economics workbook markets in action unit ... · web viewin unitary systems all power resides at...

WORKBOOK ANSWERSAQA AS/A-levelGovernment of the UK

This Answers document provides suggestions for some of the possible answers that might be given for the questions asked in the workbook. They are not exhaustive and other answers may be acceptable, but they are intended as a guide to give teachers and students feedback.

Topic 1The nature and sources of the British constitution

Introduction1 A constitution is a body of rules and practices that set out how a state or society is

organised, where power lies and explains the relationship between citizens and the state

and between the institutions within a state.

2 A codified constitution is a single, authoritative text that sets out the laws, rules and

principles by which a state is governed, in one codified or collected document. The most

notable example of a codified constitution is the US constitution that is organised into

seven articles with 27 amendments.

3 The UK’s constitutional arrangements are not gathered in a single document. Instead they

are found in a variety of sources. However, the vast majority of these arrangements are

written down — most appearing as statutes (Acts of Parliament) or within the UK’s vast

body of common law. While a very small number of constitutional arrangements are

unwritten (such as conventions), the UK’s constitution is most accurately described as

uncodified but not unwritten.

4 The term checks and balances refers to a political system whereby the branches of

government check and balance one another. Checks and balances are an essential

feature of the separation of powers. An example of checks and balances in action occurs

in the USA. The president relies on Congress to pass his legislative package and is able to

veto any Congress-initiated legislation. In turn, Congress can override the presidential veto

with a two-thirds majority and the Supreme Court can declare legislation unconstitutional.

AQA AS/A-level Government & Politics 1 Government of the UK 1© Nick Gallop Hodder Education

TOPIC 1 The nature and sources of the British constitution

5 The theory and practice of government according to the rules and principles of a

constitution. A constitutional democracy operates within the framework of a constitution,

limiting the powers of government institutions and protecting the rights of citizens.

The nature and sources of the British constitution

6

UK constitution characteristic

Explanation and example US comparison

Uncodified Not one single document but drawn together from a series of documents and principles developed over several centuries. The Bill of Rights (1689) sits alongside the House of Lords Act (1999)

Codified: existing as a single document, adopted in 1787

Flexible Altered easily to suit changing political circumstances. A reinterpretation of a point of law by judges can alter the constitution by adding to the body of common law

Constitutionally rigid — just 27 amendments in well over two centuries

Unentrenched No special procedures required to amend it: can be changed by an Act of Parliament (passed in the same way as ordinary laws), by convention or by judicial precedent

The protection afforded the US Constitution is seen in the special procedures required to amend it — two-thirds of both houses in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of all states

Fused powers Between executive, legislative and judicial branches: powers and personnel since all members of the executive are drawn from the legislature

The USA has a constitutionally prescribed separation of powers, e.g. John Kerry was required to resign his Senate seat (Massachusetts) when he joined the executive branch as secretary of state in February 2013

7 A form of government which emphasises the efficiency of a sovereign parliament,

governing within a highly centralised political system with fused executive and legislative

powers.

8 A number of factors could be discussed here:

The leadership styles of recent premiers such as Thatcher and Blair suggest that

traditional checks and balances to prevent elective dictatorship have been eroded.

In addition to this, is the steady rise of prime ministerial power — alongside

expectations of cabinet and party loyalty and wide-ranging patronage powers.

Many recent governments have been supported by significant Commons majorities,

enabling organised parties to reshape the structure of the UK (devolution) and the

way it is governed (Lords reform).

9 The separation of powers refers to the theory that governing branches — executive,

legislative and judicial — should be separate from one another to avoid tyranny. The term



is closely associated with the eighteenth century French philosopher Baron de

Montesquieu who explained that the bodies responsible for executing, making and

interpreting laws should be distinct from one another. In the UK, such powers are often

referred to as being ‘fused’, particularly due to the fact that all members of the executive

branch are drawn from Parliament. In the USA, the principle of the separation of powers

remains at the forefront of the constitutional system.

10 Answers should include reference to:

flexibility and the ease with which constitutional laws and practices can be changed

under certain constitutional arrangements; how the UK constitution can be altered by

statute such as the Scotland Act of 1998, by the establishment of new conventional

practice or by judicial precedent (common law)

rigidity and the protection of constitutional provisions and rights contained within the

USA’s codified constitution; how the US Constitution requires special procedures to

amend — two-thirds of both houses and three-quarters of the states, such as the 21st

Amendment which repealed the 18th article of amendment

constitutional doctrines such as parliamentary sovereignty, codified and uncodified

constitutions, entrenchment, protection of rights and liberties, executive dominance

11 Legal immunity for MPs, protecting them against civil or criminal prosecution for activities

undertaken in the course of their legislative duties. A notable example of parliamentary

privilege occurred in 2011 when John Hemming MP, a long-time opponent of super-

injunctions used parliamentary privilege to reveal the names of celebrities, bankers and a

Welsh NHS trust that had all used privacy injunctions to cover up their indiscretions.

12 Among other clauses, the Act prohibits Roman Catholics from acceding to the throne, a

feature which has prompted several challenges in recent years:

In 1999 the Scottish Parliament passed a motion demanding the repeal of the Act of

Settlement claiming that it violated the European Convention of Human Rights.

In Westminster, recent private members’ bills — introduced in 2004, 2009 and 2011

— have all failed to repeal or amend the Act.

13 Answers to this question will reflect on the absence of any properly entrenched and

superior fundamental law in the UK which means that the constitution can be amended by

a simple Act of Parliament. In addition, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty holds that

parliament has legislative supremacy, enabling it to pass laws on any matter of its

choosing, and to overturn any existing law.

Consequently, some of the central principles and characteristics of the UK’s constitutional

arrangements are a product not of one single constitutional ‘moment’ but a sequence of

evolutionary events. This means that in the Magna Carta we can find protection from

arbitrary imprisonment; in the Bill of Rights, the enhanced status of Parliament — including

guiding tenets such as parliamentary privilege — is found. The Act of Settlement paved



the way for the Acts of Union which united the Kingdoms of England and Scotland to form

Great Britain, governed from Westminster (giving birth to the highly centralised system that

operates today). Successive Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949) shape the way that

Parliament functions and the relationship between the Houses of Lords and Commons,

reducing the Lords’ ability to delay non-money bills to 1 year. Finally, the European

Communities Act incorporates the Treaty of Rome into UK law, thus making European law

superior to domestic law, by simple Act of Parliament.

14 Statute law. The most significant body of constitutional documents take the form of Acts

of Parliament which set out such things as the powers of the regional assemblies (e.g.

Scotland Act 1998), the basic rights of citizens (e.g. Human Rights Act 1998) and the

functioning of Parliament (e.g. House of Lords Act 1999).

Common law. Judge-made law, or the rulings of judges in the courts, is another chief

constitutional source as every single verdict — whether setting a precedent or not — binds

future judicial decisions. Many civil liberties, such as freedom of expression, were first

established and protected through court rulings.

Conventions. Several notable constitutional practices in the UK are not even written

down. Instead they are customs or traditions that have no legal standing but are broadly

respected. The requirement for a government to resign if it loses a vote of no confidence is

one such convention.

The royal prerogative. Established through court rulings over several centuries the

powers of the monarch (e.g. to wage war, sign treaties, appoint or dismiss ministers) are

largely unchecked. Today they are exercised by the prime minister.

External constitutional agreements. The UK’s membership of the European Union since

1972 incorporated the Treaty of Rome (1957) into statute law: where UK law and EU law

conflict, it is EU law that takes supremacy. The UK has the power to leave the EU (and is

set to do so following the 2016 referendum to leave the EU) — just as it does NATO or the

United Nations — but as a member of several supranational organisations, its

constitutional arrangements are altered.

Authoritative opinions. Constitutional clarity is provided by several notable

commentaries on the arrangements of the UK state. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice

(1844) is still referred to as are other texts such as those by Walter Bagehot and A. V.

Dicey.

15 The royal prerogative or ‘prerogative powers’ are the constitutional powers retained by the

UK’s monarch, but that are exercised by the prime minister. Examples include the power

to dissolve Parliament and to appoint and dismiss ministers. There are concerns over the



lack of constitutional checks on prerogative powers as their passing from monarch to

prime minister has been informal and has taken place over several centuries.

16 These refer to texts of constitutional scholarship that have clarified areas of constitutional

practice and, over time, taken on a level of authority. As such they have been used and

referenced by authors and constitutional commentators. Examples include A. V. Dicey’s

An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution published in 1885 and quoted

extensively since.

17 Higher-level responses to this question will ensure that three sources have been

adequately outlined and explained — with references to origins, implications, limitations

and problems today. The head of state and nature of the UK’s uncodified constitution will

be discussed within the context of the three sources chosen.

The highest-level responses may bring in recent constitutional developments such as the

UK’s relationship with the European Union and other international conventions and treaties

that make up the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

The highest-level responses will also ensure effective use of examples (e.g. Scotland Act,

Salisbury Convention, Maastricht Treaty, A. V. Dicey and Walter Bagehot) and political

vocabulary (e.g. parliamentary sovereignty, constitutional conventions, prerogative

powers, individual rights).

18 Parliamentary sovereignty is one of A. V. Dicey’s twin pillars of the UK constitution.

Sovereignty means legal supremacy, so the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty holds

that the Westminster Parliament is the supreme law-making body. In particular, Parliament

can legislate on any subject of its choosing; legislation cannot be overturned by any higher

authority; and no parliament can bind its successors.

19 The rule of law is a set of ideals and values that promote justice, legal equality and judicial

independence. A. V. Dicey was a central exponent of the theory of the rule of law,

maintaining that alongside parliamentary sovereignty it was one of the ‘twin pillars’ of the

UK’s constitution. The rule of law is a central feature of any democratic state — meaning

that equality under the law is vital. In addition to the fact that people should only be

punishable for a breach of the law, they are entitled to a fair trial. In the UK, some have

suggested that the basic principles of the rule of law have been steadily eroded: detention

without trial under the original anti-terror legislation of 2011 being a particularly prominent

example.

20 Parliamentary government is one of the key principles on which the UK’s constitutional

arrangements are based. The theory stresses the centrality of Parliament within the UK’s

political system and it is Parliament that provides the single source of authority for

government action. While this might suggest that Parliament is the dominant institution

within UK politics, its executive accountability function in an age of disciplined



parliamentary parties has been superseded by one of supporting and sustaining the

government.

Constitutional arrangements in the USA, on the other hand, are underpinned by the

principle of the separation of powers which codifies the powers belonging to each branch

of government along with their ability to hold the other branches to account. The central

principle of presidential government is that a president (unlike the UK’s prime minister) has

an independent source of authority following electoral victory.

