The UK constitution

What is the constitution

A set of principles, written or unwritten, that establishes the distribution of power within a political system , relationships between political institutions the limit of government jurisdiction, the rights of the citizens and the method of amending the constitution itself

Nature of the constitution (1)

Determines how political power should be distributed –under a unitary system ultimate power lies with parliament, but the constitution deciphers how the power is distributed between government and parliament and between the HOC and HOL

Establish a political process – relationships between institutions and the rules that they must work in

Limits government power – the British constitution makes parliament sovereign and they can act as they please

Nature of the constitution (2)

Gives rights to the citizens – most countries have a bill of rights which stops the government from breaking basic human rights.

Determine nationality – establishes who is allowed to be a citizen and how outsiders may become citizens

Rules for amending –The UK constitution is amended through parliamentary statue and conventions. In Ireland and France they must hold referendums.

Codification

The process of setting out the constitution in an organised way in a single document. i.e. it has a single source.

Clear and every citizen has access to itEasier to solve disputesGives citizens something to identify with.

Usually occurs as a result of a revolution, civil war or the creation of a new state.

Two tier legal system

When a country has a codified constitution there are usually two types of laws. Higher laws, who has power rights of citizens; and lower laws administration of the state, criminality, etc. The higher laws are usually entrenched and need referendums two thirds majority etc to be changed but the lower laws are not safeguarded by such procedures and can be changed.

Uncodified constitution

Many argue that because the UK constitution is uncodified it does not exist. Parts of it may be written but there is no one single document.

It does not have one single source but comes from statute and common law as well as the conventions that have come about over the years.

Therefore the UK has a single tier system.

Entrenchment

This is what protects the constitution from short term amendment. As constitutional reform makes a massive impact on a country’s political system. It must achieve widespread support of the people and be in the long term interest of the country. For example referendums and parliamentary procedures

In the UK it is not possible to entrench principles as parliament is sovereign. Parliament is not bound by its predecessor or successors

Judicial review

If a citizen takes the government to court to appeal their rights in the constitution. Senior judges look at the constitution and interpret what it means in today’s society, and there ruling in effect becomes part of the constitution. In the UK parliament is sovereign and can pass an act to evade this.

An example being the 9 terror suspects held at Belmarsh who appealed habeas corpus and the judges ruled that they were detained illegally but parliament swiftly passed The Terrorism Act 2006 allowing suspects to be held for 28 days

Arguments suggesting there is no UK constitution

It is uncodified – not organised into any single document, but is scattered in many different sources and some parts are unwritten.

Constitutional statutes do not have more authority than other statutes. There is no basic and higher law.

Constitutional laws cannot be entrenched due to parliamentary sovereignty.

Arguments suggesting there is a UK constitution

There is a general sense of a constitution.

Tradition is a very powerful influence within the UK. Governments are reluctant to infringe independence of the Judiciary, freedom of expression, primacy of the Cabinet etc.

The public act as guardians of constitutional principles by voting out governments that have offended against these principles.

There are accepted forms of constitutional rules.

Arguments for a uncodified constitution (1)

Flexibility – the UK constitution is organic and rooted in society so it changes in order to take into account changes in society. Changes to the monarchy and terrorism.

Executive power - it is good to have a government that can handle issues easily

Traditional conservatism – it has worked for so many years why change it now, there have been no significant revolutions or political unrest.

Arguments for a uncodified constitution (2)

Difficulty in changing it - it would be immensely difficult to gather the constitution into one document as it stems from so many different sources

Much of the important parts of the constitution are already codified - Human Rights Act 1998, The Devolution Acts, and Freedom of Information Act. Most constitutional reforms now have referendums effectively codifying them.

Arguments for a codified constitution

Human rights – there are no real safe guards for the human rights act 1998 as parliament is sovereign

Government is too powerful - reformers argue that the government is not constrained well enough

Clarity – if people knew what their rights were they would feel less voter apathy and get involved

Modernity – the UK seems out of touch with the rest of the world and especially the EU.

Unitary and federal constitutions

In a unitary constitution sovereignty lies firmly in one place, parliament. And although it may devolve power it still has the power to recall this.

In a federal system sovereignty is distributed between central bodies and regional institutions. This usually happens when a number of regional bodies come together and agree to give sovereignty to the central body. But still protect regional differences.

Sources of the UK constitution (1)

Parliamentary statues - acts of parliament that have the effect of establishing a principle.

