Edexcel AS/A-Level Politics 2

WORKBOOK ANSWERS Edexcel AS/A-level Politics 2 UK government This Answers document provides suggestions for some of the possible answers that might be given for the questions asked in the Workbook. They are not exhaustive and other answers may be acceptable, but they are intended as a guide to give teachers and students feedback.

Exam-style question answers The answers given for exam-style questions are designed to provide help and advice on your approach. The points suggested are a starting point. You will need to go further than simply showing knowledge of the key points; you must demonstrate your understanding of each point and its relevance to the enquiry. Ultimately, how you approach the question is up to you. Just make sure you answer the question asked, not the one you wanted to be asked.

Examiners use levels to gauge how well an essay question has been evaluated and assess the skills that have been displayed. All A-level answers covered here and the longer AS essays will be marked out of 30 and across five levels, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The table below gives an idea of the descriptors that are used to determine the quality of an answer and the mark to be awarded.

Possible Level Descriptor marks out of 30

Demonstrates superficial knowledge and understanding.

1 Limited comparative analysis and simplistic connections. 1–6

Superficial evaluation and description.

Demonstrates some accurate knowledge and understanding. 7–12

Some emerging comparative analysis with some relevant 2 comparisons.

Constructs some evaluation with partially substantiated but not justified, generic conclusions.

3 Demonstrates mostly accurate knowledge and understanding. 13–18

A mostly focused comparative analysis, with mostly relevant connections.

Edexcel Politics Workbook 2 1

Demonstrates and uses accurate knowledge and understanding. 19–24

Consistent comparative analysis, with relevant connections. 4 Constructs a mostly relevant evaluation with justified conclusions.

Demonstrates thorough and in-depth knowledge and 25–30 understanding which underpin the analysis.

5 Perceptive comparative analysis of political information making cohesive connections between ideas and concepts.

Constructs a fully relevant evaluation with justified conclusions.

Topic 1 The constitution Nature and sources of the UK constitution

What is a government? 1 a PM and cabinet; the Westminster Parliament; the Supreme Court.

b President and federal bureaucracy; Congress; the US Supreme Court.

What is a constitution? 2 It defines the powers and duties of each branch of government; establishes the relationship between the branches of government; defines the duties and responsibilities between the government and the people. It may include some form of rights protection for citizens. It will establish how the constitution can be amended.

3 It establishes the powers of each branch of government; ensures that citizens are protected from and by the government; establishes how the institutions of government are able to work. (Each point should be developed with an example.)

Codified constitutions 4 It is contained in a single, authoritative document; it is entrenched; it is judiciable; there is a two-tier legal system; sovereignty lies with the constitution.

5 Rights are entrenched and therefore cannot be easily removed. It is smaller and easier for citizens to access and understand. It offers clarity. Such constitutions can be changed, although they require a super-majority to ensure that a significant proportion favours the change.

6 As they are difficult to change, they can become outdated. Reforms in the national interest and majority support among the population can be blocked by a vocal minority. Unelected and unaccountable judges become too powerful in interpreting constitutional issues. Such constitutions can be vague and subject to differing interpretations, creating confusion.

Uncodified constitutions 7 It will be drawn from a number of sources, some written and some unwritten. Constitutional laws have the same status as other laws. It is easy to reform and amend the constitution. It is unentrenched. Sovereignty will lie elsewhere. It is not judiciable.

8 It can be easily modernised and adapted to modern circumstances. Sovereignty lies with democratically elected officials. Judges have limited power over constitutional issues. It is

flexible enough to adapt to circumstances required by major crises. It has worked in the UK for centuries. It is traditional.

9 Britain is out of line with most other modern democracies; rights are poorly protected; it can be confusing to understand and access. Also, it is subject to popular passions, which may not be in the national interest or may work against a minority interest.

10 Codified constitutions are contained in one single document whereas uncodified ones are contained in multiple sources: so codified constitutions are shorter and easier to access while uncodified ones tend to be confusing and at times contradictory.

Codified constitutions are rigid whereas uncodified ones are flexible. Amending a codified constitution is very difficult and usually requires super-majorities, whereas uncodified ones can be altered by the passage of a new law or the creation of a new convention.

Codified constitutions result in a two-tier legal system, with constitutional laws being superior to other forms of law, whereas constitutional laws have the same weight and status as any other laws in an uncodified constitution. Therefore, codified constitutions are more judiciable than uncodified ones.

Sources of the British constitution 11 a Any act of Parliament, such as the Human Rights Act or Fixed Term Parliament Act

b Salisbury convention, Sewell convention, etc.

c Squatters’ rights, etc.

d Walter Bagehot’s The English constitution

e Bill of Rights or Magna Carta

f Factortame ruling over fishing

g Lisbon Treaty

12 Much of common law dealt with the rights of citizens as they had evolved over time. The Human Rights Act codified such rights into one document and as a statute law it is superior to common law.

13 Statute laws are created by Parliament through the legislative process; they are considered, debated and passed by the representatives of the people. While other constitutional sources can be passed by an individual or based on an opinion, statute laws are passed by a majority in the Commons and therefore have democratic legitimacy, as well as reflecting Parliamentary sovereignty over all other bodies and institutions. The UK’s key constitutional principles

Parliamentary sovereignty 14 Statute law is superior to all other forms of law; Parliament is superior to all other legislative chambers in the UK; Parliament cannot be bound by its predecessors; Parliament cannot bind its successors.

15 Parliament has accepted the authority of the Human Rights Act, which has bound all subsequent parliaments and requires that legislation is compatible with it.

Devolution has seen the transfer of sovereignty from Parliament to devolved chambers, allowing them a degree of autonomy in passing laws and spending objectives.

The recognition of popular sovereignty through referendums means that Parliament passes sovereignty over an issue to the people, even if MPs and peers disagree with the final decision.

Rule of law 16 The rule of law ensures that the UK is a society of laws, not of people, and that those laws are applied consistently and fairly to all. Public figures have no special protection. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, creating democratic equality for all citizens.

17 Credit for any additional facts and arguments found.

A unitary system 18 Parliament is superior to the devolved bodies; it can recall powers passed to devolved bodies; only Parliament has the authority to call a referendum; foreign, trade and military matters remain under the power of Parliament only.

19 England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own distinct legal systems; different charges for student fees and prescriptions exist in different parts of the UK; tax levels can vary depending on which part of the UK you live in.

Constitutional monarchy 20 Marks awarded for the quality of a concise ten-word answer.

21 The Westminster model refers to a system where there is a fusion of power between the executive and legislative branches. All executive and legislative power is concentrated in one body, in this case Parliament, largely thanks to the uncodified nature of the constitution. The Westminster model promotes adversarial politics with debate between the government party and the official opposition.

22 A range of points should be included, covering points from both sides of the debate and explaining why these are valid arguments.

a It allows for greater flexibility; it has allowed the UK constitution to modernise; it has worked; there is no great demand for change; it allows for an effective executive.

b It is outdated; rights are not well protected; it is too easily changed; it allows for elective dictatorship with few restraints on the government; major issues, like the West Lothian question, need addressing. Assessment of the UK constitution

23 One strength is flexibility. The constitution can easily adapt to changing circumstances. However, this strength is limited by the fact that the government can easily remove individual rights.

The UK’s constitution has been able to adapt and modernise over the past 300 years. However, the UK is now out of step with most other modern democracies.

Allowing strong and effective government means the executive can deal with crises and govern with few impediments. However, this can lead to elective dictatorship.

There is little public demand to alter the constitution, although constitutional problems like the West Lothian question need to be addressed. Constitutional reform in the UK

New Labour reforms, 1997–2010 24 a Reform of working hours to make Parliament more family friendly; removal of all but 92 hereditary peers; creation of a petitions commission.

b New electoral systems for devolved regions; creation of Backbench Business Committee and Electoral Commission; adoption of the Wright reforms, and of the closed party list system for EU elections; Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (2000).

c Creation of Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly; a directly elected mayor of London and London Assembly; use of referendums to confirm constitutional changes; elected mayors across many cities in England.

d Human Rights Act; creation of a Supreme Court, separated from Parliament; Freedom of Information Act; a new judicial appointments system.

25 a Creation of Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly; a directly elected mayor of London and London Assembly; use of referendums to confirm constitutional changes; elected mayors across many cities in England.

b New electoral systems for devolved regions; creation of Electoral Commission; use of referendums to confirm constitutional reforms; adoption of the closed party list system for EU elections; Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (2000).

c Removal of all but 92 hereditary peers; reform of the working hours of Parliament; Freedom of Information Act; creation of Backbench Business Committee and of a petitions committee; adoption of the Wright reforms.

d The Human Rights Act; creation of Supreme Court; a new judicial appointments system.

26 Credit for any clearly identified assessments.

Coalition reforms, 2010–15 27 Credit for a clear list of all nine.

28 You will get 1 mark for identifying a reason and 2 additional marks for how well explained the importance is. Then 1 mark for each valid comparison between the most important and the other three.

29 You will get 1 mark for identifying a reason and 2 additional marks for how well the reason is explained.

30 As part of the coalition agreement, the Conservative Party had agreed to support the Liberal Democrats’ proposals for Lords reform and the Liberal Democrats agreed to support the Conservative policy of reducing the number of constituencies in the UK and equalising their size. In 2012, the Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy PM, Nick Clegg, put forward proposals for an 80% elected second chamber. Although the Conservatives had agreed to back these proposals, a number of Conservative backbench MPs voted against them, leading to the defeat of the motion. As a reaction, the Liberal Democrats withdrew their support for the equalising of constituency boundaries, so the government was forced to withdraw the proposals before they came to a vote.

