PAPER 2 - THE CONSTITUTION - ESSAY
PLANS
Evaluate The View That The UK Constitution Should Be
Codified And Entrenched. (30)
Paragraph 1
AGREE - The UK’s Uncodified Constitution Too Easy To Change:
. A key argument for codifying and entrenching the UK constitution is that it is currently too
easy to amend, as any statute can be repealed by a simple majority in Parliament
. For example, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, passed for short-term political
reasons in relation to the coalition, could have had significant constitutional
implications by preventing a Govt with no majority from triggering an election
. Entrenchment would safeguard the Constitution from executive interference and ensure
thorough debate before reforms, requiring measures like supermajorities or referendums
. For instance, a fundamental change like Brexit should have required stronger
safeguards, as it was based on an advisory referendum supported by less than 50%
of the electorate
DISAGREE - It is flexible:
. The UK’s uncodified constitution allows flexibility, enabling gradual evolution and adaptation
to changing circumstances
. Over the past two centuries, it has supported Britain’s transition to democracy and
facilitated major reforms
. For example Labour’s removal of most hereditary peers, the Human Rights Act of
1998, and the Supreme Court’s creation in 2005
. Codification could hinder such changes, potentially freezing political power in outdated
ways
. For example, the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment has been criticised for its
relevance in modern times due to the death of thousands in school shootings
. In contrast, after the Dunblane shooting, Blaire was able to ban all firearms
. Additionally, codifying the UK constitution would be complex, controversial, and
time-consuming, likely diverting politicians from governance and sparking disagreements
over its structure
,Paragraph 2
AGREE - The Uncodified Constitution Does not Protect Democracy:
. Codification could strengthen Parliament’s ability to check the executive, making the
government more accountable
. By clearly defining the powers of branches and enabling checks and balances, as in the
US, reforms such as the House of Lords becoming an elected chamber or giving
Parliament veto power over ministerial appointments could be possible
. The Supreme Court could also gain authority to strike down unconstitutional laws, ensuring
fairness and constraining executive power leading to a greater separation of powers
. Critics argue the UK’s uncodified constitution is vulnerable to exploitation by authoritarian
governments, as key laws like the ‘Representation of the People Act 1918’ which gave
the vote to women over 30 who met a property qualification and to all men can be
changed by a simple majority
. ‘The Elections Act 2022’ introduced voter ID requirements, which some see as a
deliberate move to prevent groups less likely to support the Conservative Party from voting
. The UK's constitution relies on conventions which are unwritten and based on a common
understanding of best practices so they can easily be denied and not followed by a
government
. For example, there was a convention that the government's power to prorogue
Parliament shouldn't be used for political reasons by the government, however,
Johnsons government sought to use it to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of their
Brexit deal, which threatened the sovereignty of Parliament
DISAGREE - offers sufficient protection:
. Opponents of codifying the UK Constitution argue that the current uncodified system
provides sufficient protection for democracy
. Conventions, while not entrenched, are difficult to change and enforced by the Supreme
Court
. as seen in 2019 when judicial review overturned the government’s prorogation of
Parliament for political reasons as Judges ruled the government had acted ultra vires
. The flexibility of the uncodified constitution allows governments to respond quickly to
emergencies, such as introducing COVID-19 measures or preparing for the 2010
coalition with the ‘Cabinet Manual’ and passing the ‘Fixed-term Parliaments Act’
. Supporters argue it enables strong governments to implement their mandates without
excessive checks, unlike codified systems like the US, where passing key legislation can be
challenging
,Paragraph 3:
AGREE Codification And Entrenchment Would Better Protect Human Rights:
. Codifying and entrenching the UK Constitution could better protect human rights, such as
through a British Bill of Rights that cannot be overridden by Parliament or public bodies
. The current Human Rights Act is limited by parliamentary sovereignty, allowing it to be
repealed or ignored
. This is seen with the ‘Illegal Migration Bill (2023)’, which acknowledged potential
incompatibility with the Human Rights Act but proceeded anyway
. Similarly, the ‘Safety of Rwanda Act (2024)’ bypassed international law and removed
judicial review for deportations to Rwanda by allowing ministers to ignore emergency rulings
from the European Court
