Constitution Need Reform Flashcards
(20 cards)
House of Lords need reform (opening line and description why the removal of hereditary peers is not enough to dismantle the foundational undemocratic structure).
- Despite incremental reforms, such as the removal of hereditary peers underway, the fundamental structure of the House of Lords remains undemocratic and unfit for a modern parliamentary system.
-The House of Lords is an entirely unelected legislative body. Life peers who comprise the vast majority of members, are appointed through opaque and highly political processes. This concentration of legislative power in unelected hands contradicts democratic ideals and leaves chamber lacking public accountability.
-The Lords may perform valuable scrutiny, but its foundational design is structurally incompatible with the principle that power should derive from the consent of the governed.
House of Lords need reform (The peerage appointment system fosters cronyism and erodes public trust in the political elite)
- the Prime Minister’s power to appoint life peers without oversight creates fertile grounds for political patronage. The appointment of Evgeny Lededev, despite national security concerns, and the recurring trend of party donors receiving peerages, fuel perceptions of a “cash for honours culture”.
-the 2020 “Cash for peerages” scandal highlighted that 15 of the last 16 conservative treasurers who donated more than £3 million to the party were given peerages.
-This perception delegitimises the Lord’s scrutiny role and suggests that legislative authority can be bought.
-without a reformed, transparent appointments process, or a shift to elections, the Lords will continue to reflect political expediency over meritocratic service.
-SYNOPTIC LINK: (Component 1: Political Parties: this reflects the wider concerns over the role of party funding and the influence of wealthy elites on British politics, especially regarding internal party democracy and public confidence in political institutions)
House of Lords need reform (The Lords’ limited legislative power compromises its role as an effective check on executive dominance)
-the Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949) severely limit the Lords’ legislative power. While intended to preserve the primacy of the Commons, this weakens the revising chamber’s ability to check the executive power, especially given the increasing centralisation of authority in No 10.
-in recent years, many key legislation, including controversial ones like Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, passed with minimal amendments from the Lords, raising concerns about inadequate scrutiny.
-when combined with an unelected composition, the result is a second chamber that lacks legitimacy to hold the executive to account effectively.
-Reform is arguably required to either enhance its democratic foundation or recalibrate its institutional function.
House of Lords do not require reforms (reforms have gone far enough with respects to the House of Lords Reform in 2024)
-The argument for constitutional reform of the House of Lords has gained renewed momentum. In October 2024, the Labour government introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, aiming to abolish the remaining 92 hereditary peers, thereby completing the reform initiated by the House of Lords Act 1999.
-this move addresses longstanding criticisms regarding the undemocratic nature of hereditary peerages. The bill successfully passed its Common stages and is currently under consideration in the Lords.
-Concerns about cronyism have also been addressed. In response to previous controversies, such as Boris Johnson’s appointment of Evgeny Lebedev, the government now requires public justification for new peerages, detailing the appointee’s qualifications and contributions.
-this measure aims to enhance transparency and restore public trust in the appointment process.
House of lords do not need reform (revising chamber)
-the House of Lords continue to play a vital role in legislative scrutiny benefiting from the expertise of its members. Crossbench peers, including legal and policy experts, have been instrumental in revising legislation.
-For instance, in 2015, the Lords blocked proposed tax credit cuts that would have adversely affected low-income families.
-In 2015, Baroness Meacher led a successful House of Lords motion to delay and force reconsideration of government plans to cut tax credits for low-income families, arguing the measures disproportionately harmed the working poor. This intervention showcased the Lords’ effectiveness as a revising chamber, using its expertise and moral authority to scrutinise secondary legislation and protect vulnerable citizens from executive overreach.
-More recently, in 2023, the Lords provided critical analysis of the government’s Rwanda asylum plan, contributing to the Supreme Court’s ruling against it. These underscore the Chamber’s function as a check on the executive power
-In May 2025, the House of Lords effectively revised the Data (Use and Access) Bill by passing an amendment requiring that AI companies to disclose the copyrighted materials used to train their models, thereby protecting intellectual property rights. This intervention highlights the Lord’s value as a check on executive power, particularly safeguarding civil liberties and adapting legislation to complex and ethical challenges posed by emerging technologies.
-SYNOPTIC LINK (Component 1: Rights Protection- this instance underscores the importance of safeguarding rights in the digital age, highlighting technological advancement and the protection of intellectual property.)
House of Lords closing off line
While reforms to eliminate hereditary peers and curb cronyism are necessary, transforming the House of Lords into a fully elected chamber could introduce gridlock, akin to challenges faced by the US senate. Maintaining an appointed chamber with enhanced transparency and accountability measures may preserve its strengths while addressing democratic deficits.
Devolution needs further reform (asymmetry and inconsistency of the UK’s devolution arrangement have created constitutional incoherence and regional dissatisfaction)
-Scotland and Northern Ireland enjoy far-reaching devolved powers, while Wales remains comparatively restricted, and England lacks any coherent regional governance at all.
