Essay Plans – UK GOVERNMENT
Evaluate how far Parliament retains sole sovereignty within the UK political system
Introduction:
Definition – Parliamentary sovereignty dictates that parliament has sole legislative power and supersedes any other
body
UK has a unitary system with devolved powers
It is unitary as sole sovereignty remains with parliament; there is no body that has more power than parliament
The HRA, devolution and the use of judicial review by the Supreme Court has impacted the sovereignty that parliament
enjoys, however, parliament still retains sole sovereignty in the UK
Para 1 Para 2 Para 3
Point: Point: Point:
The Human Rights Act 1998 allows Legal sovereignty has been eroded EU membership means that
judged to hear cases from UK by the creation of devolved bodies parliament loses sovereignty as EU
citizens who feel like their rights that have legislative power law takes precedence over UK law
have been undermined Scotland and Wales have tac raising Factortame case – Despite British
Police use of terror laws to stop and powers (Scotland Act 2016 and discontent towards international
search without grounds of suspicion Wales Act 2017) ships being in British waters, the EU
was rules to be unlawful – results in Scotland Act also states that said it was justified
new guidelines on powers of the Westminster cannot legislate on Eurosceptic conservatives would
police to stop and search devolved matters without consent, argue that this poses as threat to
Arguably, the courts were stepping and the Scottish Parliament cannot parliamentary sovereignty as
into areas of public policy and be abolished unless approved in a parliament is no longer the sole
hindering crime fighting referendum in Scotland legislative body – sovereignty
The HRA also gave judges the power pooled within the EU as opposed to
to issue incompatibility rulings Counterpoint: individual governments
Belmarsh Case 2004 – court rules Parliament can simply revoke the
that holding prisoners without trial devolution acts and can even revoke Counterpoint:
is against the HRA – courts the Scotland Act 2016 The UK has the ability to trigger
interfered with the government’s It can also be argued that article 50
ability to keep citizens safe parliament has only surrendered its The decision was made in the 2016
Growth in judicial action has made second-rate powers such as housing EU referendum which caused Britain
parliament look to head off and health, but still retains its core to leave the EU in 2020
potential conflict in the courts by powers such as defence and foreign This elucidated how parliament had
ensuring all legislation complies policy to adhere to EU law whilst being a
with the HRA member, but could legislate against
Conclusion: this at any time
Counterpoint: Therefore, parliament retains
Parliament can simply abolish the sovereignty in the sense that there Conclusion:
HRA is a limited nature to devolution Therefore, although parliament
As seen recently with the gov which sets a clearly defined limit to was under the control of EU law
attempting to replace the HRA with any loss of sovereignty as a member, parliament had
the UK Bill of Rights the ability to make the
Incompatibility statements aren’t democratic decision to leave
binding, and parliament is under no the EU – it remains sovereign
legal obligation to fall into the lines
of court rulings – parliament is
sovereign
Parliament can also issue a
derogation – which is an opt out
, from the HRA
The Blair government did this when
passing the prevention of terrorism
acts in 2005
The court’s rulings on human rights
can be ignored
In 2019 – the European Courts of HR
ruled that the US was in breach of
ECHR by denying prisoners the right
to vote
Conclusion:
Therefore, the extent to which the
HRA undermines the sovereignty of
parliament is limited, as parliament
ultimately retains sole sovereignty
and can ignore the HRA, and even
replace it
Evaluate the extent to which the UK government’s control over parliament has reduced in recent years
Introduction:
Lord Hailsham coined the phrase ‘elective dictatorship’ in the 1970s, arguing that the only real check on government
power is a general election every 5 years or so
Even with small majorities, governments are able to pass most of its legislation without amendments
This essay will argue that although Parliament has the power to hold government to account, the power of
government has still remained intact in recent years
Para 1 Para 2 Para 3
Point: Point: Point:
The government’s control has Select committees have increased in The Commons can remove the
reduced as the House of Lords are significance following the decision government through a vote of no
able to scrutinise their legislation to elect their chairs, who potentially confidence
and propose amendments serve over a number of years and Theresa May’s minority government
This is a crucial function of the HoL are independent from government was removed through a vote of no
and any piece of legislation that Committees can call witnesses and confidence
passes through is amended. During scrutinise government policy in This is significant as it shows how
the committee stage, any members depth parliament has the power to
who debated the bill are allowed to For example, the Public Accounts remove government
amend it Committee – responsible for However, this is typically only
In 2015, the Lords voted to delay tax overseeing government possible when a weak government
credit cuts being made by the expenditures, and to ensure they is in case, as May’s was
government - this plan was then are effective and honest A strong government is harder to
dropped by the Government – This committee is seen as a crucial remove from a vote of no
government U-turn mechanism for ensuring confidence
This is significant as it should how transparency and accountability in Boris Johnson avoided a removal by
the Lords are able to influence government financial operations vote of no confidence
government policy and is one of the most important
However, overall, the amendments select committees Counterpoint:
made by the Lords must be The PM must also appear twice a Most ministerial resignations are
approves by the government, so year before the Liaison Committee, due to pressures caused by the
their powers are quite limited which is made up of chairs of the media, or external events rather
select committees, and justify than parliament
Counterpoint: government actions For example, Cameron’s resignation
, The Parliament Act allows the Counterpoint: following the vote to leave the EU I
government to push through Ministers can block the appearance 2016
legislation that has been blocked by of witnesses at select committees Johnson also, after avoiding a vote
the Lords and the government does not have of no confidence, resigned due to
E.g. attempted amendments to the to act on select committee external pressures from the public
Article 50 bill recommendations
Under the Salisbury convention, The work of the Backbench Business Conclusion:
much legislation will not be blocked Committee receives little publicity, Therefore, it can be argued that in
by the lords at all and the government sets the time recent years, parliament’s ability to
allowed to debate issues – this is remove governments is not that
Conclusion: also the case for time allowed to significant as ministers leave for
Therefore, the House of Lords, discuss PMBs other reasons, suggesting that
although has the ability to scrutinise Boris Johnson as PM also government’s power has not
the government, do not have the consistently avoided Liaison reduced significantly in recent years
power to actually amend or block Committee meetings, which
legislation – they can only suggests the significance of the
recommend it, which shows how committee is small
the government’s power has been
retained Conclusion
Therefore, although committees
have a crucial role within
parliament, they cannot directly
influence the government and affect
its power
‘The supreme court is neutral and independent of the UK government’ - How far do you
agree with this view?
