Amendments to Britain s unwritten constitution are made the same way by a simply majority support in both Houses of Parliament to be followed by the.

Transcription

1 A is a set of laws on how a country is governed. The British Constitution is unwritten, unlike the constitution in America or the proposed European Constitution, and as such, is referred to as an constitution in the sense that there is no single document that can be classed as Britain's constitution. The British Constitution can be found in a variety of documents. Supporters of our constitution believe that the current way allows for flexibility and change to occur without too many problems. Those who want a written constitution believe that it should be codified so that the public as a whole has access to it as opposed to just constitutional experts who know where to look and how to interpret it. Amendments to Britain s unwritten constitution are made the same way by a simply majority support in both Houses of Parliament to be followed by the. The British Constitution comes from a variety of sources. The main ones are: Statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of Laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law Constitutional experts who have written on the subject such as Walter Bagehot and A.V Dicey. There are two basic principles to the British Constitution: The Rule of Law The supremacy of Parliament The Rule of Law The Rule of Law is an aspect of the British Constitution that has been emphasised by A V Dicey and it, therefore, can be considered an important part of British Politics. It involves: The of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behaviour of authorities. There can be no punishment unless a court decides there has been a breach of law. Everyone, regardless of your position in society, is subject to the law. The critical feature to the Rule of Law is that individual depend on it. Its success depends on the role of trial by jury and the impartiality of judges. It also depends on Prerogative Orders. There are three Prerogative Orders:

2 Certiorari: calls a case up from an inferior court to a superior one to ensure justice is done. Prohibition: prevents an inferior court from hearing a case it does not have the power to listen to. Mandamus: orders an inferior court to carry out its duties. How relevant to 21st British Politics and Society is the Rule of Law? Supporters of a written and clearly defined constitution believe that as society has had its liberties more and more encroached on by central government, the Rule of Law is more important now than ever. They claim that central government has sought and seeks to undermine the three basic tenets of Dicey s code with an increase in things such as: The Official Secrets Act The attempt to remove an individual s right to trial by The activities of the Secret Service (especially after September 11th) Removing what were considered traditional rights (such as the removal of the workers right at GCHQ to belong to a trade union under the Thatcher government (though brought back since 1997) The gagging clause that now has to be signed by those in the Civil Service after the Clive Ponting and Belgrano issue shortly after the end of the Falklands War However, individuals still retain a great deal of personal freedom and many individuals will never be affected by the Official Secrets Act or the activities of Britain s secret services (though they may not know if they are being investigated or not!) It is agreed with some justification that a modern society needs bodies like MI5 and MI6 simply because there are a tiny number of individuals who wish to subvert society and have to be dealt with accordingly. A law-abiding individual, it is argued, need never worry about such organisations. Also there are bodies that theoretically oversee the activities of government agencies and their work such as the Council of Tribunals and the Parliamentary Commissioner. It is argued that these bodies help to protect the rights of the individual at the expense of any into their personal freedom by government agencies. The Supremacy of Parliament The development of the supremacy of Parliament stemmed from the English Civil War and has expanded ever since and is a dominant theme in British Politics. Those MPs who represent the public via representative democracy, have been handed the power to assess, pass or reject legislation. In every sense, the of Parliament is the backbone of British Politics and is only possibly threatened by aspects of the work of the European Commission and other European Union institutions. Parliament can pass, repeal and alter any of Britain s laws. This is one of the major powers that a government has. The Conservatives lead by Margaret Thatcher banned at GCHQ believing that they had no place in an organisation that is of great importance to Britain s national security. This decision was reversed in 1997 by the newly elected Labour government of Tony Blair. Parliament also has the power after going through its own parliamentary processes of altering its own laws.