Non-governmental reforms, 2010–15 31 A convention can be set by any MP, as long as other MPs subsequently take a similar action. The nature of conventions being ill defined was demonstrated by David Cameron’s acceptance of the Syria vote, which built on the earlier Blair convention, but could be ignored in the future. Any statutory reform can only be passed if it has the backing of the government. Although only Parliament may call a referendum, constitutional reforms can be forced onto the government through political pressure, as the SNP managed.

32 The non-governmental reforms show that there were demands for greater constitutional reforms from backbench MPs, but the coalition was able to resist them.

The politics of devolution meant the parties in Westminster had to respond to regional demands and their position was therefore weakened.

Despite concerns over the majority and the nature of coalition government, even in defeat the government could resist the common convention of resigning and allowing the creation of a new government.

Conservative reforms, 2015–17 33 One clear priority was to try to resolve issues relating to devolution. The Scotland Act was to keep promises made during the independence referendum. The Wales Bill was to give further powers to bring Wales more into line with Scottish devolution. EVEL was an attempt to resolve the West Lothian question without creating an English parliament.

The EU referendum was another priority, having been a major manifesto promise. After the referendum all priorities centred on dealing with the fallout of the result.

The West Lothian question 34 Powers have been devolved to some regions, but not others. Although powers have been passed to the devolved regions, they still have representatives in the national legislature. MPs from the devolved regions can vote on issues that affect other regions but do not affect their own constituents.

35 a (for EVEL): it maintains the sovereignty of Parliament; it avoids English devolution, which is unfeasible. (Against): it creates two types of MP; it politicises the speaker; it is too limited.

b (for ending devolution): it would return all power to Westminster; it might end independence movements. (Against): devolution is too well established; it might increase nationalism.

c (for a federal UK): all regions would have equal powers; Westminster would be free to deal with national and international matters. (Against): England would be too dominant; there is little demand for it.

d (for ignoring the question): any reform may lead to the break-up of the UK; there are more important issues. (Against): it is too important to ignore; problems will continue to grow; there could be a rise in English nationalism.

36 Politicisation of the speaker, as he/she has to decide what constitutes an English-only bill. English MPs only have the power of veto, meaning desired proposals can still be defeated. It creates two types of MP, which is not appropriate in a debating chamber. It has failed to solve the West Lothian question, which still remains a problem in the constitutional system.

Should the UK have a codified constitution? 37 Greater clarity would make it easier for people to understand their rights and the workings of politics. However, the system works as it is and no codified constitution can take account of all eventualities.

By entrenching constitutional process and rights people would find it easier to access and understand their rights, but this might lead to key rights becoming outdated and desirable reforms being ignored.

Greater protections to political institutions, such as devolved bodies, would remove the threat of withdrawal of their powers by a hostile government, although it is unlikely that any government would withdraw powers that had been confirmed by a referendum.

By allowing judges to act as an effective check on the government, the possibility of elective dictatorship would be removed and the judiciary would have the power to defend constitutional rights, but this might lead to legislating from the bench and give an unelected and unaccountable judiciary too much power.

The process of drawing up a constitution might help to engage and educate the public, but the lack of general political engagement means it could be written by a few vested interest groups and lead to greater divisions within the UK.

38 Credit any additional points and ideas found.

Exam-style questions

AS 1 Example: one area of constitutional reform was the reform of the judiciary, with the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the creation of the Supreme Court under the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, which led to greater separation and independence of the judicial branch from the other branches of government.

A second area could be devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Transfer of powers, such as primary legislation for Scotland and tax varying powers. Additional expansions could also be detailed.

A third area could be electoral reform. You should refer to the specific systems introduced for various elections and the possible impact.

A fourth area could be House of Commons reforms, specifically the Wright reforms, detailing what they are and what they have achieved.

Other areas could include House of Lords reform and the impact of leaving the EU.

2 Disadvantage 1: England is too large. It could not be devolved along the same lines as the regions because, with about 84% of the population and most of the economic wealth, it is too dominant a part of the UK; all other devolved chambers would be secondary to England. In a federal state, all the secondary regions should have equal power and status, but this would not be the case with a devolved English parliament.

Disadvantage 2: it would create an unworkable system. When it came to national politics, England would still more than dominate, controlling not only its own affairs, but also the national chamber, which would make for an impractical and unworkable federal system, where the other regions would be drowned out by English dominance.

Disadvantage 3: regional devolution has already failed. When a regional assembly devolving powers to the north east was proposed, it was rejected. This suggests that the people of England have no desire for English devolution and therefore creating an English parliament would work against public opinion, as already expressed in a referendum.

Disadvantage 4: a campaign for an English parliament has failed to achieve anything. Although there has been an organised campaign for nearly 20 years to create some form of English parliament, it has not met with any success or popular support. This again highlights the fact that the English do not have any great desire for such a step and that any moves would lose public sympathy.

3 Basic introduction identifying the purpose and the line of argument.

Purpose 1: to establish the relative powers and relationships between the branches of government.

The UK constitution does this well, as evidenced through the nature of parliamentary sovereignty, the clear ruling in the Miller case and the continued functioning of the state. The uncodified UK constitution has been able to adapt to modern requirements, as seen through the shifting balance of power between the Lords and the Commons.

However, the challenge to the PM’s powers in the Miller case shows the uncertainty caused by the lack of a codified constitution, which might be resolved by codifying it. Although, in theory, Parliament is sovereign, the increased use of referendums and the presidential nature of recent PMs have made this uncertain and the entire nature of devolution has created a confusing mess. A codified constitution would resolve these problems, suggesting the uncodified constitution is no longer fit for purpose.

Purpose 2: to establish the powers of each branch of government and institutions.

This is clearly done through parliamentary sovereignty, and clear rulings have been given, but devolution has created uncertainty and some major issues, like who forms a government in a hung parliament, remain obscure.

Purpose 3: to define the relationship between the state and the citizen.

There are a number of checks and protections to protect citizens from arbitrary government abuse, and the opportunity to vote and hold the government to account is

clearly set out, but there is little understanding of the rights and responsibilities of the citizen and on many occasions governments have been able to abuse their position.

Purpose 4: rights protection

The current system works well, as the Human Rights Act and other rights measures are upheld and used to defend citizens’ rights, but it is not entrenched, it can be suspended and the judges have limited power to check the government. As such, the codified constitution would be better at protecting the rights of citizens.

A-level 1 All points for discussion must derive from the source. You will be expected to draw in information from beyond the source and from other topics and papers, but the starting point must always be the source. Possible ideas from the source include:

 It would create a better understanding of the laws and bodies that govern the country and people in it.

 The variety of sources currently used is confusing.

 Rights and protections would be entrenched.

 It would limit the power of the government to make reforms that suit them.

 The process of creating a constitution would engage the public.

 It would bring the UK into line with other modern democracies.

Against:

 There is little popular desire for a codified constitution, so it is not needed.

 The current system has allowed the UK to modernise.

 The absence of major constitutional crises shows it works.

 A codified constitution would give too much power to unelected and unaccountable judges.

 Codified constitutions are ‘unBritish’.

Sample section

There is an argument that the UK does need a codified constitution in order to create a better understanding of the laws and bodies that govern the UK and the people in it. Looking at the range of constitutional reforms that have occurred since 1997, the political structure of the UK has been radically shaken and it is not clear that people have really understood the consequences of these reforms. The fact that elections for the devolved bodies, which now carry out many of the key public services, have low turnouts of, at best, 50%, suggests that people do not understand the importance of these institutions and the role they play in people’s lives, particularly with the growing infrastructure problems in Scotland. It was also clear in the EU referendum that most people were voting on

emotional grounds and did not fully appreciate the role of the EU and which elements were controlled by the EU and which by the Westminster Parliament. This was highlighted further by the popular outcry over the legal challenge to the PM triggering Article 50 in the Miller case and the confusion in the press and among many politicians who argued that leaving the EU would return sovereignty to Parliament, but criticised the judiciary for ruling that Parliament had the sovereignty to Trigger Article 50. For this reason, groups like the Liberal Democrats and Unlock Democracy have argued that Britain needs a codified constitution in order to promote a better and clearer understanding of these key political concepts.

However, there is little evidence of popular support for it. Neither of the two main parties support a codified constitution and the collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote in 2015 suggests that this is just not an issue that motivates people. Indeed, the criticism of the judiciary over the Miller case and various terror cases, like the deportation of Abu Qatada, suggests that there would be resistance to anything that might give more power to the judiciary. Ultimately, the lack of widespread support for groups calling for a codified constitution suggests that, while it might be desired by some academics and may be in the British national interest, the lack of popular support suggests it is not needed and therefore the UK requires a codified constitution only to a limited extent.

2 Tip: with reforms, start big and then go small. Possible reforms include: devolution; reform of the Commons; reform of the Lords; judicial reform; the increased use of referendums. Electoral reform may be difficult to argue for this question, while the EU would be worth mentioning, but only after the full consequences have been determined.

