# data[].attributes.headline
Parliament.  Government. What's the difference? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Parliament.  Government. What's the difference? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explains the purpose of Parliament and what MPs do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New "English votes for English laws" rules have been implemented in the House of Commons for the first time.

Conservative MPs cheered as English and Welsh members prepared to give their consent to parts of the Housing and Planning Bill that only apply to their constituencies.

Housing Minister Brandon Lewis said he was "very proud" to be implementing the reforms.

But the SNP said the changes were "driving Scotland out of the door".

They were introduced in response to calls for a stronger voice for English MPs following increased devolution to Scotland.

Where parts of a bill are deemed to only affect England, or England and Wales, a new stage is added to the usual law-making process at which only MPs for English - or English and Welsh - constituencies can vote.

Following the end of the Housing Bill's report stage, Speaker John Bercow suspended the sitting of the Commons for five minutes before finalising which provisions applied to which nations.

After MPs debated the new rules - MPs representing Scottish constituencies were entitled to speak but not to vote - the "consent motion" for England and Wales was agreed without a division.

The Housing Bill, which includes an extension of the right-to-buy for housing association tenants in England, was later approved by all MPs at third reading stage.

The new process in a flow chart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'English votes' rules used for first time in House of Commons - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New "English votes for English laws" rules have been implemented in the House of Commons for the first time. Conservative MPs cheered as English and Welsh members prepared to give their consent to parts of the Housing and Planning Bill that only apply to their constituencies.

# data[].attributes.body
Read the article attached below

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since 1999, the way the United Kingdom is run has been transformed by devolution - a process designed to decentralise government and give more powers to the three nations which, together with England, make up the UK.
The United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Devolution essentially means the transfer of powers from the UK parliament in London to assemblies in Cardiff and Belfast, and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.

When did it begin?
Public votes were held in 1997 in Scotland and Wales, and a year later in both parts of Ireland.

This resulted in the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Devolution applied in different ways in each nation due to historical and administrative differences.
What powers are devolved?
The table below gives an overview of the main powers given to the Northern Irish and Welsh assemblies, and the Scottish Parliament.

SCOTLAND

WALES

N. IRELAND

*Scotland has always had its own legal system

What powers are not devolved?
The UK government is responsible for national policy on all powers which have not been devolved.

These are known usually as "reserved powers" and include foreign affairs, defence, international relations and economic policy.

This table gives an overview of the main non-devolved powers.

SCOTLAND

WALES

N. IRELAND

** - specified as "nuclear energy & installations"

+ - Non-devolved powers in Wales are by implication all those not set out in the 2006 Government of Wales Act

The Westminster Parliament is technically still able to pass laws for any part of the UK, but in practice only deals with devolved matters with the agreement of the devolved governments.
Devolution in Northern Ireland

Devolution here is slightly different to Scotland and Wales, with government powers divided into three categories: transferred, reserved and excepted.

The power-sharing agreement between the Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland is critical to the functioning of the assembly; devolution of powers has been suspended and reinstated several times since its inception in 1998.

In addition to the main devolved powers shown in the table, the assembly can also legislate on culture, arts and leisure, learning and employment and regional and social development.

In March 2010, an agreement was passed to transfer powers of justice and policing to Northern Ireland.

Reserved powers - which could be transferred in the future with cross-community consent - include prisons and civil defence.

A third category - excepted powers - includes matters such as parliamentary and assembly elections, international relations and defence.

These cannot be transferred without primary legislation from Westminster.
Devolution in Scotland

Scotland has a "parliament" as opposed to an "assembly" - the crucial difference being that Holyrood is a legislation-making body, passing bills in various areas of its many devolved responsibilities.

The Scottish parliament also has the power to raise or lower the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound - although this so-called "Tartan Tax" has never been used.

In addition to the main devolved powers shown in the table, the parliament can legislate on tourism, economic development, planning, natural and built heritage, sport and the arts, as well as statistics, public registers and records.

The primary powers retained by Westminster include foreign policy, defence and trade and industry.
Devolution in Wales

The Government of Wales Act of 2006 gives the Welsh assembly powers to make its own laws, but limits its scope to defined "fields"; a broad subject area such as education or health.

Within these fields, the assembly is able to enact its own laws, known as measures. The major areas in which the assembly can legislate are listed in the table above.

In addition, the assembly can make laws relating to ancient monuments and historic buildings, public administration, sport and recreation, tourism, town and country planning, flood defences, the assembly itself, and the Welsh language.

By omission, anything not contained in the current list of measures remains under the control of the Parliament in Westminster.

The assembly is split into executive and legislative branches: the Welsh assembly government controls day-to-day running of devolved policy areas within the country, while the National Assembly for Wales scrutinises and debates the assembly government's work.

The assembly could increase its powers in the future and may one day evolve into a body similar to the Scottish Parliament.

In February 2010, assembly members voted in favour of holding a referendum on devolving further powers from Westminster. This motion must now gain approval from both Houses of Parliament.
Why is there not an 'English parliament'?
The UK government is responsible for all matters in England which have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

However devolution has caused some tensions, particularly over public spending.

The new powers of the Scottish Parliament have allowed it to abolish university tuition fees and prescription charges. These services are not free in England.

However Scotland's public services are still paid for by all UK taxpayers under the terms of the Barnett formula, which allocates funding around different parts of the country.

Some in England are increasingly unhappy, seeing this as English taxpayers subsidising free services in Scotland.

A recent survey of 980 people by the left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested 40% of those questioned believe this situation unfair, compared with 22% in 2003.

Delivering the report, Professor John Curtice said if the trends continued, politicians "may no longer be able to safely assume that England can be ignored in the devolution debate".

MOST POPULAR ELECTION STORIES NOW

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 1999, the way the United Kingdom is run has been transformed by devolution - a process designed to decentralise government and give more powers to the three nations which, together with England, make up the UK. The United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

# data[].attributes.headline
Welcome to your new A level Politics specification!  This document will provide you with the outline of the course and the wonderful topics you will explore over your first year.

# data[].attributes.subject
Welcome to your new A level Politics specification!  This document will provide you with the outline of the course and the wonderful topics you will explore over your first year.

# data[].attributes.body
You may ask yourselves, where can Politics lead in terms of employability? Read this document to open your minds to a wide range of possibilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The new shadow lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, has predicted that the Lords will throw out any attempt by the new justice secretary, Michael Gove, to replace the Human Rights Act. A new British bill of rights is expected to be included in next week's Queen's speech to replace the act passed by the Labour government in 1998 as a way of incorporating the European convention on human rights into UK law.

Falconer, speaking with the authority of the shadow cabinet, warned on Friday: "The Lords over the past 20 years have come to see their role as guardians of our constitution, and if the Conservative measures strike at fundamental constitutional rights, the Lords will throw this back to the Commons."

He told the Guardian that the Lords, where the Conservatives do not have a majority, would be within its rights under the Salisbury convention to throw out the measure altogether - since the Tories' intentions were only set out vaguely in their election manifesto. If the Lords threw out the bill the government would need to use the Parliament Act, probably in 2017, to force the bill on to the statute book without Lords consent.

Falconer described the plans as a dishonest muddle and said with an overall Commons Conservative majority of 12 and civil libertarian Tory MPs uneasy at the plans there was a "question mark" over whether the bill could get through the Commons without defeats.

An October 2014 policy document published by the Conservatives expressed a general desire for the UK to remain part of the European convention on human rights, but only if "the Council of Europe will recognise these changes to our human rights laws". It contains the warning that "in the event that we are unable to reach that agreement, the UK would be left with no alternative but to withdraw from the ECHR, at the point at which our bill comes into effect".

The Conservative manifesto repeats the party's intention to "scrap" the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British bill of rights. It also promises to "curtail the role of the European court of human rights", break the formal link between British courts and the European court of human rights and make the supreme court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK. In contrast to the autumn policy paper, it does not mention withdrawal from the convention.

The appointment of Gove, along with that of Dominic Raab as justice minister, suggests David Cameron recognises the large intellectual, legal and political hurdles in turning the manifesto commitment into law.

The Tories have so far been unclear on the extent to which the British bill of rights would merely replicate the existing rights in the convention or the extent to which parliament would in future be entitled to ignore European court of human rights rulings.

Falconer argued: "The basic pitch that the Tories are making is that you can have some form of British human rights that don't involve things that are quite unpopular - such not being able to deport terrorists if those people are going to be tortured or killed when they get home. But you cannot have reliable human rights if only the human rights that survive are those that the executive are happy to tolerate, and not the human rights that are inconvenient to the executive or unpopular. If you only support those sorts of human rights then the citizen is completely at the mercy of the state because the state simply changes those rights when it does not like the answers the courts are giving.

"The Tories are fooling someone. It is either fooling the British public that it is possible only to have rights that the government likes, and still remain within the ECHR and the Council of Europe, or it is fooling both the British public and the Council of Europe that we are going to leave the convention and therefore the Council of Europe.

"The significance of having a commitment to an above-nation convention means there is some body, namely the European court of human rights, that sets out the position that is not in any way changeable by the British government."

Labour's record on civil liberties has sometimes been ambivalent, but Falconer is determined to send a clear and early message. He said: "We in the Labour party unreservedly defend the current settlement on human rights. We accept the courts will make some unpopular decisions but that is the price you pay for the rule of law. So far these Tory proposals are dishonest, incoherent and damaging and I really hope that Gove - who is by all accounts an intelligent person - will look at this again."

Withdrawal from the convention would send "an appalling signal", Falconer said, adding: "It would confirm to so many countries in the world that adherence to human rights is wrong and they could forever cite the UK. It would also be completely at odds with our commitments to other conventions such as the UN charter."

He also said it would drive a further wedge between Scotland and England since Scotland would oppose withdrawal, taking a fundamental building block out of the devolution settlement.

He accepted there were reasonable proposals for reform of the European court in Strasbourg such as speeding up hearings and giving full support to the notion the court should allow greater scope for national interpretations.

He argued the concern over sovereignty of the UK was misplaced. He said: "The supreme court in the UK in the current context can, and does from time to time, depart from existing European court decisions but if the European court determines that the convention means something else then as a matter of international law the UK government is obliged to change the law to give effect to that. Invariably the UK government has to do it through parliament and it is for the UK parliament to ultimately make the decision. This process properly respects parliamentary sovereignty and accepts the supremacy of the supreme court."

Falconer added: "The UK supreme court already is the final arbiter here. It decides the law. If the European court says otherwise it is not then a matter for domestic law to be changed. It is for the UK government to change the law by statute."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Attempt to scrap Human Rights Act will not get past Lords, Falconer warns Gove

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The new shadow lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, has predicted that the Lords will throw out any attempt by the new justice secretary, Michael Gove, to replace the Human Rights Act.

# data[].attributes.body
Can judges save us?

# data[].attributes.body
Women's Rights Campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MPs from all the major parties will argue that abortion should be provided on the NHS in England for Northern Irish women, in an amendment to the Queen's speech which supporters said would act as a warning to Downing Street about the implications of a pact with the Democratic Unionist party.

The amendment, coordinated by the Labour MP Stella Creasy with the support of the Conservative MP Sir Peter Bottomley, asks the government to consider legislating so women from Northern Ireland have NHS abortion provision when they travel to England to terminate a pregnancy.

The DUP, with whom Theresa May is seeking an agreement to support her minority Conservative government, have historically taken a hardline on abortion, and Northern Ireland has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe.

Earlier this month the supreme court ruled that women from Northern Ireland are not entitled to free access to abortions on the NHS, a judgment that coincided with talks beginning on a supply and confidence agreement between the Conservatives and the DUP - which are still deadlocked.

No deal has yet been reached by the Conservatives with the DUP, but Creasy, the MP for Walthamstow, said parties needed assurances not only that any pact with the DUP would not affect current equalities law, but that it would not tie the government's hands when future legislation was needed.

"In this parliament it is not just a matter of whether hard won progress on issues like inclusive sex and relationship education or access to services for same-sex couples will be under attack by this coalition, but also what issues don't get addressed and are ignored," she said.

"It is vital we do not let the fight for equality be sidelined, as it is clear without action Northern Irish women will pay the price for the government doing a deal to stay in power."