. A codified Bill of Rights could also enhance public understanding and attachment to their
rights
DISAGREE:
. A codified constitution with an entrenched Bill of Rights could increase the power of
unelected judges, giving them too much influence over political matters rather than leaving
such decisions to an accountable Parliament
. The current Human Rights Act (HRA) already provides strong protection for citizens' rights,
fostering a "rights-based culture” as all new legislation must comply with the HRA, and
judges can declare laws incompatible with it
. For instance, in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, part of the
‘Anti-terrorism Act 2001’ was amended by Parliament after being declared incompatible
with the HRA due to permitting the detention of suspected international terrorists in a way
that discriminated on the grounds of nationality or immigration status
. Lead to amendments to ‘Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005’
, Evaluate the view that Constitutional Reform since 1997 has
been a success (30)
PARAGRAPH 1 - Reform to House of Lords (FOR):
. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers, replacing them with
life peers
. This reduced the hereditary influence, ended the Conservative majority, and made the
Lords more independent, often limiting government power
. For example, Blair faced 353 defeats in the Lords versus 4 in the Commons
. The reform enhanced legitimacy, as seen in 2001 when the Lords blocked incitement to
religious hatred from its anti-terrorism legislation
. It also professionalised the Lords with specialists like Lord Adonis, a former transport
secretary, and Baroness Grey-Thompson, a disability rights advocate and Paralympic
athlete
AGAINST:
. The Lords remain unelected and undemocratic
. New Labour's reform was incomplete, leaving 92 hereditary peers and failing to replace the
Lords with an elected chamber
. The balance of power stayed unchanged, with the Commons remaining dominant
. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 limit the Lords to only delaying, not voting
down financial legislation for one month. If not amended within this time, the bill
proceeds to Royal Assent without their approval. Therefore, no financial bills have been
significantly delayed by the Lords since 1911
. The lords can only delay other bills for up to a year as seen with Blair's Hunting Act 2004
which banned hunting dogs
. Also, the Salisbury Convention prevents Lords from voting down legislation that
fulfils a commitment in the governing parties' election manifesto
PLANS
Evaluate The View That The UK Constitution Should Be
Codified And Entrenched. (30)
Paragraph 1
AGREE - The UK’s Uncodified Constitution Too Easy To Change:
. A key argument for codifying and entrenching the UK constitution is that it is currently too
easy to amend, as any statute can be repealed by a simple majority in Parliament
. For example, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, passed for short-term political
reasons in relation to the coalition, could have had significant constitutional
implications by preventing a Govt with no majority from triggering an election
. Entrenchment would safeguard the Constitution from executive interference and ensure
thorough debate before reforms, requiring measures like supermajorities or referendums
. For instance, a fundamental change like Brexit should have required stronger
safeguards, as it was based on an advisory referendum supported by less than 50%
of the electorate
DISAGREE - It is flexible:
. The UK’s uncodified constitution allows flexibility, enabling gradual evolution and adaptation
to changing circumstances
. Over the past two centuries, it has supported Britain’s transition to democracy and
facilitated major reforms
. For example Labour’s removal of most hereditary peers, the Human Rights Act of
1998, and the Supreme Court’s creation in 2005
. Codification could hinder such changes, potentially freezing political power in outdated
ways
. For example, the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment has been criticised for its
relevance in modern times due to the death of thousands in school shootings
. In contrast, after the Dunblane shooting, Blaire was able to ban all firearms
. Additionally, codifying the UK constitution would be complex, controversial, and
time-consuming, likely diverting politicians from governance and sparking disagreements
over its structure
,Paragraph 2
AGREE - The Uncodified Constitution Does not Protect Democracy:
. Codification could strengthen Parliament’s ability to check the executive, making the
government more accountable
. By clearly defining the powers of branches and enabling checks and balances, as in the
US, reforms such as the House of Lords becoming an elected chamber or giving
Parliament veto power over ministerial appointments could be possible
. The Supreme Court could also gain authority to strike down unconstitutional laws, ensuring
fairness and constraining executive power leading to a greater separation of powers