Sample section

In many ways, the power of Parliament has been undermined considerably by the process of devolution begun in 1997. The transfer of power over healthcare, education, transport and infrastructure means that the Westminster Parliament has lost control over key policy decisions for parts of the UK. This can be seen in the introduction of different levels of funding and provision of services, with Scotland scrapping university tuition fees and Wales and Scotland ending prescription charges. Indeed, the Westminster Parliament has been forced to concede further powers to both Wales and Scotland and to major English cities, undermining its power and ability to truly govern the whole of the UK. The fact that the SNP were successfully able to demand an independence referendum in 2014 shows that Parliament has lost the authority to determine when referendums are held, undermining its power to act as a national institution.

However, for all that devolution might be seen as undermining the power of Parliament, Westminster remains sovereign and in a strong position. All powers granted can be recalled by Westminster, though admittedly this is unlikely, while on major issues like foreign affairs, the economy and defence, Westminster remains in complete control. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum only took place because Parliament allowed it to happen, and recent evidence suggests that Scotland will not be able to have another referendum without parliamentary approval, which looks unlikely to be granted until the UK has left the EU. Furthermore, in the Miller case, the Supreme Court confirmed that the devolved bodies are subservient to Parliament and that they had no right to be consulted or to approve of the triggering of Article 50, demonstrating the legal power of Parliament. It is also worth considering that Scotland has always had its own legal system and education system, so devolution of these areas did not reduce the power of Westminster and until 2011 Welsh devolution was purely administrative. Also, as England makes up 84% of the

UK’s population, Westminster still controls the law and running of the country for the vast majority of the UK’s citizens. As such, although devolution has seen some reduction in the power of Parliament, it is only to a small extent as Parliament remains sovereign and the dominant force in the UK.

Topic 2 Parliament What is Parliament?

1 The name of your local MP.

2 a Maidenhead

b Runnymede and Weybridge

c Uxbridge and South Ruislip

d Hastings and Rye

e Aylesbury

3 They must sit in the House of Commons, because they should be democratically elected; accountable to the elected representatives; accountable to the people.

4 Making, repealing and amending legislation. The House of Commons

Who sits in the House of Commons? 5 Everyone is a member of a constituency represented in the House of Commons. Voters can choose their representatives and hold them to account. Power is transferred from the people to the House of Commons through elections, creating a mandate. Government ministers are held accountable by the people’s representatives.

6 Parties and their leaders receive greater media coverage than local candidates; individuals stand based on a party manifesto; people feel they are voting for a party government.

7 It enables clear parliamentary action, because MPs are committed to following collective policies from a manifesto rather than operating as individuals with a variety of concerns.

8 MPs may act in the interests of the party rather than their constituency, so that local concerns become secondary. This can be a particular problem if backbench MPs become ‘lobby fodder’ and simply do what they are told without consideration.

9 Independent MPs may stand on a specific local issue; to oppose an unpopular incumbent; as a protest against the mainstream parties.

How is the House of Commons organised? 10 It allows the government to work through a legislative programme; it provides a clear mandate; it allows for strong single-party government. You should clearly explain, for any TWO of these, why they are advantages.

11 The government may not be able to implement its manifesto commitments; the government may be weak and unable to respond effectively to national crises; it can lead to a consensus that no one voted for. You should clearly explain, for any TWO of these, why they are disadvantages.

12 A coalition government can ensure a larger majority; may provide greater democratic legitimacy as a higher proportion of voters voted for one of the governing parties; consensus and compromise may lead to more effective actions; coalitions may be more stable than minority or small majority governments.

13 It takes the lead in scrutinising government action and holding the government to account on a day-to day basis.

14 As governments usually have a clear majority, the official opposition has little power to force the government to make changes or concessions.

15 It refers to the advantage in MPs the government has compared to all the opposition parties combined. Under the coalition, the number of Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs combined amounted to a majority of 78. Had the Liberal Democrats not been in the government, their 56 MPs would have sat on the opposition benches, meaning a swing of 112 and a government minority.

Whips 16 The party whips arrange the business of Parliament and inform MPs about what is happening and when. Whips will underline key events and indicate how the party leadership wants their MPs to vote. They also serve as a link between the party leadership and the backbench MPs.

17 Just outside the entrance to the House of Commons Chamber.

18 Chief Whip Gavin Williamson, Whips Julian Smith, Christopher Pincher, Chris Heaton- Harris

19 Example 1: rebellion by 27 Conservative MPs against allowing the extension of Sunday trading in England and Wales (9 March 2016)

Example 2: a government proposal to amend the rules of purdah for the EU referendum was defeated after Conservative MPs rebelled (7 September 2015).

Example 3: a motion to authorise military action against Syria was defeated after some Conservatives rebelled and some MPs were given permission to miss the vote by the whips (29 August 2013).

The speaker 20 He/she can: order an MP to withdraw their remarks; suspend MPs; order MPs to be quiet; suspend a parliamentary session due to disorder; determine whether or not a bill qualifies for EVEL.

21 John Bercow

22 a 22 June 2009

b It was done by secret ballot and candidates campaigned for it.

c Buckingham

d He has resurrected the use of urgent questions; set up a parliamentary helpline; created a new education centre; set up a Parliament creche; increased outreach; reformed senior level recruitment. The House of Lords

23 They can take a long-term view without worrying about public reaction; they can vote according to their conscience rather than reacting to the electorate or party leaders; they are more likely to have expertise in non-political fields.

24 Advantage: ensuring that moral and spiritual perspectives are raised when considering secular legislation. This allows for a fuller and more informed discussion.

Disadvantage: the lords spiritual are all members of the Church of England, so the Anglican Church is given influence over legal matters which affect other denominations and religions. This creates an unfair advantage for the Anglican faith, which comprises a small proportion of the population.

Party representation in the Lords 25 Conservative 254; cross-bench 176 (+25 bishops); Labour 202; Liberal Democrat 101; UKIP 3; DUP 4; Green 1

26 Any example, but may include: (Conservative) Sayeeda Warsi; Michael Ashcroft; William Hague; (Labour) Melvyn Bragg; John Prescott; Robert Winston; (cross-bench) John Birt; Tami Grey-Thompson; Henry Woolf.

27 First past the post gives a winner’s bonus, helping ensure that one party will usually form a single party government. As the House of Lords is appointed and evolves, it is more in line with voting trends. Lords can change party without electoral consequences, which means some minor parties get greater representation in the Lords than in the Commons.

House of Lords reforms 28 Lord Cranborne was the leader of the Conservatives in the Lords during the New Labour reforms between 1998 and 1999. He proposed a compromise to persuade Conservative peers to vote for the reform which allowed 92 hereditary peers to remain.

29 Hereditary peers were overwhelmingly Conservative, therefore it removed a source of opposition. Removing the mostly Conservative hereditary peers would mean no single party could control the chamber. It was supposed to be the first step in the process towards a more democratic chamber.

30 Edexcel Politics Workbook 2 15

Proposal Advantage Disadvantage Fully elected Increases democracy Could create gridlock

Remove hereditary Removes an anachronism Still leaves an unelected peers chamber

50/50 split Keeps best of both worlds Two different types of Lord

80% appointed, 20% Introduces some Remains predominantly elected accountability undemocratic

31 With around 800 peers, the House of Lords has too many members for meaningful debate. Speeches may be cut short or opinions overlooked, but alternatively, if everyone was able to debate, it would take too long, making the House cumbersome and slow to act. There is also a problem of space, as the chamber is not big enough to house all the Lords at once. Many peers stay away and only participate sporadically, meaning what is passed depends on which peers turn up. Finally, there is the problem of cost, as a large number of peers are able to claim offices and payment, which increases the cost of running Parliament.

32 In 2014 the House of Lords Act was passed, which allowed life peers to retire from the House of Lords. This was extended a year later to allow the Lords to expel members who were guilty of a crime or who failed to attend Parliament within a prescribed time period. This helped reduce the chamber from about 900 to about 800. Comparative powers of the Lords and Commons

Functions Commons’ powers Lords’ powers Legislation Can pass primary legislation Can delay legislation, without consent of the Lords propose amendments and strike down secondary legislation, but cannot veto

Finance Has supreme authority to Can make suggestions, but propose and pass a budget cannot vote against a money bill. By convention, finance bills are not defeated.

Sustaining government Can withdraw confidence in a As it can be ignored, it has no government and trigger a authority in removing the general election government, but it can vote on any extension to Parliament

How are laws made?

Passage of a bill 34 First reading; second reading; committee stage; report stage; third reading; process repeated in the second chamber; consideration of amendments; royal assent.

Types of bill 35 Government bills are proposed by government ministers, while Private Members’ Bills are proposed by backbench or opposition MPs or peers.

36 Without government backing it is unlikely that sufficient time will be given to the bill to clear all the parliamentary hurdles.

Private Members’ Bills often deal with things that the government does not want to do, therefore they are likely to be defeated when it comes to a vote.

Private Members’ Bills tend to be about a personal concern and not part of any manifesto commitment, therefore lack support. Functions of Parliament

Legislation 37

Parliament Defeats in Commons Defeats in Lords 2015–17 3 98

2010–15 6 100

2005–10 7 175

2001–05 0 245

1997–2001 0 108

38 The House of Commons can be seen as the more effective because it can override any amendments the Lords suggests and has the ultimate power. However, the fact that the government is more likely to be defeated in the Lords suggests that the Lords are better at debating, scrutinising and voicing concerns about proposed legislation, mainly because they are not tightly bound by the party whip system. As such, the Lords’ quality of legislating can be argued to be more effective than the Commons’.