Among those who have signed the amendment as well as Creasy and Bottomley are the SNP's Alison Thewliss and the Green party's co-leader, Caroline Lucas. It has also been signed by 20 Labour MPs, including the former home affairs select committee chair, Yvette Cooper, Jess Phillips, Liz Kendall, Diana Johnson and Alison McGovern.

Other progressive Conservatives initially expressed discomfort at the talks, citing the party's record on same-sex marriage and abortion, but Theresa May told MPs the party would not have influence on social policy.

The amendment is unlikely to gain enough traction to pass through parliament but MPs hope it will serve to galvanise parliamentarians concerned about the impact of a deal with the DUP on women's rights.

Creasy said MPs were still concerned that any changes to the law, including changes responding to the supreme court judgment on abortion, might be hostage to a deal with the DUP.

"How can it be right that if a Northern Irish woman comes to England and needs her appendix out, as a UK taxpayer we don't charge her, but if she needs an abortion we do?" she said.

"Challenging the government's decision to continue charging women for this service isn't about the ability of the Northern Irish assembly to make decisions on matters like abortion rights, but how we treat all our citizens fairly when they are here on our shores."

The amendment, which echoes the wording of the supreme court judgment, says the house "respectfully regrets that measures to address the inequality in treatment of women from Northern Ireland with regard to healthcare provision were not included in the gracious speech."

The amendment says the current position "risks the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy which may cause distress or illness to the patient concerned purely on the basis of her place of residence within the UK rather than any medical requirements".

The Department of Health is asked to consider legislating to ensure all UK citizens including those from Northern Ireland "may access medical services including abortion procedures in England if they so wish without charge and that such provision does not interfere with decisions made by the Northern Ireland assembly with regard to the provision of such services in Northern Ireland."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MPs to argue Northern Irish women have right to abortion on NHS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MPs from all the major parties will argue that abortion should be provided on the NHS in England for Northern Irish women, in an amendment to the Queen's speech which supporters said would act as a warning to Downing Street about the implications of a pact with the Democratic Unionist party.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is calling on the government to fight to keep Britain in the single market, as senior opposition politicians step up the pressure on Theresa May for a softer Brexit after her Commons majority was wiped out at the general election.

In a statement, Khan said: "The prime minister sought a mandate from the British people for her version of hard Brexit but the electorate registered their opposition. It's time she heeded the message.

"The Brexit goalposts have been moved. The government must now listen to the will of the people by putting aside ideology, and negotiating a sensible Brexit that ensures continued membership of the single market."

He said continued single market membership represented the best chance to preserve London's tech, pharmaceutical and financial services industries.

Some of the prime minister's own cabinet colleagues, including the chancellor, Philip Hammond, appear to have taken the election result as a vindication of their view that the economy must take priority in the negotiations, which started on Monday.

Hammond told the BBC on Thursday morning, as May prepared to travel to Brussels to meet her EU counterparts, that transitional arrangements as the UK leaves could last as long as four years, to avoid a "cliff edge" for businesses.

Khan's intervention comes as a cross-party group of more than 40 opposition MPs calls for Britain to remain in the customs union, which allows goods to pass freely across borders - including between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

An early day motion (EDM) tabled by Labour MPs including Stephen Doughty and Chuka Umunna, points out the benefits of the customs union - including the maintenance of a soft border in Ireland - and urges the government to "negotiate for the UK to remain a member of the EU customs union following the government's withdrawal from the EU".

It has already been signed by more than 40 MPs, including potential Liberal Democrat leadership contender Ed Davey, the SNP's Stephen Gethins, and Green co-leader Caroline Lucas, as well as a cross-section of Labour MPs. EDMs, tabled in parliament, are a way for MPs to signal their strength of feeling about a subject.

Privately, some Conservative MPs are also supportive of the idea of remaining in the customs union. Wednesday's Queen's speech included eight Brexit bills, which the government hopes to pass over the next two years, including a customs bill - but without a majority the government will have to rely on the Democratic Unionist party's 10 MPs, as well as solid support from its own backbenchers, to get the legislation through the Commons.

In her Lancaster House speech in January, the prime minister announced that she planned to leave the most important aspects of the customs union so that the UK could negotiate its own trade deals with other nations.

Earlier this week, a group of 30 Labour MPs signalled their intention to campaign for the UK to remain in the single market - a different position from the party's frontbench, which believes single market membership will lapse when the UK leaves, and seeks tariff-free trade but not full membership.

But the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has said Labour was willing to work with backbenchers from any party to thwart the prime minister's pre-election prospectus for Brexit, which made controlling immigration the first priority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sadiq Khan adds voice to calls for UK to remain in single market

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is calling on the government to fight to keep Britain in the single market, as senior opposition politicians step up the pressure on Theresa May for a softer Brexit after her Commons majority was wiped out at the general election.

# data[].attributes.body
Compulsory Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are warnings of confusion over university admissions from changes to GCSE exams in England which will create two different pass grades.

A number of universities have minimum entry grades at GCSE level - such as a C grade pass at maths and English.

But GCSEs are switching to numerical grades, from 9 to 1, and there is uncertainty because both 4 and 5 are officially classed as pass grades.

Universities are now setting different "pass" grade equivalents.

University College London says a C grade pass now requires a grade 5, while Manchester University has set the benchmark at grade 4.

Deborah Streatfield, founder of careers advice charity My Big Career, said students and parents were "confused" and looking for advice.

"It's inconceivable that a simple task of deciding a pass has led to a ridiculous "standard pass" and a "good pass".

"Universities and employers need to decide whether a 4 or 5 is the benchmark.

"At the moment different standards across universities will lead to a divisive landscape leading to disadvantaged students losing out again."

Different types of 'pass'

Pupils taking their English and maths GCSEs this year will be the first to get the new numerical grades this summer - and these results will have an impact on university applications as well as getting on to A-level courses.

For pupils who get a grade 4 in English and maths, it means that they will already be below the threshold for some universities - even though it is a pass grade - and before they even begin their A-level courses.

The new numerical system will be phased in for other GCSE subjects over the next few years.

When the Education Secretary Justine Greening explained the new points system to the education select committee in March she said that grade 4 would be a "standard pass" and grade 5 would be a "strong pass".

She wrote to the committee chairman to clarify that grade 4 was the "equivalent to a C and above" - and that employers and universities would be expected to recognise the grade 4.

But there are different interpretations from different universities.

University College London says it expects applicants for all subjects to have a C grade at maths and English GCSE - but under the new system that will be a grade 5.

King's College London also makes a grade 5 an equivalent of a grade C for its admissions.

But Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool put grade 4 as their requirement.

London School of Economics, which previously required grade Bs, now requires a 5, although a B grade could also be the equivalent of a 6.

Oxford and Cambridge, which run their own tests and interview systems, do not have such across-the-board minimum requirements for GCSEs.

A spokesman for the exam regulator Ofqual said that it remained up to universities to set their admissions rules.

But the spokesman said that this year's GCSE candidates would not apply this year - and the requirements might be re-set again after the first wave of results.

Suzanne O'Farrell of the ASCL head teachers' union said that some schools might be "future proofing" their pupils' results by treating grade 5 as a pass rather than a grade 4.

But she said it would not be until next year that it would become apparent how universities would interpret the pass grade.

A Department for Education spokesman said that the changes were "part of our drive to continue raising standards" and a wide range of resources had been produced to explain the new grading system.

"Most recently every school and college have been sent a pack with information for teachers, students, parents, and employers."

A website had also been launched to answer questions people may have, he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are warnings of confusion over university admissions from changes to GCSE exams in England which will create two different pass grades. A number of universities have minimum entry grades at GCSE level - such as a C grade pass at maths and English.

# data[].attributes.body
Research the key sources which make up the UK Constitution.  You should include the following:
- Parliamentary Statutes
- Conventions
- Common Law
- Treaties (EU law)
- Authoritative Works

Create a table with the following headings:
- Type of source
- Explanation
- Example of Source
(Stretch and Challenge - optional.  Include an additonal column providing critical commentary on the sources i.e. are they effective, are there any limitaitons, do they affect the UK negatively in any way.)

# data[].attributes.body
How to summarise effectively

# data[].attributes.body
How to be an effective reader!

# data[].attributes.body
This a research task on the 6 named historical documents with focus on how they have impacted the constitution.  Use some of the documents below to aid with your research.

The documents are set out below:
- Magna Carta (1215)
- Bill of Rights (1689)
- Act of Settlement (1701)
- Acts of Union (1707)
- Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949)
- The European Communities Act (1972)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today Magna Carta has become a world-class brand, representing human rights, democracy and free speech - despite the fact that the original document makes no mention of these principles. Joshua Rozenberg explains Magna Carta's place in modern legal and popular culture, and reveals the importance of its 800-year-old symbolism.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg explores the influence Magna Carta has within the UK's legal system, and asks what the charter means for us today.

Magna Carta is a world-class brand. It stands for human rights and democracy. It stands for trial by jury. It stands for free speech, the rule of law and personal liberty.

Except it doesn't mention any of these things - even in translation. Instead, Magna Carta has quite a bit to say about fish weirs and river banks, about taxes and debts. Two months after King John (r.1199-1216) granted the charter to his barons, he had it nullified by the Pope. There were good grounds to do so, since it was extracted from the King by duress. Although Magna Carta was later reissued, only a few sentences remain on the statute book today.

Usage terms: : Public Domain

But brands are not just the sum of their parts. To most people, Coca-Cola means a lot more than sweetened fizzy water with added natural flavouring. Apple products are adored by users who are utterly indifferent to personal computers. And Magna Carta is similarly iconic: regardless of what it says on the parchment, it enjoys instant recognition as the most important legal document in the common law world.

We see that from the countless images of King John meeting the barons in 1215, all of them imaginary and most of them wildly anachronistic. We see it in the bags and baubles, the mugs and magnets, sold on the strength of two Latin words. We see it in newspaper cartoons, with David Low warning us in the Evening Standard in 1934 that Oswald Mosley's 'Magnissima Carta' would mean the end of free speech and Peter Brookes telling us in The Times in 2005 that Tony Blair's anti-terrorism controls left the United Kingdom with no more than a 'Mini Carta'.

And we hear it in the immortal lines spoken in 1959 by one of television's best-loved comedians. 'Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?' demanded Tony Hancock (1924-68) of his fellow jurors: 'Did she die in vain?' Perhaps Galton and Simpson, Hancock's scriptwriters, were recalling Sellar and Yeatman's classic history spoof 1066 And All That, with its frontispiece image of a king smitten by the sight of his lady's magna garter.

The symbolism of Magna Carta

Such confusion - iconoclasm, even - is understandable in a nation that puts its trust in people rather than in paper. The British have never codified their constitution because most people think that writing it down would not achieve very much. Magna Carta may vie with the English language itself for the title of Britain's greatest gift to the world, but its place in the laws of England and Wales is largely symbolic.

And yet it is a symbolism that crosses the political spectrum, inspiring fascists and communists, suffragists and environmentalists. Nelson Mandela (1918-2013), speaking from the dock during the Rivonia trial of 1964, expressed his admiration for it. The German-born composer Kurt Weill (1900-50) based a cantata on it. Churchill was advised that a copy of the original charter might reinforce a shared political heritage and secure the support of the United States in World War II.

Usage terms: : Public Domain

Score of The Ballad of Magna Carta

Composed by Kurt Weill and first performed in 1940, The Ballad portrays King John as a deeply unpopular monarch, abandoned by his supporters and compelled to agree to Magna Carta.

To some, it seems to be a magic charter. Magna Carta was relied on by one of the Occupy London group of protestors who camped in the courtyard of St Paul's Cathedral in the winter of 2011/12. Paul Randle-Jolliffe maintained that his supposed descent from one of King John's barons exempted him from compliance with an eviction order - until the Court of Appeal explained that 'Magna Carta heir' was a concept unknown to the law. As the judges told him, 'Chapter 29, with its requirement that the state proceeds according to the law and its prohibition on the selling or delaying of justice, is seen by many as the historical foundation for the rule of law in England; but it has no bearing on the arguments in this case.'

That was not a reference to clause 29 of the first Magna Carta. After its annulment in 1215, that charter was revised and reissued in 1216, 1217 and 1225. It was the 1225 version - much shorter than the original - that was confirmed by Edward I (r.1272-1307) and found its way on to the first Statute Roll in 1297. And most of the 1297 statute was repealed by Parliament at various times between 1828 and 1969.