Constitutional conventions – an unwritten rule that is considered binding in political communities. They cannot be challenged in law but have a moral force that protects them. Salisbury convention.

Historical principles – principles that have developed over years. Such as sovereignty of parliament and parliamentary government

Sources of the UK constitution (2)

Common law – laws that have been used throughout history such as the PM’s prerogative powers that the courts guard. When there is no statute in place these laws are used.

Tradition – practices and traditions of parliament such as allowing the queen to announce new legislation, i.e. the queen’s speech.

Main characteristics of the UK constitution

Uncodified

Not entrenched

Constitutional monarchy – royal prerogative

Sovereignty of parliament – parliamentary govt

Party government

Unitary government

Sovereignty in the UK

Legal sovereignty – parliament is the legislature and is the only power that can pass/repeal laws.

Political sovereignty – political power lies with the electorate at the time of an election, but otherwise with government. And because of the prime ministers prerogative powers he also has a large amount of political power. Finally in extreme circumstances the monarch could possibly take back these powers.

The EU and the Constitution (1)

Parliament passed the Europeans committee act in 1972 allowing Britain to join the EU

EU law is superior to British law – factortame case – Spanish vessels allowed to ship in British waters according to the fisheries regulations even though it was against the merchants shipping act.

British courts must implement EU law

House of lords is no longer the highest court of appeal the European court of justice is

The EU and the Constitution (2)

For proposals requiring a unanimous vote in the EU council, it has an effective veto and can block these. For example the harmonious taxation

Where proposals only need a majority the UK must accept these

Parliament should not pass any statues that conflict with EU law

Where has sovereignty in the UK gone?

Parliament remains fully legally sovereign as all law must be passed by parliament, and where it has devolved these powers it can take them back. With regards to the EU

Parliament has to effectively accept the result of a referendum

A lot of power has gone to government or the prime minster, through the prerogative powers he uses on behalf of the crown

Attitudes towards constitutional reform

The conservatives believe that reform should not be a conscious policy but a more natural procedure. Usually when there has been a political breakdown, such as the call for the removal of the house of lords led to the removal of hereditary peers. As it would disrupt the political process of the UK. Labour and the liberals have had more dominant issues and constitutional reform has few votes so it’s been squeezed off the agenda. Even when there has been time socialists and liberals have never been able to agree on what reforms should take place.

Constitutional reform before 1997

Overall there has been very little change

UK joining the European committee in 1973

Political role of monarchy has gradually disappeared

The role of the house of lords has been weakened by the Salisbury convention and the 1911 parliament act that said the house of lords will not interfere with financial affairs.

Power has drifted from local government to central government through many different pieces of legislation and conventions

Why labour supported constitutional reform in 1997

The parties ideology had always supported equal rights democracy and the abolition of traditional establishment powers

In 1997 it seemed definite that they would win the election and most likely the next

To stop one party from fully dominating parliament after a long period of conservative government

Public support for reforms was growing

Principles of labours reforms

Democratisation – the house of lords and the unrepresentative electoral system

Decentralisation – dispersing power away to local authorities, due to the long period of conservatives

Restoration of rights – European convention of human rights , freedom of information act

Modernisation – of the civil service and parliament

Parliamentary reform

In 1998 after negotiations with conservative peers and a massive majority in the commons labour managed to reduce the number of hereditary peers from several hundred to just 92 making the system more democratic by removing a conservative majority However what to do with the house next still remains as to if it is elected or remains the same

Human rights Act 1998

Causes – bring the UK closer to rest of EU, police and courts to powerful, government had lost in the ECHR nearly 50 times it was embarrassing, in return for active citizenship, Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland were already bound by the convention.

How it works – judgements of the ECHR are not

Changes to the commons include more powerful select committees, changes to prime ministers questions. Brown tried shifting power from the govt to the commons but it will be hard to implement

binding, parliamentary acts remain sovereign, and cases can now be heard in British courts.

Government listens – for example Belmarsh, the anti terrorism act needed to be amended

Electoral reform

Has changed as parties come and go out of power, the liberals remain supportive saying the current FPTP is undemocratic and unrepresentative whereas the other side says it leads to a strong and stable government

Labour has now started to move away from reform for the general elections as they secure strong victories with only 35% of the votes in the 2005 election leading to a 66% majority in the commons. However they have made changes in the devolved areas.