39 In the Commons, one party usually has a majority and therefore total control, while no one party has total control in the Lords.

The power of the whips to enforce party unity is much stronger in the Commons than in the Lords because MPs are reliant on party support for their position.

40 The EU Repeal Act could be seen as effective legislation because the majority of MPs and Lords accepted the result of a referendum and passed legislation to enable the government to follow the democratic will of the people.

The EU Repeal Act could be seen as Parliament failing to legislate, as MPs voted as directed by party whips and the referendum result, rather than properly considering amendments and consequences, with many voting against their own conscience. Amendments proposed in the Lords were ignored and vetoed by the Commons, with little time allowed for debate.

Scrutiny and accountability 41 Too short to give effective answers; adversarial; too raucous; too focused on entertainment; soft questions from own side.

42 The time allowed is longer, permitting more detailed scrutiny; they tend to focus on specific policy issues, rather than ‘gotcha’ questions; few politicians attend, meaning those who do have a genuine interest; lower profile than PMQs, so there is less playing for the cameras.

43 Adversarial politics still occurs; ministers can evade answers; they can only deal with issues specific to a department; they do not allow for long and detailed scrutiny.

44 There were 281 urgent questions between 2009 and 2016.

45 The requirement for ministers to attend the chamber to answer questions improves the status of the Commons. It gives Parliament more power to scrutinise ministers and hold them to account; ministers can’t ‘hide’ behind letters and emails.

46 A committee of backbench MPs linked to a government department, who scrutinise the department’s actions and its ministers and investigate issues relevant to the department.

Debate 47 Examples could include:

Accommodation for young people in care (27 January 2015); Millie’s Trust campaign to train all nurses in paediatric first aid (e-petition, 15 December 2014); making Eid and Diwali public holidays (e-petition, 21 July 2014).

48 They allow MPs to put forward the views of their constituents on the given matter. This allows a variety of views from across the country to inform the debate.

Debates also allow representatives to ask questions on behalf of their constituents, allowing the people to question the government.

Recruitment of ministers 49 They gain experience of getting legislation passed; learn the workings of Parliament; develop the skills of debating and speech making.

50 Ministers have to manage a department, which is not the same as sitting in Parliament. Adversarial politics is not useful training for operating in cabinet or running a department.

Representation 51 They vote, ask questions and seek redress of grievances on the public’s behalf. Edexcel Politics Workbook 2 18

52 As a debating chamber, Parliament should consider the concerns and interests of all people, but if key groups are not represented their views will be overlooked.

If Parliament is not representative of the people one particular interest will dominate, possibly at the expense of other groups, when it comes to votes.

Year Race: percentage of Gender: percentage of BAME MPs female MPs

1992 0.9% 9%

1997 1.4% 18%

2001 1.8% 18%

2005 2.3% 20%

2010 4.2% 22%

2015 6.6% 29%

2017 7.8% 32%

Education: of the 2017 MPs, 27% went to a private school, and 86% are university graduates, with 23% graduating from Oxford or Cambridge. The percentage of privately educated MPs remains about the same as in the 1990s, and the proportion of university graduate MPs has risen by 10%. The percentage of Oxbridge graduates has declined slightly since the 1990s.

Class/occupation: in 1992, 10% of MPs came from a manual background, dropping to 3.3% in 2015. Overall, established professions, such as doctors, teachers and barristers have fallen from 41.1% in 1992 to 31% in 2015, although the percentage of solicitors has risen by 4.8% to 8.1% in the same time period.

The number of MPs with a business background has risen from 24.2% in 1992 to 30.7% in 2015. The number of those who previously worked in politics has risen from 7.3% to 17.1% in the same time period. Committees

Select committees 54 Any two chairs of select committees, e.g. Nicky Morgan, Chair of the Treasury Select Committee; Yvette Cooper, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee

55 They scrutinise the actions of the executive; hold individual ministers to account; review government spending; investigate issues of specific importance.

56 They can only advise Parliament, they cannot enforce their recommendations. Their makeup reflects the composition of Parliament, so the government tends to have a

majority of support on the committee. People can ignore their requests to be interviewed. They do not have the same access to resources as governments.

57 For their expertise; to raise the committee’s profile; to raise the profile of a cause; to attract additional media and popular attention.

Other committees 68 a Liaison Committee: made up of the chairs of select committees; twice a year they question the PM.

b Legislative committees: have around 30–40 MPs; involved in amending and considering each bill proposed in Parliament and making recommendations to Parliament.

c Backbench Business Committee: organises Parliament on 22 days of the year, selecting matters for debates and organising the hearing of Private Members’ Bills.

d Public Accounts Committee: investigates government spending, specifically to ensure that the government is getting value for money and not wasting taxpayers’ money. Relationship between Parliament and government

59 Under Margaret Thatcher, 1983–90; Tony Blair’s first two terms, 1997–2005.

60 Under John Major, 1992–97; under Gordon Brown, 2007–10 or May after the 2017 general election.

Party unity 61 Strong party unity can make it easier for a government to dominate Parliament. With a majority of only one, a unified party will back the decisions of the government, meaning there is little Parliament can do to alter things. Party unity makes it more likely that the government will win votes and considerations on select committees, undermining the ability of parliament to scrutinise the government.

62 Tony Blair on the invasion of Iraq, over the detention of suspected terrorists or student loans; John Major being forced to resign, and issues over the EU; Margaret Thatcher over the Poll Tax.

Size of the majority 63 The government must make concessions to party factions to maintain unity; backbenchers can influence government policy by threatening a possible rebellion; the opposition is usually more effective as they are aware of the regular possibility of a government defeat.

Coalitions 64 Rather than a minority government, the coalition enjoyed a strong majority of around 78, making it easier to control the Commons. With two parties together, there was one party fewer in opposition. The compromises that result from coalition made it easier for Cameron to ignore the far-right of his party.

65 The interests of two parties not usually ideologically aligned had to be considered. As no party had ‘won’, the Salisbury convention was not in play, making the Lords more of an obstacle. There was no popular mandate for the coalition government, making it easier for MPs to justify rebelling. On select committees, no party had a majority, so it was easier to scrutinise the government’s actions. Have reforms made the Commons more effective?

66 Select committee chairs to be elected by secret ballot; all members of select committees to be elected by secret ballot; creation of a Parliamentary Business Committee; creation of a Backbench Business Committee.

67 Election of the chairperson by a secret ballot of the whole House has removed the whips’ power to influence who chairs the committee. The extra salary now awarded to select committee chairs means there is a viable career opportunity as an MP beyond becoming a minister, making it worthwhile to stand up to the government.

68 Some proposals, like a Parliamentary Business Committee, were not implemented. The 22 days per year does not equate to much time for the Backbench Business Committee and most parliamentary business is dominated by the government. Select Committees remain dominated by government MPs and still lack the power to do more than report their findings.

AS 1 Identify each of the main stages and give some information on what each means. Strong answers will use specific bills or acts to illustrate their points. The stages are: first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, third reading. Note that there is no English law stage in the Lords.

2 The key proposals were:

 the secret election of select committee chairs by the whole House

 the secret election of other members of committees by party groups

 the reduction in the number and size of departmental select committees to 11

 the creation of a Backbench Business Committee

 the creation of a House Business Committee

 the development of public engagement through e-petitions.

(Four key points should be identified, developed and supported with a specific example.)

3 After the first reading, the speaker must decide if EVEL applies to the bill.

After the report stage, the speaker will review the bill and determine if EVEL still applies. Edexcel Politics Workbook 2 21

After this, the bill will be considered by a Legislative Grand Committee in the chamber, where only English or English and Welsh MPs may vote.

If the English or English/Welsh MPs vote against the bill in the Legislative Grand Committee, the bill is ended. If passed, it moves onto a vote by the whole House.

4 Each government department has its own select committee, ensuring expertise and focused scrutiny.

The authority to scrutinise and oversee the work of a department ensures that ministers and departments are held accountable for their actions and must answer to public representatives.

All members are backbench MPs: they are not part of the government and they are not constrained by collective ministerial responsibility.

By writing up and publicising their findings, the committees can draw attention to an issue and embarrass the government into action.

(For each point, explain why it is an advantage, ideally with some detail.)

5 Your answer should focus on ‘urgent need’. Reform of many areas may be desirable or good, but is it needed urgently? This issue should form the basis of the evaluation for each point. The impact of recent reforms should be considered as well as ideas about what possible new reforms might be introduced, and how urgently they are needed.

Possible areas for reform are suggested below. Four or five should be used as the main points for an essay.

The West Lothian question and the status of English MPs; the size of both chambers, particularly the Lords; issues of democratic representation in the Lords and Commons; weaknesses of the select committees; domination of Parliament by government.

A-level 1 Key points from the sources supporting the argument that the House of Lords is in need of major reform: it is too large; too expensive/not good value for money; most peers do little; it is a retirement home for former politicians; it is undemocratic.

Against the argument: it is less subject to popular whims; the Lords take a more measured approach; whips and parties have less power; its purpose needs to be determined before reform.

The focus of your answer should be the issues of ‘need’ and ‘urgent’. Making the Lords an elected and more democratic chamber might be desirable, but is the change needed? This point should be debated and considered in different ways. If it is thought that the Lords does need to be reduced, is it an urgent issue? Many might consider Lords reforms in the context of Brexit and devolution and conclude that there are more important issues.

