Unit 3: The changing UK system
by Dr Alys Thomas
Former Lecturer in Government at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Glamorgan writes for BBC Parliament |
The UK's constitution is commonly described as 'unwritten'.
This is not strictly true because although there is no single document such as the US Constitution the UK Constitution is found in Acts of Parliament (statute law), judgements handed down over time in the form of Common Law, an emerging body of European law, authoritative works, such as the classic piece on the English Constitution by Bagehot, and constitutional conventions such as collective responsibility.
 | ALSO IN THIS SECTION: Unit 3 - The Changing UK System |
In other countries constitutional law is entrenched which means that the constitution cannot be amended without special procedures. Amendment of the US constitution, for example, requires the assent of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states.
The UK Parliament can amend constitutional law as it would any other law. Supporters of Britain's unique constitutional arrangements argue that it has the advantage of flexibility and has stood the test of time.
Critics
Critics argue that it allows a government with a strong majority to alter the constitution in a partisan way and that elements of the constitution, such as the House of Lords, are anachronistic.
Some people and organisations, such as the pressure group Charter 88 , believe that Britain should have a written constitution.
When the Labour Government was elected in 1997 it was committed to some elements of constitutional reform, notably devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, reform of the House of Lords and a referendum on reforming the voting system.
It also signed the European Convention of Human Rights and introduced a Freedom of Information Act. On the face of it, the Labour Government appeared to be taking constitutional reform forward, particularly as it moved swiftly to implement its devolution proposals in 1997.
However, critics have argued that the constitution as it stands suits the executive branch of government too well and Labour's desire for reform has weakened since it has enjoyed power.
Evidence for this is cited in a number of areas:-
House of Lords reform: In 1998 the Lords was made up of 1,272 members (759 hereditary, 461 life peers, 26 law lords and 26 archbishops and bishops). Labour wanted to reform it because the hereditary element was clearly anachronistic in a democratic state on the verge of the 21st century and it had an inbuilt Conservative majority. In 1999 an Act was passed which abolished hereditary peers apart from 91, who will remain until 'stage two' is complete.
The government has recently announced its intention to create a fully elected Lords. This could challenge the authority of the Commons from which the Prime Minister derives his power.
But without the legitimising factor of election the Lords will remain a weak check and balance on the government and the House of Commons.
The Jenkins Commission: An independent body established by the Labour Government to examine the voting system. So far it has recommended the 'AV plus' system, combining the alternative vote for the election of constituency MPs and a second 'top up', list vote to ensure overall proportionality in the Commons. However, there is no sign that the government intends to hold a referendum on these proposals in the immediate future.
� Dr Alys Thomas 2003
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Glamorgan
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