Freedom of information

The act firstly gave citizens a right to know what information the government and public bodies had about them. Second it made it slightly harder for government to be secret and conceal documents.

However again labour changed its mind and said that there should be sufficient reasons for the release off a document rather than sufficient reasons to conceal it.

London mayor

After an era of Thatcher who abolished the GLC and split London up into 33 boroughs the labour party wanted to restore power back to London.

When they came to power they pushed through reforms for the creation of a London mayor and a greater London authority. But again did not live up to their promise of restoring political power as the London mayor had influence rather than control.

The main influence being congestion charge and public transport in London, and increasing police.

Devolution

In 1998 the Good Friday agreement devolved power back to northern Ireland after it had been taken back in 1972.

The conservatives had lost support in Scotland and Wales whilst labours support was increasing.

Referendums were held in Scotland and Wales where a vote of 74% and 50% voted in favour

The Scottish parliament and welsh assembly came into existence in 1999.

Argument for devolution

Increased demand for self government as the needs of the people are different

Preventing the breakup of the UK

More democratic as government is closer to people

Reduce workload on British parliament and government

Recognises Europe of the regions rather than separate states

Arguments against devolution

Devolution may lead to independence

Demand was over exaggerated and not necessary

Extra government increased costs to taxpayer

Taxes in Scotland will rise as it is less prosperous

Does not go far enough most the power is in england

Types of devolution

Administrative devolution – the power to make secondary legislation in certain areas, allocation of public funds, how laws should be implemented

Financial devolution – the power to set taxes themselves, Scotland was given 3% variance on income tax

Legislative devolution - the power to make primary legislation

Reforms to the judiciary

The role of senior members of the judiciary was closely linked to the government. The lord chancellor was head of the judiciary presided over the proceeding of the house of lords and was a member of the cabinet meaning he was part of the executive judiciary and legislature. This role was scrapped.

The creation of a separate supreme court that was separate from the house of lords

Judicial appointments commission to decide who to employ as judges

Assessment of constitutional reform

The fully appointed House of Lords is still not accountable or representative.

House of Commons remains ineffective and inefficient, with government not being accountable enough

Freedom of information act is too weak and allows the government to be secretive

Electoral reform has not taken place in parliamentary or local elections

Possible future reforms

-Transfer powers from government and PM to commons – deploy troops, decide on a date of the general election, declare war, ratify or reject foreign treaties,

-Changing general election days from Thursday to weekend

-Introducing e petitions

- initiate consultation on bill of rights and possible codification

Parliament

Parliamentary and presidential governmentParliamentary government

- Parliament is the main source of political authority in the UK

- Government must be drawn from parliament

- Powers of govt and legislature are ‘fused’- Govt must be accountable to parliament

Presidential government- Legislature and executive have separate

sources of power, they are elected separately

- President is not part of legislature

- Executive is accountable to people- Clear separation of powers- Codified constitutional agreement to

separate Plenary sessions

These are where the house meets in full usually during prime ministers question or when a great topic of the day arises such as the hunting with dogs, anti terrorism act 2001 and the war in Iraq 2003.

Party members have to vote on government legislation but this does not mean that they have to be there for the debates.

Standing committees

Each new piece of legislation is looked at by a group of 15- 50 MP’s and peers in order to make any amendments needed. A relevant minister and specialist spokesperson for each other party sits on the committee. For an amendment to be made the committee has to vote by majority. However party loyalty still applies and members are expected to “toe the party line”

In the Lords it is common to have such plenary standing committees but in the commons it hardly ever occurs

Departmental select committees

There are 18 select committees normally made up of 11 members that shadow each government department. Party whipps influence the liaison committee to get who they want on it, and the chair is usually a significant parliamentary personality. Members are expected to behave in a neutral way, and when reports are published

They have significant powers and can call for ministers, civil servants, external witnesses and official papers for their investigations.

The role of a select committee

- Investigate the work of government departments and insure they have acted effectively and efficiently- Consider major departmental policies and whether they have taken into account relevant opinions- Consider if proposed legislation will be effective- Consider matters of major public concern- investigate serious errors or omissions made by the department and recommend how to correct it- propose future legislation where there is an overwhelming need

Example of select committees

HealthCulture, media and sportDefenceTransport

The home affairs committee – detention of terrorist suspects 2006 - rejected the government’s proposal for 90 day detention and instead recommended 28 days. This was then accepted by the rest of the house.