This question also lends itself well to synoptic links; the power of party government can be considered as well as the attitudes of various parties to Lords reforms and their differing approaches to the need for reform. The idea of democracy is central to the debate as is the relative power of the executive over the Lords compared to the Commons and of course many of the constitutional requirements.

Strong answers will reflect on reforms that have already taken place and whether those reforms have done enough or at least removed any ‘urgent’ need for reform. You should consider potential changes such as the removal of the remaining hereditary peers and the creation of a fully elected second chamber. You should assess which, if any, current problems might be solved by such approaches and what new problems might emerge.

2 You should demonstrate a strong understanding of what sovereignty means and distinguish between different types of sovereignty, principally between legal and political types.

A strong approach would be to look at the areas to which Parliament may have lost sovereignty; consider how sovereignty has been lost / how it has not been lost; reach a judgement over the extent to which Parliament still retains political and legal sovereignty.

Key sections could consider sovereignty in relation to: devolved bodies; the executive; the people (referendums); the judiciary; the EU.

3 The key to this question is the understanding of democracy and identifying that there are different types of democracy, particularly popular or majoritarian democracy as opposed to liberal, constitutional democracy. On this basis, the removal of most of the hereditary peers did not make Parliament any more democratic in a popular sense as there are still no elections or popular accountability for the Lords. In some ways, by making the Lords more willing to stand up to the Commons, it has made Parliament less democratic. However, by creating a more assertive secondary chamber that is willing to defy and act as a check on the Commons, the reform has improved the constitutional democracy of Parliament, especially as no single party holds a majority in the Lords, unlike the elective dictatorship that can occur in the Commons.

The best way to structure this answer is to choose four or five big areas of constitutional reform to Parliament and then consider how they have and have not made Parliament more democratic, considering the different types of democracy. Remember that the question is focused on reforms that have happened and reforms specifically to Parliament. They could include: Lords reforms (hereditary peers, ability to retire, forced removal); creation of the Backbench Business Committee and e-petitions; reforms to select committees; the introduction of EVEL.

Topic 3 The prime minister and the executive The structure, role and powers of the executive

1 The executive enacts legislation passed by Parliament and runs the country’s institutions.

2 Any three, possibly Education, Justine Greening; Health Jeremy Hunt; Exiting the European Union, David Davis.

3 The permanent staff of the government who advise and support the political leaders in enacting the work of the government.

4 The senior secretaries of state who head the government departments and advise and consult the PM to formulate and co-ordinate official policy.

Functions of the executive 5 The executive: makes decisions over government policy, and about the administration of individual departments; proposes legislation in Parliament; constructs a budget.

6 Without a budget the government will have no means of raising funds, nor have the approval to spend money. It would be unable to function and would fail.

7 Possible examples would include Andrew Lansley (Department of Health, 2012); Ruth Kelly (Department of Education, 2006); Norman Lamont (Chancellor, 1992).

8 The government is expected to resign and party leaders can attempt to create a new government which can get a budget passed. If no budget is passed, this can trigger a motion of no confidence in the government, leading to a new general election if no new government can be formed and pass a budget within 14 days.

9 a The PM writes the Queen’s Speech.

b It sets out the legislative programme for the coming parliamentary session; confirms which laws the government hopes to introduce; officially opens a new parliamentary session.

The royal prerogative 10 The powers of the monarch that are exercised by the PM.

11 a Limited by the Blair convention.

b Limited by the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission.

c Limited by the creation of the Lords Appointment Commission.

d Limited by the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

Other executive powers 12 Primary legislation means statute laws introduced and passed by Parliament. Statute laws are the highest form of law, and can only be altered by Parliament. Delegated or secondary legislation is usually concerned with detailed changes to the law made under powers from an existing act. It allows the government to make changes to a law without needing to push through a completely new act of Parliament.

13 It allows single party governments to enact manifesto policies and it enables the government to more easily pass necessary legislation, which is an advantage because it avoids delay.

14 Governments with a clear majority are not subject to any effective checks and can therefore do, effectively, what they like, which leads to the creation of elective dictatorship and a lack of scrutiny and oversight.

15 Give 1 mark for each accurately identified revolt and another for a developed explanation of each revolt.

16 Backbench revolts usually reveal that the government has lost its power to control Parliament as it has lost the support of its own backbench MPs. This shows that government power is dependent upon the support of ordinary party MPs.

17 With a coalition government followed by a government with a small majority, it can be easier to pass legislation without going to Parliament, especially as the work of government has increased. The prime minister and the cabinet

How to become prime minister 18 A president is elected by and directly accountable to the people, whereas PMs are ordinary members of their legislative chambers, who rely on party support rather than a popular mandate.

19 The PM will have the backing of their party and therefore, usually, the House of Commons, giving them the authority to act. In the event of death or resignation, there is a party contest to establish the best person to take over as the national leader.

20 A person can become PM without being elected, meaning they have no mandate or authority. It relies on partisan support which can be divisive and undermine the effectiveness of parliamentary government.

21 The process was not clearly set down in a statute law or codified fashion. Therefore, people had to refer to past precedent and research into what happened in previous elections, mainly that of February 1974. This meant it took several days before the majority of people were sure who would get the first opportunity to form a government.

22 a Although Theresa May faced an initial contest from some Conservative MPs, the withdrawal of Andrea Ledsom before the party membership was able to vote meant May was effectively appointed by MPs rather than elected by the party membership.

b Although his party had won the most seats and largest share of the vote in the general election, David Cameron had failed to secure a clear victory and therefore his authority and his legitimacy to follow his manifesto were disputed.

c Although the 2005 general election had been fought by Labour with the expectation that Blair would step down and be replaced by Gordon Brown, the lack of competition meant Brown was appointed with no scrutiny or popular vote, undermining his legitimacy.

d Although John Major won a clear victory among his fellow MPs, no one outside the parliamentary Conservative Party had a say. Many felt that he, and other leading figures, had betrayed Margaret Thatcher.

How to remove a prime minister 23 PMs are not directly elected: they depend on party support. Cabinet or the party might be able to remove the PM, but this does not require the public to participate.

24 a David Cameron resigned after the EU referendum because the British people had rejected his position and his support for the remain campaign.

b Gordon Brown was removed because his party was rejected by voters in the 2010 general election, mainly as a result of his perceived failures.

c Blair was pressured into resigning by Brown and his supporters, especially after he lost the support of his party, which feared the electoral consequences of retaining an increasingly unpopular leader.

d John Major and his party were decisively rejected by voters as a result of the 1992 economic crash, divisions in the Conservative Party and various party scandals.

e Margaret Thatcher was pressured into resigning after losing the support of her cabinet. Although she remained popular with the party membership, she could not continue in power without cabinet backing.

The role of the prime minister 25 The head of state is the figurehead of the nation and officially represents it in foreign meetings as well as having the authority to enact laws. The head of government has the authority to lead government but does not have the same legal status as a head of state.

26 a David Cameron: leading the vote in favour of gay marriage.

b Gordon Brown: bailing out the banks and dealing with the initial financial crisis.

c Tony Blair: over the government’s response to the terrorist attack on 7/7.

d John Major: passing the Maastricht Treaty.

e Margaret Thatcher: over the Falklands War.

27 By deciding what is to be discussed, the PM can choose which issues to promote and effectively ignore issues they don’t want to discuss. By deciding where an issue comes on the agenda, they can influence how much time and importance it is warranted.

Creating a cabinet 28

Reason Importance Example Party unity In order to keep the party unified, Johnson, Davis and Fox PMs must have figures from all brought in by May in 2016 factions in the cabinet.

Big beasts Some politicians have such a high Ken Clarke under Cameron public standing that the PM is obliged in 2010 to have them in the cabinet rather than risk their opposition.

Expertise Some figures will be appointed for Gordon Brown by Blair their political or departmental expertise

Allies The PM may appoint people who are George Osborne by close allies and friends to ensure a Cameron in 2010 cabinet of like-minded individuals.

Future talent Young ministers may be given junior Ed Miliband appointed to cabinet posts in order to give them full cabinet by Brown in some experience before promoting 2007 them to higher positions.

29 You get 1 mark for choosing a relevant minister; 1 additional mark for clearly identifying the general reason for their appointment (such as being a big beast or ally); up to 2 marks for the explanation and detail that proves the accuracy of the factor.

How does the PM control the cabinet? 30 When the cabinet votes, the PM has only one vote and can therefore be on the losing side.

31 Because he/she appoints all cabinet ministers, the PM can choose loyal ministers and remove troublesome ones. By setting the agenda, the PM can determine which issues are to be voted on, and which not, thus avoiding potential defeat. The PM can create cabinet committees and sub-groups to bypass the need for a full cabinet meeting and vote.

32 Major party divisions over a given issue; a small or non-existent majority; a drop in the PM’s popularity and perceived ability to win elections, possibly as a result of attacks in the media, or the PM’s mishandling of a crisis; defiance from popular and prominent ministers.

33 If the party in power is fractious, the PM will be forced to liaise with representatives of different factions, usually in the cabinet. The cabinet can then exert power by forcing the PM to listen to and acknowledge the concerns of their respective factions. However, the PM can use the whip system as an alternative to the cabinet to try to maintain control.