. Critics argue the UK’s uncodified constitution is vulnerable to exploitation by authoritarian
governments, as key laws like the ‘Representation of the People Act 1918’ which gave
the vote to women over 30 who met a property qualification and to all men can be
changed by a simple majority
. ‘The Elections Act 2022’ introduced voter ID requirements, which some see as a
deliberate move to prevent groups less likely to support the Conservative Party from voting
. The UK's constitution relies on conventions which are unwritten and based on a common
understanding of best practices so they can easily be denied and not followed by a
government
. For example, there was a convention that the government's power to prorogue
Parliament shouldn't be used for political reasons by the government, however,
Johnsons government sought to use it to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of their
Brexit deal, which threatened the sovereignty of Parliament
DISAGREE - offers sufficient protection:
. Opponents of codifying the UK Constitution argue that the current uncodified system
provides sufficient protection for democracy
. Conventions, while not entrenched, are difficult to change and enforced by the Supreme
Court
. as seen in 2019 when judicial review overturned the government’s prorogation of
Parliament for political reasons as Judges ruled the government had acted ultra vires
. The flexibility of the uncodified constitution allows governments to respond quickly to
emergencies, such as introducing COVID-19 measures or preparing for the 2010
coalition with the ‘Cabinet Manual’ and passing the ‘Fixed-term Parliaments Act’
. Supporters argue it enables strong governments to implement their mandates without
excessive checks, unlike codified systems like the US, where passing key legislation can be
challenging
,Paragraph 3:
AGREE Codification And Entrenchment Would Better Protect Human Rights:
. Codifying and entrenching the UK Constitution could better protect human rights, such as
through a British Bill of Rights that cannot be overridden by Parliament or public bodies
. The current Human Rights Act is limited by parliamentary sovereignty, allowing it to be
repealed or ignored
. This is seen with the ‘Illegal Migration Bill (2023)’, which acknowledged potential
incompatibility with the Human Rights Act but proceeded anyway
. Similarly, the ‘Safety of Rwanda Act (2024)’ bypassed international law and removed
judicial review for deportations to Rwanda by allowing ministers to ignore emergency rulings
from the European Court
. A codified Bill of Rights could also enhance public understanding and attachment to their
rights
DISAGREE:
. A codified constitution with an entrenched Bill of Rights could increase the power of
unelected judges, giving them too much influence over political matters rather than leaving
such decisions to an accountable Parliament
. The current Human Rights Act (HRA) already provides strong protection for citizens' rights,
fostering a "rights-based culture” as all new legislation must comply with the HRA, and
judges can declare laws incompatible with it
. For instance, in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, part of the
‘Anti-terrorism Act 2001’ was amended by Parliament after being declared incompatible
with the HRA due to permitting the detention of suspected international terrorists in a way
that discriminated on the grounds of nationality or immigration status
. Lead to amendments to ‘Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005’
, Evaluate the view that Constitutional Reform since 1997 has
been a success (30)
PARAGRAPH 1 - Reform to House of Lords (FOR):
. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers, replacing them with
life peers
. This reduced the hereditary influence, ended the Conservative majority, and made the
Lords more independent, often limiting government power
. For example, Blair faced 353 defeats in the Lords versus 4 in the Commons
. The reform enhanced legitimacy, as seen in 2001 when the Lords blocked incitement to
religious hatred from its anti-terrorism legislation
. It also professionalised the Lords with specialists like Lord Adonis, a former transport
secretary, and Baroness Grey-Thompson, a disability rights advocate and Paralympic
athlete
AGAINST:
. The Lords remain unelected and undemocratic
. New Labour's reform was incomplete, leaving 92 hereditary peers and failing to replace the
Lords with an elected chamber
. The balance of power stayed unchanged, with the Commons remaining dominant
. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 limit the Lords to only delaying, not voting
down financial legislation for one month. If not amended within this time, the bill
proceeds to Royal Assent without their approval. Therefore, no financial bills have been
significantly delayed by the Lords since 1911
. The lords can only delay other bills for up to a year as seen with Blair's Hunting Act 2004
which banned hunting dogs
. Also, the Salisbury Convention prevents Lords from voting down legislation that
fulfils a commitment in the governing parties' election manifesto