The speaker

The speakers role is to manage the house by selecting members to speak during debates and arranging the business of thee house with party leaders. The speaker is supposed to be fully neutral and not be influenced by party politics allowing all parties to have an equal amount of time.

Functions of parliament (1)

Legitimating - parliament needs to pass any proposed government bill in order for it to become law this is in effect parliament, the representatives of the people, legitimising a government bill and making it law.

Scrutiny – parliament scrutinises proposed legislation making any amendments needed and thus protecting all areas of society and ensuring the laws are clear in there application

Functions of parliament (2)

Opposition – in the UK we have adversial politics so every time a proposal is made it is expected government will have to explain and justify its policies so opposition parties cannot show any weaknesses in the legislation

Functions of parliament (3) Accountability

Accountability – forcing the government to justify policy, explain why they are being put forward and what the future effects will be. Criticising policies. Opposition parties present alternative policy. The role of parliament to expose serious mistakes.

Individual ministerial responsibility – the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility says each minister is responsible for themselves and for the work of their department. Stephen Byers was forced to resign as trade and industry secretary in 2002 when his personal advisors acted unprofessionally.

Functions of parliament (4) Accountability

Questions to ministers – each minister must regularly appear in the house. Some questions are written that the minister can reply back to in writing. But others in the house are usually questions that the minister has been informed about whereas others are unexpected.

However ministers have the advantage of civil servants to write answers for them but MP’s don’t. Prime ministers questions is criticised for becoming an entertainment show between the two party leaders rather than outlining government policy.

Functions of parliament (5)

Financial control – any changes to the tax system or funding allocation need to be passed by parliament and the financial powers of the government have to be renewed each year. If parliament was to withhold consent government would cease to function.

Representation – MP’s are elected to represent their: -Parties; however at the time of the general election they can withdraw support for some policies. - Constituencies - the country as a whole, national interest- other groups they may be involved in

Why has the House of Lords become more significant

Governments have large majorities in the commons, the House of Lords therefore balances this as opposition

The House became professional with peers taking their roles more seriously and attending regularly

The reforms in 2000 of made the house more representative of society

The house is seen as a guardian of individual rights

Examples of the House of Lords going against the will of the government

Gambling order 2007 – lords refused to pass the act for a super casino to be built in Manchester- resulted in a major rethink of allowing more casinos in Britain.

Similarities / differences between the two housesCommons and Lords have a similar procedure, spend time passing legislation, the shape is similar.

However the lords have cross benchers that are independent from parties and stop a

Anti terrorism legislation 2004-05 – lords ruled that the legislation violated human rights and it must be changed – government was forced to amend the act, restricting suspects movement, with the permission of a judge, but not detaining them in a prison

Hunting with dogs 2001 – delayed the act till 2004

government from having a majority, even members of parties are more independent than the commons.

Lords usually have more expertise in certain fields as they are people who have retired from those fields such as lawyers and business men.

Lords lack legitimacy and authorityRestrictions on the House of Lords

Can only delay an act for 1 year under the parliament act 1949

Has no power over the financial arrangement parliament act 1911

Do not block anything that was in a parties manifesto

Amendments proposed by the lords must be approved by the commons

Relationship between government and parliament

Effects of the fusion of powers between the executive and legislature mean that there is usually a strong and stable government and the government are able to carry out their manifesto

However governments may become dictatorial and legislation might not be scrutinised properly, the government will survive even if public opinion is against them as long as they have a majority

Why government dominates parliament (1)

The electoral system almost guarantees that one party will win and with a strong majority

Party loyalty in the UK is strong as political parties are ideologically united the government can rely on it

Prime ministerial patronage as most MP’s wish to become ministers and those that are ministers are bound by collective responsibility

Whipps or constituency parties can suspend MP’s from meaning they will probably lose their seat

Why government dominates parliament (2)

The prime minister can threaten to call a general election to bring MP’s into line

The House of Lords lacks authority and will eventually have to listen to the commons and therefore government

However this depends on its majority. The House of Lords also becomes more obstructive when a government has a large majority. The party must be united and if it is split government is weak.

Parliamentary reform House of Lords (1)

The House of LordsStage 1 – Thatcher persuaded hereditary peers to vote for her poll tax, labour wanted to remove them. They voted to remove hereditary peers but came to a compromise with William Hague and the leader of the conservatives in the commons allowing 92 peers, who would be voted for by the 800 current peers.