If the PM has a limited majority or is in a coalition, they will have to consult with cabinet regularly and keep them on side in order to ensure legislation is passed, giving the cabinet more power to limit the activities of the PM. However, collective ministerial responsibility means that the cabinet has to support the government’s position.

The cabinet can outvote the PM. However, as the PM calls for votes and all ministers owe their position to the PM, it is unlikely the PM will be defeated often.

Cabinet members can exert their own agenda over their department and perhaps act as a counterbalance to the PM. However, their position has to comply with the government’s aims, and they can be removed.

A cabinet minister could threaten to resign, in order to force a concession by the PM, but the threat is more likely to have an impact if the PM is already in a weak position.

The role of cabinet 34 When a PM acts more like a head of state than head of government.

35 To head government departments; to co-ordinate government actions; to resolve departmental disputes; to advise the PM; to formulate government policy.

36 As it consists of the heads of government departments, it is vital in developing and implementing government policy, although the cabinet usually has to bow to the will of the PM and to the practicalities of the civil service and the real world.

The cabinet can be an important source of advice for the PM in developing policy and deciding on key issues, but increasingly such advice is provided by special advisers in the ‘Downing Street machine’.

Although the cabinet can provide a forum for co-ordinating policies and resolving departmental disputes, these are usually achieved now by bilateral meetings and less formal conversations, so the importance of cabinet has declined. Ministerial responsibility

The role of ministers 37 Junior ministers will work under a cabinet secretary and take responsibility for an area of their department’s work. They will have power over decisions and implementing policy, must represent their department in Parliament and take responsibility for their department’s actions as well as their own conduct.

38 You get 1 mark for giving a clear yes-or-no answer; and up to 3 marks for justifying your opinion, ideally with supportive detail.

39 By select committees, ministerial questions and urgent questions.

Collective ministerial responsibility 40 The convention that all ministers must publicly support and vote for the official policy of the government, even if they have private misgivings. In the event of a government error, all ministers must share the responsibility.

41 It ensures a unified government, meaning that the official position of the government is clear and easily understood. It means the PM should have the complete backing of all government ministers, creating a loyal vote of about 120 MPs.This is important in achieving goals and dealing with crises. In the event of a failure, all ministers must share in the responsibility and be held accountable by the public and, if necessary, the law.

42 As work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith had spent six years trying to reform the benefits system to make it fairer and more effective. Despite implementing many cuts to welfare programmes, he felt that George Osborne’s 2016 budget was too harsh and that the results would be detrimental to many people. As he could not support the budget, he chose to resign and publicly criticise it. Some believe it had more to do with his opposition to the official government position on the EU referendum, but as the principle of collective responsibility had been waived for the referendum, this was less convincing as a reason.

43The principle of collective ministerial responsibility means every minister has to support government policy, but in a cabinet meeting, debate and differences of opinion are integral elements in developing policy and advising the PM. In the privacy of cabinet meetings, ministers are free to express opinions that they may later have to keep to themselves.

44 The PM may want to keep big names or talented ministers in post, but knows they cannot support a particular issue, such as membership of the EU. In such a case, the PM might relax the rules during a referendum campaign to avoid resignations.

They might allow a minister to speak out against a policy if it was fundamental to an election promise, as in the case of Boris Johnson and the third runway at Heathrow, to allow the minister to keep faith with the electorate.

45 It can show the weakness of a PM’s position. Cameron could not afford to lose seven big- name ministers, especially with a working majority of only 14. Had he not suspended the rules, he might have divided his party still further and made his leadership untenable.

It can also show the importance of big beasts to the PM. Theresa May could not afford to lose Boris Johnson from the cabinet, yet he had previously been a vocal opponent of a third runway at Heathrow. By allowing him to speak against the official government policy but then instructing him to support it, she gave him the respect he deserved as a prominent politician but also effectively gained his support for the official position. In this case, relaxing the rules was a careful piece of management.

Individual ministerial responsibility 46 Under collective ministerial responsibility, all ministers are responsible for the decisions and policies of the government. Individual responsibility refers to the requirement for each minister to run their department, or area, effectively and answer for the actions of their department in the Commons. Under collective ministerial responsibility, if the government as a whole fails, all must resign. Individual ministerial responsibility means that if there is an issue in a specific area, the minister responsible must resign.

47 a Marks: 1 for identifying Andrew Lansley’s failure to implement NHS policy; 1–2 for explaining why this led to his resignation; and 1 for some additional specific detail.

b Marks: 1 for identifying Chris Huhne’s trial for falsely passing his driving offences to his ex-wife; other marks as for Andrew Lansley.

c Marks: 1 for identifying Liam Fox’s conflict of interest with his travelling companion; other marks as for Andrew Lansley. Prime ministerial power

Are prime ministers presidential? 48 A style of leadership where the PM distances themselves from their party or cabinet and acts as an individual, with all power and ideas being centred around them.

49 The name given to the special advisers and press experts who help to run the PM’s office. Technically, all are civil servants, and assist the PM to formulate policy and actions without consulting cabinet or the party.

50 David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne and Danny Alexander.

51 By separating themselves from cabinet and Parliament, PMs are able to act decisively and take the steps they deem necessary without having to consult or compromise with potentially hostile forces. Not only does this give an impression of strength and power, it allows the PM to speak directly to the people and take on a presidential style of leadership.

52 Having a large majority could allow a PM to take Parliament’s support for granted and act presidentially, but only if the party remained unified.

Having a unified party could allow the PM to achieve whatever they wanted, if they had a majority, although it would be difficult to keep it unified without consultation.

If a PM has a popular public and media image, it can encourage the party and Parliament to support them, but potentially such an image could be turned against the PM and become a liability.

What makes a prime minister powerful? 53 You gain 1 mark for accurately identifying a factor, such as ‘size of majority’; 1 mark for the quality of the explanation, e.g. ‘it weakens Parliament’s ability to defy the PM’; and 1 mark for a relevant specific example, e.g. ‘Tony Blair suffered no defeats in his first two terms in the Commons’.

What limits a prime minister’s power? 54

PM Example of strength Example of limitation Theresa May Pushing through the EU Act Miller case

David Cameron Leading on gay marriage Defeat over Syria

Gordon Brown Response to the financial Dithering over election crisis

Tony Blair Going to war in Iraq Being forced to resign

John Major Intervention in Kuwait Resigning as leader

Margaret Thatcher Falklands war Cabinet resignations

55 Credit for clearly identifying five points.

Each response will be your own opinion. Credit for identifying a relevant event and then up to 2 marks for the quality of each explanation.

AS 1 There are a number of such powers. Ideally you should identify four, explain what they mean with some detail, and give an example for each. (You only need to describe the powers: you don’t have to evaluate the extent to which they still apply.)

Some of the key powers are to: appoint ministers, judges and bishops in the Church of England; dissolve and recall Parliament; sign treaties; grant honours; command the military.

2 The following are the suggested points from the source. You should develop each one, explaining why it might be a disadvantage.

They force MPs to toe the party line, rather than act in the interests of constituents. The whips have too much power over appointments, travel and offices. They are not accountable to anyone except the party leadership. They undermine democracy as the people ‘lose out’.

3 In addressing this question, you need to make comparisons across PMs. Focus on the idea that they have become too powerful by comparing the relative powers of May and Cameron with Brown and Major or Blair and Thatcher. There are a number of ways you could tackle this question. You could look at some areas of PM power (e.g. over Parliament, the people, events, the media) and assess the changing nature of their power. One suggestion is to look at the different ways of reacting to the statements:

PMs have become too powerful

PMs are not powerful enough

PMs have the right amount of power

PMs have always been too powerful.

Using this as a basic structure, you should consider and develop a discussion, considering what is meant by power and what it is the people want. For example, in the Miller case, many wanted the PM to have the power simply to trigger Article 50, but that was prevented by the courts, suggesting a lack of prime ministerial power.

However, May was able to force through her bill, ignoring checks from the Lords and opposition from some groups and devolved bodies, suggesting she is too powerful. Then again, she achieved what she wanted to achieve in her time frame, suggesting the right amount of power, and her actions were not substantially different from Brown’s signing of the Lisbon Treaty or Major’s forcing through the Maastricht Treaty.

A-level 1 The key is to focus on the changing nature of prime ministerial power by comparing a number of PMs and how able they were to wield the powers they held. Over the course of the essay, there are three elements to consider:

 PMs being too powerful, meaning they have no effective checks on them

 PMs being insufficiently powerful, so they are hampered in achieving their goals

 PMs having the right amount of power and the system working.

Key points for too much power: the use of the royal prerogative; lack of statutory checks; power over the civil service; the government at times acting above the law.

Key points against: parliamentary sovereignty acts as a check; judiciary can declare the PM’s actions ultra vires; some powers checked by statute law; the power of constitutional law.

In essence, the powers of the PM have been weakened slightly by recent reforms, like the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, but how powerful a PM is depends on other factors, such as the size of majority, party unity, media portrayal and handling of events.

2 Consider the different prerogative powers that the PM holds, or the ability of other ministers to act, and consider the extent to which the balance has changed between the executive and Parliament. For each area, there will be an argument that the executive has become less powerful, that it has become more powerful and that there has been no real change. A useful thing to do is differentiate between legal power and political power.

Possible powers to consider:

Power to call an election, which has declined under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. However, there is a loophole that still allows a PM to call an early election. While it is a reduction of the executive’s power, it is not clear that Parliament has gained from this.