21 Higher-level responses to this question will provide clear definitions of the two terms in a

way that focuses on the differences between them:

In unitary systems all power resides at the ‘centre’ while in federal systems power is

divided or shared between central and local or regional levels. Under federal

structures, shared power or sovereignty is invariably constitutionally entrenched,

meaning that power cannot be shifted between levels without constitutional

amendment. Under unitary structures on the other hand, power may well be

exercised at different levels but only by the discretion of the central authority. For

example, Margaret Thatcher dissolved the GLC in 1986.

The highest responses will bring out specific distinctions between the US and UK systems:

Note the responsibilities of state (social policy) and federal government (defence and

economic matters) in the USA and the differences between this relationship and the

devolution assemblies in the UK, with Parliament retaining ultimate power. The

process of devolution and European integration has led some to conclude that the UK

is basically a federal (or quasi-federal) state.

Contemporary legislation and current issues regarding rights

22 Rights are best seen as the freedoms and liberties enjoyed by citizens. They

range from ‘human’ rights — basic expectations that all humans should enjoy, such as the

right to life — to ‘civil’ rights that are granted to citizens within states, such as voting rights.

23 The HRA requires the British government to ensure that legislation is compatible

with the ECHR. All bills introduced at Westminster or in the devolved assemblies are

reviewed by lawyers with a view to ensuring that they are ‘HRA-compliant’. Before the

HRA, cases were heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

24 Two recent examples of the resolution of issues with recourse to the Human

Rights Act include:



DNA retention case in 2008 — the government was forced to destroy DNA profiles of

individuals not convicted of crimes.

Stop and Search powers 2011 — it was ruled that police were not allowed to stop and

search demonstrators at will.

25 Freedom of Information examples include:

The MPs’ expense scandal (2009) was a direct result of a series of Freedom of

Information requests.

A FOI in 2013 revealed concerning age trends in the police force.

26 Equality Act examples: there has been a sequence of cases where disabled employees

have had their rights protected under the Equality Act. For example:

‘Reasonable adjustments’ have had to be made to patients undergoing cancer

treatment meaning they should not be required to undergo competitive interview

processes.

Dismissing an employee for absences relating to their disability has been successfully

challenged too.

Issues and debates around recent constitutional changes

27

Theme Explanation Example

Decentralisation

Ensuring that government decision making and accountability is closer to the citizens affected

The creation of Scottish Parliament and Welsh assemblies

Democratisation

The use of alternative electoral systems in second tier elections enhanced voter choice

AMS in Scotland and the closed regional lists system for EU elections

Modernisation Attempts to reform the structure and workings of Westminster Parliament

Radical change to the role of the lord chancellor and the removal of all but 92 hereditary peers from the Lords

Enhancing rights

Defining and protecting basic human rights

The Human Rights Act and the creation of an independent Supreme Court

28 Key advantages include:

the use of more proportional electoral systems (e.g. AMS in Scotland)

the removal of the majority of hereditary peers from the House of Lords

the setting up of democratically elected regional assemblies

bringing the ECHR into British domestic law via the Human Rights Act

29 The term constitutional reform refers to fundamental changes made to the relationships

between institutions within the state and/or citizens and the government of the state. New



Labour’s constitutional reforms (1997–2007) saw a range of constitutional reforms brought

in involving the Human Rights Act (1998), the devolution of power to the regions (1997–

99) and the creation of the UK Supreme Court.

30 One of the most recent reform proposals to the House of Lords was the House of Lords

(Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 which authorised it to expel or suspend members.

However, one of the most recent proposals to reform the composition of the chamber itself

was the House of Lords Reform Bill of 2012. The bill was introduced in 2012 by Nick

Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats and deputy prime minister, and aimed to cut the

size of the Lords, but it was defeated.

31 British Bill of Rights refers to efforts made to replace the Human Rights Act with a set of

rights that more accurately reflected British values and liberties. A commission to

investigate the case for adopting one was launched in 2012 but failed to reach a

conclusive response.

32 A higher-level response to this question would be structured around arguments supportive

of the UK’s constitutional arrangements and critically evaluate them. Further analytical

points may include some or all of the following.

The UK’s constitutional arrangements are out of keeping with those of other modern

democratic states and there are several notable perspectives on reform — from

parties such as the Liberal Democrats to pressure groups such as Unlock

Democracy.

The development of the UK’s constitution is unique and the lack of a revolutionary

constitutional ‘moment’ has allowed for the development of an evolutionary, organic

series of constitutional documents and conventions.

The UK is moving towards increasingly codified arrangements (e.g. the incorporation

of the ECHR, the 2010 Coalition Agreement).

The inflexibility of codified constitutions — such as that of the USA — has proved a

hindrance to effecting real sociopolitical change. Equally, the presence of a codified

constitution does not automatically prevent executive dominance or oppression.

Debates about the extent of rights in the UK

33 High-level answers on the impact of the Human Rights Act on issues would include:

The British courts have no legal power to remove laws that are incompatible with the

Human Rights Act. While this retains the principle of parliamentary sovereignty it also

means that Parliament, in times of emergency, can curtail basic human rights as

deemed necessary.



An explanation of the nature of parliamentary sovereignty within the UK’s

constitutional framework, and the erosion of this principle (e.g. executive dominance,

devolution and EU integration).

An explanation with exemplification of the term ‘declaration of incompatibility’ and the

effect that this has had on certain legislation to date (e.g. anti-terror legislation 2001–

05).

An evaluation of the role of unelected judges in challenging the roles of elected

representatives.

In practice, the HRA has strengthened the power of the British judiciary. Under it,

British judges regularly encourage Parliament to revise statutes (usually in their draft

stages) and have even prompted some Acts (e.g. the Anti-terrorism, Crime and

Security Act 2001) to be revised.

34 Higher-level marks will be awarded for points such as:

Individual rights refer to the civil liberties, freedoms and protections one can expect in

order to live one’s life free from intimidation or fear. These might include the right to a

private life, the rights to own property and to practise a religion.

Collective rights refer to the expectations of a whole society or clearly demarcated

groups within society. These rights may be secured by a Bill of Rights or by

legislation such as that which protects workers, religious groups, political

organisations and groups.

Conflict can occur if individual rights prevent governments from responding in times of

emergencies, while societal divisions can occur if the rights of certain groups are

protected to a greater extent (or at the expense of) other groups.

AS exam-style questions1 An effective response to this question will differentiate between codified and uncodified

constitutions using examples from the UK and USA and explain that the difference in

principles (e.g. parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary government) and sources

(e.g.statute law, common law, conventions) contribute to the uncodified structure of the

UK’s constitution.

Higher-level responses will explain that the UK’s constitution is almost exclusively written

— apart from constitutional conventions — but not contained within a single codified

document. There are implications of this for the entrenchment of rights, flexibility and

constitutional clarity.

The highest-level responses will explain that an increasing amount of the UK’s constitution

is being ‘written’ such as the Human Rights Act (1998), the Political Parties, Elections and

Referendums Act (2000) and the relationships between central and devolved bodies.



2 The highest-level responses will include:

The implications of the fusion of executive and legislatures in parliamentary

government that allows for executive dominance.

The separation of powers and separate mandates in the USA.

The nature of parliamentary government as one of the key principles of the UK’s

constitutional arrangements.

The differences in the scope of checks and balances in parliamentary and

presidential systems.

The nature of executive accountability and the ambiguity of constitutional conventions

3 Arguments for codifying the constitution will include the following four themes:

Educative: people will be able to understand the constitution and what it says; aware

of their rights; in the USA all school students are taught the constitution.

Checks on government power: preventing the drift towards greater executive power.

However, this conflicts with parliamentary sovereignty. It would also need to be

entrenched in some way (e.g. referendums as in France).

Protect individual rights. The current HRA is still weak. It is argued, though, that if

rights are too well protected, government may not be able to operate effectively, e.g.

in law and order measures and anti-terrorism.

Judges within the system of checks and balances, but will judges exceed their

powers? Judges are unelected and unaccountable and may interfere excessively with

policy implementation.

A conclusion should state whether you believe the arguments are strong enough to

warrant codification, or not, and why you reach such a conclusion.

A-level exam-style questions1 Higher-level responses will identify a range of points that may include:

Fused powers and/or a lack of ‘separation of powers’ — the three branches of power

(executive, legislative, judicial) are fused, thereby allowing the executive to exert

significant control over Parliament. Mechanisms such as whipped votes and guillotine

motions are key to allowing executive dominance but so too are constitutional factors

such as a FPTP electoral system which produces significant government majorities.

Uncodified constitutions do not provide sufficient clarity and guidance in changing

socioeconomic times. Additionally, the lack of codification means that long-standing

provisions can be changed or waived for partisan advantage (e.g. the suspension of

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689).

Constitutional rights are unentrenched which means that there are no special

procedures required to curtail them. In times of crisis — such as following terrorist

attacks — basic rights can be suspended (e.g. anti-terrorism legislation post-9/11).



The Human Rights Act — the closest thing that Britain has to a Bill of Rights — is

‘beneath’ Parliament.

2 Arguments for reforming the constitution will include the following four themes:

Educative: people will be able to understand the constitution and what it says; aware

of their rights; in the USA all school students are taught the constitution.

Checks on government power: preventing the drift towards greater executive power.

However, this conflicts with parliamentary sovereignty. It would also need to be

entrenched in some way (e.g. referendums as in France).

Protect individual rights. The current HRA is still weak. It is argued, though, that if

rights are too well protected, government may not be able to operate effectively, e.g.

in law and order measures and anti-terrorism.

Judges within the system of checks and balances, but will judges exceed their

powers? Judges are unelected and unaccountable and may interfere excessively with

policy implementation.

A conclusion should state whether you believe the arguments are strong enough to

warrant codification, or not, and why you reach such a conclusion.

3 The highest-level responses will emphasise that the protection of civil liberties is a

fundamental feature of liberal democracies. They will also discuss the historical context of

the protection of rights in the UK; the UK’s current constitutional arrangements; and the

wider use of judicial review and the Human Rights Act. In particular:

Judicial review as a check on the powers of public bodies — though notably not as

far-reaching as in the USA; the doctrine of ultra vires; the growth of judicial activism.

The Human Rights Act (HRA) and the advent of a codified legal definition of individual

rights; the growth of a ‘rights’ culture within the senior judiciary and a greater

willingness to check the power of the executive; the ability of the courts to issue

declarations of incompatibility.

The creation of the Supreme Court with associated expectations of judicial

independence; the independent appointments process for senior judges.

However:

Other key aspects or threats to civil liberties include limits to trial by jury, detention of

terror suspects without charge; identity card debates.

Legislation with an anti-terror focus that has limited civil liberties (e.g. 2001, 2005,

2006 and 2008).

The absence of a British Bill of Rights tailored to suit the UK’s unique constitutional

requirements.