Lord Wakeham’s report said: the powers of the HOL should stay the same, subordinate to the HOC, a minority would be elected on a regional basis, no hereditary peers, crossbenchers hold balance.

Parliamentary reform House of Lords (2)

Stage 2 – Tony Blair wanted a fully appointed house so that the commons could keep control, most labour MP’s and liberal democrats wanted an elected house. Conservatives wanted a half elected- appointed house.

House of Lords- fully elected chamber

More democratic, remove corrupt practices in regards to appointment, act as a democratic balance under PR as no party will have dominance, allow smaller parties to be represented under PR.

Would create a deadlock between two houses, too many elections will lead to voter fatigue, more powerful second chamber will mean a less decisive government, another part of legislature dominated by parties

House of Lords – fully appointed chamber

Membership can be controlled to represent all of society, more independents in politics

Too much power in the hands of those that appoint them, undemocratic and holds back modernisation, lacks legitimacy and public support

Parliamentary reform House of Commons

PMQ’s changed from two short sessions to one longer session, New offices for MP’s, allowances for secretarial and research backing, select committee appointments are in the hands of MP’s.

Conservative Norton committee reforms: 2 PMQ’s, longer ministerial question time sessions, opportunities backbenchers to raise issues, shorter speeches in debates, research resources for opposition parties, research facilities for select committees, MP’s control select committees, select committee chairman same salary as ministers.

House of Commons browns possible reforms

Commons should have more of a say in appointment of senior government appointments

Prerogative powers of PM should be abolished with the commons able to veto these

Parliament should control activities and structure of civil service

Parliament to decide on a date for the next general election

The Prime Minister and

Cabinet

The government

Although this figure changes in general the government consists of 25 peers and 90 MP’s23 cabinet members- the head of government the prime minister and secretaries of state, 15 senior non cabinet posts – people who are not important enough to be in the cabinet but still important i.e. the attorney general,60 junior ministers – ministers of state working under members of the cabinet,17 part whipps running the administration and ensuring MP’s stay in line.

Characteristics of the government The 90 or so MP’s perform duties in government but also have constituencies to look after

Other MP’s of the party are known as backbenchers and not bound by the same rules as frontbenchers

All members of government are appointed by the PM

Members of the government are bound by collective responsibility and must publically support policy no matter what they may believe;

Ministerial selection

The prime minister decides upon a minister firstly through the competence of the individual and secondly through political consideration.

The minister should be politically reliable – accepting collective responsibility, junior ministers should have potential so that they can replace senior members at a later stage, ministers should preferably be ideologically united, have managerial skills

therefore they must also take responsibility for it. If a member of government is against policy they should resign.Other forms of governmentMinority government – winning party fails to win an absolute majority, find it difficult to pass legislation and financial budgets, they are therefore short lived

Coalition government- shared appointment of posts and shared policies between two or more parties. Has happened in 1945 and in the Scottish parliament as well as at local government level.

Majority coalition – between 2 parties to form govtGrand coalition - form an overwhelming majorityRainbow coalition - 1 large party and several othersNational coalition - where all parties are called to join

Cabinet government

The cabinet represented the collective identity of the government

All important domestic and many foreign policies were made within the cabinet

Policy needed full cabinet approval for it to be official

Disputes would be resolved within the cabinet

The PM was first amongst equals and could be voted against by the rest of the cabinet

Changing cabinet prime ministerial domination 1Howard Wilson realised he could control the cabinet through the help of a few close allies. The cabinet secretary who now served him almost exclusively, a few private advisors that he consulted in order to discuss strategy and his own force.He could control the political agenda of the cabinet.

He started having meeting with other cabinet ministers outside of cabinet meetings in order to control what happened in them and reportedly even had the minutes of the cabinet changed to support his own conclusions.

Changing cabinet prime ministerial domination 2The media exclusively focussed on Wilson so he became the presenter and therefore maker of policy

Thatcher took this too a new level by completely removing all her political opponents out of government and controlling the cabinet as Wilson had done. The media also focussed on Thatcher.

Blair took this further by using Wilsons tactics of control and Thatcher’s strategy of media supremacy as well as controlling the flow of information to the governing community

Cabinet committeesA group of about 5 cabinet ministers who meet to discuss policy. To deal with decisions that need approval of more than one department. Some are temporary like the Olympics but others are permanent like economic development; and, national security, international relations and development.