The power to declare war, which has been weakened by the Blair convention and Cameron’s following through on it. However, legally the PM still holds the right and can keep holding votes until the desired aim is achieved.

The power to run government departments has been limited by the increased independence of select committees and creation of the Liaison Committee, which require the PM and ministers to be more accountable. However, the committees still have relatively few legal powers and cannot alter the actions of a department.

Power over legislation has been limited by the creation of the Backbench Business Committee, the power of the speaker over EVEL and the reinvigorated House of Lords. However, the PM still sets the legislative agenda and bills will only succeed if the executive supports them.

3 There are two ways to approach this question. You could assess how far the separate prerogative powers have been undermined by constitutional reforms, or consider how far constitutional reforms have undermined executive power. Whichever approach you take, it is essential to cover a number of constitutional reforms, clearly linked to powers, and consider how they have/have not undermined the PM’s powers.

The more straightforward approach may be to structure the essay by considering reforms, as suggested below.

Commons reforms have limited control over the legislative programme, and increased select committees’ ability to scrutinise the executive. The Liaison Committee holds the PM more accountable and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act has reduced the PM’s power to call elections.

Lords reforms have affected the government’s control over the Lords, made it less party- centred and more willing to defy the Commons, although it remains weak, while the creation of the Lords Appointments Commission has weakened the power of the executive in appointments.

Devolution has meant the executive has lost control over key areas of administration and legislation for parts of the UK, though it still retains great power.

The Human Rights Act (HRA) and judicial reforms have put more substantial checks on the executive: derogated powers can be struck down and primary legislation should be written to comply with the HRA. The creation of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Appointments Commission have made the judiciary more independent and willing to act as a check on the government.

Topic 4 Relations between institutions Sovereignty

1 Legal sovereignty means the legal right to make a decision or exercise power, whereas political sovereignty refers to those who have the practical ability to make decisions and get things done.

2 a Parliament has the legal sovereignty to make and pass legislation and therefore holds political sovereignty over other institutions, as confirmed by the Miller ruling in 2017.

b The PM effectively controls Parliament through the support of a majority of the MPs and can use secondary legislation to make laws. He/she can also set the political agenda through the media.

c In directing and voting on government policy, the cabinet has the political sovereignty to influence and create policy.

d The Supreme Court can use the power of judicial review to declare the acts of other political institutions incompatible with the Human Rights Act (HRA) and strike down all actions other than primary legislation, therefore holding political power over the other institutions of state.

e The Scottish Parliament holds power over many key areas of policy in Scotland, and therefore has the political sovereignty to run Scottish affairs.

f The Welsh Assembly now holds administrative and legislative power over key areas, giving it political power in Wales.

g The Northern Ireland Assembly has its own primary and legislative powers, allowing it power over most areas concerning Northern Ireland as long as a power sharing agreement can be reached.

h While Britain is a member of the EU it accepts that EU law takes primacy over UK law, as demonstrated by the Factortame case.

3 Although legal sovereignty remains with the Westminster Parliament, the introduction of devolved powers has seen Parliament lose political and administrative power over key areas of policy and decision making, most aptly demonstrated by the pressure from the Scottish Parliament to force the Westminster Parliament to allow an independence referendum in 2014 and perhaps a second one in the near future.

The increasing use of referendums has also seen a transfer of sovereignty from Parliament to the people in the form of popular sovereignty, as demonstrated by the Brexit Act, where the majority of MPs voted against their own beliefs in accepting the popular verdict.

The introduction of the HRA and creation of a more independent Supreme Court have increased the sovereignty of the judiciary at the expense of Parliament, while the spatial or presidential-style leadership of PMs has meant more power passing from Parliament to the executive. Under the Lisbon Treaty more power was transferred from the UK to the EU, but the triggering of Article 50 will return political sovereignty to the UK.

What is the Supreme Court? 4 To hear appeals from the lower courts.

5 As the countries of the UK entered the Union, they kept their own distinct legal systems.

Why was the Supreme Court created? 6 To separate the Law Lords from Parliament, creating greater separation between the branches. This would give the court more legitimacy and the appearance of greater democracy: as it would not be involved in passing laws, it would be an independent check on the government.

7 When there is overlap in personnel and offices across the branches of government. Instead of there being separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, they are fused together and therefore one branch can more easily dominate the others.

8 A separation of powers makes it easier for the branches to check each other. Separation means each branch having its own clear area of responsibility and power, and brings clearer accountability.

The functions of the Supreme Court 9 The Supreme Court acts as the final court of appeal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on points of law and the relations between institutions. It hears appeal cases on civil cases in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It settles disputes on arguable points of law and procedure, and it settles matters of devotional dispute.

10 The authority of the judicial branch to review rulings by lower courts and the actions of the other two branches of government. Usually they will have the power to strike down any laws or actions that are not compatible with the constitution.

11 As the constitution derives from multiple sources, many of which are unwritten, there is a lack of clarity over the processes of power and at times laws and convention come into conflict. As such, the UK needs the judiciary to clarify key issues of power and authority.

12 Case law refers to rulings by judges on cases that become binding on subsequent cases, in effect setting a judicial precedent in how the law is applied.

How are Supreme Court judges appointed? 13 The president of the court; a senior judge not on the Supreme Court; a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales; a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission for Scotland; a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland.

14 a A vacancy occurs.

b The Lord Chancellor (Justice Secretary) convenes the selection committee.

c The committee gives its recommendation to the justice secretary.

d The PM appoints or rejects the person recommended.

How is the Supreme Court composed? 15 With a narrow social background and lack of gender or racial diversity, the court can only draw on a narrow set of views and experiences to inform its decisions. Although the justices’ decisions are based on the law, they should also consider the impact on real world issues, of which they may have insufficient understanding.

16 You get 1 mark for stating an opinion and then 1 mark for each piece of developed explanation and reasoning linked to the opinion.

17 As for 16.

What is the rule of law? 18 A ruling that not only prevents the reporting of an issue but also the reporting of the fact that an individual or individuals involved have taken out an injunction. Nothing can be reported to identify those involved.

19 To allow for full debate, MPs in the chamber of the House of Commons may speak freely and cannot be prosecuted by law for any opinions or statements they make, even if they prove slanderous or break other laws.

20 The Human Rights Act is a statute law. Statute laws take priority over all other forms of law, due to parliamentary sovereignty.

21 The traditional argument has been that if one member of a cell is detained for questioning, in order to gain evidence, other members of the cell or related cells might gain warning of a potential raid before sufficient evidence has been gathered to charge them. This might encourage them to launch a terrorist attack sooner than planned. Governments have therefore argued that allowing suspects to be detained while evidence is gathered to charge them reduces the risk of an attack taking place. Judicial neutrality and independence

How is the judiciary neutral? 22 Judges must make decisions based only on the evidence presented, without being influenced by their personal opinions. (1 mark).

Judges may not engage in political activity or express support for political parties or groups, as this would undermine their neutrality. (2 marks)

Judges must justify their rulings based on legal arguments to demonstrate their neutrality. These are then subject to review by appeals courts. (2 marks)

23 Fairness ensures that there is a reasonable outcome based on expectations, while justice ensures that rulings are made based only on the law.

24 Although judges are not allowed to express political opinions, this does not stop them holding political views. A judge may well still favour some groups over others.

As judges are only accountable to other judges and there is a lack of diversity in the judiciary, it is possible that the review will reflect the same prejudices as the original court.

Ultimately, people make judgements all the time based on appearances and preconceptions, which is why people wear suits to court; they should not matter, but appearances are important.

25 In 2017 Lord Chief Justice Neuberger criticised the government’s lack of support for the judiciary after judges were attacked by the Daily Mail over the ruling in the Miller case.

In 2007 Lord Chief Justice Phillips criticised the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences by the then government.

In both cases the judge was regarded as hostile to the government and therefore not neutral.

How is judicial independence maintained? 26 Judicial neutrality means that judges base decisions on the evidence only, and do not allow their personal opinions to affect rulings. Judicial independence means that judges are not subjected to political pressure to come up with a ruling that may favour the government. As such, judicial independence helps to ensure judicial neutrality.

27 Judges are no longer appointed directly by the PM, but through the Judicial Appointments Commission, ensuring they do not owe their appointment directly to the government.

Judges have security of tenure, which means they cannot be sacked by the government for ruling against it.

Judicial pay comes from a consolidated fund and is determined by an independent pay review body. Politicians cannot use pay as a means of exerting pressure on the judiciary.

The creation of the Supreme Court has led to the physical removal of the Law Lords from Parliament, making it harder for the government to exert direct pressure.

28 A convention that forbids anyone from commenting publicly on a case that is being heard.

29 a Who should Trigger Article 50.

b It claimed that by ruling that Parliament should Trigger Article 50, the judges were denying the will of the people expressed in a referendum.

c The ruling had been made, so technically the press was free to comment on it. However, the press should still not criticise the judges for their ruling, and the government had declared that it would seek an appeal to the Supreme Court, so the case was ongoing.

d After some delay, the PM and the justice secretary, Amber Rudd, defended the principal of judicial independence and neutrality and stated that the judges had made the ruling on a legal basis. However, some members of the government openly criticised the ruling. Sajid Javid claimed the judges were out to frustrate the will of the British people, while the PM and Jeremy Hunt defended the right of the press to criticise and comment on judicial rulings. Lord Neuberger and Lord Patton criticised the government’s response as a

dereliction of duty and inadequate, especially as an appeal was going on and the PM may have wanted to put pressure on the judiciary to find in her favour.