TOPIC 2 The structure and role of Parliament

Topic 2The structure and role of Parliament

Introduction1 The responsibility for holding the performance of the government to account lies with

Parliament and is considered to be one of the legislature’s primary roles. Committees in

both houses scrutinise government activity — the Public Accounts Committee regularly

holds to account the performance of public bodies (such as the BBC) too. Ministers and

the prime minister are subject to questioning in the Commons and government

representatives in the Lords account for performance in the Lords. The ultimate sanction

available to Parliament is a vote of no confidence in the government.

2 You should be able to identify the key functions of Parliament — legislation,

scrutiny/accountability, representation, recruitment of ministers, legitimacy — and the

differences in the way these are performed by the two Houses. For example, the three key

functions:

Legislation — both houses are involved in the passage of legislation. While the

Lords is seen as a refiner, using its depth of experience and expertise, legislation

originates in the Commons and it is this chamber that has the democratic

legitimacy to propose, amend and pass legislation. The Lords can delay legislation

for up to a year but cannot veto it.

Scrutiny/accountability — both houses are involved in scrutinising the

performance of the government, thereby holding it to account, but the Commons

has a far greater role in this process through committees (in particular its select

committees) and questions to ministers. The opposition in the Commons

challenges the government routinely, as well as using its opposition days to

determine the parliamentary agenda on a regular basis.

Representation — the Commons represents the specific interests of

constituencies and constituents. The Lords can be seen to represent a wide range

of causes and other interests, in particular the Lords has no electoral mandate and

cannot claim to have any representative legitimacy in any formal sense.



3 A bill in the House of Lords follows the same stages as those of the Commons. If

amendments to the bill are made in the Lords, the Commons may agree to them, reject

them or amend them further. A bill may go back and forth between the two houses in a

process known as ‘parliamentary ping pong’. In 2010–12, the Commons overturned a

series of Lords’ amendments on legal aid and welfare reform. If agreement cannot be

reached, the government must decide whether to accept changes made by the Lords,

drop the bill or invoke the Parliament Act.

Scrutiny of the executive4 Prime Minister’s Questions is a half-hourly slot in the House of Commons at midday every

Wednesday when Parliament is in session.

It is seen as a very visible way for the legislature to scrutinise the executive —

thereby demonstrating the performance of its accountability function.

The prime minister is required to be in command of a vast array of data and

information that could be used to embarrass the government. Departments are

required to share potentially ‘unflattering’ information as a result.

5 A no confidence vote is when the governing party loses a formal vote — followed by a

debate — on whether the House of Commons has confidence in the government of the

day. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act has rendered the prospect of a no confidence

motion or vote very rare indeed.

6 The power of the prime minister to distribute responsibilities is extensive and is

accompanied by the ability to reward followers and supporters with status and access.

Karren Brady’s CBE in the 2014 New Year’s Honours was seen by some as reward for her

support of the Conservative Party.

7 Where further persuasion is required, the organisational role of party whips can be

significant. There is an expectation that the party rank-and-file vote with the way of their

leaders and the ‘carrot and stick’ approach of the whips. There was a public outcry over

the news that Tory MPs would be whipped to back the government position in Syria in

2013.

Parliamentary debate and the legislative process

8 Bicameralism refers to legislative bodies that have two chambers. In the UK, the two

Houses of Parliament (Lords and Commons) comprise the state’s bicameral legislature.

9 The two chambers in the UK Parliament have roles in common — such as passing

legislation and scrutinising government activity — as well as certain ‘exclusive’ roles,



similar to the Senate and House of Representatives in the US Congress. In the UK the

House of Lords reinforces the legislative and executive scrutiny role of Parliament.

10 The main advantages of bicameralism are the Lords plays a valuable role in providing

expertise and experience in the scrutiny of government bills that originate in the Commons

— especially in the areas of rights and liberties — as well as opposing the government,

using its power of delay. The disadvantages are that as an unelected and unaccountable

body, the role that the Lords plays is not seen as particularly legitimate in comparison to

the Commons, and disagreements between the houses can sometimes lead to gridlock.

11 A backbencher is a Member of Parliament without ‘frontbench’ responsibility — either

within the government or shadow cabinet or acting as a senior party spokesperson. The

term refers to the seating arrangements in the House of Commons, where representatives

without responsibility sit on the back benches. The Conservative Party’s 1922 Committee

coordinates the party’s backbenchers.

12 Crossbenchers are independent members of the House of Lords who have no party

affiliation and do not ‘take the whip’ of any party. Their voting records ought to identify

them as such. Historically, they have sat on the benches that are at right angles to the

front benches to indicate their independence.

13 Prior to the 1999 Lords Reform Act around 750 hereditary peers — who had their titles

passed down to them within the family — were able to debate and vote on legislation. The

Weatherill Amendment allowed 92 hereditary peers to remain in the Lords. The value of

hereditary peers can be seen in their longevity, their latent authority and their potentially

less partisan approach (though most hereditary peers are firm Conservative Party

supporters).

14 The lords spiritual are the 26 most senior members of the clergy in the Church of England,

including the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. With their religious appointment comes

the right to sit in the House of Lords. They are considered to be particularly valuable in

applying moral and spiritual arguments to policies and legislative programmes.

15 You should give a brief outline of each stage of the legislative process.

16 Parliament is the crucial national arena for the discussion of major (and minor) political

issues. MPs express their views and try to influence policy in a range of debates on

current events and government actions. Half-hour adjournment debates held at the end of

each day give MPs a chance to raise a particular issue. An MP can request that an

emergency debate is held on a specific matter requiring ‘urgent consideration’.

17 A Private Members’ Bill (PMB) is a legislative proposal that originates with an ordinary

member of Parliament (backbencher) rather than with the government. The vast majority

of PMBs fail to make it into law due to the lack of parliamentary time allocated to them.

However some, such as the Sustainable Communities Act 2006, have proved to be far-

reaching in their effect.

18



a Whipped votes — compelling MPs within committees, that are made up in proportion to

the chamber, will mean that the vote will be won and opposition amendments voted down.

b Guillotine motion — with a disciplined majority of MPs, any stalling tactics by opposition

MPs (or even sensible attempts to discuss important points) can be cut short as MPs vote

to end debate and move to a vote.

c Parliament Acts — the Lords is subject to the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 which

prevent it from delaying certain types of bills and limit its power of delay to a year.

Theories of representation: Burkean, delegate, mandate theories

19 An individual authorised to act on behalf of others but who is bound by clear instructions.

20 An individual who has formal responsibility for the interests of another (in law, this will

often be property).

21 This refers to MPs using their conscience instead of merely acting on the views of their

constituents.

22 The term mandate is often linked to ‘authority’. In a political context, mandate refers to the

right of the governing party to pursue policies and legislation as a result of winning an

election. In the UK the coalition government could claim an ‘electoral mandate’ after

winning the 2010 general election. The extent of the mandate is also linked to a party’s

manifesto — the right to govern in accordance with pre-election commitments contained in

a manifesto — though this is not a legal requirement. The Conservative Party’s 2010

election manifesto pledged to raise inheritance tax and freeze council tax for 2 years, two

pledges that it delivered on.

23 Resemblance theory refers to the need for an elected assembly to reflect the society or

community that it serves. The theory holds that the more an assembly resembles the

society, the more legitimate it is and the more effectively it can govern. The Commons and

Lords do not resemble the broader society from which they are drawn on several levels:

ethnicity (just 4%) and gender (22%) being especially notable. There are several

conflicting arguments as to whether an assembly needs to resemble the society and

whether lack of resemblance actually leads to a lower level of representation.

24 Advantages of life peers:

expertise

breadth of experience

Disadvantages of life peers:

legitimacy

accusations of cronyism



The roles and influence of MPs and peers

25 Higher-level responses will include:

investigating the work of all government departments

analysing how effective and efficient the government is and the quality and

desirability of proposed legislation

questioning ministers, civil servants and other witnesses, calling for official

documents and reports

producing reports on various aspects of government work, with recommendations for

change; these are presented to Parliament as a whole

26 The Backbench Business Committee controls the parliamentary agenda on 35 days a

year:

the chair must be a member of the opposition

members are voted in using proportional electoral systems

Outline recent examples of the work of the Backbench Business Committee.

27 The Salisbury Doctrine is a constitutional convention that underpins the working of the

House of Lords and was established by Lord Salisbury, Conservative leader in the Lords

in 1945. Since it is unelected, the convention holds that the House of Lords should not

oppose government bills at the second reading stage if they are backed by a clear

electoral mandate within the governing party’s pre-election manifesto. Following the low

turnout at the 2005 general election, the Liberal Democrats argued that they were not

bound by the convention; in 2006 the then prime minister Tony Blair set up a committee of

both houses to investigate formalising the convention.

28 Higher-level responses will discuss the following three areas:

In response to Lords resistance to the 1909 Liberal budget, the Parliament Act of

1911 transformed the power of the Lords by replacing its legislative veto with a 2-year

delay and preventing it from debating and voting on money bills.

The Salisbury Doctrine, dating from 1945, ensured that the Lords would not vote

against legislation contained in a government’s manifesto.

The Parliament Act of 1945 reduced the power of delay to 1 year. However, it has

been used on only four occasions since.

29

Option Argument for Argument against



Abolition of the second chamber

A second chamber is an expensive waste of money and resources — a view held by some left-wing MPs who highlight the unicameral regional assemblies.

Very few unicameral legislatures exist and a second chamber presents a vital check on government power.

A fully appointed second chamber

Would present an opportunity to bring a large number of experts in to the governing process.

Who would appoint and to what extent would ‘special interests’ dominate an appointed chamber?

A fully elected second chamber

Seen as the most democratic of all possible reforms, creating an accountable and legitimate check on the government. Supported by MPs of all parties.

Which House would hold democratic legitimacy — especially if the electoral system used for the second chamber was more proportional?

A partly elected and partly appointed second chamber

Seen by some as the ‘best of both worlds’ with appointed experts joining regional representatives to create an effective branch of government.

What proportion would present the best solution? Would there be two ‘types’ of members?

The significance of the Commons and Lords: influence on government decisions

30

Type of committee

Explanation (including analysis of strengths and weaknesses)

Example

Select committees

These play a vital role in examining the performance of the government. Departmental select committees scrutinise each department of state while others are more general. The Commons Liaison Committee is made up of the chairs of all departmental select committees and requires the PM, by convention, to appear before it twice a year. In March 2013 the PM was quizzed on the situation in Syria.

Public Accounts Committee, Commons Liaison Committee

Public bill committee

All legislation passes through a public bill committee stage when a group of MPs (usually 15–25 members) made up in proportion to the party make-up of the Commons, evaluate a bill clause by clause.

Defence Reform Bill Committee in 2013–14 parliamentary session

31 High-level answers will refer to:

the role of the leader of the opposition in opposing the government

the significance of opposition days

examples of successes of the opposition in forcing the government to ‘back down’

(e.g. over the so-called ‘pasty tax’)



AS exam-style questions1 ‘Elective dictatorship’ is a phrase coined by Lord Hailsham in 1976. It refers to the

concentration of power in the hands of the prime minister — the leader of a unified party in

the House of Commons. With an electoral system that over-rewards the winning party

(e.g. Labour in 2005 won 55% of the Commons seats with 35% of the vote), an uncodified

constitution and a lack of separation of powers, the British prime minister is uniquely

powerful within the UK’s political system.