Usage terms: : Public Domain

Usage terms: : Public Domain

The modern legal interpretation of Magna Carta

Just three clauses of that statute remain law in England and Wales today. Clause 1 provides that 'the Church of England shall be free'. Clause 9 promises that 'the City of London shall have all the old liberties and customs' that it had before. But the best-known remnant is clause 29. Derived from clauses 39 and 40 of the 1215 charter, it says:

No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.

These are fine principles but they do not stand up well to modern principles of statutory interpretation.

First, does 'man' embrace 'woman'? Yes, because the Interpretation Act 1978 says that 'words importing the masculine gender include the feminine'. Next, can anyone who is not a 'freeman' claim the rights listed in the first sentence? Historians tell us that freemen were able to marry or go where they pleased, unlike the rural peasantry or serfs who were generally bonded to their land and unable to marry without purchasing their lord's permission. Fortunately, the Human Rights Act 1998 requires all legislation to be given effect in a way that is compatible with human rights. Courts would be expected to interpret 'freemen' as meaning 'all people'.

So the first sentence of clause 29 seems to mean that nobody can be convicted or punished except by the law of the land. One should not underestimate the importance of such a concession by the King in 1215. 'There, clearly recognisable, was the rule of law in embryo,' observed Lord Bingham, perhaps the most eminent English judge of recent times.

In the United Kingdom, governments would continue to observe the law of the land even if clause 29 of the 1297 statute were repealed. And yet the rule of law is far from universal. In the spring of 2014, almost 800 years after Magna Carta was granted, we saw protestors shot dead by military snipers in Kiev, a city at the very borders of Europe. There are several parts of the world in which opponents of the ruling regime simply 'disappear'. Their supporters would welcome concessions such as those made by King John in 1215.

The second sentence of chapter 29 was cited by a High Court judge as recently as 2007. Quoting Sir James Holt's resonant translation (1965) 'to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice', Mr Justice Munby complained about the time the courts had taken to hear a housing claim, expressing the view that 'the potential delay here amounted to a denial of justice in the sense in which that phrase is used in Magna Carta'. Warming to his theme, Munby said there were 'some principles that ring down the centuries'. In this respect, he continued, the message of Magna Carta was 'timeless'.

Is Magna Carta still used in the courts?

A search of the Westlaw UK database reveals that the courts of England and Wales have referred to Magna Carta in around 160 reported judgments over a period of some 450 years: not, perhaps, a particularly large number. And I have not found a single modern English case that was decided on the strength of Magna Carta alone.

Litigants-in-person - non-lawyers - tend to invest Magna Carta with more weight than it can carry. In 2013, a man acquitted of growing cannabis sought compensation from Scottish police and prosecutors for time he had spent on remand. David Watson relied on Magna Carta to support his claim that he was not bound by laws to which he had not consented. A Scottish judge had no difficulty in finding no basis for that claim.

These litigants seem to imagine that Magna Carta operates as some sort of restraint on the supremacy of Parliament. It does not. The power of Parliament to legislate as it sees fit dates from the Bill of Rights 1689. It cannot be limited by a statute passed four centuries earlier.

Judges do not enforce Magna Carta today because its terms are too broad to be applied by the courts. It is all very well to say that justice delayed is justice denied. But how long does the delay have to be for it to amount to an injustice? Although some civil claims must now be lodged within a matter of weeks, there is no statute of limitations in criminal cases. Anthony Sawoniuk, a Nazi war criminal, was jailed at the Old Bailey in 1999 for murdering Jews in 1942. Roland Peter Wright, a former headmaster, was imprisoned in 2014 for abusing pupils between 1959 and 1970. Were such delays sufficiently long to render those convictions unjust?

'To no one will we sell ... justice' is another provision that is difficult to apply. Does it mean simply that judges must not take bribes? Nobody would disagree with that. Or does it mean that people who cannot afford lawyers - and even court fees - must be given the funding they need to enforce their rights?

What's more, 'judgment of his peers' does not guarantee trial by jury. Juries, as we now know them, did not exist in 1215 and are used in only a small minority of trials today.

Magna Carta is still cited in the courts of the United Kingdom - but often as little more than a historical flourish. Some examples from recent judgments: the importance attributed to personal freedom can be traced back at least to Magna Carta; it has been said from the time of Magna Carta that justice delayed is justice denied; and open justice is one of the oldest principles of English law, going back to before Magna Carta. And here is Lady Justice Arden, giving judgment in 2011. 'The right to liberty of the person is a fundamental right,' she said. 'It has been so regarded since at least the time of the well-known provisions of clause 39 of Magna Carta, which in due course found its reflection in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 5 of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights].'

Usage terms: : Public Domain

Usage terms: : Public Domain

Magna Carta in the United States

This takes us to lands where Magna Carta is revered rather more than in the country of its birth. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Article 9, summarising clause 39 of the 1215 charter, says, 'No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile'.

That, in turn, led directly to the European Convention on Human Rights, which took effect in 1953. Article 5 begins: 'Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person'. Through the Human Rights Act 1998, article 5 became enforceable against public bodies in the courts of the United Kingdom.

In 1939, when Lincoln Cathedral's copy of the 1215 charter was put on show at the World Fair in New York, an estimated 14 million people went to see it in just six months. After war broke out, the cathedral's copy was stranded in the United States, leading to the suggestion that the Americans should be allowed to keep it - or alternatively have it replaced with one of the copies now displayed in the British Library.

It would have been a priceless gift. An American author, writing in 1991, calculated that more than 900 federal and state courts in the United States had cited Magna Carta. In the half-century between 1940 and 1990, the United States Supreme Court had done so in more than sixty cases.

More recently, the highest court in the United States had to decide whether foreign prisoners detained by the United States at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could seek writs of habeas corpus that might lead to their release. Allowing their appeal in 2008, the court traced that powerful remedy back beyond the United States constitution of 1789 to what the judges regarded as its origin in clause 39 of Magna Carta. 'Gradually, the writ of habeas corpus became the means by which the promise of Magna Carta was fulfilled,' wrote Justice Kennedy for the majority.

Usage terms: : Public Domain

A writ of habeas corpus ('have the body') commands someone holding a prisoner to bring that person before the court and justify imprisonment. But the link between Magna Carta and habeas corpus is surely romantic rather than historic. The writ was established in its modern form in the late sixteenth century, although its origins can be traced back to medieval court records.

A constitutional instrument

Despite all this, there is more to Magna Carta than words and parchment. It is not just one of the oldest statutes in force. It is, as the United Kingdom Supreme Court noted in January 2014, a constitutional instrument - standing alongside the Petition of Right 1628, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Act of Union 1707. It was arguable, said the court, that fundamental principles contained in such constitutional instruments were not abrogated by the European Communities Act, which requires courts in the United Kingdom to follow European law.

Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, summed it up well in 2014.

Whatever we may find in the written text, Magna Carta has come down to us through the centuries as the most important single document in the development of constitutional and legal freedom and adherence to the rule of law in the common law world, eventually followed in and hugely influencing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

And, as Lord Bingham, another former chief justice, wrote in 2010, the few clauses of the 1215 Magna Carta that remain law today 'have the power to make the blood race'. Their words, he suggested, 'should be inscribed on the stationery of the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office in place of the rather vapid slogans which their letters now carry'.

But Bingham was too wise a judge to think he could enforce a medieval statute in modern times. 'The significance of Magna Carta,' he wrote, 'lay not only in what it actually said but, perhaps to an even greater extent, in what later generations claimed and believed it had said. Sometimes the myth is more important than the actuality.'

It is an 800-year-old myth of which we may all be proud.

Written by Joshua Rozenberg

Joshua Rozenberg is Britain's best-known commentator on the law. He presents the long-running Radio 4 series Law in Action and writes a weekly column for the Guardian.

He has a particular interest in freedom of expression and wrote the well-reviewed bookPrivacy and the Press for Oxford University Press (2004, updated 2005; Chinese edition 2012).

After taking a law degree at Oxford he trained as a solicitor, qualifying in 1976. He holds honorary doctorates in law from the University of Hertfordshire, Nottingham Trent University, the University of Lincoln and the University of Law. He is an honorary bencher of Gray's Inn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today Magna Carta has become a world-class brand, representing human rights, democracy and free speech - despite the fact that the original document makes no mention of these principles. Joshua Rozenberg explains Magna Carta's place in modern legal and popular culture, and reveals the importance of its 800-year-old symbolism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Magna Carta? Why was it created? What does it say, and why has it become one of the most celebrated documents in history?

Narrated by Monty Python's Terry Jones, this animation takes you back in time to medieval England in 1215 under the reign of Bad King John. Why was the charter originally created? And what does it actually say?

What is Magna Carta?

Magna Carta, meaning 'The Great Charter', is one of the most famous documents in the world. Originally issued by King John of England (r. 1199-1216) as a practical solution to the political crisis he faced in 1215, Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law. Although nearly a third of the text was deleted or substantially rewritten within ten years, and almost all the clauses have been repealed in modern times, Magna Carta remains a cornerstone of the British constitution.

Most of the 63 clauses granted by King John dealt with specific grievances relating to his rule. However, buried within them were a number of fundamental values that both challenged the autocracy of the king and proved highly adaptable in future centuries. Most famously, the 39th clause gave all 'free men' the right to justice and a fair trial. Some of Magna Carta's core principles are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and in many other constitutional documents around the world, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

Usage terms

Public Domain in most countries other than the UK.

Why does Magna Carta matter today?

In 1215 Magna Carta was a peace treaty between the King and the rebel barons. In that respect it was a failure, but it provided a new framework for the relationship between the King and his subjects. The 1225 version of Magna Carta, freely issued by Henry III (r. 1216-72) in return for a tax granted to him by the whole kingdom, took this idea further and became the definitive version of the text. Three clauses of the 1225 Magna Carta remain on the statute book today. Although most of the clauses of Magna Carta have now been repealed, the many divergent uses that have been made of it since the Middle Ages have shaped its meaning in the modern era, and it has become a potent, international rallying cry against the arbitrary use of power.

Usage terms

Public Domain in most countries other than the UK.

What does Magna Carta say?

Although Magna Carta contained 63 clauses when it was first granted, only three of those clauses remain part of English law. One defends the liberties and rights of the English Church, another confirms the liberties and customs of London and other towns, but the third is the most famous:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

This clause gave all free men the right to justice and a fair trial. However, 'free men' comprised only a small proportion of the population in medieval England. The majority of the people were unfree peasants known as 'villeins', who could seek justice only through the courts of their own lords.

Buried deep in Magna Carta, this clause was given no particular prominence in 1215, but its intrinsic adaptability has allowed succeeding generations to reinterpret it for their own purposes. In the 14th century Parliament saw it as guaranteeing trial by jury; in the 17th century Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) interpreted it as a declaration of individual liberty in his conflict with the early Stuart kings; and it has echoes in the American Bill of Rights (1791) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Much of the remainder of Magna Carta dealt with specific grievances regarding the ownership of land, the regulation of the justice system, and medieval taxes with no modern equivalent (such as 'scutage' and 'socage'). It demanded the removal of fish weirs from the Thames, the Medway and throughout England; the dismissal of several royal servants; the standardisation of various weights and measures; and so on.

Magna Carta stated that no taxes could be demanded without the 'general consent of the realm', meaning the leading barons and churchmen. It re-established privileges which had been lost, and it linked fines to the severity of the offence so as not to threaten an individual's livelihood. It also confirmed that a widow could not be forced to remarry against her wishes.

Why was Magna Carta created?

In 1214, a mercenary army raised by King John was defeated by the French at the Battle of Bouvines in northern France. This army had been paid largely by the tax known as 'scutage', a payment made to the Crown in place of providing knights for military service, and the focus of much baronial discontent.

King John's reign was also marked by his strained relationship with the Church. John had rejected the election of Stephen Langton (1150-1228) as Archbishop of Canterbury, and in 1208 the Pope issued a decree (known as an 'Interdict'), prohibiting people in England from receiving the sacraments or being buried in consecrated ground. King John was excommunicated by Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) in 1209, and the Interdict remained in place until John surrendered his kingdom to the overlordship of the Pope in 1213.