Para 1 Para 2 Para 3
Point: Point: Point:
Supreme court judges are Supreme court judges enjoy Government is unable,
shortlisted for appointment by security of tenure individually, or collectively, to
an independent selection Security of tenure limits the comment on active cases
committee ability of government to The government’s inability to
Independent appointment limits threaten the judge’s position comment on active cases limits
the ability of government to because of disagreement with their ability to influence judges’
influence the views of potential judges’ ruling, thus making rulings before they are made,
judges or to select judges with judges more independent since therefore ensures that a more
personal opinions matching they need not fear any independent decision can be
their own, therefore making it consequences from their rulings, made and that the view is
difficult for the government to it supports the view as correct, as the government
influence their decisions, so they government intervention is cannot intervene of influence
can be perceived as neutral and limited rulings
independent in nature and
removed from government Counterpoint Counterpoint:
control Supreme court judges make In practice, and despite some
rulings on significant Judicial high-profile cases, the SC rarely
Counterpoint Review cases including the rules against the gov
Supreme court judges are Human Rights Act The rarity of SC rulings against
demographically very Supreme court rulings on the government, suggesting an
Evaluate how far Parliament retains sole sovereignty within the UK political system
Introduction:
Definition – Parliamentary sovereignty dictates that parliament has sole legislative power and supersedes any other
body
UK has a unitary system with devolved powers
It is unitary as sole sovereignty remains with parliament; there is no body that has more power than parliament
The HRA, devolution and the use of judicial review by the Supreme Court has impacted the sovereignty that parliament
enjoys, however, parliament still retains sole sovereignty in the UK
Para 1 Para 2 Para 3
Point: Point: Point:
The Human Rights Act 1998 allows Legal sovereignty has been eroded EU membership means that
judged to hear cases from UK by the creation of devolved bodies parliament loses sovereignty as EU
citizens who feel like their rights that have legislative power law takes precedence over UK law
have been undermined Scotland and Wales have tac raising Factortame case – Despite British
Police use of terror laws to stop and powers (Scotland Act 2016 and discontent towards international
search without grounds of suspicion Wales Act 2017) ships being in British waters, the EU
was rules to be unlawful – results in Scotland Act also states that said it was justified
new guidelines on powers of the Westminster cannot legislate on Eurosceptic conservatives would
police to stop and search devolved matters without consent, argue that this poses as threat to
Arguably, the courts were stepping and the Scottish Parliament cannot parliamentary sovereignty as
into areas of public policy and be abolished unless approved in a parliament is no longer the sole
hindering crime fighting referendum in Scotland legislative body – sovereignty
The HRA also gave judges the power pooled within the EU as opposed to
to issue incompatibility rulings Counterpoint: individual governments
Belmarsh Case 2004 – court rules Parliament can simply revoke the
that holding prisoners without trial devolution acts and can even revoke Counterpoint:
is against the HRA – courts the Scotland Act 2016 The UK has the ability to trigger
interfered with the government’s It can also be argued that article 50
ability to keep citizens safe parliament has only surrendered its The decision was made in the 2016
Growth in judicial action has made second-rate powers such as housing EU referendum which caused Britain
parliament look to head off and health, but still retains its core to leave the EU in 2020
potential conflict in the courts by powers such as defence and foreign This elucidated how parliament had
ensuring all legislation complies policy to adhere to EU law whilst being a
with the HRA member, but could legislate against
Conclusion: this at any time
Counterpoint: Therefore, parliament retains
Parliament can simply abolish the sovereignty in the sense that there Conclusion:
HRA is a limited nature to devolution Therefore, although parliament
As seen recently with the gov which sets a clearly defined limit to was under the control of EU law
attempting to replace the HRA with any loss of sovereignty as a member, parliament had
the UK Bill of Rights the ability to make the
Incompatibility statements aren’t democratic decision to leave
binding, and parliament is under no the EU – it remains sovereign
legal obligation to fall into the lines
of court rulings – parliament is
sovereign
Parliament can also issue a
derogation – which is an opt out
, from the HRA
The Blair government did this when
passing the prevention of terrorism
acts in 2005
The court’s rulings on human rights
can be ignored
In 2019 – the European Courts of HR
ruled that the US was in breach of
ECHR by denying prisoners the right
to vote
Conclusion:
Therefore, the extent to which the
HRA undermines the sovereignty of
parliament is limited, as parliament
ultimately retains sole sovereignty
and can ignore the HRA, and even
replace it
Evaluate the extent to which the UK government’s control over parliament has reduced in recent years
Introduction:
Lord Hailsham coined the phrase ‘elective dictatorship’ in the 1970s, arguing that the only real check on government
power is a general election every 5 years or so
Even with small majorities, governments are able to pass most of its legislation without amendments
This essay will argue that although Parliament has the power to hold government to account, the power of
government has still remained intact in recent years
Para 1 Para 2 Para 3
Point: Point: Point:
The government’s control has Select committees have increased in The Commons can remove the
reduced as the House of Lords are significance following the decision government through a vote of no
able to scrutinise their legislation to elect their chairs, who potentially confidence
and propose amendments serve over a number of years and Theresa May’s minority government
This is a crucial function of the HoL are independent from government was removed through a vote of no
and any piece of legislation that Committees can call witnesses and confidence
passes through is amended. During scrutinise government policy in This is significant as it shows how
the committee stage, any members depth parliament has the power to
who debated the bill are allowed to For example, the Public Accounts remove government
amend it Committee – responsible for However, this is typically only
In 2015, the Lords voted to delay tax overseeing government possible when a weak government
credit cuts being made by the expenditures, and to ensure they is in case, as May’s was
government - this plan was then are effective and honest A strong government is harder to
dropped by the Government – This committee is seen as a crucial remove from a vote of no
government U-turn mechanism for ensuring confidence
This is significant as it should how transparency and accountability in Boris Johnson avoided a removal by
the Lords are able to influence government financial operations vote of no confidence
government policy and is one of the most important
However, overall, the amendments select committees Counterpoint:
made by the Lords must be The PM must also appear twice a Most ministerial resignations are
approves by the government, so year before the Liaison Committee, due to pressures caused by the
their powers are quite limited which is made up of chairs of the media, or external events rather
select committees, and justify than parliament
Counterpoint: government actions For example, Cameron’s resignation
, The Parliament Act allows the Counterpoint: following the vote to leave the EU I
government to push through Ministers can block the appearance 2016
legislation that has been blocked by of witnesses at select committees Johnson also, after avoiding a vote
the Lords and the government does not have of no confidence, resigned due to
E.g. attempted amendments to the to act on select committee external pressures from the public
Article 50 bill recommendations
Under the Salisbury convention, The work of the Backbench Business Conclusion:
much legislation will not be blocked Committee receives little publicity, Therefore, it can be argued that in
by the lords at all and the government sets the time recent years, parliament’s ability to
allowed to debate issues – this is remove governments is not that
Conclusion: also the case for time allowed to significant as ministers leave for
Therefore, the House of Lords, discuss PMBs other reasons, suggesting that
although has the ability to scrutinise Boris Johnson as PM also government’s power has not
the government, do not have the consistently avoided Liaison reduced significantly in recent years
power to actually amend or block Committee meetings, which
legislation – they can only suggests the significance of the
recommend it, which shows how committee is small
the government’s power has been
retained Conclusion
Therefore, although committees
have a crucial role within
parliament, they cannot directly
influence the government and affect
its power
‘The supreme court is neutral and independent of the UK government’ - How far do you
agree with this view?
Para 1 Para 2 Para 3
Point: Point: Point:
Supreme court judges are Supreme court judges enjoy Government is unable,
shortlisted for appointment by security of tenure individually, or collectively, to
an independent selection Security of tenure limits the comment on active cases
committee ability of government to The government’s inability to
Independent appointment limits threaten the judge’s position comment on active cases limits
the ability of government to because of disagreement with their ability to influence judges’
influence the views of potential judges’ ruling, thus making rulings before they are made,
judges or to select judges with judges more independent since therefore ensures that a more
personal opinions matching they need not fear any independent decision can be
their own, therefore making it consequences from their rulings, made and that the view is
difficult for the government to it supports the view as correct, as the government
influence their decisions, so they government intervention is cannot intervene of influence
can be perceived as neutral and limited rulings
independent in nature and
removed from government Counterpoint Counterpoint:
control Supreme court judges make In practice, and despite some
rulings on significant Judicial high-profile cases, the SC rarely
Counterpoint Review cases including the rules against the gov
Supreme court judges are Human Rights Act The rarity of SC rulings against
demographically very Supreme court rulings on the government, suggesting an