2 The highest-level responses will differentiate between parliamentary sovereignty in theory

and in practice.

The theory of parliamentary sovereignty is one of the ‘twin pillars’ of the UK’s constitution,

along with the rule of law, and holds that there is no higher authority than Parliament. Such

a view is contested on a practical level as while legal sovereignty may remain with

Parliament, political sovereignty — power on a day-to-day basis — lies with the executive.

Other changes and constitutional reforms have shifted sovereignty and eroded the

principle of parliamentary sovereignty:

A. V. Dicey maintained that the people were sovereign — at least on the day of a

general election. The wider use of referendums (e.g. May 2011 referendum) has

extended this.

In some areas, powerful quangos and pressure groups retain sovereignty. In the

recent past, Regional Development Agencies (such as EMDA, the East Midlands

Development Agency) have enjoyed autonomy in areas of housing, planning and

transport in their respective areas. Some groups such as the General Medical Council

(GMC) are responsible for the medical register and can strike off doctors for

malpractice.

Further EU integration has meant that vast areas of legislation have been

surrendered to Europe, e.g. agriculture, environmental matters, health and safety.

Devolution has meant that a large number of decisions are now taken at regional and

local levels, e.g. Scotland’s education and healthcare systems are different from the

rest of the UK.

3 Higher-level essays would contain most of the following points:

An explanation of the main functions of Parliament (representation, legislation and

scrutiny), with an emphasis on the fact that all have a representative function as MPs

are performing them on behalf of their constituents.

Detailed knowledge and understanding of the composition of Parliament with

reference to extensive socioeconomic data and the implications of this for the

effective performance of the representative function.



Aspects such as geographic representation via constituencies; party representation

with links to the nature of the FPTP electoral system and the translation of votes to

seats; the dominance of two or three parties in the House of Commons; knowledge

and understanding of the functions of the House of Lords with regard to

representation.

A discussion of the way that MPs perform constituency functions such as raising

constituency matters in Parliament and in parliamentary committees and via Early

Day Motions and with constraints such as lack of time and resources to do this

effectively, whipped votes, traditions of party loyalty, threat of removal of ‘the whip’ or

party ‘de-selection’.

There are also some institutional factors such as the lack of separation of powers

which means that the executive can physically dominate the legislature to restrict the

effectiveness of the representative function and also that a track record of party

loyalty is a prerequisite for promotion.

A-level exam-style questions1 Select committees are committees based in Parliament with the purpose of scrutinising the

work of the government or executive branch and investigating areas of policy. There are

19 departmental select committees, such as the foreign affairs select committee, and over

20 non-departmental select committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee which

has a formidable reputation for highlighting wastefulness, incompetence and, the extract

deficiencies of government departments. Select committees carry out their functions by

questioning ministers, conducting inquiries and writing written reports. However, their

reports, though potentially embarrassing, carry no legal weight of enforcement.

2 Highest-level responses will discuss recent proposals by Nick Clegg to replace the House

of Lords with an elected alternative and develop the following areas:

There is value in having a second chamber but the weaknesses of the current model

— it is unelected, unrepresentative and undemocratic — warrant reform. While recent

changes have democratised the house, it still represents ‘special interests’ rather

than ordinary people.

An elected second chamber with its own ‘mandate’ would be fully accountable to the

electorate. If the electoral system used is proportional then it will represent voters’

wishes far more accurately than the Commons.

A fully elected chamber would allow greater expertise to enter the legislative process.

It would work in partnership with the House of Commons and its elected authority

would ensure that it could challenge government power more effectively.

3 A higher-level essay would include the following:



Effective knowledge and understanding of the main methods by which the

government holds the executive to account — including opposition days, debates,

ministers’ question time, select committees.

A contextual knowledge of the relationship between the executive and Parliament —

from perceived ‘golden age’ to executive dominance under recent governments and a

comparative discussion of effective scrutiny in different countries (e.g. USA and the

effect of the complete separation of powers).

Factors which reduce the effectiveness of these methods, such as limited time for

effective debate, limited resources to mount coherent challenges or select committee

activity, government majorities, the power of the whips, constituency expectations, a

culture of party loyalty and personal political ambition.

The role of the House of Lords in holding the government to account and specific

legislation and conventions that limit this scope balanced against examples of

effective scrutiny delaying bills.

Examples of government defeats in the Commons and Lords, backbench rebellions,

votes of confidence, party splits, weak opposition, two-party dominance and the

impact of a majoritarian electoral system.


TOPIC 3 The prime minister and cabinet

Topic 3The prime minister and cabinet

Introduction1 The core executive is made up of both individuals and institutions. Centred on

Westminster, it is seen as the ‘complex web of institutions, networks and practices

surrounding the prime minister, cabinet and cabinet committees’ according to political

scientist R. A. W. Rhodes. It is made up of government departments (e.g. the Treasury),

senior government figures (e.g. the foreign secretary) and high-ranking officials (e.g. the

cabinet secretary).

2 Special advisers (or SpAds) are civil servants who represent the party political interests of

the ministers that they serve. Civil servants on the other hand are non-partisan officials

operating within government departments. Whereas traditional civil servants are

permanent, SpAds depend on their ministers — if a minister is sacked or resigns, the

SpAd leaves with him or her. In theory, civil servants should remain anonymous but SpAds

are often well known, e.g. Alistair Campbell under Tony Blair.

How policy is made3

Power Explanation

Power of appointment (‘hiring and firing’)

The prime minister exercises the prerogative powers of appointment and dismissal of all senior members of the government — cabinet ministers, senior civil servants, peers, bishops and judges. Such patronage powers are extensive, command significant loyalty and enable the premier to promote and demote key allies or rivals.

Directing the government

Setting policy objectives, short- and long-term strategic goals and determining the cabinet agenda are key prime ministerial responsibilities. While these are determined and achieved in conjunction with cabinet colleagues, the premier’s personal role in policy making and agenda setting is formidable.

Managing Parliament

The leadership of a majority party (or parties in times of coalition government) in the House of Commons is central to the power of the prime minister. Control of the parliamentary timetable and expectations of party loyalty remain powerful prime ministerial tools. Fixed-term parliaments have removed the prime minister’s ultimate threat of dissolution.

National and international leadership

In times of crisis the prime minister is expected to provide leadership — magnified in an era of intense media scrutiny. On a practical level, exercising the prerogative powers of waging war and signing treaties enhances the premier’s standing and prestige.



4 The patronage powers of a prime minister are extensive and stretch from central

government to public bodies to positions at the top of the Church of England. The highest-

level responses will include:

Effective analysis of the importance of the appointments role (‘hiring and firing’), its

development as a royal prerogative power and how it is exercised by the prime

minister, citing specific recent examples and contrasting recent prime ministerial

appointments and dismissals.

The scope of the power which includes creating and reshuffling cabinet posts,

appointing senior civil servants and special advisers, shaping the House of Lords and

also the heads of public corporations such as the BBC, nationalised industries and

senior bishops in the Church of England.

The extent to which the lack of separation of powers means that the ability to make

executive appointments from the legislature is a significant tool to command loyalty.

Unlike the USA, executive post holders do not have to leave the legislature to take up

their roles. In addition, and again unlike the USA, there is no formal approval or

ratification of a prime minister’s appointments.

5 A Latin term meaning ‘first among equals’ and denoting the traditional position of the prime

minister among his or her cabinet colleagues. The theory holds that decision making at

cabinet level should be collegial or collective — something that is disputed in an age of

prime ministerial predominance.

6 The ‘circumstance’ debate holds significant weight when considering prime ministerial

power — that premiers are only as powerful as the political environment in which they

operate.

Parliamentary majorities: John Major could ill afford to alienate members of his dwindling

majority so was required to seek consensus far more often than Tony Blair who could

ignore even sizeable rebellions that barely dented his 160+ seat majority between 1997

and 2005.

Economic recession, foreign wars, domestic crises (e.g. foot-and-mouth outbreak, violent

demonstrations), allegations of sleaze or high-profile resignations are all circumstances

that can have a significant impact on a prime minister.

7 Constraints on a prime minister’s power include:

The cabinet: while the power of the cabinet itself is widely acknowledged to be an

insignificant check on prime ministerial decision making, the presence of the party’s ‘big

beasts’ within it is an altogether different matter. Damaging resignations from poorly

managed relationships have checked all prime ministers, disunity (e.g. under Thatcher)

can fatally undermine even the strongest seeming premier, and power-brokering (e.g.

between Blair and Brown) can prove to be particularly awkward.



The party: support of party is generally expected though this can be a genuinely

constraining influence. Thatcher was forced out by her party — failing to win enough

support to continue to a second ballot of MPs in her leadership challenge; Major was

required to acquiesce to backbench MPs (particularly over Europe) on a number of

occasions; Blair’s control of his party declined following the Iraq War in 2003 and he faced

the largest backbench rebellion of any government in the last century.

The electorate: the ever-rising national profile of the prime minister means that a close

connection between him or her and the people is guaranteed. While this can be the source

of sufficient popularity to override political opponents it can prove decisively negative.

Blair’s personal unpopularity after 2003 was the biggest single factor in his decision to step

down; for Brown his low levels of popularity with the public proved insurmountable.

Other factors: events (see answer to question 6); the media.

8

Yes, the British prime minister is too powerful

Power Explanation and example

Appoints and dismisses ministers

The British prime minister’s powers of patronage are extensive. He or she has the power to appoint and dismiss ministers (at cabinet level and below) as well as senior civil servants, bishops, peers and judges. By promoting or dismissing allies or opponents a British prime minister can shape a cabinet to his or her choosing.

Controls cabinet agenda

A prime minister can control the frequency and duration of cabinet meetings as well as the pace and scope of debates that take place within them. In addition, a prime minister can take forward ‘decisions’ based on ‘mood’ rather than votes.

Leads largest party

Leading a single-party government ensures the prime minister can expect a high degree of party loyalty with the passage of policies and legislation through Parliament. A coalition government makes this process more complex but expectations of loyalty remain.

Enjoys high public profile

As de facto head of state — sometimes referred to as ‘chief executive’, the prime minister’s powers of war and peace ensure that he or she is a formidable figure. The concentrating focus of the media on personalities has enhanced this.

No, the British prime minister is not too powerful

Constraint Explanation and example

Restricted by cabinet personnel

So-called ‘big beasts’ within the prime minister’s party can prove to be a powerful check, with cabinet inclusion required. Ideological balance is often needed too (e.g. the inclusion of John Prescott throughout Tony Blair’s premiership); alienating key figures (e.g. Heseltine under Thatcher) can prove disastrous.