In 1213, a party of rebel barons met with Archbishop Stephen Langton and the papal legate (a representative of the Pope) to air their grievances against the King. They also urged that John should agree to confirm the coronation charter issued by his ancestor, King Henry I, in 1100, which had promised 'to abolish all the evil customs by which the kingdom of England has been unjustly oppressed'. In early 1215, the dispute escalated when King John refused to meet the barons' demands. In May many barons renounced their oaths of allegiance to him, choosing Robert fitz Walter (1162-1235) as their leader. Their capture of the city of London that same month was a turning point in their campaign.

Once London was in the barons' hands, John had no option but to negotiate with them. The two sides met at Runnymede, on the River Thames near Windsor in the south of England, in June 1215. The demands of the barons were recorded in the document known as the Articles of the Barons. Following further discussions with the barons and clerics led by Archbishop Langton, King John granted the Charter of Liberties, subsequently known as Magna Carta, at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. On 19 June the rebel barons made their formal peace with King John and renewed their oaths of allegiance to him.

The King's clerks set about drawing up copies of the agreement for distribution throughout the kingdom. It is not certain how many copies of the 1215 Magna Carta were originally issued, but four copies still survive: one in Lincoln Cathedral; one in Salisbury Cathedral; and two at the British Library. Like other medieval royal charters, Magna Carta was authenticated with the Great Seal, not by the signature of the king.

Usage terms

Public Domain in most countries other than the UK.

Was Magna Carta effective in the short term?

Although King John agreed the terms of Magna Carta and the barons renewed their oaths of allegiance, the settlement did not last long. Aggrieved by the manner in which Magna Carta was to be enforced, John sent messengers to the Pope (the overlord of the kingdoms of England and Ireland) in the summer of 1215, requesting that the charter be annulled. In turn, the barons refused to surrender the city of London to the King until Magna Carta had been implemented. Pope Innocent III was alarmed by the charter's terms, and on 24 August 1215 he issued a document known as a papal bull, describing Magna Carta as 'illegal, unjust, harmful to royal rights and shameful to the English people', and declaring the charter 'null and void of all validity for ever'.

In September 1215, civil war broke out between King John and his barons. The King raised an army of mercenaries to fight his cause, while the barons renounced their allegiance to him, and invited Prince Louis (1187-1226), son of the King of France, to accept the English crown. Louis invaded England in 1216, and England was still at war when John died of dysentery on the night of 18 October 1216.

Magna Carta was effectively dead, but it gained new life in the early years of the reign of the next king, Henry III. Henry was just nine years old when he succeeded to the throne, and in November 1216 a revised version of Magna Carta was issued in his name, in order to regain the support of the barons. Another version of Magna Carta was granted in the following year, after the French army had been expelled from England. In 1225, on reaching the age of 18, Henry reissued a much revised version of Magna Carta which was later enrolled on the statute book by King Edward I (r. 1272-1307) in 1297.

Usage terms

Public Domain in most countries other than the UK.

What was the long-term impact of Magna Carta?

Magna Carta is sometimes regarded as the foundation of democracy in England. In fact, most of its terms applied only to a small proportion of the population in 1215, and the implementation of the charter in subsequent centuries remained open to the interpretation of the courts.

Revised versions of Magna Carta were issued by King Henry III (in 1216, 1217 and 1225), and the text of the 1225 version was entered onto the statute roll in 1297. Magna Carta had limited the circumstances under which the King could raise money without the consent of the people. The 1225 version of Magna Carta had been granted explicitly in return for a payment of tax by the whole kingdom, and this paved the way for the first summons of Parliament in 1265, to approve the granting of taxation.

In the 17th century, opponents of King Charles I (1625-49) used Magna Carta to regulate the arbitrary use of royal authority. Sir Edward Coke, declared that 'Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no sovereign', and in 1628 he helped to draft the Petition of Right, which limited royal power and made explicit reference to Magna Carta. When King Charles was himself put on trial in 1649, it was argued that his attempts to halt the proceedings contravened the clause of Magna Carta which prohibited the delay of justice.

Magna Carta has consequently acquired a special status as the cornerstone of English liberties. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of its clauses have now been repealed, or in some cases superseded by other legislation such as the Human Rights Act (1998). Magna Carta nonetheless retains enormous symbolic power as an ancient defence against arbitrary and tyrannical rulers, and as a guarantor of individual liberties.

Claire Breay is Head of Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Manuscripts at the British Library. She is co-curator of the Library's major exhibition Magna Carta: Law Liberty, Legacy (13 March-1 September 2015) and editor of the exhibition catalogue.

Julian Harrison is Lead Curator of Medieval Historical Manuscripts at the British Library, and lead curator of the Harry Potter exhibition. He also co-curated the Library's major exhibition Magna Carta: Law Liberty, Legacy (2015) and the Our Shakespeare exhibition at the Library of Birmingham (2016).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is Magna Carta? Why was it created? What does it say, and why has it become one of the most celebrated documents in history? Narrated by Monty Python's Terry Jones, this animation takes you back in time to medieval England in 1215 under the reign of Bad King John.

# data[].attributes.body
Slides 15-18 only

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Q: What is the history of the Acts?

A: The 1911 Act, which reduced the maximum life of a Parliament from seven years to five, was pushed through by Herbert Asquith's Liberal government after two general elections in 1910 had given it a mandate, following the Lords' earlier rejection of David Lloyd George's so-called People's Budget, which provided for pensions and health insurance for the working poor. The welfare plan was linked to a new land tax to which landowners in the Lords objected, and they had halted the Budget.

The Act prevented the Lords from vetoing any tax laws and restricted their ability to delay other public Bills to just two years.

Only the threat to create hundreds of Liberal peers broke the Lords' resistance; they approved it finally on 10 August 1911 by just 131 votes to 114, prompting King George V to write: "I am spared any further humiliation."

The 1949 Act stemmed from the Lords' rejection of Clement Attlee's government's plans for nationalisation of the steel industry. It reduced the Lords' delaying powers to just one year.

Doubts have long been expressed about the validity of the 1949 legislation because the 1911 Act was used to force its successor on to the statute book. Unlike the 1911 Act, the later version was never agreed by the Lords.

Q: Which Bills are not subject to the Parliament Acts?

A: Bills prolonging the length of a Parliament beyond five years; private Bills; Bills sent from the Commons to the Lords less than a month before the end of a session; Bills which start in the Lords.

Q: When have the Parliament Acts been used?

A: The Acts have been used just six times. Since 1949, the later Act has been used to put on to the statute book the War Crimes Act 1991 - which allowed prosecution of Nazis accused of murder in German-occupied Europe during the Second World War; the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 - which introduced a list system for choosing candidates; and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 - which lowered the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16.

Q: What conditions must be met for the Acts to be used?

A: The legislation must originate in the Commons; at least one year must elapse between the second reading of the Bill in the first session in which it is rejected by the Lords, and its being passed by the Commons in the second; and the Bill must be identical to the one thrown out by the Lords.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Q: What is the history of the Acts? A: The 1911 Act, which reduced the maximum life of a Parliament from seven years to five, was pushed through by Herbert Asquith's Liberal government after two general elections in 1910 had given it a mandate, following the Lords' earlier rejection of David Lloyd George's so-called People's Budget, which provided for pensions and health insurance for the working poor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In brief:

The 1972 European Communities Act was the piece of legislation that brought the UK into the Europe Union: it gives EU law supremacy over UK national law.

A large amount of EU law effective in the UK currently relies on the 1972 Act.

The Act will be repealed through the Government's Repeal Bill. In reality this is more of a 'copy and paste' act that transfers EU regulation and law onto the UK statute book.

What is the 1972 European Communities Act?

The Act started life as the European Communities Bill, which was introduced into the House of Commons in 1972. Its purpose was to secure parliamentary approval for the Treaty of Accession signed by Edward Heath, the-then British Prime Minister, in Brussels on 22 January 1972, making the UK part of the European Economic Community.

Following 300 hours of parliamentary debate, the short 12-clause bill became law as the European Communities Act 1972. As a consequence, Britain became a member of the European Economic Community (EEC) from 1 January 1973. The EEC became the European Union (EU) following the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

Why does the 1972 Act matter?

The 1972 Act gives legal authority for EU law to have effect as national law in the UK. There are two ways in which it does this:

It ensures that some types of EU legislation - including treaty obligations and regulations - have direct effect in the UK's legal system without the UK Parliament having to pass any further legislation. For example, safety standards on imported goods have been agreed at EU level and apply in every member country.

It means that some types of EU legislation - including directives and decisions - can be made to apply in the UK either by primary legislation (Act of Parliament) or - much more commonly - by secondary legislation. An example here is the Working Time Directive which was implemented in the UK via the Working Time Regulations.

The 1972 Act also gives EU law supremacy over UK national law. Where the interpretation of EU law is in doubt, the 1972 Act requires UK courts to refer judgment to the European Court of Justice. All primary legislation enacted by the UK Parliament after the 1972 Act came into force on 1 January 1973 has effect subject to the requirements of EU law. This means that the courts are obliged to strike down legislation which is inconsistent with EU law.

Could the 1972 Act be repealed?

Like any other Act of Parliament, the 1972 Act can be removed from the statute book - or repealed - by passing another piece of primary legislation. The Government plans to do this through their recently announced Repeal Bill. This will have to pass through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, a task made much harder by the Conservatives' recent loss of their majority in the Commons.

Although 'emergency' legislation can be passed in a day when necessary, it is more typical for government bills to take six to nine months to complete their passage through both Houses of Parliament.

What would happen if we repealed the 1972 Act?

Put simply, EU legislation that currently applies in UK law by virtue of the 1972 Act would cease to have effect. This would leave big holes in the statute book - for example, in relation to workplace health and safety requirements. For this reason the Repeal Bill will actually be more of a 'copy and paste' act, transferring most of the relevant EU law onto the UK statute book in order to ensure a smooth transition as the UK leaves.

Not all the EU law that has effect in the UK is implemented through the 1972 Act. For example, the European Arrest Warrant would be unaffected by repeal of the 1972 Act, as it is given effect by a different piece of legislation - the Extradition Act 2003.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1972 European Communities Act was the piece of legislation that brought the UK into the Europe Union: it gives EU law supremacy over UK national law. A large amount of EU law effective in the UK currently relies on the 1972 Act.

# data[].attributes.headline
Removal of Peers from the House of Lords

# data[].attributes.subject
Removal of Peers from the House of Lords

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sources of the UK's Constitution - Statute Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This A Level Politics topic video introduces the concept of constitutional statute law as a source of the UK's constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historical Development of the UK Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This A Level Politics topic video explains the key features of the historical development of the UK Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constitutional Changes Under Labour (1997 - 2010): Lords Reform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This topic video explores the key constitutional changes implemented by the Labour Government in the UK between 1997 - 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Level British Politics | EU membership & the British Constitution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guide to the European Union (EU) its institutions, powers and relationship with the UK.

# data[].attributes.body
Evaluation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exploring the Constitution

In the past this has been something discussed by experts but recent changes to the Constitution have broadened the debate. Gordon Brown, when Prime Minister, raised the issue, the Yes campaign in Scotland made the need for a written constitution one of its arguments, further devolution has raised the constitutional position of English legislation and now the Political and Constitutional Reform Select committee has carried out a consultation on whether we should have a codified constitution.

Arguments for a codified constitution

It would set limits to the power of Government. In Britain, the Executive controls Parliament through the party system and legislation, which cannot be questioned by the courts, can be passed by a majority of one. The Executive also has powers under the Royal Prerogative which do not need parliamentary approval.

The Human Rights Act can be repealed at any time by Parliament and so individual rights are not embedded as in other countries. Governments have removed the right of suspected terrorists to a trial, increased the information that can be collected on individuals and are have tried to insert clauses in some Acts to try to limit judicial review. A written constitution would allow the creation of a British set of human rights, if this was thought preferable to the current European ones.

There is no process of changing the Constitution. Parties have often made changes because it suits them. Labour ended the Conservative majority in the House of Lords by removing the hereditary peers without having a plan for overall reform. Fixed-Term Parliaments were introduced because it suited the Coalition parties despite problems that this may cause in the future. Constitutional change has sometimes been approved by referendum and sometimes not. Changes that have been made have not been related to each other and left questions such as whether the House of Lords should reflect devolution.

The Constitution would be clear and interpreted by an independent judiciary. Citizens would be aware of what the constitutional position was and have more certainty if they wanted to take issues to the courts.

There would be an educational value in people being able to see and read the Constitution.