Issues too technical/complex for full cabinet to discuss, there is no time/information. When a decision of a committee is referred up its usually accepted. Increases PM’s control, he creates them, decides who sits on them and what their agenda is. It’s easier for him to control a smaller number

Marginalisation

The PM has increasingly taken power away from the cabinet and given it to himself

Department don’t want to bring issues to the cabinet

Cabinet committees are dealing with much of the policy on their own

A lot of policy is now formed in downing street by the PMs personal political advisors

The PM deals with individual ministers separately

Functions of the cabinet today

Settling disputes between ministers

Making decisions that cannot be made elsewhere – gain cabinet support, to save the PM embarrassment

Dealing with domestic emergencies – it is good to have full cabinet backing at times of national security

Determining presentation of policy

Legitimising decisions taken elsewhere -such as in cabinet committees or

Formation of a cabinet

Vital part of PM’s powers of patronage, he appoints and can dismiss senior members of government

The PM must decide if he wants a balanced cabinet or an ideologically united cabinet. And which individuals he should choose.

Political allies from the past, representing an important part of society, a rebel that could be dangerous outside, those with great potential, personal friends, popular figures, retaining political identity, finally able to do a good job

The functions of the prime minister (1)Chief policy maker – he has the final say on policy

Head of government – can make and abolish committees and departments. Head of civil service. Chairs cabinet meetings. Determining who holds the posts of ministers, senior judges and arch bishops.

Chief government spokesman – represents policy to the media

Commander in chief of the armed forces – on behalf of monarch, committing troops declaring war and head of intelligence services

The functions of the prime minister (2)

Chief foreign policy maker – negotiating with other countries, signing treaties and chairing international meetings

Parliamentary leader – it is the role of the prime minister to lead his party in parliament, both the House of Commons and House of Lords

Sources of prime ministerial power and authorityThe ruling party - PM has support of party and the rest of the country in ordinary members. Party won the general election he carries elective authority.

Prerogative powers – the powers that the PM can practice on behalf of the monarchy as it would be undemocratic for the monarch to have these powers.

The prime minister can claim personal mandate as more and more people take into account the party leader when voting

Parliament – can claim parliamentary authority as long as he has a majority.

Prime ministerial power – formal (all)Appointment and dismissal of ministersGranting peerages and other honoursHead of the civil serviceAppointment senior judges and bishopsDetermining the date of the general electionCommanding the armed forcesConducting foreign relationsMaintaining national securityChairing cabinet meetings

Prime ministerial power – (varies)Making government policyParliamentary leadershipControlling cabinetNational leadership

Limits on Prime ministerial power

The size of the majority in the House of Commons – john major just 21, tony blairs majority of over 100

Having a united party – as seen with Cameron and brown over the expenses issue

Public and media profile – Blair and Thatcher.

Support of cabinet and parliament – as if these overrule him there is nothing he can do

Confidence of the party

Presidential government effectively head of state - the country unites behind the PM in times of national emergency – Diana

Large amount of personal advisors – cabinet office serves the PM not government, policy directorate and strategy unit playing key parts.

Controls foreign policy- Blair supporting US in the middle east, world environmental issues, EU

Build up of special leadership – Thatcher used her own advisors instead of the chancellor major was forced out due to having political enemies

Not presidential government

Office of PM is flexible and depends on what the holder wants to make it

PM’s seem to be more presidential through the media but in reality are not – Thatcher sacked

As the PM tries to stretch power the constraints become more powerful – Thatcher’s enemies turning on her

Even though he appears to be he is not actually head of state.

Ministers and departments

Department has two heads one minister “secretary of state” and one civil servant “permanent secretary”.

Therefore each department has a political structure, the minister then junior ministers then private political advisors; and administrative structure the permanent secretary and a large number of civil servants who are supposed to be neutral.