Limited by Parliament

The capacity of Parliament to cause embarrassment through Prime Minister’s Questions and critical select committee reports can be sufficient to force prime ministers and their governments to back down. Gordon Brown conceded by removing the 10% tax rate in 2008.

Challenged by party

All recent prime ministers — Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown — have faced serious criticism from within their own party and each has been checked by the threat of rebellions and challenges to their leadership.



Blamed for policy failure

Ultimately ‘the buck stops’ with the prime minister and recent prime ministers have been dogged by personal blame for events that seem largely beyond their control. For Brown it was global economic recession; for Blair it was the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.

9 The highest-level answers will display a similar structure to the plan in the workbook,

developing the following arguments.

Yes, the British prime minister has become presidential:

The prerogative foreign policy powers of a prime minister are not dissimilar to the

constitutional powers of the US president as commander-in-chief.

The development of a dedicated prime ministerial department, the strengthening of

the Cabinet Office and the wider use of special advisers gives the appearance of a

presidential style ‘West Wing’ or personal bureaucracy.

The intense media focus on the personality and character of the prime minister

promotes the post holder as an individual rather than a party leader.

No, the British prime minister has not become presidential:

The prime minister is not the head of state and the lack of a personal mandate

through direct election is a key differentiator.

The British constitution makes no provision for a presidential-style leader and

Parliament remains sovereign.

The ‘power’ of a prime minister is largely down to personal and political

circumstances — while Blair may have seemed ‘presidential’, Brown certainly did not.

The relationship between the prime minister and the cabinet

10

a The cabinet. The cabinet is the central element of the government — a

committee of senior ministers (e.g. the home secretary) who head the largest departments

of state (e.g. the foreign office). It usually has between 22 and 23 members and operates

under traditional principles of cabinet government (collective decision making) and

collective responsibility.

b Cabinet committees. These are a subgroup of the main cabinet, made up

according to the wishes and focus of the prime minister to respond to the most pressing

issues or strategic goals being pursued. An example of a cabinet committee is the

National Security Council, set up in 2010 and chaired by the prime minister — it

coordinates intelligence strategy and defence responses to threats.



c The Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office is the central support mechanism for the

prime minister and cabinet. It houses several units which cut across departments of state

to ensure coordinated policy and is headed by the cabinet secretary who leads the British

civil service. The Cabinet Office has strengthened the role of the prime minister in

controlling government departments.

11 The cabinet secretary is the highest-ranking senior civil servant in charge of the Cabinet

Office. His or her role is also to report directly to the prime minister. The role is extremely

influential since the incumbent combines leading the British civil service with managing the

cabinet and, usually, being central to the decision-making process. Sir Jeremy Heywood is

the current cabinet secretary, appointed in January 2012.

12 Cabinet government emphasises the collective nature of decision making at the centre,

where the prime minister is merely primus inter pares (first among equals) and executive

power is vested in the hands of the group of ministers who comprise the cabinet. Highest-

level responses will include:

An acknowledgement that in spite of the resources at the disposal of the prime

minister, action cannot be unilateral and any prime minister is as accountable to

Parliament as any cabinet minister is.

In contrast to cabinet government, prime ministerial government refers to a style of

government in which the prime minister is dominant, setting the agenda, determining

policy and rarely allowing the cabinet to actually ‘decide’.

The last 50 years have witnessed the steady erosion of the profile and power of the

cabinet in favour of the prime minister. The decline in frequency and duration of

meetings under Tony Blair and associated decision making hastened this.

David Cameron pledged to put the cabinet back at the heart of decision making. A

coalition government necessitated more collegiality, but the presence of the ‘quad’

(Cameron, Clegg, George Osborne and Danny Alexander) meant that the most

controversial decisions and deliberations were still kept away from the cabinet.

13

a The increasing complexity of government has reduced decision making at

cabinet level — ministers cannot grasp the detail of issues that are outside of their own

departments so trusted groups or ‘inner cabinets’ are formed.

b The prime minister’s use of bilateral meetings and cabinet committees means

that there are more focused and effective decision-making bodies than the cabinet.

c A kitchen cabinet refers to a small group of cabinet ministers or advisors who are

more regularly consulted by the prime minister. Meetings take place at alternative times to

the main cabinet meeting and decisions are reached by a group of individuals more

trusted than those in the full cabinet. Tony Blair was accused of over-reliance on an ‘inner



circle’ or kitchen cabinet which comprised Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan

Powell and Anji Hunter.

The difference between individual and collective ministerial responsibility

14

Year Minister Reason for resignation over individual responsibility

1981 Lord Carrington, foreign secretary

Failure to manage relationship with Argentina or anticipate Falklands invasion

1998 Peter Mandelson, Northern Ireland secretary

Misconduct over alleged receipt of substantial undeclared loan

2001 Estelle Morris, education secretary

Criticism over her performance and policies

2005 David Blunkett, home secretary

Misconduct — alleged abuse of office to fast-track visa to personal advantage

2010 David Laws, Treasury secretary

Misconduct — inappropriate expense claims

15

Year Minister and department Reason for resignation over collective responsibility

2003 Robin Cook, leader of the Commons

Resigned as Lord President of the Council and leader of the House of Commons in protest against the invasion of Iraq

2003 Clare Short, international development

Resigned 2 months after the outbreak of the Iraq War in protest against the lack of a UN mandate to invade

2006 Tom Watson, defence Resigned as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence after signing a letter calling on Tony Blair to resign as prime minister

2009 James Purnell, work and pensions

Resigned as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions after calling for Gordon Brown to resign

2016 Ian Duncan Smith, work and pensions

Resigned in protest over cuts to disability benefits

16 The highest-level responses will develop the following:

An explanation of the main aspects of individual ministerial responsibility (IMR) — the

convention that ministers are accountable to Parliament for their own personal

behaviour as well as all the policies and work of their departments; and collective

responsibility — that cabinet members are bound by discussion and decisions

reached by the cabinet.

The convention of individual ministerial responsibility is integral to Parliament’s

accountability function since every minister is named responsible for each department



of state. However, collective responsibility focuses on the governing process to

ensure coherence and consistency in government.

While IMR has been ‘eroded’ by its redefinition so as not to include decisions that a

minister had no knowledge of or were taken by separate/independent government

agencies, collective responsibility has been eroded by stealth — often through leaks,

smears, ‘briefing wars’ and non-resignations following dissent (e.g. Clare Short

retaining her cabinet position for 2 months after public disagreement).

What powers do prime ministers and cabinets have to dictate events and determine policy?

17 Use the information below, information in your textbooks and your own wider research to

create suitable examples and responses.

Margaret Thatcher is widely seen as one of the few British prime minister’s to bring a

distinct ideological shift to government. Her personal convictions — for a deregulated

market economy, a reduction in trade union power and the privatisation of state-run

industries — were instrumental in overturning the postwar consensus and reshaping

Britain. Executive decision making was largely replaced by personal rule, and at

cabinet meetings senior colleagues found themselves being briefed on decisions

already made.

John Major’s intentions for executive decision making had been all about collegiality

on his accession to Number 10, but his premiership was steadily overshadowed by a

loss of authority and his slender government majority had been entirely overturned by

1997.

The Blair era was characterised by a dominant prime ministerial leadership style

backed by the largest postwar Commons majority and largely shaped by bilateral

meetings between the prime minister and key ministers of state. The result was rapid

change in many areas, especially health, welfare, education and major constitutional

reforms. However, such a style proved less robust when his popularity declined and

Blair faced opposition or defeat in several key areas most notably after the Iraq War

in 2003.

David Cameron’s time as prime minister can only be viewed against a backdrop of

coalition government and austerity. Coalition government required a much more

collegial approach than his predecessors, using bilateral meetings — with deputy

prime minister and coalition ally Nick Clegg — or meetings within a ‘Quad’ that also

included George Osborne and Danny Alexander. Austerity provided the rationale to



revive Thatcherite commitments to a small state, a free market economy and

significant cuts to public spending.

Theresa May entered office with extensive frontbench government experience,

setting about strengthening the Prime Minister’s Office and reorganising the cabinet

system to ensure more direct control of key cabinet committees. However, while

Brexit negotiations are set to dominate her initial years in office and likely to divide the

Conservative Party, 2017 began with a ‘humanitarian crisis’ in hospital care and a

funding crisis in education.

AS exam-style questions1 Answers should include the following:

It gives the government a strong sense of unity. This gives it strength in relation to

Parliament, the governing party, the media and the public.

It promotes great discipline within the government and prevents damaging splits

which may become public. Government loses authority if it is perceived to be divided.

It gives the prime minister control over government because it enables him or her to

maintain discipline over the presentation of policy. It also means that all ministers

must support the government in parliamentary votes.

It helps to maintain secrecy in government. Ministers should not reveal the nature of

internal conflicts, especially in cabinet. This maintains the illusion of unity and the

media and public cannot be aware of the internal discussions within government

(except for leaks).

2 The highest-level answers will include references to:

There is no official position of prime minister — he or she technically has the same

status as any other member of cabinet, but the prime minister’s acknowledged

leadership of the cabinet, backed by various sources of authority, means that he or

she is dominant. The prime minister also is not separately elected so has the same

elective authority as the government as a whole.

He or she can be overruled by the cabinet. The prime minister must carry the

collective support of the cabinet. Thatcher, for example, finally lost cabinet support

as, arguably, did Tony Blair. The term primus inter pares is appropriate because the

prime minister is only one member of a collective group.

He or she relies on popular support. This can easily be lost as happened, for

example, to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. When and if this happens there will

emerge key rivals to his or her power. Events can also affect the prime minister’s pre-

eminence. Major, Blair and Brown all found this.

Under coalition there is a special circumstance. The prime minister must be able to

achieve agreement between the two party leaderships to dominate. This may often



not be possible so the prime minister must follow the leadership of the cabinet as a

whole.

At any time the cabinet can overrule the prime minister. If there is enough opposition

to a prime ministerial proposal he or she cannot force it through cabinet. Margaret

Thatcher’s cabinet eventually forced her out over the poll tax, which they opposed.

John Major was forced to adopt attitudes to Europe he did not support and Gordon

Brown had to modify economic policy in the face of cabinet opposition.

Ultimately the cabinet can force a prime minister out of power. This happened,

effectively, to both Thatcher and Blair. Note that this was a constant possibility under

coalition though the Liberal Democrats never threatened seriously.

3 Identify and explain at least three of the following ways in which the prime minister could

be seen as too powerful:

The increasing tendency of prime ministers to adopt a presidential style and to be the

sole spokesperson for government policy, separating themselves from the rest of

government.

Prime ministers, especially since the 1960s, have made fuller use of their prerogative

powers, especially their dominance of foreign and military policy and their use of

patronage.

Prime ministers over recent decades have built up a large power base that includes

the Cabinet Office, private advisers, policy units and the like.