Arguments against a codified constitution

There is no need to change. More of the Constitution has been written down and areas have been established such as the independence of the Judiciary and a set of human rights. Changes can be made to improve checks and balances, for example, by strengthening Parliament as against the Executive.

The present Constitution is flexible and can easily be changed to reflect new political situations and broader social and economic change. A codified constitution would be constantly subject to interpretation by judges which might prevent new policies - in the United States the new system of healthcare was only declared legal by the vote of one judge on the Supreme Court panel that considered the issue. Some areas should not be dealt with by the courts. Ministerial Responsibility to Parliament is a key constitutional convention but it would not be appropriate for the courts to rule on whether a Minster's answer to a Parliamentary question was adequate enough to meet a constitutional provision. The Constitution has been able to adapt to the changes needed to cope with a Coalition Government.

If the constitution was codified there are two options, one is to write down what the current constitutional rules are now and another is to produce a reformed constitution that deals with current uncertainties. Either method is difficult, particularly as there are profound divisions among politicians over the European Union, reform of the House of Lords, the English Question, the Human Rights Act and the electoral system. Even if the constitution included parliamentary sovereignty as a principle, once there is a codified constitution, judges would be bound to assess Acts of Parliament against the Constitution.

A codified constitution would shift power from the democratically elected House of Commons to the unelected Judiciary. Constitutional crises are best sorted by politicians and democratic pressure can create the demand for changes as with the Scottish referendum.

clearly the most important, especially given the Constitutional changes that have been carried out by legislation since 1997. Statute Law replaces common law as it is introduced and now covers the following key areas:-

-The Bill of Rights 1689 established Parliamentary Sovereignty which Dicey's influential book of 1885 said was one of the two principles of the British Constitution

-The Representation of the People Acts and, more recently, the Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000 and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 set out who can vote and the rules for elections and parties

-The European Communities Act 1972 establishes Britain's relationship with EU institutions and makes EU law superior to British law.

-The Human Rights Act 1998 creates a clear set of rights in British Law for the first time

-The Devolution legislation defines the areas of responsibility for the devolved assemblies as against Westminster and has made Britain a partly federal state

These Acts set out a large number of the areas that a written constitution would contain. They can, however, be changed by a future Parliament with just a majority of MPs present voting for the change so they are not embedded in the way that other constitutions, which require special procedures, are. It is becoming accepted that constitutional changes require approval by the electorate but not all proposals have been subject to a referendum.

The Common Law has declined in significance but still contains important aspects of the constitution:-

-The rule of law which was Dicey's second essential principle of the British Constitution underpins common law as it has been developed by the Judiciary. No one is above the law and all have access to justice through the legal system.

-The judges have created a process of judicial review of decisions by public bodies with a set of rules as to how cases should be decided.

-The royal prerogative is the part of common law which defines the powers of the Executive, which it can exercise without Parliamentary approval, and include areas such as the declaration of war.

These areas of common law have been created by judges through deciding cases before them and are different from judicial interpretation of Acts of Parliament by which the judges use statute law to decide cases. Increasing judicial independence may mean that judges use principle of the rule of law to challenge Legislation and Government attempts to change the Constitution more often.

Constitutional conventions are rules that are accepted by the key figures in the political system. They mainly regulate the role of the monarch, the appointment of the Prime Minister and the role of the Cabinet and Ministers. The Salisbury Convention defines when the Lords can reject or delay legislation that the Commons wants and the Seward Convention requires the Scottish Parliament to be consulted on Westminster legislation affecting devolved areas. It could be debated as to whether conventions are part of the constitution as they do not have the force of law and can be ignored if political circumstances make them inconvenient.

Authoritative works may occasionally be consulted by judges to help them to interpret the law in relation to the constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Level UK Politics | What is the most important source of the UK Constitution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the past this has been something discussed by experts but recent changes to the Constitution have broadened the debate. Gordon Brown, when Prime Minister, raised the issue, the Yes campaign in Scotland made the need for a written constitution one of its arguments, further devolution has raised the constitutional position of English legislation and now the Political and Constitutional Reform Select committee has carried out a consultation on whether we should have a codified constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
How Human Rights fits in with the constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Level UK Politics | How do human rights fit with the UK constitution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guide to the UK Constitution, Constitutional reform, the UK legal system and Human Rights Act 1998

# data[].attributes.body
Parliamentary Sovereignty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looking around at the faces of new MPs, wandering bemused, around the Houses of Parliament over the past few weeks, it is easy to forget just what extraordinary power these individuals now hold.

As humble new backbenchers they may not think so, but it is no exaggeration to say that collectively and constitutionally they are now members of an institution that is nothing short of an elected dictatorship. In the general humdrum reality of British political life these powers may be theoretical - but no one living in this country should be under any doubt that they are there.

Take just a few examples. Parliament alone can determine what is legal and what is illegal in Britain - as well as the punishment for illegality. It can make war. It can dispatch ministers; prime ministers; even kings and queens. A simple majority vote in Parliament would be enough to bring back the death penalty; abolish the BBC; withdraw from the European Union; hand over the Isle of Wight to Russia; or unleash Britain's nuclear weapons.

When it is said that Parliament is "sovereign" it means just that. Over hundreds of years - through wars, negotiations, executions and conventions - it has amassed all the powers of the state that used to be in the hands of absolute medieval sovereignty. As the Swiss political theorist Jean-Louis de Lolme put it in his - not uncritical - 1771 book on the English constitution: "Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man and a man a woman." Even that is now a moot point, given recent medical advances.

In reality, of course, how Parliament exercises its power is constrained by myriad "real-life" factors. But the fact remains that, in theory at least, our 650 elected MPs and 800-odd unelected peers have far more power than most of us who voted for them would ever imagine.

The basic reason for this is that, unlike other countries - notably the United States - we do not have a written constitution whose broad principles of citizens' rights and responsibilities trump the will of the elected assembly.

In the US, Congress can pass laws, but it is ultimately the Supreme Court that judges whether those laws are "constitutional". In Britain we have a Supreme Court, but it can only interpret the laws as laid down by Parliament and the treaties that Parliament has signed up to. If the Supreme Court rules something is illegal, a simple majority vote in Parliament can make it legal.

And that is very significant. Take, for example, the bête noire of the Conservative right: the power of the European Court of Human Rights over British law. In reality the European Court has constitutional authority over our laws only because Parliament has agreed to it. If a future parliament (or indeed government) were to withdraw from the Convention on Human Rights, the court would have no authority over the UK whatsoever.

The same is true of the European Union. The UK courts recognise the supremacy of EU law on those subjects where the EU can legislate. However, this supremacy derives from the European Communities Act 1972 (and its successor acts), which could be repealed by a future parliament.

So what does sovereignty actually mean? How did the concept develop? And what is the relationship between the two elements of Parliament: the Commons and the Lords?

Sovereignty means that Parliament can make laws concerning anything. It means that no Parliament can "bind" a future parliament to something on which it has previously legislated; and that a valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by a court of law.

The root of these powers goes back to the English Civil War but it was not until the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights (1689) that stemmed from it that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty really took root.

That document, for the first time, laid down limits on the powers of the monarch and set out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament. It also stated that no laws could be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament and that no taxes could be levied without its authority.

Since then, parliamentary power has evolved without recourse to another such fundamental document of rights. Powers that used to be the preserve of the sovereign have gradually been transferred to Parliament while the Commons has exerted its supremacy over the Lords. For example, the Parliament Act 1911 abolished the power of the House of Lords to veto a bill passed by the House of Commons (peers can now delay legislation only for a defined period of time). Similarly, in 1945, faced with the prospect of a Labour-dominated Commons and a Conservative-dominated Lords, the leaders of both Houses agreed the Salisbury Convention: that is, that in future, peers should not oppose legislation contained in a party's election manifesto at second reading. It is, however, no more than a convention.

But while Britain does not have a written constitution defining the powers of Parliament it is not entirely true to say that none of the UK constitution's rules is written down. In fact, there are several documents that come close to being constitutional textbooks.

The most important of these (which is still updated more than 170 years after publication) is Erskine May's A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. This sets down the rules of parliamentary procedure and the relationship between the executive, legislature and sovereign and is still regularly cited as the ultimate arbiter of Britain's unwritten constitution.

Yet the truth is it is only a guide; and the principal point remains. Britain's system of government has been built up over the years on foundations that consist largely of convention, with no overarching legal document that codifies and guarantees the rights of citizens. As long as that remains the case - and repeated calls for a constitutional convention to rectify the situation show little sign of being heeded - the theoretical power of Parliament is fundamentally unchecked.

Key texts: The sovereignty of Parliament
A | From the Petition of Right (1628):
"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty... your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament."
B | From the Bill of Rights (1689):
"The... Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons... being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

* That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

* That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

* That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

* That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

* That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

* That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

* That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

* ... And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
C | From 'Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution', by A V Dicey (1885; 10th edn, 1959 by E C S Wade):
"The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament...

"Parliamentary sovereignty is therefore an undoubted legal fact. It is complete both on its positive and on its negative side. Parliament can legally legislate on any topic whatever which, in the judgment of Parliament, is a fit subject for legislation. There is no power which, under the English constitution, can come into rivalry with the legislative sovereignty of Parliament. No one of the limitations alleged to be imposed by law on the absolute authority of Parliament has any real existence, or receives any countenance, either from the statute-book or from the practice of the Courts."
D | From 'Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament', by Thomas Erskine May (first edition, 1844):
"The legislative authority of Parliament extends over the United Kingdom, and all its colonies and foreign possessions; there are no other limits to its power of making laws for the whole empire than those which are incident to all sovereign authority - the willingness of the people to obey, or their power to resist. Unlike the legislatures of many other countries, it is bound by no fundamental charter or constitution; but has itself the sole constitutional right of establishing and altering the laws and government of the empire."
E | From 'The English Constitution', by Walter Bagehot (1867):
"The ultimate authority in the English Constitution is a newly-elected House of Commons."

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Independent guide to the UK constitution: The supremacy of

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking around at the faces of new MPs, wandering bemused, around the Houses of Parliament over the past few weeks, it is easy to forget just what extraordinary power these individuals now hold.

# data[].attributes.body
Core Principles of the Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Constitution, Series 3, David Baddiel Tries to Understand - BBC Radio 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
David Baddiel tries to understand the United Kingdom's constitution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Task 1 - Choose one of the essays below to answer.  Be mindful of how many marks the essay is worth.  Use this as a guide for how much time you should spend writing it.  If it takes you hours to write, you are not doing yourselves any favours! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Task 1 - Choose one of the essays below to answer.  Be mindful of how many marks the essay is worth.  Use this as a guide for how much time you should spend writing it.  If it takes you hours to write, you are not doing yourselves any favours! 

# data[].attributes.body
Task 2 - Read the article 'Devolution in the UK.  Has it been a success?'.  Answer the following questions.

Has devolution been successful?  Create a table with a 'no' list and a 'yes' list.

Should there be further devolved powers?  Justify your answer.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org/publications/2015/8/13/lords-reform-mythbuster

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the current situation in the Lords?

Primarily the Lords acts as a deliberative and scrutinising chamber, providing specialist advice and playing an essential role in making laws. Lords also hold limited powers to propose, revise and delay legislation. However, the Lords cannot currently claim legitimacy and to be representing the public as they have not been elected. Members are appointed by the government and appointments are often made on the basis of political patronage. All new appointments are for life. Additionally, bishops are automatically made members and a number of hereditary peers remain. In total, the Lords currently stands at 790 peers eligible to sit, an unusually large second chamber.

What is the problem?

In a democracy, everyone who makes laws should be elected by the people and be capable of being thrown out by voters. The current House of Lords lacks legitimacy as members are appointed rather than elected. As these are appointments for life, the chamber also lacks a system to hold members accountable to the public. The Lords cannot claim to be representing the public, even though they have considerable influence over law making. Membership is skewed towards London and the South East, meaning that the chamber does not currently represent the whole of the UK equally.

A distinctive feature of the House of Lords is that members should be able to exercise independence which contrasts with many members of the House being former MPs or having a partisan background. The ever-growing size of the second chamber also poses a problem as the Lords could perform its deliberative and scrutinising functions at a smaller size if attendance was also made a priority. Even with a low attendance rate, members are still able to use public resources and make tax free expenses claims of up to £300 a day.