Tasks of the civil service

Gather information for policy makingProvide alternative courses of actionAdvise on consequences of decisionsDraft legislationProvide briefings for other ministersAdvise on implementation methodsOrganise implementation of policyDraft answers for ministerial questions

Tasks of a minister

Set the political agendaDetermine priorities for actionDecide between political alternativeObtain cabinet and PM’s approval for policySteer proposals through parliamentBe accountable to parliament for policies and implementationAccount to parliament for general performance of their department

Features of a ministers job

Politically committed to one partyTemporary only hold office as long as PM wishesWill lose office if party loses powerAre expected to make political decisionsMake judgements about outcomes of those decisionsHave a public profilePublically accountable for their department

Features of a civil servants job

Must display no political allegiancePermanent wish to move up through the ranksKeep their jobs when the party changesMay only suggest alternative in a neutral wayIdentify possible outcomes in a neutral wayLargely anonymousCannot be held publically accountable

Judiciary and Civil liberties

Judicial system in the UK

House of Lords- the 12 most senior judges in the country- major issues on human rights and judicial review. Major problems over actual meaning of law. settling disputes over conflict with EU and British law

Appeal court- very senior judges- disputes from lower courts over the accurate meaning of the law. dealing with appeals over human rights

High courts- senior judges- dealing with cases where citizens or organisations have a dispute with some part or agency of government

The political role of the judiciary (1)

Dispensing justice – everyone is treated equally under the law and a fair decision is made

Interpretation – judges need to decide what the law actually means when there is a dispute

Creating case law - in specific circumstances judges make rulings that will also apply in similar cases.

Declaring common law – if there is no common law/ parliamentary statue judges decide on what to do. This then becomes common law

The political role of the judiciary (2)

Judicial review –if citizens or organisations have disputes with government, usually rights being broken exceeding power or been treated unfairly

Public inquiries – judges are called upon to look into matters of public concern.

External jurisdiction – who has power over certain issues, devolved areas/EU or Westminster.

Sentencing issues- there’s minimum sentences for certain crimes, that judges must stick too.

Limitations principles and safeguards

Sovereignty of parliament – if courts believe an act goes against the law they still have to enforce it

The rule of law – all citizens are equal and must be given a fair trial, if the courts do not do this a case can be appealed against

Judicial precedent – if a judge creates new common or case law all other judges must then use this law unless they are off a higher court

The primacy of EU law- British courts must enforce it

Independence of the judiciary

If judges are not independent government will exceed their power as no checks are kept

Citizens must feel that they will be treated equally in the eyes of the law and will not be discriminated against by the government

Judges should be selected independent from the government to ensure neutrality

How is independence maintained

Security of tenure- judges cannot be sacked or salaries reduced because of decisions they make, they’re free to make decision without fear

Contempt of court- for a government servant to interfere or comment on a case. Stops pressure being put on government

Appointments- PM and lord chancellor, appointment commission and parliament keeps a check

Background – senior judges are impartial

How independence is threatened

Indirect pressure on judges – politicians have become involved in rights and minimum sentences

PM has veto over appointments commission as to the appointment of senior judges

Many senior judges, 12, are also lords and therefore involved in the legislative process meaning their politic al independence cannot be guaranteed

Neutrality of the judiciary

Judges themselves being free from bias

Most judges come from a narrow social and professional background they are usually male and upper or middle class being educated at Oxbridge, many are lords – inevitably leading to conservatism

However recently the judiciary has become much more neutral. Giving verdicts in favour of individuals and minorities. Further backed up by human rights act. Both parties have claimed the judiciary represents the other

Threat to civil liberties

Increased police power

Limits to trade union activities- Thatcher

Increasing information held by government on each citizen, social security police and NHS

Increasing tension between media and government over what they could publish

Government power was growing and parliaments power to limit that was weakening

Freedom of information and open government

Passed in 2000 but did not come into effect till 2005 longer term process of creating a more open government Select committees being able to access documents

However the act became watered down and said that the government could disclose information if they thought it was not in the publics interest

Data protection act 1984 – allowed citizens to check what data the government had on them so that they could insure the records were correct

Human rights in the UK

Civil liberties – human rights act, common law, other parliamentary statues

Anti discrimination – race relations act, equal opportunities act

Employment and union rights – employment protections act, equal pays act

Rights to welfare – welfare state legislation

The government and the judiciary

As home secretaries have tried to impose minimum sentences judges have been imposed to this and believe it should be left to them not government

Senior members of the judiciary have criticised the government over the introduction of anti terror legislation that infringes human rights

Ministers have argued that judges are too politically involved and s they are not elected or accountable they should not interfere

Recent reforms to the judiciary

Removal of lord chancellors role in all three branches, he is no longer the head of the House of Lords or a member of the cabinet.

Introduction of secretary of state for constitutional affairs -a member that sits on the cabinet advising it what to do about the judiciary

Supreme court to be introduced in 2009 will separate House of Lords as the highest court of appeal.