3 In theory there is no body that can declare a law passed by Parliament as - though the full impact of the European Court is not yet known in Courts have taken on government decisions over technicalities such as when Michael Howard as Home Secretary sent the Jamie Bulger killers to prison for an unspecified term. The Courts deemed this illegal as they decided that only a person working within the judiciary had the right to come to this decision and that a specified term had to be given as opposed to a sentence "at Her Majesty's Pleasure". If a government has a healthy majority, such as the current Labour government does, then there is little that can be done to stop it passing laws. The impact of the European Court will be interesting. To date, the European Council has passed laws which Britain has to implement (such as recent environmental ) but it is unlikely that the European Court will decide that a law that has gone through the due political process in Britain will be illegal. Once this happens, then arguably the need for an independent British legal system will be redundant. One of the fears raised by anti- European campaigners is just that our laws, taxes, way of life etc. will be determined by a European directive and that Britain will lose all forms of independence in all spheres of government. Are any limitations to the Supremacy of Parliament? If the government has a healthy majority and there is no backbench, then apparently there is little that can be done while that government is in power. However, every five years, the government is very accountable to the British people. This is one of the very corner stones of representative democracy. After the April 2002 Budget, Tony Blair stated categorically that it will be the British that will decide if there has been an improvement in the National Health Service and whether the increase in National Insurance rates was justified. Second, a government even with a healthy majority, has to be sensitive to public opinion simply because there is a general election at the end of its five year life. One of the reasons put forward for the heavy defeat of the Tories in 1997 was that they had lost touch with what the people wanted; lost touch with public opinion. Third, pressure groups do exert power on governments. It is impossible to measure this power as no government will admit to introducing legislation or reforming established law, simply because a pressure group has asserted itself. Fourth, the government itself as represented by the executive, the Cabinet, may lose touch with rank and file backbench opinion. The 2001 Labour government has a very healthy majority of 167 and can afford to upset a large chunk of backbenchers. In Easter 2002, over 100 Labour MP s signed a petition stating that the government should not get involved in any military campaign against Iraq. At the time, the government was very bellicose about a military campaign. Within a week, this had dampened down and the public talk by the Cabinet was far more muted and the language used was far more diplomatic. Was this to do with the petition? Again, few if any governments will admit that they would have changed their policies as a result of pressure. But a government facing a vocal backbench rebellion looks weak and disunited. The public s perception of such a government may not be good. In the same month, April, 119 Labour MP's signed up to LATE (Labour Against the Euro). Even if all 119 ganged up against the government over certain bills, the government still has a majority of 48. However, it is possible that the government will have to handle this group with skill as a revolt by 119 MP's simply looks bad.

4 Therefore, the theory of the Supremacy of Parliament whereby a government can do as it wishes, does, in fact, have limitations. The current Labour government has faced internal party questions over the health service, education, defence policy and so its huge parliamentary majority does not guarantee the supremacy of the executive within Parliament. Separation of Power The separation of power is an integral part of American Politics but is less clear in British Politics primarily as one, the American model, is guaranteed in their Constitution while the British Constitution is and therefore roles have merged between parts of government. Government functions through three bodies: The, which makes laws The, which puts laws into effect and plans policy The, which decides on cases that, arise out of the laws. In America all three branches are systematically split between the Executive (the president), the legislative (Congress) and the Judiciary (the Supreme Court). The president cannot serve in Congress when president and serving Congressmen cannot be a Supreme Court judge. In theory, no branch becomes more powerful than the other two so that a balance occurs. The American Constitution clearly states what the executive, the legislative and the judiciary can do. In Britain this is not so clear. The legislative aspect is Parliament where laws are passed; the executive (which plans prospective laws and formulates policy) is the cabinet of the government and the judiciary is the and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council who have a final say on legal issues (the European Court excluded). However, whereas the American model has separation as part of the American Constitution, this is less clear in Britain. The is an active member of the legislative (and can vote in Parliament, though a recent criticism of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is that their voting record is one of the poorest of MP s in the Commons) yet he is also the leading member of the executive. Also the Lord Chancellor is a member of the cabinet and therefore of the executive as well as being head of the judiciary. The House of Lords also has a right to vote on bills so they are part of the legislative but the Lords also contains the Law Lords who are an important part of the judiciary. As with the PM, the members of the Cabinet are also members of the legislative who have the right, as a Member of Parliament, to vote on issues. Therefore, there is a merging of roles in the British model. Some have argued that this is needed for flexibility in a modern society. Supporters of the American model claim that a written constitution gives a government the rights it has so that it cannot onto power held by other parts of the political system or have its powers trespassed on by others. The Executive (President s office), the Legislative (Congress) and the Supreme Court (Judiciary) have very clear powers stated in the American Constitution that restricts each section s powers and avoids crossover between the three sectors of politics.

