English în Administrative Settings

UNIT 1 CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Section A The Fundamental Law in the United Kingdom

There is a learned debate about whether Britain actually has a constitution. It clearly

lacks one in a widely used sense of the term: there is no single comprehensive written

code, or document, which sets out the rules affecting the relations between government

institutions and between these institutions and citizens. On the other hand, it does have

one in the sense that there is a body of laws, customs and conventions which define the

composition and powers of organs of the State and regulate the relations of the various

state organs to one another and to the private citizen. In other words, there are established

procedures affecting the conduct of government and politics, and these are largely

adhered to.

Britain has for long been widely regarded as a country that illustrates the claim that it is

not necessary to have a codified constitution to be a constitutional democracy. After all,

Britain has been a stable democracy for over a century and scores relatively highly as a

protector of civil liberties. Some commentators identify the term ‘constitutional’ with a

system of formal checks and balances on the government and a separation of powers

between government and other bodies.

Expressions of dissatisfaction with the workings of the political system often broadened

into a general concern about the health of British democracy and sometimes fuel

demands for the adoption of a written constitution. In the past, the existence of a

competitive two-party system, with its implicit checks and balances, independent groups

sharing élite values and traditions, and a broad political consensus may have made

constitutional safeguards seem unnecessary. Party competition, élite selfrestraint in the

exercise of power, and a broad political consensus had provided some insurance against

the abuse of power. But critics complain that these safeguards can no longer be taken for

granted.

There is a historical explanation why the British constitution is not codified in one

document. Since the system had evolved over centuries there already existed established

ways of conducting politics in Britain before written constitutions became fashionable. It

is only in the last two hundred years or so starting with the United States, that written

constitutions have spread. Most constitutions were originally adopted by states when they

became independent or suffered a rupture in their evolution through internal collapse or

invasion. In Britain, neither the system of government nor a formal set or rules has been

adopted at one point in time. Instead there is a political system, or set of arrangements,

and a style of politics that have evolved over centuries, rather than a constitution.

In a strict sense the British constitution is not unwritten, for large parts are documented.

An outstanding feature is that its principles are not codified but dispersed – across statute

law, common law, judges’ interpretations of these laws, and conventions – though texts

and commentaries on the constitution do provide some integration.

There are several sources of the constitution including:

1. Statute law, or law made by Parliament, which overrides common law and provides a

substantial part of the constitution. It includes such measures as the Bill of Rights (1689),

the Act of Union with Scotland (1707), successive Representation of the People Acts, and

the Government of Ireland Act (1920). These laws are made and may be unmade by Act

of Parliament, like any other. Even the provision that the House of Commons may not

prolong its own life beyond a five-year span without the consent of the House of Lords

may be changed by the normal legislative process.

2. Case law, or judges’ interpretations of statutes. Judges do not rule on the validity of a

law, duly passed by Parliament, but they do have the right to decide whether it has been

properly applied. By their interpretations the judges have an opportunity to shape the

application of the law.

3. European community law, expressed in the European Communities Act to which

Britain was a co-signatory in 1972, and subsequently amended by the Single European

Act (1987) and the European Communities (Amendment) Act (1993), which gave effect

to the Maastricht Treaty, now European Union law. British authorities are required to

accept the rules and regulations of the treaties, commitments flowing from them, and

future decisions taken by Community institutions. Community laws and regulations are

made by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, and the European Court

of Justice declares which laws are self-executing.

4. Common law, for example, the traditional rights and liberties of subjects which have

been handed down by precedents and upheld by the courts.

5. Conventions or rules which, though lacking the force of law, have been adhered to for

so long that they are regarded as having a special authority. The conventions differ in

their firmness. Firm ones include the expectation that Parliament will be called at least

once a year, that the monarch will give her assent to legislation which has duly passed

through the appropriate stages in the two Houses of Parliament, and that the Prime

Minister and government will resign or dissolve Parliament following defeat on a

confidence vote in the Commons. On the other hand, some recent political developments

are matters of debate because no conventions have evolved. One can certainly envisage

political situations in the future where lack of relevant precedents will create uncertainty

about the appropriate course to follow.