What is the power of judicial review? 30 The Human Rights Act (HRA) brought the existing European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into statute law, meaning it could be judged in UK courts.

31 Any four. Could include the rights to life; to a family life; to freedom from torture; to vote.

32 The process by which the judiciary reviews the actions of official institutions and people and determines whether or not they comply with the law.

33 By bringing the ECHR into UK law it has given judges greater authority to rule on human rights issues.

It has also led to an increased use of judicial review as people are more able to challenge the government’s actions as infringing on human rights.

It has given the judiciary greater power to strike down derogated legislation and declare primary legislation as incompatible with the HRA.

34 Answers should cover: the growing importance of EU law; the impact of the HRA; the power to strike down derogated legislation and declare acts of Parliament incompatible with the HRA; and the fact that judges have become more active in preventing governments from deporting terror suspects and taking desired actions.

However, judges cannot strike down primary legislation; the government can suspend the HRA if needed; and in the vast majority of rulings the judiciary tend to side with the government.

What are ultra vires cases? 35 When a person, usually a politician, acts beyond the powers they have been granted.

36 For ‘fast track’ cases defence lawyers were only given seven days to prepare everything for a case, which the courts ruled as preventing a fair trial. By insisting on fast-track cases, the home secretary was deemed to have acted ultra vires in denying a fair hearing. This was the third time the courts had ruled fast-track cases as ultra vires, and the government had repeatedly ignored these rulings.

37 The ruling shows that government ministers can be held to account, and that anyone, whether a citizen or not, is given access to justice. However, rulings can be ignored by government ministers, so the judiciary is not that strong. Impact of the EU

How does the EU impact on UK rights? 38 Free movement of goods; free movement of labour; free provision of services; free movement of capital.

39 The European Court of Human Rights hears cases relating to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is not part of the EU, whereas the European Court of Justice hears cases only relating to the application of EU law.

40 In 1988 the UK had passed the Merchant Shipping Act, which required that any ships fishing in UK waters must be 75% UK owned. Factortame brought a challenge to the European Court of Justice, claiming this was incompatible with the EU’s fundamental freedoms.

The UK government appealed the ruling to the Law Lords in the House of Lords, but the Law Lords declared that EU law takes primacy over UK law. Their ruling therefore confirmed the primacy of EU law over UK law and meant that, effectively, Parliament lost sovereignty to the EU and had to accept rulings by the European Court of Justice.

How might Brexit change things? 41 A set of rights that would be more in keeping with traditional common law and would be judiciable only by the UK courts, not subject to the European Court of Human Rights.

42 a Possible arguments in favour: it would ensure Britain retains sovereignty over its own laws; controversial rulings have seen the government weakened in dealing with terrorism; some rulings (such as the ruling to give prisoners the right to vote) contradict fundamental British rulings; decisions affecting Britain should be made by British judges, not overseas courts.

b Possible arguments against: the ECHR was originally written by British lawyers, so it is already a British document with British values; a British bill of rights could easily be changed by a British government, weakening the protection it offers to citizens; many significant rulings have only been secured because people could appeal beyond the UK; repealing the HRA would undermine Britain’s legitimacy and moral authority.

43 All the rulings of the European Court of Justice would be adopted under UK statute law, giving the UK courts more powers to rule on this basis.

Initially, the HRA and the ECHR would remain in force, so there would be no immediate change there.

By withdrawing from the EU a whole mass of issues will emerge and the UK courts will be busy in trying to clarify constitutional positions and the new workings of the UK.

AS 1 If a citizen wishes to challenge an action or measure that has been taken, they should follow the steps set out below.

Pre-action stage: write a letter to the offending organisation or person, detailing the challenge.

Permission stage: if a satisfactory response has not been given the citizen must seek permission to bring the case to a judicial body, usually beginning with one of the administrative courts.

Hearings will be held and the judge will give a verdict, explaining their reasoning.

Either party can seek to appeal this decision to a higher appellate court, beginning with the Court of Appeal, but must get permission to appeal from the administrative court.

The denial of the right to appeal can, itself, be appealed.

The process can be repeated up to the High Court, then the Supreme Court and then, depending on the case, to one of the European courts.

2 Stages as follows:

 A vacancy must occur, either through death, voluntary retirement or compulsory retirement at 70.

 Candidates may apply or be nominated if they have a minimum of 20 years’ experience as a barrister or as a solicitor with experience as an advocate.

 For all but the Supreme Court, the JAC will consider the candidates and then make a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor (Justice Secretary) based on merit.

 The Lord Chancellor can then recommend the appointment to the PM or reject the nominee. However, only the first nominee can be rejected.

 The PM, under the royal prerogative, formally appoints the judge.

 The Supreme Court nominees are considered by a separate selection commission with the president of the Supreme Court, and members of the senior courts of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3 The following points are a guide to what to identify from the source. For each, you should explain how the judiciary can use these powers in its dealings with other political bodies.

 It has the power to ensure that actions are close to the HRA.

 It cannot strike down statute law.

 It can strike down derogated legislation and common law made by other judges.

 It has the power to strike down any laws or actions passed by devolved bodies.

4 The key here is to consider the changing nature of judicial power and whether judges are too powerful or not powerful enough. It might be useful to focus on conflicts that have arisen between the judiciary and other political bodies; assess how and why the balance of power between the judiciary and other institutions has changed; and discuss whether or not it has slipped too far in favour of the judiciary.

Government ministers v. the judiciary, particularly over terrorism issues and public safety.

Parliament v. the judiciary, particularly over the sovereignty of Parliament and primacy of statute law.

Devolved bodies v. the judiciary, particularly focusing on conflict over the power and status of the devolved bodies.

The people v. the judiciary, looking at the nature of the judiciary, its ability to protect rights but also the balancing of public safety and individual rights.

A-level 1 Your answer should focus on the appropriateness of the judiciary as the body to protect civil liberties, balancing issues of legal training and impartiality against issues like accountability, democracy and diversity. You should also consider the different types of civil liberty; political institutions might be best placed to consider the rights and freedoms of society, while judges focus on individual rights and liberties. The best answers will compare the judiciary to political institutions, principally Parliament.

Possible approaches below.

Neutrality v. democracy: judges are appropriate because of their neutrality, meaning they judge cases only on the basis of the law and are not subject to popular and political pressures, as Parliament is. However, when judges make decisions they are often focusing on the rights of the individual and not considering the democratic needs and protections of wider society, which an elected body like Parliament does.

Training v. representation: judges have extensive legal training and senior judges have years of experience in applying the law: so they, rather than politicians, might be the right people to protect civil liberties. However, judges are often from privileged backgrounds and are overwhelmingly white, old and male, meaning they do not understand or reflect the diverse nature of British society. Political institutions are more representative and therefore better able to understand the implications of civil liberty protection.

Independence v. accountability: judicial independence ensures that judges make rulings based on the law, removed from government pressure. As such, judges are able to uphold civil liberties against potentially tyrannical governments. However, judges cannot be held to public account, whereas Parliament and governments can be. If there is popular discontent at a ruling, there is little the people can do against an overly powerful judiciary.

Judicial review v. parliamentary sovereignty: the power of judicial review means judges can strike down secondary legislation and acts of devolved bodies, allowing them to defend civil liberties against politicians. However, as Parliament is sovereign it has the power to introduce the laws that judges uphold, like the HRA, and also suspend them. As the power of parliamentary sovereignty is much greater than the power of judicial review, perhaps Parliament rather than the judiciary is the appropriate body to protect civil liberties.

2 The key is to consider the difference between legal and political power, comparing the theory of the impact of the EU and its reality.

To structure your answer, the best approach would be to consider different political institutions in the UK, and how they have/have not been impacted by the EU.

The executive: has lacked ability to negotiate trade deals, but still remains powerful in foreign affairs and military.

Parliament: the Factortame case forced the acceptance that European law was superior to parliamentary law, but Parliament remains sovereign and has retained power over a number of key areas.

The judiciary: the EU requirement to incorporate the ECHR into UK law has given the judiciary more power of judicial review and meant there are two courts higher than the Supreme Court. However, the ECHR is not part of the EU and most cases brought end in the Supreme Court and do not go higher.

The civil service: with the EU conducting many of the functions previously carried out by the civil service, the service could be reduced. However, the UK still has a large civil service that runs many of the key areas of British politics.

Devolved bodies: the EU grants of money to poorer areas of devolved regions and support for them has promoted a useful protection and check for the devolved bodies. However, the EU deals directly with the national government and has offered little support to Scotland’s bids for greater independence.

3 The key to this question is the nature of democracy and so it will be important to determine the different types of democracy that can be in play, namely popular/majoritarian v. liberal constitutional. Note that the question is about the European Court of Human Rights, not the convention, nor the European Court of Justice, nor the EU.

Points from the sources SUPPORTING the idea that it undermines democracy: it exceeds its legitimate powers; it usurps the role of politicians; it undermines the democratic process; it leads to judge-made law; it has misinterpreted the ECHR; it is un-British.

AGAINST: it protects UK citizens from government tyranny; it provides a check on the UK judiciary; it has promoted individual liberties, such as gay rights; it ended the UK government’s use of torture; it is supported by pro-democracy groups like Liberty; it has helped to spread fundamental British values that underpin democracy.