5 Conventions of a constitution British Politics and the British Constitution have many political attached to it which have developed and been accepted over the years. A convention is an accepted way in which things are done. They are not written down in law but tend to be old, established practices the way they have always been done. Though these conventions are not set in legal stone, their very existence over the years has invariably lead to the smooth operation of government. This, again, is an argument for an unwritten, uncodified constitution. If the ways of governmental working were set in stone and had been for years (through a codified constitution), could government evolve and develop and mould to society s change if the way government works was rigidly stated in a written constitution? There have been times when conventions have been given. From the time of the English Civil War when Parliament clashed with king over finance, it was accepted that money bills/acts came from the House of Commons. This was given legal status in 1911 with the Parliament Act that stated that parliamentary finance bills/acts must originate from the House of Commons. Some interesting conventions: It is accepted that a departmental minister will if he/she loses the confidence of the House of Commons (i.e. within their own party). Usually, pressure is put on the person concerned to resign, as a sacking looks bad. In recent weeks, pressure from nongovernmental sources (though primarily the media) has tried to tarnish the name of Stephen Byers, the Transport Minister, claiming that he has lost the confidence of the House. However, the simple fact is that Byers has kept his place simply because there has been no public party revolt against him hence, why he has not resigned. A future Cabinet would spare blushes all round as he was appointed by Tony Blair and it would look bad if Blair had to sack him if he did not resign. It is a convention that the queen will accept the legislation passed by the government. In the past, the fear of what happened to Charles I has usually ensured a harmonious relationship between monarch and Parliament! When Charles II became king in 1660, the rule of thumb was for Parliament to give the king enough money per year to maintain a royal lifestyle but for him not to get involved in politics. This worked tolerably well and monarchs and Parliament had usually worked well since then especially as Parliament held the monarch s purse. Now in the C21st, it is just accepted that the queen will give parliamentary legislation the Royal Assent. It is almost beyond belief that she would not do so the constitutional crisis this would create would be huge. The public backlash against an unelected person rejecting what a democratically elected government has pushed through would almost certainly be massive. It is a convention that if something in government goes wrong, the cabinet will all sing the same song and support the minister who may be receiving all manner of criticism from the media. This has been very apparent with the recent history of Stephen Byers all his cabinet colleagues have leapt to his defence over the problems he has recently faced. Conventions can be changed, as they have no legal status. But they tend to be tolerated as they allow the system to work. Any reform to a convention has one major problem: how do you know that it will work as well as before it was reformed? It is does not work as well, do you admit defeat and go back or stubbornly proceed and make out all is well?

6 Judicial Independence Judicial independence "is basic to the (British) Constitution." (G M Lewis) and is therefore an important part of the structure of British Politics. Democratic rights within British society depend on decisions taken within. These courts have to remain independent of outside pressure and interference i.e. from the government. Judges at all levels have to be confident that they will not face consequences if they take the government to task over government decisions. The independence of judges is secured by: While in office they behave in a professional manner; if they maintain the highest of standards in all areas, they cannot be touched by the government if they come to a decision that is against a government act (as with Michael Howard and the Jamie Bulger killers) Those in the judiciary are paid out of the Consolidated Fund so that they are free of annual parliamentary criticism, which might be used to mould future judicial decisions. If the judiciary supports a government act and this act backfires for whatever reason (in 2002 it would probably be a European Court ruling that takes over a British court decision), the judiciary is free from liability the government would take the flak and not the judiciary as the act was initiated by the government and not the judiciary. They would argue, with accuracy, that they simply enforce the law but that it is Parliament that creates that law. See the original document at uncodified reshuffle unconstitutional Executive revolt Royal Assent rights liberties jury conventions trespass Law Lords electorate Judiciary Prime Minister precedence constitution sleaze uncodifed legal status incursions supremacy trade unions legislation parliamentary Legislature resign