With the decline of mass political parties whose members had influence over policy,

prime ministers tend to dominate the policy agenda to a greater extent than in the

past.

Cabinet has declined in importance and this has been matched by a growth in prime

ministerial dominance of the cabinet.

Identify and explain at least three of the following ways in which prime ministerial power

can be constrained:

There should be a considerable analysis of the constraints provided by coalition

government. Cameron’s patronage powers were limited by the need to include Liberal

Democrats in government, by the need to share the policy agenda with Clegg and by

the fact that he did not enjoy a clear parliamentary majority. He led a government

which was always in danger of becoming divided. He could not even rely on collective

responsibility.

Prime ministerial power is constrained by the fact that the UK has less control over its

own affairs than it used to. The EU is the main example of this, but the UK is also

subject to international influence from such bodies as the European Court of Human

Rights, the Council of Europe and NATO. Devolution has also reduced the jurisdiction

of the prime minister.



All prime ministers’ power is affected by factors beyond their control. These include

various economic and military events and the fact that the attitudes of the media and

the public may unaccountably change.

Prime ministers always run the risk of losing the support of Parliament and/or the

cabinet. Thatcher, Blair, Major and Brown all suffered such losses of support. Prime

ministers can be removed from office at any time by one of these bodies (unlike a

fixed-term president).

Conclude with an answer to the question, which may include the thesis that the balance of

powers and constraints is not constant, but varies through time, events and the personality

of the office holder. Any conclusion should explain what evidence leads you to it.

A-level exam-style questions1 Sometimes cabinet does make important policy decisions when the prime minister is

unable or unwilling to make them on his or her own. These are often responses to

international crises.

Cabinet manages the business of government, sets priorities and decides how

parliamentary business should be organised.

When there are disputes between ministers, often over the allocation of public

expenditure, cabinet may be the last resort in settling the argument if the prime minister or

cabinet secretary cannot do so.

Cabinet determines how government policy will be presented and ensures that all

ministers adhere to it.

Most importantly and commonly, cabinet ratifies decisions and proposals developed

elsewhere, in committees, by the prime minister or by other policy units. This formalises

government policy and makes it ‘official’.

2 The highest-level students will recognise that the question focuses on the nature and

extent of collective decision making within the core executive. Responses should include:

Knowledge and understanding of the functioning of the cabinet and the nature of

cabinet government; explanations should be specific and refer to traditional

understandings of executive decision making, cabinet composition, frequency and

duration of meetings, cabinet committees, the Cabinet Office, the theory and

practice of primus inter pares.

Knowledge and understanding of prime ministerial power — ministerial

appointments and dismissals, controlling and determining the cabinet agenda, the



use of kitchen cabinets and bilateral meetings, powers of patronage, and theories

of ‘presidentialism’.

A focus on the dynamic relationship between the powers and increasing

predominance of the prime minister and the conventions of collective decision

making within the cabinet.

A review of core executive decision making more widely and the limitations on

prime ministerial authority arising from the powers of ministerial colleagues, e.g.

Blair/Brown rivalry, Geoffrey Howe’s fatal resignation, John Major’s ‘bastards’.

3 Ways in which cabinet government has declined include:

Increasingly political decisions are being made outside cabinet. These external

places include the prime minister and his or her office, cabinet committees, private

advisers, think tanks and similar.

The power and dominance of the prime minister has grown a great deal. The prime

minister dominates cabinet, has great patronage power and now has increasing

sources of advice outside the cabinet.

Cabinet in recent years has met less often and for a shorter time than it used to. It

also rarely discusses major policy decisions but is largely confined to ratifying

decisions that have been made elsewhere.

Ways in which the prime minister can dominate cabinet include:

Patronage gives the prime minister enormous control over cabinet. All members owe

their position to the prime minister and know that their career is in his or her hands.

The prime minister dominates cabinet by controlling its agenda and chairing its

meeting. He or she has various ways of manipulating its decisions.

The prime minister increasingly does policy ‘deals’ outside cabinet, mainly with senior

ministers so he or she can present cabinet with a fait accompli. Thatcher and Blair

were especially able to do this.

Ways in which cabinet remains important include:

It enjoyed a renaissance under coalition in that it was vital in reaching agreements

between the coalition partners.

It can still overrule the prime minister. He or she must maintain its agreement to major

policies.

Cabinet ministers still have important power centres of their own, including those in

charge of large departments, their private advisers and a number of policy units

available to them.



Conclude by answering the question one way or another. Justify your answer by referring

to what you consider to be crucial evidence.


TOPIC 4 The judiciary

Topic 4The judiciary

The composition of the judiciary and the appointments process

1

a At the High Court level, judges hear more serious cases and can also hear cases

on appeal.

b At the Court of Appeal level and above judges are concerned with clarifying the

meaning of the law, rather than just applying it. These courts can set precedent. Cases

heard in the Court of Appeal normally result from confusion in the lower courts regarding

the meaning of a law. The Court of Appeal also deals with major cases arising from the

Human Rights Act (1998).

c The Law Lords hear cases on appeal from the Appeals Court. In recent years

such disputes have increasingly been brought under the HRA (1998) or under EU law.

2 Common law is the collective body of ‘case law’ or judge-made law that results from

judges setting legal precedents through their rulings in the UK courts. Common law is one

of the principal sources of the UK’s constitution. It is only the most senior judges who are

able to add to the body of common law and usually this is by ‘clarifying the meaning of the

law’ in changing social circumstances but ‘every single verdict’ binds future judicial

decisions. Common law can be seen as controversial since it adds to the power of judges

to shape the UK’s constitutional framework. However, many of the most basic rights and

freedoms that citizens enjoy — such as consumer protection — have their origins in

common law.

3 At the start of the legal year in October 2009, the 12 Law Lords who comprised the House

of Lords Appellate Committee moved to new accommodation in the renovated Middlesex

Guildhall, opposite the Houses of Parliament. Though they remained members of the

Lords, they at the same time became the first justices of the new UK Supreme Court.



The creation of a new UK Supreme Court was one of many measures set out in the

Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Under this Act the new UK Supreme Court took on the

four roles previously performed by the Law Lords:

to act as the final court of appeal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

to hear appeals on issues of public importance surrounding arguable points of law

to hear appeals from civil cases in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland

to hear appeals from criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (the High

Court of Justiciary retained jurisdiction over criminal cases in Scotland)

4 Answers will vary. It is vital that you support your analysis and evaluation with examples

that you have researched and that deviate from the standard textbook or revision-guide

examples.

5 The senior judiciary comprises Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords); Heads of

Divisions; Lords Justices of Appeal; High Court Judges and Deputy High Court Judges.

Senior judicial appointments were traditionally made by the monarch on the advice of the

prime minister and the lord chancellor. The lord chancellor customarily consulted serving

senior judges through a process known as ‘secret soundings’. Though lower level

vacancies in the senior judiciary (e.g. for High Court judges) were advertised, the lord

chancellor was under no obligation to appoint from among those who had formally applied.

It was said that this system lacked transparency, compromised the proper separation of

powers, and resulted in the senior judiciary being drawn almost exclusively from a very

narrow social circle: public school and Oxbridge educated, white, middle-aged men.

6 Though the appointments process still involves the minister who formally holds the title of

lord chancellor (i.e. the justice minister), his role is greatly reduced.

A five-member selection commission is convened to consider possible nominees and

make ‘selection’ based on merit. The commission submits a report to the lord chancellor

naming a nominee. The lord chancellor has three options:

to accept the selection by ‘notifying’ the prime minister

to reject the selection

to require the commission to reconsider their selection

Once ‘notified’, the prime minister must recommend the approved candidate to the queen.

The individual is appointed a justice of the Supreme Court when Her Majesty issues letters

patent.

7 Judicial independence is the principle that those in the judiciary should be free from

political control. Such independence allows judges to ‘do the right thing’ and apply justice

properly, without fear of the consequences.

8 In order to preserve judicial independence:



Judges cannot be dismissed for political reasons or on the basis of decisions they

have made (security of tenure).

They cannot have their salaries reduced as a way of putting pressure on them.

Their appointment is made by an appointments commission that is politically

independent.

Cases in which they are involved cannot be discussed in Parliament or by

government ministers.

9 Judicial impartiality is where judges operate neutrally (i.e. without personal bias) when

administering justice. This is necessary as part of the rule of law which states that:

everyone is equal under the law

no one is above the law

everyone is entitled to a free and fair trial

Judges are not permitted to be politically active in any way or to express any political

opinions.

They must be experienced lawyers and so be used to giving neutral judgements based

only on the law and not on their own prejudices.

10 The essay requires an understanding of the nature of the British judiciary, the functions of

the judiciary, notions of judicial neutrality (interpreting laws without personal bias) and

independence (political independence from other branches of government), fusion and

separation of powers and recent constitutional reforms. In addition, an exploration of why

independence and neutrality are so significant to the judicial process in the protection of

individual rights, upholding the rule of law and ensuring that political or personal bias is not

a part of the judicial process. Higher-level answers will develop the key themes set out in

the workbook and provide or demonstrate:

An explanation of factors that enhance judicial independence such as judges being

barred from membership of the House of Commons, being paid from the consolidated

fund and holding office during good behaviour (rather than subject to continued

employment by political officeholders); when cases are sub judice, nobody is allowed

to comment.

Appointment of judges is now the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments

Commission which has sought to broaden the background of judges and ensure an

independent appointment process.

An understanding of aspects which can be seen to undermine ‘independence’, in

particular judicial activism, membership of the EU, the Human Rights Act and the

Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (which refined and enhanced the role of the English

judiciary).



An explanation of the question of political neutrality which sees judges avoiding party

political activity and yet collectively exhibiting similar and unrepresentative

socioeconomic profiles.

The role and impact of the Supreme Court

11 The Supreme Court replaced the previous arrangement where the highest court of appeal

was the House of Lords.

12 The separation of judiciary and legislature — branches and personnel — has strengthened

the perception that the judiciary is an independent branch, able to check the other

branches.

13 The enhanced separation of powers has encouraged the judicial branch, in the form of the

Supreme Court, to take an increasingly activist role in reviewing the actions of the

executive and other public bodies.

Further related reforms, such as the appointments process and the replacement of the lord

chancellor by the lord chief justice as head of the judiciary and the Human Rights Act have

strengthened expectations of the Supreme Court as a check on executive power.

14 Answers will vary. It is vital that you support your analysis and evaluation with examples

that you have researched and that deviate from the standard textbook or revision-guide

examples.

Judicial influence on government 15 The Factortame case (1990) saw the precedent set by British judges acting through the

European Court of Justice that UK law — in the form of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988

— is inferior to EU law where the two conflict. The case was brought by a Spanish fishing

company citing discrimination on the grounds of nationality. In practice this means that

British judges can set aside British laws if they are deemed to be incompatible with EU

law.

