be a guide as to what constitutes good behaviour. I think people are trying to get it to do a little bit too much …

Source: extract taken from a House of Lords debate, 'Cabinet Manual: Revision' (speech of Lord O'Donnell), 16 December 2022. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

… The duties on Ministers are laid in the Ministerial Code, which is reflected in the manual. It is something of a circular argument to take one, which is an advisory and descriptive document, and make that the source of discipline. The duty on Ministers flows from the Ministerial Code; the manual is a guidance document rather than a code. When the first edition was published, it was endorsed by the Cabinet and the then Prime Minister made it clear that he would expect everyone working in government to be mindful of the guidance it contains. This remains the case.

… As a document owned by the Executive, the next edition of the manual will be approved by the Prime Minister before it is published.

… It was suggested that the Cabinet Manual might be placed on a statutory footing … The Government do not believe that the manual should be placed on a statutory basis for the reasons that go along with the point that it is not the source of discipline. Also, we are … nervous about moving towards a codification of principles.

Source: extract taken from a House of Lords debate, 'Cabinet Manual: Revision' (reply of the Lord Privy Seal), 16 December 2022. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.