Contemporary Constitutional Debates

This final lesson in the UK Constitution topic draws together the key themes and applies them to the most important contemporary constitutional debates. A-Level Politics examiners expect you to engage with current issues and demonstrate awareness of how the constitution is evolving. This lesson equips you with the knowledge and arguments needed to tackle any essay or source question on constitutional reform and the future of the UK constitution.

---

Debate 1: The Power of the Executive vs Parliament

The Issue

One of the central tensions in the UK constitution is the relationship between the Executive (PM and Cabinet) and Parliament (Commons and Lords). In theory, Parliament holds the Executive to account. In practice, the Executive often dominates Parliament through its majority, the whip system, and control of the legislative timetable.

Key Arguments

The Executive is too powerful (the elective dictatorship argument):

• The PM controls the legislative agenda, appointments (patronage), and the timing of elections (since the repeal of the FTPA).
• The whip system ensures most government bills pass.
• Henry VIII clauses (enabling ministers to amend or repeal primary legislation through statutory instruments) have increased, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny.
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government used emergency powers extensively, with limited parliamentary oversight.

Parliament is effective in holding the Executive to account:

• Select committees have become more assertive and independent since the Wright Committee reforms (2010), with chairs elected by the whole House.
• Backbench rebellions have increased — the Johnson government faced significant rebellions over COVID-19 regulations and the partygate scandal.
• The 2017–2019 Parliament demonstrated that a Commons without a government majority can assert itself — Parliament took control of the order paper and passed legislation (the Benn Act 2019) requiring the PM to seek a Brexit extension.
• The Lords regularly amend government legislation and force concessions.

Case Study: The COVID-19 Pandemic. The Coronavirus Act 2020 gave the government extensive emergency powers. Critics argued that these powers were too broad and insufficiently scrutinised by Parliament. Supporters argued that the emergency required swift executive action. The tension between effective governance and democratic accountability was starkly illustrated.

---

Debate 2: The Role of the Judiciary

The Issue

The judiciary has become an increasingly prominent constitutional actor, particularly since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (which created the Supreme Court) and the Human Rights Act 1998. The Miller cases (2017 and 2019) placed the Supreme Court at the centre of the most significant constitutional controversies of the Brexit era.

Key Arguments

The judiciary is an essential constitutional safeguard:

• The rule of law requires that government actions are lawful; only the courts can enforce this.
• The HRA provides important protection of individual rights.
• The Miller cases upheld parliamentary sovereignty and prevented executive overreach.
• Judicial independence is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy.

The judiciary has become too powerful / politicised:

• Unelected judges should not make decisions with major political consequences.
• The Miller II decision (prorogation) was criticised by some as judicial activism — the court was accused of making a political judgement disguised as a legal one.
• The Johnson government responded with the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which aimed to limit the scope of judicial review.
• The Daily Mail's notorious "Enemies of the People" headline (November 2016), attacking the High Court judges who ruled in Miller I, illustrated the politicisation of the judiciary in public discourse.

Case Study: The Safety of Rwanda Act 2024. The Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that the government's plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country. The Sunak government responded by passing the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which legislated to declare Rwanda safe and disapplied certain provisions of the HRA. This raised fundamental questions about the relationship between Parliament and the courts, and whether Parliament can legislate to override judicial findings of fact.

---

Debate 3: The Future of Devolution and the Union

The Issue

Devolution has transformed the UK's territorial governance, but the future of the Union remains uncertain. Scotland's push for independence, the constitutional implications of Brexit, and the fragile power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland all pose challenges.

Key Arguments