16 The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which Britain became a signatory

in 1950, was brought into British domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. This

ensured that every agency or institution of state beneath Parliament would be bound by

the provisions of the ECHR. The particular significance lies in the fact that:

Parliament itself would ensure compatibility with the ECHR wherever possible.

Alleged breaches of the Convention in the UK would be investigated by the European

Commission on Human Rights.

17 The highest-level responses will include:



The British courts have no legal power to remove laws that are incompatible with the

Human Rights Act. While this retains the principle of parliamentary sovereignty it also

means that Parliament, in times of emergency, can curtail basic human rights as

deemed necessary.

An explanation of the nature of parliamentary sovereignty within the UK’s

constitutional framework, and the erosion of this principle (e.g. executive dominance,

devolution and EU integration).

An explanation with exemplification of the term ‘declaration of incompatibility’ and the

effect that this has had on certain legislation to date (e.g. anti-terror legislation 2001–

05).

An evaluation of the role of unelected judges in challenging the roles of elected

representatives.

In practice, the HRA has strengthened the power of the British judiciary. Under it, British

judges regularly encourage Parliament to revise statutes (usually in their draft stages) and

have even prompted some Acts (such as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001)

to be revised.

The importance of ultra vires and judicial review

18 Judicial review refers to judgements made by the courts that a public body or agent of the

state has acted unlawfully. The number of cases of judicial review has increased

significantly in recent years. The highest-level responses will discuss:

The nature of judicial review as a process that is in response to a request from a

group or individual.

Membership of the EU and judicial review of legislation following further integration

(e.g. Factortame); the context of the European Court of Human Rights and the

European Court of Justice.

The Human Rights Act and declarations of incompatibility (e.g. the Anti-terrorism,

Crime and Security Act 2001).

The creation of an independent and activist Supreme Court.

The conflict between expectations of appropriate challenge to Britain’s elected

politicians and the supremacy of parliamentary statute.

19 Yes, the courts protect liberties effectively: The body of anti-discrimination legislation has grown in recent decades — liberties

guarded by statutes are more easily protected.

The Human Rights Act has added greater clarity to the protection of liberties.



Judicial reforms in recent years have served to enhance the legitimacy of the judges

in challenging other branches.

Cases of judicial review have grown, illustrating a greater willingness on the part of

judges to check state power.

No, the courts do not protect liberties effectively:

Parliament is not bound by the ECHR and has been known to ignore

recommendations (such as control orders in the Prevention of Terrorism Act) that

infringe it.

Legislation to curtail rights — such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

2000 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 have undermined liberties in a way that

judges cannot challenge.

The courts are limited in the scope of their protective duties by the fact that appeals

need to be launched by individuals seeking redress.

AS exam-style questions1 The Human Rights Act greatly increased the power of judges. They now have a codified

set of rights to act as an authoritative guide for the protection of rights. The ECHR is

binding on all bodies except the UK Parliament so this power is very extensive.

There has been a great increase in the use and jurisdiction of judicial reviews. These have

given judges the opportunity to assert the rule of law and to protect citizens against the

arbitrary power of government and its ministers.

The judiciary has become more independent, especially since the Constitutional Reform

Act of 2005. Its independence has meant it has become more active in its roles, especially

over the protection of rights, control over over-powerful government and influence over

public policy.

In this century the rules regarding public statements by judges have been informally

relaxed. This has given senior judges great opportunities to make statements on policy

and the conduct of government. Senior judges tend to command more respect than many

politicians.

2 Higher-level responses will outline and explain the extent to which the provisions of the

Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the creation of a Supreme Court altered the

relationships between the branches of government, noting that:

The Supreme Court replaced the previous arrangement where the highest court of

appeal was the House of Lords.



The separation of judiciary and legislature — branches and personnel — has

strengthened the perception that the judiciary is an independent branch, able to

check the other branches.

The enhanced separation of powers has encouraged the judicial branch, in the form

of the Supreme Court, to take an increasingly activist role in reviewing the actions of

the executive and other public bodies.

Further related reforms, such as the appointments process and the replacement of

the lord chancellor by the lord chief justice as head of the judiciary and the Human

Rights Act have strengthened expectations of the Supreme Court as a check on

executive power.

3 Introduce this answer by explaining what judicial review is. Use the detail in the suggested

answer to question 18 above to explain what kind of cases can be heard under such

reviews. Explain also that its use has grown in recent decades. Use the various types of

judicial review to explain its importance. Include appropriate examples for each case.

Cases under the Human Rights Act are important for two main reasons. First, they

establish the rights of citizens more firmly. Second, they represent a major limitation on the

actions of all public bodies. They must all adjust their policies and decisions because they

know they may be challenged in a judicial review.

Ultra vires cases are a key check on the power of government. They prevent the exercise

of arbitrary government and help citizens protect themselves against injustice. All public

bodies must now be careful that they are operating within their legal powers.

Cases which involve claims that a citizen or association has not been given equal

treatment are an important way in which the rule of law is maintained. All citizens must be

equal under the law and judicial review can maintain that principle.

Some reviews concern the question of whether legal procedures have been followed

correctly, for example, have there been reasonable consultations on policy and have

citizens had their claims against a public body fully considered? Such procedural claims

ensure that government does consult widely on decisions and does consider all valid

options when making decisions.

A conclusion should review the status of judicial review and reiterate that it has

transformed the way in which government operates and has increased citizens’ protection

against over-mighty government.

A-level exam-style questions1 In theory judicial independence results from a number of different factors:



Judges’ security of tenure: it is extraordinarily hard for judges at high court level and

above (i.e. the ‘senior judiciary’) to be removed. Indeed, this can only take place as a

result of impeachment proceedings requiring a vote in both houses of Parliament.

Those in more junior ranks of the judiciary can be removed by the lord chancellor and

the lord chief justice. On 17 May 2008 the Guardian reported the results of a

Freedom of Information Act 2000 request confirming that two junior judges had been

dismissed for misconduct in 2005.

Guaranteed salaries: judges’ salaries are free from political manipulation, being

funded from the Consolidated Fund.

Contempt of court: under sub judice rules it is an offence for ministers and others to

publicly speak out during the course of legal proceedings.

An increasingly independent appointments system under the JAC.

The training and experience of senior judges — the pride they take in their role and in

their personal legal reputation.

2 The HRA was passed in 1998 and came into force in October 2000. It incorporated most

of the Articles of the ECHR into UK law, thereby allowing citizens to pursue cases under

the ECHR through UK courts as opposed to having to go directly to the European Court of

Human Rights.

As the HRA is based on the Council of Europe’s ECHR, rather than on EU law, it is not

superior to parliamentary statute, as EU laws are under the Treaty of Rome. Despite this,

the HRA (like the ECHR) has a persuasive authority that has enhanced the protection of

individual rights in the UK.

The HRA does not have the same legal status as EU law or the US Bill or Rights, the latter

being both entrenched and superior to regular statute. Though the courts cannot void

parliamentary statute under the HRA, they can make a declaration of incompatibility and

invite Parliament to reconsider the offending statute. Where statute is silent, or unclear,

the courts can make even greater use of the HRA.

Crucially, under Article 15 of the ECHR national governments are also permitted to

derogate some of the Convention’s articles in times of national crisis. Part 4 of the UK’s

Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, for example, was only passed after the

government opted to derogate Article 5 of the HRA on the grounds that there was a ‘public

emergency threatening the life of the nation’. This phrase, which met the requirements set

out in Article 15, meant that the 2001 Act could authorise the indefinite detention without

trial of foreign nationals whom the home secretary judged were involved in terrorism.

Though things have clearly moved on in this respect since 2001 (see below), it remains

the case that the HRA does not give the courts the power necessary to stop or overturn

government action.



3 Introduce briefly by explaining that it is widely believed that the judiciary has become more

independent and neutral in recent times. You should evaluate the extent to which this is

true and explain the importance of such a development.

Three ways in which the judiciary has become more independent:

The Supreme Court appears to be acting more independently than the former House

of Lords Judicial Committee (Law Lords). Removing the senior judges from

Parliament made them more autonomous.

The independent appointments commission has taken political influence away from

the appointment of senior judges.

The growth of judicial review and the Human Rights Act have given the judiciary more

ability to challenge the government and other public bodies in independent ways.

Two ways in which the judiciary can be considered neutral:

It is acknowledged that judges display more political neutrality than in the past. They

used to have a conservative reputation, but now appear to be more liberal and

independent.

All judges are legally trained and the appointments commission ensures they are

promoted on the basis of their legal judgements rather than their political outlook.

Ways in which the judiciary might not be fully neutral and independent:

It is still dominated by white, middle-class, privately educated males. This means that

it can be accused of having attitudes which do not guarantee equal consideration of

all cases. They used to be considered innately conservative, but this view looks out of

date and many have liberal attitudes. However, some say liberal attitudes cannot be

called ‘neutral’.

Judges may still be influenced by the media and public opinion. In high-profile cases

there is a great deal of comment which may affect their judgements.

Reasons for the importance of neutrality and independence include:

They help ensure that the rule of law is maintained, being likely to treat all cases on

an equal basis.

They help prevent the judiciary being overly influenced by politicians, the media and

the public. This helps ensure that rights are well protected and arbitrary government

is prevented.

Neutrality means that judges are more likely to ignore the influence of the government

of the day which would threaten the rule of law.



A brief conclusion might reiterate that the nature of the senior judiciary has changed

dramatically and that the public are now much better protected against arbitrary

government and the abuse of their rights.


TOPIC 5 Devolution

Topic 5Devolution

Introduction1 The UK’s centralised government system has moved steadily towards one on multiple

levels. Decision making in the UK is now shared between a variety of bodies at local,

regional, national and supranational levels.

The dominance of the Westminster Parliament has given way to a variety of devolved

institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to the European Union and to elected

mayors and regional quangos.

2 The Scottish Parliament exemplifies legislative devolution — elected representatives have

primary legislative powers over domestic policy and tax-varying powers (of up to 3%).

The Welsh Assembly moved from administrative devolution when its secondary legislative

powers became primary from 2011.

3 Primary legislative powers are those that enable a body to initiate and enact legislation in

its own right and without recourse to an alternative or higher authority. While the Welsh

Assembly was originally only conferred with secondary legislative powers (to interpret and

apply legislation emanating from Westminster), the Scottish Parliament could deviate in

significant areas by passing legislation connected to, for example, education and health

matters (e.g. banning smoking in public places prior to the rest of the UK).

The roles powers and responsibilities of the different devolved bodies in the UK

4 The Scottish Parliament took primary legislative control of areas such as education,

agriculture and home affairs. The second ‘yes’ in the referendum also gave the Parliament

income tax varying powers. The Labour-LibDem coalition administrations from 1999 to

2005 moved to introduce free long-term nursing care for the elderly, abolish top-up fees,

and introduce a more effective Freedom of Information Act. The SNP has been the single

largest party in the Scottish Parliament since the 2007 elections.