-this patchwork approach has failed to produce parity or predictability. Welsh policymakers, for example, still lack fiscal levers that are routinely used in Edinburgh.
-Scotland has exercised its devolved fiscal powers by introducing a progressive income tax system with multiple bands and higher rates for top earners, diverging significantly from UK-wide tax policy. In contrast, Wales has more limited tax-varying powers and relies heavily on the Barnett Formula, leaving it dependent on Westminster for substantial budgetary decisions and constrained in responding to local economic needs.
-Meanwhile the absence of English devolution distorts UK-wide policymaking conflating English interest with national ones (West-Lothian problem)
-this unevenness breeds resentment and a sense of injustice, especially as devolution debates are increasingly tied to national identity.
-SYNOPTIC LINK: (Component 1: Democracy and participation- this links to the debate over political engagement and representation particularly in England, where democratic deficits may suppress political efficacy and regional participation)
Devolution needs reform- (Post-Brexit centralisation has undermined devolution, revealing its fragile constitutional underpinnings)
-the UK Internal Market Act 2020 reasserted Westminster’s control over areas previously regulated through the EU’s subsidiarity and food standards.
-both Scotland and Wales objected, yet their consent was not required. This illustrates the weakness of the Sewel Convention and the unforceable nature of devolved prerogatives.
-Reform is requisite in order to entrench devolved powers in law, rather than rely on Westminster’s discretionary respect for them, if devolved governance is to be taken seriously.
Devolution needs reform (Institutional instability particularly in Northern Ireland, exposes the structural fragility of devolution)
-the repeated suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly- due to political disagreements over the protocol (Friday Agreement Protocol) and other power-sharing agreements)- highlights the lack of resilience in current arrangements.
-2017–2020: The Northern Ireland Assembly collapsed in January 2017 following the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scandal and deeper tensions over identity, language rights, and mutual distrust between the DUP and Sinn Féin. The three-year deadlock left Northern Ireland without a functioning executive, exposing the fragility of the power-sharing model and the lack of mechanisms to enforce cooperation or provide interim governance.
2022–2024: The Assembly broke down again in February 2022 due to the DUP’s refusal to re-enter government in protest against the Northern Ireland Protocol, which they argued created a regulatory border in the Irish Sea. This prolonged suspension highlighted how devolved institutions can be held hostage to constitutional disputes, demonstrating the urgent need for reform to make power-sharing more resilient and less vulnerable to single-party obstruction.
-this suggests that devolution, as currently designed, is vulnerable to breakdown in the face of political tension.
-structural reform, such as guaranteed mechanisms for dispute resolution and institutional continuity, is required to uphold democratic functionality across all nations.
Devolution does not require reform ((the 2024 English Devolution White Paper)
-The 2024 English Devolution Plan signals that the current devolution framework can be enhanced through gradual, structured expansion rather than radical reform. By proposing the creation of new mayoral combined authorities and devolving powers over areas like transport, housing, and skills to English regions, the plan shows that the UK government is capable of addressing regional disparities within the existing constitutional structure. This incremental approach reinforces the argument that devolution can evolve effectively without wholesale constitutional change, maintaining national cohesion while promoting local autonomy.
For example, under the 2024 English Devolution Plan, North Yorkshire and Hull and East Yorkshire were granted new combined authorities with directly elected mayors, gaining devolved control over transport, housing, and local economic development.
Devolution does not need reform (SNP)
-In Scotland, the Scottish National Party continues to advocate for full fiscal autonomy. However, critics argue that such a move could exacerbate Scotland’s £20 billion annual budget deficit, potentially leading to significant tax increases and spending cuts.
-First Minister John Swinney has recently deprioritised the push for independence, focusing instead on governance and public service delivery
Devolution does not need reform (foster collaboration among the UK’s nations and regions)
-to foster collaboration among the UK’s nations and regions, the Labour government has proposed the Council of the Nations and Regions.
-this body aims to facilitate dialogue between the UK government, devolved administrations and English mayors.
-while its role is still being defined, it represents a step toward more cohesive intergovernmental relations.
Devolution no need for further reform
While further devolution could address regional grievances, it also poses risks of fragmentation and administrative complexity. A balanced approach that clarifies existing cooperation may strengthen the UK’s unity and governance.
Judiciary no need for further reform (the existing framework already offers robust protections without the need for further reform)
-while some argue that UK’s uncodified constitution leaves rights vulnerable, recent judicial interventions demonstrate that the existing legal framework already offers robust protections without the need for further reform.
-In R v Secretary of State for Home Department 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the government’s Rwanda deportation scheme unlawful under Article 3 of ECHR, affirming that deportees faced a real risk of inhumane treatment.