Reform of the House of Lords also has significant public support. Opinion polls show that the public overwhelmingly support Lords reform with the view that the House of Lords should mostly be composed of elected members. In 2007, ICM conducted a poll on behalf of Unlock Democracy where 63% supported a fully elected second chamber. More recently, a YouGov poll commissioned by Unlock Democracy found that 69% of voters support a reformed House of Lords.

What is the solution?

In summary, we propose:

A fully directly elected second chamber, elected in halves for 8-10 year terms.

A reduction in size to between 250-350 members.

Experts to be brought in through the committee system.

Maintaining a clear distinction between the House of Commons and the second chamber, ensuring the primacy of the Commons.

A probationary period between being elected to the House of Commons after being elected to the Lords and vice versa.

Government ministers not being allowed to sit in the second chamber.

No reserved places for religious representatives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Primarily the Lords acts as a deliberative and scrutinising chamber, providing specialist advice and playing an essential role in making laws. Lords also hold limited powers to propose, revise and delay legislation. However, the Lords cannot currently claim legitimacy and to be representing the public as they have not been elected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A guide to the House of Lords explaining who the Lords are and what they do. This teaching resource aims to help students understand the House of Lords and its history. Download supporting lesson resources here: http://www.parliament.uk/education/teaching-resources-lesson-plans/house-of-lords-what/ Subscribe to UK Parliament for more videos https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=UKParliament Follow @UKParlEducation on Twitter for more resources and information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who is in the House of Lords? Jump Start

# data[].attributes.body
Wider reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has admitted he "steamrollered" devolution through 20 years ago despite objections from many within the Labour party.

Speaking to BBC Wales ahead of the anniversary of the referendum, he said there had been a "considerable" battle.

The September 1997 poll narrowly backed the creation of the Welsh Assembly.

Mr Blair also said he underestimated Rhodri Morgan after failing to give him a ministerial job and then supporting Alun Michael to lead the assembly.

The 1997 referendums in Wales and Scotland took place after Labour had made it a manifesto commitment in that year's general election campaign, which it won by a landslide.

Scotland voted by a three-to-one margin in favour of a parliament, but the Yes campaign victory in Wales was much closer - a majority of just under 7,000 (0.6%) of more than a million votes cast.

An earlier referendum under the previous Labour government in 1979 saw devolution for Wales overwhelmingly rejected by a four-to-one majority.

Reflecting on what had been one of his first major challenges in office, Mr Blair said there had been a "considerable" battle over devolution.

"There were real worries about it," he said.

"There were people in the Welsh Labour party, and outside of the Welsh Labour party that came to me and said 'this is a very dangerous thing that you are embarking upon'.

"To be honest, I am not sure I persuaded them. In the end we steamrollered it.

"We were a new government and I was convinced that in the end if we didn't do it, if we betrayed our commitment to devolution, and it was a party manifesto commitment, we were going to have a huge problem on the other side of the debate."

Mr Blair said that in contrast to Scotland, where devolution was seen as a "staging post by the nationalist element to full separation", people in Wales were more comfortable with the notion of devolution within the context of the UK.

"I still feel basically that devolution has allowed us, as a UK, to keep together," he added.

"If, as it looks to me, that separation somewhat subsides in Scotland then we will be left with a constitutional settlement that 20 years on, for all its stresses and strains from time to time, has kept the UK together."

Labour divisions also emerged over who should be the party's Welsh leader and prospective first secretary in the 1999 assembly election campaign.

Mr Blair insisted he rated the late Rhodri Morgan as a politician despite failing to offer him a job in his first government in 1997, and then backing his rival Alun Michael to become first secretary.

Mr Morgan, who served nine years as first secretary and first minister, took over in February 2000 when Mr Michael stepped down in the face of a no-confidence vote.

Mr Blair said: "Where we had a disagreement was that I was a believer that the whole point of progressive policies is that in today's world, which is changing very fast, we have to be at the forefront of change - which is why I was in favour of big educational reforms, health reforms, and law-and-order reforms.

"Now, Rhodri was from the more traditional wing of the party. But as a politician, as a leader, as a figure, and actually as a person, I rated him enormously.

"I liked him a lot, I found him great company. I had huge respect for Rhodri, we just had a disagreement."

Nick's view

There are some frank admissions here from a former prime minister who clearly wants people to consider his legacy away from the Iraq war.

We knew there was strong criticism of devolution from within Labour ranks. His acknowledgement that he believes he may not have persuaded many in the party in Wales to change their minds at the time shows the depth of that opposition.

But a manifesto commitment is a manifesto commitment, and so he felt he had no choice but to "steamroller" it through.

The tiny margin of victory for the Yes camp came as no surprise to him because of the intelligence he was receiving, and because he knew it was always a tougher sell in Wales than in Scotland.

His perception is that in Scotland the challenge was dealing with those who felt devolution has not gone far enough, while in Wales the challenge was making people comfortable with a concept they were anxious about.

Not all will agree, but the thrust of his defence is that despite "all its stresses and strains", the process of devolution he began 20 years ago has managed to keep the UK together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tony Blair: I steamrollered devolution for Wales

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has admitted he "steamrollered" devolution through 20 years ago despite objections from many within the Labour party. Speaking to BBC Wales ahead of the anniversary of the referendum, he said there had been a "considerable" battle. The September 1997 poll narrowly backed the creation of the Welsh Assembly.

# data[].attributes.headline
New worries for the Irish borders post Brexit 

# data[].attributes.subject
New worries for the Irish borders post Brexit 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There were "frank discussions" about the Irish border in the latest round of Brexit talks, David Davis has said.

The Brexit Secretary was speaking in Brussels after a meeting with chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier.

Mr Davis said any solution for the border could not be at the expense of the constitutional integrity of the UK.

The EU tabled a paper which suggested Northern Ireland will have to continue to follow many EU rules after Brexit if a hard border is to be avoided.

The paper hinted that Northern Ireland may need to stay in the EU customs union if there are to be no checks at the border.

That is something which the Conservatives and DUP have said they cannot accept as it would effectively create a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Meanwhile, Mr Barnier said the UK has two weeks to clarify what it will pay the EU if progress is to be made in Brexit talks.
Irish position accepted?

Britain and the EU say they are committed to ensuring Brexit does not undermine the Good Friday agreement.

Neither want Brexit to lead to the emergence of a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.

"Let me be clear, we cannot have anything resulting in a new border being set up with in the UK," said Mr Davis after the sixth round of UK-EU talks on citizens' rights, the Irish border, and the UK's "divorce bill".

"We remain firmly committed to avoiding any physical infrastructure.

"We respect the EU desires, but they cannot come at the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom."

Mr Davis said the EU and UK teams had drafted joint positions on the common travel area, as well as joint principles and commitments for the second phase of talks.

The EU leaked paper stops short of saying a hard border can only be avoided by the UK or Northern Ireland staying in the single market or customs union.

However, it brings the commission closer to the European Parliament position which "presumes" that the UK or Northern Ireland will have to stay in the internal market and customs union.

It is also the clearest indication that the commission has accepted the Irish position on Brexit and the border issue.

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has said the only way of avoiding a hard border in Ireland after Brexit is for the whole of the UK, or Northern Ireland, to follow the rules of the customs union and single market.

Speaking at a meeting of the British-Irish Council in Jersey, Mr Varadkar said his proposal would not mean the UK or Northern Ireland had to be members of the customs union and single market, but "it would mean continuing to apply the rules".

DUP Parliamentary leader and North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds rejected the suggestion that a hard border can only be avoided if the UK or Northern Ireland continue to abide by the rules of the single market and customs union after Brexit.

He said the paper shows the EU is unwilling to engage in negotiations on the border issue in a "meaningful fashion".

"Northern Ireland will not be separated from the rest of the UK as a result of Brexit," he said.

"Brussels must realise this and accept that progress will not be achieved through bully-boy tactics."

Meanwhile, Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Coveney said talk of individual countries vetoing a move to the next stage of Brexit negotiations is "unhelpful", but progress still had to be made on the border issue.

"There is a way to go between the two negotiating teams to be able to provide credible answers and sufficient progress in the context of the Irish border before we can move on to Phase Two," he told Irish state broadcaster, RTE.

Former Irish Taoiseach and Good Friday Agreement signatory Bertie Ahern told BBC Newsnight that a hard border would be a "huge setback" for the peace process and that a physical border across the island of Ireland would give a "huge incentive" to those that want to cause mischief.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There were "frank discussions" about the Irish border in the latest round of Brexit talks, David Davis has said. The Brexit Secretary was speaking in Brussels after a meeting with chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier. Mr Davis said any solution for the border could not be at the expense of the constitutional integrity of the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
They pay taxes, but aren't old enough to elect the men and women who decide how to spend them.

Yet after a General Election where younger people turned out in numbers not seen for decades, the question of whether it's undemocratic to continue to deny 16-year-olds the vote is being asked again.

Leading the teenage charge this time around is Jim McMahon, Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton.

His proposal not only calls for the voting age to be lowered, but for political education to be taught in schools.

"The young people that I come in to contact with understand issues and they get behind campaigns," he told Newsbeat.

Seventeen-year-olds Nathan Randles, Samah Khalil and Jess Consterdine, from Oldham's youth council, are a case in point.

"I pay tax as an apprentice and I have no say on where it goes," says Nathan.

"I want a say in how much my education costs," Jess chimes in.

"There's no test you take at 18 which means you are informed," argues Samah.

And their case is backed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/925618428483796993

The Scottish National Party, the Lib Dems and Green Party are all on board too - but crucially the Conservatives aren't.

Speaking just before this year's General Election, Prime Minister Theresa May said: "You have to pick a point at which you think it is right for the voting age to be.

"I continue to think it is right for it to be 18."

Some claim that position is based on a fear that not enough younger voters would vote for the Conservatives.

But the PM is not alone in her thinking.

Austria is the only country in the EU where 16-year-olds can vote in general elections.

And although supporters for lowering the electoral age say you can get married, join the Army and work full-time at 16 - that's not entirely true.

You can now vote in the Scottish parliamentary and local elections at 16. The Welsh Assembly is looking at doing the same for local elections there.

Labour MP Jim McMahon believes the momentum is with his campaign to push forward a bill proposing votes at 16.

"If you are giving 16-year-olds the right to vote in Scotland and Wales, you ought to be doing the same for 16-year-olds in England too," he says.
Find us on Instagram at BBCNewsbeat and follow us on Snapchat, search for bbc_newsbeat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The case for the voting age to be lowered to 16

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They pay taxes, but aren't old enough to elect the men and women who decide how to spend them. Yet after a General Election where younger people turned out in numbers not seen for decades, the question of whether it's undemocratic to continue to deny 16-year-olds the vote is being asked again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social background of Members of Parliament 1979-2017 - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Produced by Commons Library, Lords Library and Parliamentary Office Science and Technology

# data[].attributes.body
HOL - what you might not have known...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Darren Hughes

Days after the latest crisis in the House of Lords, the Prime Minister announced he intended to appoint even more Peers over the summer.

The fact this is being planned when the Lords is already the second largest chamber in the world (after China's) - and the only completely unelected legislature in Europe - has shocked many. But it raises once again the need for urgent reform of our bloated second House.

The Electoral Reform Society has long campaigned for a fully-elected Upper House. If you vote on laws affecting the public, you should be accountable to the public.
But often when Lords reform is mentioned, it is batted down with claims the House is independent, and an elected chamber would not offer adequate scrutiny. We're told the Lords is packed full of experts who revise our laws without partisan influence, or its size and cost are manageable or irrelevant. We even hear - though more mutedly - this chamber can make up for a lack of representativeness in the Commons.

In this major report however, we shatter these myths about our unelected legislature. We show that Lords are not, on the whole, independent - political peers vote as party blocs, while the minority of non-aligned Crossbenchers turn up less frequently. Far from being a chamber of experts, the Lords is more often a chamber
of ex-politicians.

On top of that, we show David Cameron's plans to produce a Conservative majority in the Lords would require hundreds of new appointments at a cost of millions. Far from reflecting the UK's diversity better than the Commons, the Lords look even less like the public it is supposed to serve.

The Prime Minister said he 'regrets' not reforming the second House in the last Parliament. It's time for him to act - and finally fix our broken upper chamber.