TOPIC 5 Devolution

5 Calls for Scottish independence. The success of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in

regional parliamentary elections north of the border promoted the possibility of full Scottish

independence. After gaining an overall majority in 2011, the SNP set about negotiating the

path to an independence referendum in 2014.

6 Asymmetrical devolution. One of the key criticisms of the process of devolution has

been the uneven distribution of power between levels of government and governing

institutions. Initial support for devolution in Wales appeared markedly weaker than in

Scotland and the closer connection between England and Wales (educational and legal

systems, for example) meant that the granting of only secondary legislative powers was

seen as ‘devo-light’.

7 Wales’ appetite for enhanced powers. The presence of stronger versions of devolution

elsewhere fuelled demands in Wales. Following the Richard Commission in 2004, the

passing of the Government of Wales Act 2006 handed the Welsh Assembly similar

legislative powers to other devolved bodies. Further to this, the referendum on Welsh

primary legislative powers (March 2011) saw a 63% ‘Yes’ vote from a 35% turnout and

provided direct law-making powers without the need to consult Westminster.

8 Nationalist: an adherent of a political position in Northern Ireland that supports

constitutional means of achieving improved rights for Catholics, and the eventual

incorporation of the six counties of Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland.

Unionist: an adherent of a political position in Northern Ireland that supports the

continued union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

9 The Northern Ireland Executive is led by a first minister and deputy first minister. The first

minister is the leader of the largest party in the assembly, and the deputy first minister is

from the second largest party. Ministerial posts are allocated on a proportional basis

according to party strength in the assembly. The agreement thus ensures power sharing,

with both unionists and nationalists represented in government. However, after the 2016

elections, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) and Social Democratic and Labour Party

(SDLP) declined to nominate ministers and formed the assembly’s first official opposition.

The DUP (the largest unionist party which originally opposed the Good Friday Agreement)

and Sinn Fein (a republican party with close links to the IRA) have shared power since

2007. Arlene Foster became first minister in 2016; Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness was

deputy first minister from 2007 until he resigned then died in 2017.

Debate around devolution in England10 The significance of the West Lothian Question. The debate over whether Scottish MPs

should vote on matters in the Westminster Parliament that do not affect them or their

constituents has existed since the 1970s, but has come to the fore in recent years. Bills


TOPIC 5 Devolution

relating to the creation of Foundation hospitals (2003) and top-up fees (2004) both

required ‘Scottish votes’ to pass into law. English MPs are unable to vote on legislation

affecting Scotland and yet Scottish MPs — and also Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs —

are not prevented from voting on legislation affecting only England.

11 ‘English votes for English laws’ refers to special procedures in the House of Commons

for dealing with legislation that only affects England.

There have been relatively few cases in which legislation on ‘English’ issues would

not have come into force without the support of MPs representing Scottish

constituencies. In 2003–04, legislation on foundation hospitals and university tuition

fees in England would not have passed without the votes of Labour MPs from

Scotland. They argued that these bills included clauses relating to Scotland and that

changes to public spending in England would affect spending in Scotland.

The Conservatives, whose MPs predominantly represent English constituencies,

have argued for ‘English votes for English laws’ (EVEL) since devolution. This would

introduce special procedures in the House of Commons for dealing with legislation

that affects only England.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition established the McKay Commission to

examine the issue. It recommended in 2013 that parliamentary procedures be

adapted to allow English MPs to consent to matters that concerned only England.

After the Scottish independence referendum, David Cameron stated that further

devolution in Scotland must be accompanied by EVEL.

In October 2015, MPs voted to amend the Standing Orders of the House of

Commons to introduce EVEL The new procedures provide a ‘double veto’. Bills

certified by the speaker as England-only are considered in a Legislative Grand

Committee — an additional stage of the legislative process — where MPs

representing English constituencies can veto them, or parts of them.

12 It would bring decision making closer to the people and address the differing interests

of the English regions.

It would create a more balanced devolution settlement within the UK because

England is too large to have its own parliament.

It would enhance democracy as regional assemblies would take over the functions of

unelected quangos.

Areas such as Cornwall, Yorkshire and the northeast have a strong sense of regional

identity.

Regional assemblies could act as catalyst for economic and cultural regeneration.

13 Few areas of England have a strong sense of regional identity.


TOPIC 5 Devolution

It would break up England and fail to provide expression for English interests and

identity.

There would be tensions between regional and local government.

They would be dominated by urban rather than rural interests.

There is little public support for creating a regional layer of government.

Existing devolution in England14 Evidence that local democracy is in decline:

Poor turnout at local elections (usually under 40%), with voting often following

national rather than local issues.

Lack of financial autonomy with central government controlling and dictating local

spending.

The outsourcing of public services to private bodies, e.g. refuse collection, housing

associations, academy chains.

Evidence that there is a renewal of local democracy:

Proportional electoral systems have ensured greater minority representation at

local levels.

Local councils ‘innovate’ to strengthen services and communities through

schemes such as congestion charging and electronic voting.

The reinvigoration of London through the creation of the Greater London Authority

and London mayor has provided direction and strategic vision for the capital.

The impact of devolution on government in the UK

15 One of the central principles of the UK’s constitutional arrangements is that ultimate power

or sovereignty resides at the centre. The Westminster Parliament has the power to make

or unmake any law and take back any power that has currently been either ‘surrendered’

to the EU or ‘devolved’ to the regions.

16 The UK is frequently referred to as being a quasi-federal state. New relationships between

its constituent parts and with Europe mean that old constitutional certainties — such as the

concentration of power in a centralised unitary state — are no more. The highest-level

answers will explore:


TOPIC 5 Devolution

The erosion of parliamentary sovereignty in all practical senses following the

devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. Any prospect of removing these

institutions without referendums would present a crisis.

The practical reality of Westminster operating as an ‘English’ parliament since laws

are freely made in the UK’s constituent parts.

AS exam-style questions1 Arguments in favour:

It would complete devolution within the UK, and resolve the English Question, by

giving England its own parliament.

It would create a more coherent system of devolution, with a federal UK parliament

and government responsible for UK-wide issues — rather than, as at present, these

and English issues.

It would give political and institutional expression to English identity and interests.

Arguments against:

It would create an additional layer of government and create tensions between the

UK government and an English parliament and government.

‘Devolution all round’ would not create a coherent and equitable system because

England is much bigger than the other nations of the Union.

There is only limited support in England for an English Parliament.


Knowledge and understanding of the nature of devolution — the passing down or

delegating of power to sub-national institutions; the nature of sovereignty; and

comparisons between devolution (where ultimate sovereignty remains at the centre)

and federalism (where sovereignty is usually constitutionally shared).

The creation and functioning of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and

the differences between them in terms of legislative and administrative devolution and

the difference between terms such as primary and secondary legislative powers.

The extent to which the growing powers of Scottish and Welsh devolved bodies have

hastened calls to break up the UK (particularly in Scotland) while magnifying the lack

of an English regional assembly (‘No’ vote to proposed North-East regional assembly

in 2004 referendum), precipitating questions over legitimacy and the West Lothian

Question.

3 The UK is traditionally said to be a unitary state as opposed to a federal one. This means

that ultimate power in the UK is held by the central government at Westminster. Any power

that local government or regional government appears to have is merely delegated or

‘devolved’ to it and can be withdrawn at any time.


TOPIC 5 Devolution

Under a federal system, power (sovereignty) is divided between a central government and

a number of regions or individual states. Each tier of government has ultimate authority

over certain areas of policy, i.e. they have separate spheres of authority or separate

jurisdictions. Under a federal system the relationship between the central government and

the various states is entrenched, i.e. the central government cannot take away the powers

of individual states without their consent.

The biggest challenge to the notion of the UK as a unitary state has been the devolution

programme pursued by New Labour since 1997:

the Scottish Parliament and Executive

the Welsh Assembly and Executive

the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive

the emergence of regional government, e.g. the Greater London Assembly and

London mayor

In addition, prior to Brexit, some argued that the ongoing process of European integration

meant that the UK was, in effect, moving towards a situation where it would simply be one

‘state’ within a ‘federal Europe’.

Regardless of such concerns, however, the Westminster Parliament still has the authority

and power to withdraw powers which have been devolve or delegated — as was seen with

the suspension of power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland between 2002 and

2007.

A-level exam-style questions1 Arguments in favour:

It would complete devolution within the UK, and resolve the English Question, by

giving England its own parliament.

It would create a more coherent system of devolution, with a federal UK parliament

and government responsible for UK-wide issues — rather than, as at present, these

and English issues.

It would give political and institutional expression to English identity and interests.

Arguments against:

It would create an additional layer of government and create tensions between the

UK government and an English parliament and government.

‘Devolution all round’ would not create a coherent and equitable system because

England is much bigger than the other nations of the Union.

There is only limited support in England for an English Parliament.


TOPIC 5 Devolution


Knowledge and understanding of the nature of devolution — the passing down or

delegating of power to sub-national institutions; the nature of sovereignty; and

comparisons between devolution (where ultimate sovereignty remains at the centre)

and federalism (where sovereignty is usually constitutionally shared).

The creation and functioning of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and

the differences between them in terms of legislative and administrative devolution and

the difference between terms such as primary and secondary legislative powers.

The extent to which the growing powers of Scottish and Welsh devolved bodies have

hastened calls to break up the UK (particularly in Scotland) while magnifying the lack

of an English regional assembly (‘No’ vote to proposed North-East regional assembly

in 2004 referendum), precipitating questions over legitimacy and the West Lothian

Question.

3 The UK is traditionally said to be a unitary state as opposed to a federal one. This means

that ultimate power in the UK is held by the central government at Westminster. Any power

that local government or regional government appears to have is merely delegated or

‘devolved’ to it and can be withdrawn at any time.

Under a federal system, power (sovereignty) is divided between a central government and

a number of regions or individual states. Each tier of government has ultimate authority

over certain areas of policy, i.e. they have separate spheres of authority or separate

jurisdictions. Under a federal system the relationship between the central government and

the various states is entrenched, i.e. the central government cannot take away the powers

of individual states without their consent.

The biggest challenge to the notion of the UK as a unitary state has been the devolution

programme pursued by New Labour since 1997:

the Scottish Parliament and Executive

the Welsh Assembly and Executive

the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive

the emergence of regional government, e.g. the Greater London Assembly and

London mayor

In addition, prior to Brexit, some argued that the ongoing process of European integration

meant that the UK was, in effect, moving towards a situation where it would simply be one

‘state’ within a ‘federal Europe’.

Regardless of such concerns, however, the Westminster Parliament still has the authority

and power to withdraw powers which have been devolve or delegated — as was seen with


TOPIC 5 Devolution

the suspension of power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland between 2002 and

2007.


economics workbook markets in action unit ... · web viewin unitary systems all power resides at...

Documents