-this case powerfully illustrates the judiciary’s ability to act as an independent and effective check on executive overreach within the current constitutional framework, without needing a codified bill of rights
-while the government threatened to replace the HRA with a British Bill of Rights to reduce judicial influence, the plan was ultimately shelved in 2023 amid strong political opposition and public concern, demonstrating its limited electoral appeal.
-despite pressure, the judiciary has continued to assert its independence- showing that it retains both authority and strength to check overreach under the current framework
The Judiciary with judicial review no need for reform
-even contentious legislation like the Police, Crime, sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which expanded police powers over protests, has been met with both public scrutiny and ongoing judicial oversight.
-In 2024, the High Court heard challenges arguing the protest noise provisions were vague and disproportionately restricted freedom of expression under Article 10 of ECHR. This shows that civil liberties are not left unguarded; instead they are continuously tested against human rights standards in domestic courts.
The specific case is Liberty v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2024), where the High Court ruled that new protest regulations introduced under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022—specifically expanding police powers to restrict protests based on “more than minor disruption”—were unlawful. The court found that these regulations exceeded what Parliament had authorised and posed a disproportionate threat to the right to protest under Article 11 of the ECHR.
-Additionally, the courts’ role in scrutinising pandemic-related emergency laws, such as in Dolan v Secretary of State, further reflects how judicial review allows courts to evaluate government power even under exceptional circumstances. Covid-19 regulations- ruling that the restrictions were lawful, necessary, and proportionate in responding to the public health emergency posed by the pandemic.
The Judiciary no need for further reform (risk displacing the careful balance by granting unelected judges the final say over politically sensitive issues, potentially undermining parliamentary sovereignty)
-calls for codification often ignore that doing so would risk displacing this careful balance by granting unelected judges the final say over politically sensitive issues, potentially, undermining parliamentary sovereignty and democratic responsiveness.
-the UK’s current model- anchored by the HRA 1998, an independent judiciary, and the principle of common law, allows rights to evolve contextually while ensuring accountability. Therefore, far from necessitating fundamental reform, recent developments affirm that the judiciary is already strong enough and a flexible guardian of rights in the UK’s uncodified constitutional system
The judiciary needs reform (the absence of codified constitution leaves fundamental rights exposed to majoritarian override)
-in the UK, Parliament’s legal sovereignty allows it to legislative on any matter including the limitation or removal of core liberties.
-unlike codified systems with entrenched rights provisions, the UK offers no formal hierarchy of norms to protect individuals from parliamentary overreach. This structural deficiency became particularly evident during the passage of the Police, Crimes, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which imposed sweeping constraints on the right to protests.
-in a codified constitution, such provisions might have faced constitutional challenge; in the UK, they passed impeded.
The Judiciary (Attempts to sideline the ECHR and the HRA highlight the fragility of human rights protections)
-Following the Supreme Court’s declaration of incompatibility of the Rwanda asylum plan in 2023, senior ministers openly discussed withdrawal from the ECHR- a move that would sever the UK’s primary international human rights obligations.
-the HRA 1998, already vulnerable to amendment or repeal, offers insufficient protection in the absence of a broader constitutional guarantee.
-without reform, the UK risks regressing in rights protections, especially under a populist or authoritarian-leaning governments
-SYNOPTIC LINK: (component 1 RIGHTS PROTECTIONS: this mirrors concerns about the erosion of rights in the face of executive overreach- the government’s willingness to circumvent or repeal key legal protections demonstrates the vulnerability of rights in the absence of entrenched constitutional authority)
The judiciary needs further reform (judicial independence and the separation of powers are undermined by Parliament’s unchecked supremacy)
-unlike in systems with constitutional supremacy, UK courts lack the authority to invalidate legislation, even if it breaches fundamental norms.
-As Lord Steyn noted in Jackson v AG (2005), the notion of absolute parliamentary sovereignty may be “out of place in the modern era” yet it remains unchallenged in practice.
-this concentration of power in parliament, especially when controlled by a dominant executive, means there is no effective constitutional counterbalance.
-codification could entrench review and delineate a clear separation of powers
The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022
This curtailed key aspects of judicial oversight by introducing suspended and prospective-only quashing orders, and by abolishing Cart judicial reviews, thereby limiting individuals’ ability to challenge executive decisions.
Broader trend of executive encroachment on judicial independence, reinforcing concerns about the fragility or fights protection under the UK’s uncodified constitution.
However, the Act’s impact has been relatively modest so far, as courts retain discretion over when to apply suspended or prospective-only remedies, and have continued to issue strong rulings- such as the Supreme Court’s 2023 rejection of the Rwanda policy and
Continue to assert their authority, as seen in the 2024 Supreme Court ruling that Surrey County Council acted unlawful by failing to assess the environmental impact of an oil project.
Similarly, in 2025, the Court upheld the public’s right to wild camp on Dartmoor, reinforcing protections for access and environmental rights. These cases show how that judicial review remains meaningful check on the executive and local authority decisions, even under the revised legal framework
