Chapter 2 End-of-chapter questions

Which of the following statements provides the most accurate account of the UK constitution and its ability to secure protection of constitutional rights?

The UK constitution is codified and written into a single document. Therefore, the UK's constitution holds a higher legal status compared to other forms of legislation. This makes it easy to entrench fundamental principles and rights. The constitution is very capable of protecting these rights.

The UK constitution is codified and written into a single document. However, the UK's constitution has no explicit higher legal status compared to other forms of legislation. This makes it more difficult to entrench fundamental principles and rights. However, this does not mean that the constitution is totally incapable of protecting these rights.

The UK constitution is both unwritten and uncodified. Most importantly, however, the UK's constitution has no explicit higher legal status compared to other forms of legislation. This makes it more difficult to entrench fundamental principles and rights. However, this does not mean that the constitution is totally incapable of protecting these rights.

The UK constitution is both unwritten and uncodified. Most importantly, however, the UK's constitution has no explicit higher legal status compared to other forms of legislation. This makes it more difficult to entrench fundamental principles and rights. As a result, it is impossible to find any source of rights protection in the UK constitution.

The Belmarsh saga is an illustrative example of the varying features of the UK constitutional system in action. Which of the following accounts is the most accurate description of that saga and what it reveals about the UK constitution?

The government could force the passage of the terrorism bill through Parliament easily and quickly because of the influence the government has over the legislature in practice. Parliament could enact the bill into law notwithstanding any doubts about its content because it is entitled to pass laws which run contrary to human rights. When the bill became an Act of Parliament, the courts evaluated it, but could not invalidate it. However, they issued a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act. Whilst the government were not under any legal obligation to amend the Act, significant political pressure forced them to do so.

The government could force the passage of the terrorism bill through Parliament easily and quickly because of the influence the government has over the legislature in practice. Parliament could enact the bill into law notwithstanding any doubts about its content because it is entitled to pass laws it wishes at this stage. When the bill became an Act of Parliament, however, the courts evaluated it and invalidated it using powers under the Human Rights Act. The government was required to remedy the declaration of incompatibility made by amending the Act.

The government could force the passage of the terrorism bill through Parliament easily and quickly because of the influence the government has over the legislature in practice. Parliament, however, cannot enact legislation which conflicts with fundamental human rights. When the bill became an Act of Parliament, the courts evaluated it and invalidated it using powers under the Human Rights Act. The government was required to remedy the declaration of incompatibility made by amending the Act.

The government could force the passage of the terrorism bill through Parliament easily and quickly because of the urgent nature of the situation. Parliament could enact the bill into law notwithstanding any doubts about its content because it is entitled to pass laws which run contrary to human rights. When the bill became an Act of Parliament, the courts evaluated it, but could not invalidate it, and could not use any power to encourage the government to change its mind. Nonetheless, despite this, the government went on to amend the Act, but this was due to pressure from Members of Parliament rather than the courts.

Many different actors have a part to play in the effective running of the UK constitution. Below are descriptions of various roles that are involved in the effective operation of the UK prison system.
Match each role description to the correct institution or individual.

Can pass laws which establish the powers and limitations of ministers and civil servants in this area. Can also scrutinise the actions of Ministers through committees.

Much of the 'day to day' administrative responsibility falls to this group. In practice, this group is responsible for putting policy into action and making decisions as they affect real people in different circumstances.

Responsible as the 'face' of the prison system and ultimately responsible for directing policy in this area. May be called to account for the failings of those who put that policy into practice.

The prison system requires significant financial resources to operate effectively; as such, this group contributes to the funding of the system. In return, they get a say in which government should be able to direct the policies which determine where those funds go.

When things go wrong in the prison system, this body can work to put things right. By holding those responsible for the prison system to account, this can encourage good governance and compliance with the law.

Constitutional reform in the UK has been described as 'ad hoc', 'piecemeal' and occurring 'on the hoof'. This form of reform has its positives as well as negatives. Which of the following statements provides the single best account of the reform of UK constitutional law in recent times?

It is relatively easy for Parliament to pass constitutional legislation. No supermajority or cross-party support is required, as is the case in some other jurisdictions. Especially when a party has a large majority in the Commons, it is relatively straightforward for constitutional arrangements to be altered. In practice, reform always takes place relatively quickly: reform of the role of the Lord Chancellor and Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was announced in 2003 and enacted into law in 2005. Devolution was promised in 1997 and came the following year. Reform of the House of Lords also took place over a short period of time. It is difficult to point to any negative side-effects of fast-paced constitutional change.

It is relatively easy for Parliament to pass constitutional legislation. Whilst a supermajority is needed, cross-party support is not required when the party in government has a large majority in the Commons. It is therefore relatively straightforward for constitutional arrangements to be altered – in theory. In practice reform sometimes takes place relatively quickly: reform of the role of the House of Lords was announced in 2003 and enacted into law in 2005. Alterations to Britain's membership of the European Union was promised in 1997 and came the following year. However, sometimes reform takes much longer: constitutional changes in respect of the role of the Lord Chancellor began over a century ago, were promised again in 1997 by the newly-elected Blair government and remain incomplete. Sometimes, speedy constitutional change can have negative side-effects: fast-paced devolution left the 'English question' unanswered, and the speedy reform to the court system left many in the senior judiciary dismayed and uncooperative.

It is relatively easy for Parliament to pass constitutional legislation. No supermajority or cross-party support is required, as is the case in some other jurisdictions. Especially when a party has a large majority in the Commons, it is relatively straightforward for constitutional arrangements to be altered – in theory. In practice, reform sometimes takes place relatively quickly: reform of the role of the Lord Chancellor and Appellate Committee of the House of Lords was announced in 2003 and enacted into law in 2005. Devolution was promised in 1997 and came the following year. However, sometimes reform takes much longer: constitutional changes to the House of Lords began over a century ago, were promised again in 1997 by the newly-elected Blair government and remain incomplete. Sometimes, however, speedy constitutional change can have negative side-effects: fast-paced devolution left the 'English question' unanswered, and the speedy reform to the court system left many in the senior judiciary dismayed and uncooperative.

It is relatively difficult for Parliament to pass constitutional legislation. Both a supermajority and cross-party support are required, unlike some other jurisdictions. When a party has a large majority in the Commons, this will inevitably benefit them, but does not guarantee that they will find it relatively straightforward for constitutional arrangements to be altered. Despite this, sometimes reform takes place relatively quickly in practice, but only when parties work together. Examples include reform of the role of the Lord Chancellor and Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which were announced in 2003 and enacted into law in 2005. Reform of the role of the Prime Minister was promised in 1997 and came the following year. However, sometimes reform takes much longer: constitutional changes to the House of Lords began over a century ago, were promised again in 1997 by the newly-elected Blair government and remain incomplete. Sometimes, speedy constitutional change can have negative side-effects: fast-paced devolution left the 'English question' unanswered, although speedy reform to the court system surprisingly drew the support of much of the senior judiciary and all senior judges were on board with the project.

Quiz Content