The Cost of Cronyism

While Peers are unpaid, they are able to claim a £300 a day tax-free allowance for attendance plus expenses for limited travel costs. Between February 2014 to January 2015, £21 million was spent on Lords allowances and expenses, with the average Peer receiving £25,826.

In the 2010-2015 parliament, £360,000 was claimed by 62 Peers for years in which they did not vote once. In the last session of parliament alone, over £100,000 was claimed by Peers who did not vote at all.
The net operating costs of the House of Lords in 2013-4 was £93.1m, approximately equivalent to £118k per Peer.

On this basis, an additional 100 Peers would cost almost £2.6m in expenses and allowances. But this is likely an underestimate of their true costs. Firstly, new Peers are likely to attend the house more frequently being, on average, younger. Secondly, these figures do not include office costs, including the extra staffing, food and additional costs associated with extra Peers.

The rationale for reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 was to 'cut the cost of politics'1 yet the House of Lords is designed to ever increase the cost of patronage.

Experts or Professional Politicians?

The House of Lords is said to be a house of experts who have been chosen because of their specialist knowledge. Expertise is used as an argument for what makes the House of Lords different from the House of Commons, and also for its legitimacy.

However, the field from which the Upper Chamber brings the most experience is politics. In the current House of Lords, 27% of Peers have representational politics as their main profession prior to entering the Lords, the majority former MPs. A further seven percent of Peers are former political staff or held senior positions in political parties.

The legal professions are well represented (7%) as is business and commerce (9%) and banking and finance (6%). Two Peers worked primarily as staff of the Royal household prior to entering the Lords, whilst only one Peer has a manual trade as their former profession.

Non-political appointments have sought to correct the gaps in areas of expertise, but the Crossbench Peers appointed to bring their professional experience to inform debate and improve scrutiny attend, and vote, far less than party-political Peers. Nearly half of all Crossbenchers participated in ten or fewer votes in the 2014/15 session. Peers with backgrounds in politics attend far more regularly than those with professional experience.

Whilst health debates in the Lords can boast doctors, medical research fellows and surgeons, the Commons can also draw on the experience of GPs, NHS managers and medical professionals from across the NHS.

A Super-Sized Second House

The House of Lords is growing in size with each new government. Each new Prime Minister uses political patronage to readjust the party balance in the Upper Chamber in favour of their party.

The 2010 Coalition agreement formalised this aim stating that 'Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election'2. More recently the Prime Minister has suggested it is seat share rather than vote share that matters stating 'it is important to make sure the House of Lords more accurately reflects the situation in the House of Commons'3. This would not only replicate the grossly unfair translation of votes to seats in the Commons, but would create the dangerous precedent of the governing party in the Commons always having a majority in the revising chamber. Combined with the strict partisan loyalty of political Peers, this undermines claims that the Lords can be a truly effective and critical revising chamber and a check on the government of the day.

Without the ability to forcibly retire Peers, adjusting party balance means increasing parties' numbers of Members. This means the House of Lords can only increase in size, creating a strain on resources and importantly, increasing the ratio of unelected to elected members of the legislature.

Party over Principle? Independence in the Lords

The House of Lords is often assumed to be more independent than the Commons because it is less strongly whipped and because it contains Crossbench members who do not have a party affiliation. However, it is a mistake to assume that this makes the Lords a non-partisan chamber.

Over seventy percent of members of the Upper Chamber take a political whip. Many political Peers are former MPs, or former elected representatives of other legislatures. A quarter of political appointments to the House of Lords between May 1997 and March 2015 were former MPs.

Those who have gained their position through political appointment are generally more active, regular attendees. The phrase 'working Peer' is used to describe those Peers who have been appointed by parties to boost their respective parties' strengths in the Lords; expectation of regular attendance goes hand in hand with this.

Despite less whipping in the Lords, party appointees vote cohesively. Between 1999 and 2009, Conservative Peers voted against the Labour government in an average of 97% of votes in whipped divisions. Labour Peers voted against the coalition government in 99% of whipped division between 2010 and 2015.

Unrepresentative and Out of Date

Whilst the Upper Chamber is unelected and therefore not representative of public choice, it is sometimes claimed that the Lords does a better job at addressing representational deficits; the appointment system helping to directly address representational imbalances. However a detailed look at the existing House of Lords suggests this is simply not happening.

It is unsurprising given the nature of peerages that the House is unrepresentative in age. Life peerages are precisely that - Lords have only recently been given the ability to retire, but are eligible to sit in the Lords for the rest of their life.

Despite having power over appointments, only slightly over a quarter of peerages made between May 1997 and March 2015 were women. Female representation in the Lords has only recently reached 24% (199) - five percentage points lower than the Commons.

The structure of the Lords works against increases in women's membership. Hereditary peerages automatically pass to the first born son4 and the House has reserved places for Bishops - a position only opened to women last year. These positions make up 14% of the chamber. Moreover, the predominance of former MPs in the Lords means the under-representation of women in the Commons is also replicated in the Upper Chamber.

Conclusion

The Upper Chamber, at its best, performs a crucial role in scrutinising and revising government legislation and providing a check on prime ministerial power. But this report has highlighted the reality of politics in the House of Lords - its essential functions have to date been performed by unelected appointees, given this position by accident of birth or political patronage.

Lacking democratic legitimacy, the House of Lords has tried to defend itself over the years by making claims to greater political independence, expertise and representativeness. Yet we have shown that this is not the complete picture. The Lords is highly partisan: the majority of Peers, and particularly active Peers, take a political whip. Its independent experts, the Crossbench Peers, are dwarfed in number by political appointees and turn up for only half of the votes. Despite being appointed, the Lords still fails to reflect the diversity of the country it supposedly represents.

The formation of a coalition government in 2010 also demonstrated how easily the political balance of this revising chamber can switch, creating a government majority in both houses. With the power of appointments, Prime Ministers have both the power and political impetus to shift the political balance of the House of Lords. This is not only unsustainable in terms of size and resources, but it's also constitutionally dangerous.

The size and cost of the House of Lords is growing at a time when the size of the Commons, our elected house, is being cut. If the aim is to reduce the cost of politics, increasing the cost of patronage is impossible to justify.

When the part of our Parliamentary system designed to keep a check on Executive power can be used as a partisan plaything, when it lacks the legitimacy of democratic election, when it can be so easily brought into disrepute, it is surely time to reform this out of date institution. This report has laid out the facts about our Upper Chamber. Now, in the midst of growing public distrust in our legislature, it's time to put the fiction to bed.

References

References
1 Coalition Programme for Government, 2010

2 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/28/ david-cameron-to-appoint-more-tory-peers-to-the-house-of-lords

3 Male preference primogeniture means women rarely inherit the title

4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8243780.stm
Additional sources
Pages 6-7
Accounts available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldresource/24/24.pdf

Expenses claims available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/house-of-lords-expenses/#jump-link-6
Pages 12-13
Kelly, M. and Purvis, M. (2015) Peerage Creations Since 1997, House of Commons Library briefing paper, Number 5867, 20 May 2015.

House of Lords FAQ http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-once-mps/

Brown, T. (2015) House of Lords profile of Membership, House of Lords library note, LLN 2015/012.

Purvis, M. (2012) Regional Representation in the House of Lords, House of Lords library note, LLN 2012/007.
Pages 8-9
Coleman, C. (2015) House of Lords: Party and Group Strengths and Voting, House of Lords library note, LLN 2015/023.
Pages 14-15
Brown, T. (2015) House of Lords profile of Membership, House of Lords library note, LLN 2015/012.

Purvis, M. (2012) Regional Representation in the House of Lords, House of Lords library note, LLN 2012/007.

ONS population estimates 2014 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk-england-and-wales-scotland-and-northern-ireland/mid-2014/sty-overview-of-the-uk-population.html

Hughes, D. (2015) Women in the House of Lords, House of Lords library note, LLN 2015/017.

Kelly, M. and Purvis, M. (2015) Peerage Creations Since 1997, House of Commons Library briefing paper, Number 5867, 20 May 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Days after the latest crisis in the House of Lords, the Prime Minister announced he intended to appoint even more Peers over the summer. The fact this is being planned when the Lords is already the second largest chamber in the world (after China's) - and the only completely unelected legislature in Europe - has shocked many.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the resources on Padlet under the 'Parliament' column,  complete the tasks set on the word document below.

# data[].attributes.body
Parliament is more important than we think.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Westminster parliament is famous throughout the world, but often presented as relatively non-influential when it comes to making the law. Meg Russell and Daniel Gover's new book Legislation at Westminster is the most detailed study of the British legislative process for over 40 years, and challenges these assumptions. Here the authors summarise their findings on how different groups of actors at Westminster exercise subtle and interconnected influence, contributing to what they dub 'six faces of parliamentary power'.

The Westminster parliament inhabits one of the most famous buildings in the world - emblematic both of Britain and of stable democracy. Yet when it comes to policy-making, and particularly to making the law, many see Westminster as relatively non-influential. In the popular media, parliament is frequently portrayed as a mere ' rubber stamp', where a docile Commons majority approves what government puts before it. Among academic authors views are generally more nuanced, but a mainstream public policy textbook nonetheless claims that 'parliament plays only a limited role in decision-making in the British Westminster model', while a recent British politics textbook suggests that 'the House of Commons is misunderstood if viewed as a legislator'. Even scholars who celebrate parliament present the early stages of initiating and formulating legislation as 'overwhelmingly a government-centred activity'. Despite the ostensibly central role of the 'legislature' in the legislative process, these specialists instead emphasise parliament's other crucial functions, such as representation, scrutiny and legitimation.

Perhaps because it is thought likely to be fruitless, but also due to the painstaking work involved, until recently no large-scale study had been conducted on influence in the Westminster legislative process since Griffith's classic 1974 Parliamentary Scrutiny of Government Bills. Griffith's key finding was that many government amendments proposed to bills in parliament in fact responded to earlier proposals from non-government parliamentarians - showing that influence was more complex than it seemed. A major Constitution Unit project, funded by the Nuffield foundation, sought to explore how these dynamics may have changed, and specifically whether the 'rubber stamp' claim is correct. Our early quantitative results, based on study of over 4000 amendments to 12 case study bills passing through parliament during the period 2005-12, showed that it was not. The majority of government amendments with substance were traceable to parliamentary pressure, while the 'failure' of non-government amendments could not be taken at face value. Our newly-published book, Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law, tells a fuller story, drawing not only on amendment analysis, but also wider documentary analysis, and over 100 interviews with those closely involved in the passage of the 12 bills.

Part of the difficulty in assessing parliamentary influence is common perceptions of power. Looking for on-the-record changes wrought by parliament provides only a very narrow view. But it is often acknowledged in the politics and international relations literature that power takes many forms. One classic account suggests that it has three distinct faces, others that it has four or more; there are notions of hard and soft power, persuasive versus coercive power, and the ability to exercise power both positively and negatively. Such alternative conceptions have rarely been teased apart when discussing the power of parliaments.

Our study is organised by the various 'actors' in the policy process at Westminster, each of whom has a dedicated chapter. After introducing the basics of the legislative process and the case study bills, we go on to describe, using numerous quotations and examples, the diverse contributions that these actors make. This post provides a very short summary of our findings.
Actors in the legislative process
The obvious actor to start with is government. Most bills that reach the statute book are drafted in Whitehall by government lawyers, and piloted through parliament by ministers. Behind the scenes are numerous others, including civil servants organised in 'bill teams' who support the process. These processes have been relatively little studied (though Ed Page's work is an exception), and we provide a full account which draws on fascinating interviews with ministers, bill team members and the specialist 'parliamentary counsel' who draft the law. It is well-known how government consults with outside interests before legislating - but ministers and civil servants also pay close heed to parliamentarians' views at the early stages. The need to prepare 'parliamentary handling strategies', including 'possible concessions and fallback positions' is openly acknowledged in the government's own Guide to Making Legislation. As one civil servant put it, parliament is part of the 'climate of opinion which shapes how the legislation is framed'.

The next most visible actors are opposition parties. They often greet legislation with noisy complaints (though actually, much legislation is also received relatively consensually), and they are responsible for proposing by far the largest number of amendments; on our case study bills, 2941 of the total 4361 proposed amendments included an opposition signatory. But many such amendments are not actually targeted at change. A lot are 'probing', just to facilitate debate on the government's proposals. Others are 'signalling' or 'gameplaying' amendments, to demonstrate the opposition's merits, or to embarrass the government. One of the opposition's most important contributions is the ability to 'politicise' issues, drawing attention to possible defects, which in turn encourages government to think through policy carefully before introduction. The opposition can use various tools - including parliamentary set piece occasions and access to the media - which can help force change in policy. The opposition also has major opportunities through its potential to garner a majority against the government in the House of Lords. Lords defeats 'politicise' issues in a bill in a particularly potent way - by sending them back to the floor of the House of Commons for decision.

Government backbenchers are often considered to be the most influential actors at Westminster, given ministers' need to maintain their support and votes. Yet the way they influence the process is subtle, with concerns often expressed behind the scenes. When taking into account parliament's likely reactions to a bill, this group is hence very important - so much so that ministers (who after all come from the same party, or parties) frequently internalise backbenchers' concerns. This group can be very important in putting matters onto to the government's agenda, and keeping them there - for which they can use tools often considered unimportant, such as early day motions and private members' bills. For example these mechanisms were used successfully to maintain pressure on the Labour government to introduce corporate manslaughter legislation. A source close to Tony Blair told us that 'TB didn't want corporate manslaughter legislation, for a variety of reasons', but the government legislated nonetheless, partly to placate backbench MPs. This group is also key when ministers consider how to respond to defeats in the Lords - although the Lords alone cannot force policy change, ministers will often back down if Commons backbenchers share peers' concerns. This occurred on key issues regarding Blair's attempt to introduce identity cards, with amendments that contributed to the scheme falling apart.

Non-party parliamentarians are relatively little-known actors, but crucial in the Lords. The Crossbenchers, in particular, are a large group comprising many members respected as 'experts', who potentially hold the chamber's balance of power. They are rarely the main protagonists in conflicts with government, but their views and impact on culture are important. They help to encourage rational, rather than purely partisan, debate in the Lords - requiring ministers to respond to evidence, and provide explanations, rather than appealing only to party loyalty. Occasionally non-party peers can lead resistance, as medical expert Baroness Finlay did over the coalition's proposed abolition of the Chief Coroner, with successful results. At other times, they can help broker agreements between the parties.

Pressure groups play a key role in parliamentary influence, again helping to ensure that debates are evidence-based. Different external groups may both support and oppose the government's position, and parliament is a very public forum for these arguments to be played out. Pressure groups are particularly important to supporting the opposition, which has few policy experts to rival the civil service, and they also support government backbenchers in getting issues onto the agenda. Separating their influence from that of parliament is in fact an impossible task.

The parliamentary select committees play no formal role in agreeing legislation, but are surprisingly important. We found more than 1700 mentions of select committees in debates on the 12 bills (i.e. an average of over 140 per bill). The views of these respected committees, and the evidence that they provide can - like input from pressure groups - be important both to those defending and attacking government positions. The key constitutional committees - the Lords Constitution Committee and Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights - frequently make recommendations on bills which are adopted in amendments, either directly by government or following pressure from other members. The book contains numerous examples, some high-profile. Other committees less frequently engage in this way, but a very interesting example comes from the House of Commons Health Committee, which expressed concerns about limitations on Labour's ban on smoking in public places, and helped to force a vote which toughened these provisions. This could act as an inspiration to other committees to be more active on bills.

In addition to single actors, we dedicate a chapter to cross-party working, which is (contrary to what many might expect) extremely important at Westminster. As may already be evident from the above, major changes forced on government generally require cross-party support - from the opposition, alongside some backbenchers and non-party parliamentarians, often facilitated by select committees. Various key examples are given in the book, including the very major changes made to the coalition's Public Bodies Bill (which sought to introduce the so-called ' bonfire of the quangos'). On that bill, committees published critical reports, the opposition proposed major changes, and key successful amendments were headed by government backbenchers. In the present context, this bill might offer some indications of the kinds of battles ahead over the government's EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which likewise includes substantial powers 'delegated' to ministers - likely to be very controversial in the Lords.
Summarising parliament's power on legislation
Putting this all together, our concluding chapter suggests that parliament plays a central role in shaping government legislation, but in various often subtle ways. We set out six 'faces of parliamentary power' demonstrated in the process. These are probably common to some extent in all parliamentary systems:

1. Visible changes through amendments, which is the most obvious place to look for influence but tells only a small part of the story.

2. 'Anticipated reactions', whereby government changes its plans in expectation of how parliament will react.

3. More subtly, government internalising - relatively automatically and unconsciously - what parliament will accept. This is more likely in 'parliamentary' (rather than presidential) systems, because government ultimately depends on parliament's support for its survival, making open legislative conflict more hazardous.

4. Issue politicisation and agenda setting, whereby parliamentarians use their powers to put policy issues onto the agenda - either to press for action, or through focusing on the most questionable proposals in government bills.

5. Accountability and exposure, by which government proposals are subjected to thorough scrutiny on the public record, requiring ministers to defend their positions. These last two powers feed powers 1-3.

6. Finally, counteractive pressure and support for the government. In today's Westminster (where backbench rebellions are commonplace) parliamentarians have choices about whether to support government policy. If government listens to parliament before policy is introduced it would be perverse to interpret parliament's acceptance of what emerges as passivity. The opposition may test out alternative arguments, but if government backbenchers support ministers that is an active choice. Parliament as a whole likewise sometimes supports the direction of government policy against external forces. Hence when it came to the smoking ban, parliamentarians united cross-party - against the counterclaims of the tobacco lobby.

Our final conclusion is that, once all of these different faces of power are considered, parliament is very far from peripheral in the legislative process - instead it is central to that process. It offers more than just 'legitimation' for government policy: it actively shapes that policy, from the very earliest stage of agenda setting to when it is finally agreed. Contrary to popular belief, the Westminster parliament can indeed properly be described as a 'legislator'.

______

Note: Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law is published by Oxford University Press on 31 August 2017. This article was originally published on the Constitution Unit blog.
About the Authors
Meg Russell is Professor of British and Comparative Politics, and the Director of the Constitution Unit at UCL.

Daniel Gover is a researcher at Queen Mary University of London, and was formerly based at the Constitution Unit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legislation at Westminster: how parliament matters more than people think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Westminster parliament is famous throughout the world, but often presented as relatively non-influential when it comes to making the law. Meg Russell and Daniel Gover 's new book Legislation at Westminster is the most detailed study of the British legislative process for over 40 years, and challenges these assumptions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Who was that vaguely familiar figure on the Labour front bench at the start of the two-day House of Lords debate on Brexit? Good grief, it was Lord Goldsmith, the lawyer who let Tony Blair march us off to the Iraq War. Goldsmith! How does he fit into the Corbyn era?

Goldsmith! How does he fit into the Corbyn era?

We were told he had been readmitted to the Labour Lords front bench only for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. But could Labour really not find someone with a stronger record of advice on foreign policy?

Welcome to the House of Has-Beens, the world of walking ghosts, busybody ancients who under our daft arrangements retain an oar in our public affairs even though they long ago left the elected legislature.

One quivering old fool called for the Brexit referendum (biggest vote in our country's history) to be ignored by the immensely more sophisticated denizens of the Palace of Westminster.

This peer was Terry Higgins, once a middle-ranking Tory MP, now the Rt Hon Lord Higgins KBE DL. I always wondered how such a Private Godfrey made it into the Lords.

Now the reason was clear: He was a pro-Brussels zealot. Referenda were 'not the right approach,' he quavered like a Reform Club bore complaining to the steward about an iffy baked egg.

'We as a Parliament have to reassert our position,' he continued - and that meant telling Johnny Voter to bog off and leave politics to the grown-ups. 'Hear hear' harrumphed his neighbour, Lord Cormack.

Lord Higgins had spent a lot of his time in Holland, he added, and they were thinking of a new law banning referenda. British parliamentarians should follow suit, he believed.

The day had begun with a prosaic precis of the Bill from the Leader of the House, Lady Evans. She has all the panache of an under-manageress at Freeman Hardy Willis but she is at least reasonably crisp.

The Chamber was initially packed, some peers being forced to stand by the doors and sit under the Throne. Lord Palumbo (Con) was there.

He hasn't spoken in the Lords since a blurted few words in 2013. Ex-judge Lord Hoffmann was on the Crossbenches. Last time he contributed to proceedings was 2010.

On the Labour benches we had infamous expenses fiddler Lady Uddin, former Blairite hard-man Lord (John) Reid and Lord Davies of Stamford, almost unrecognisable now that he has let his inky black hair go grey.

Was that architect Lord (Richard) Rogers? Jeepers. As rare a visitor as the snow leopard.

Remainer Lord Adonis (Lab), putting an amendment, quoted a minister who had said peers seemed to think 'their view is much more important than that of common oiks'. This won a ripple of agreement. Yes, they really were saying they were more important than hoi polloi!

The Lib Dem benches were bursting with their 100 peers. They included former panto dame Ronnie Fearn, Israel-basher Jenny Tonge, sometime Heseltine Tory Hugh Dykes (he seemed to be asleep) and an obscure ex-MP called Brian Cotter who is grey as a squirrel.

A complete and utter Brian. In all the years he was in the Commons, I don't think I took a single note of anything he said.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Lib Dem) took a swipe at 'unelected Daily Mail journalists'. Aaargh! Nurse, I've been hit! But Lord Wallace, who was given France's Legion d'Honneur for puffing the EU, has himself not been elected and unlike him, darn it, I cannot charge the taxpayer big wonga for my eructations.

Lord Pearson (Ukip) tried boldly to stick it up the EU but was laughed at by Labour and Lib Dems.

Pro-EU Lord Rooker (Lab) gave what sounded like a hint that he might leave his party if it does not become more Europhile.

Former Foreign Office pooh-bah Lord Hannay looked down his half-moon spectacles with buttery satisfaction as the likes of Peter Mandelson and Lib Dems leader Lord Newby predicted national disaster from Brexit.

They were trying to sow doubt that we will ever leave. Yet the Labour leader, Lady Smith, said she was not interested in a second referendum.

Lord Mandelson thought Brexit was 'vandalistic' and said 'everyone' in Davos last week - my dears - had been appalled by it.

He was talking about that World Economic Forum fandango in the Swiss Alps attended by billionaires, failed world leaders, lobbyists, lawyers and Sir Elton John. Peter's friends.

Indian beer tycoon Lord Bilimoria also wailed that the Davos crowd felt Brexit had damaged our national standing.

Bilimoria is a name-dropper. He told the House (polish of fingernails) that he was an alumnus of Harvard Business School, that he had been standing next to the prime minister of India the other day, and that a friend of his who is a 'world expert' had compared 'wretched' Brexit to the events leading up to the First World War.

'It is not too late to stop' Brexit, he cried.

Meanwhile, Lord Krebs (Crossbencher) offered an emotive tale of a German aunt of his who had spoken of Brexit as something akin to the state of Nazi Germany in 1945.

Krebs is a scientist. Let's hope he looks at his test tubes with greater objectivity. The Bishop of Leeds, in classic vicarish voice, denounced the 'demonisation' and the 'denigration and vilification' that had entered politics since the Leave vote. He blamed the media.

But might that anger not flow from the country seeing its parliamentarians trying to block their express instruction to get us out of the EU?

The debate was not all Remoaners. One of the most punchy speeches came from former Brexit minister Lord Bridges, who firmly told Theresa May to stop dithering and get on with things one way or another.

Brexit-supporting peer Viscount Ridley (Con) flashed the bat wonderfully, calling the Lords 'this gilded, crimson echo-chamber of Remain, this neo-Jacobite hold-out for the Euro-king across the water'. If peers tried to muck about with Brexit, the public's reaction would be 'severe'. Lord Cormack grumbled at that.

Former Tory Cabinet minister Lord (Ian) Lang said that although he had voted Remain, he now looked forward to the term 'law of the land' actually meaning something (ie, once we make those laws here rather than being given them by Brussels).

And House Of Cards writer Lord Dobbs (Con) said that if peers persisted in trying to block 'the people's Brexit', it would not be long before the tumbrils rolled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
QUENTIN LETTS: Welcome to the House of has-beens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Who was that vaguely familiar figure on the Labour front bench at the start of the two-day House of Lords debate on Brexit? Good grief, it was Lord Goldsmith, the lawyer who let Tony Blair march us off to the Iraq War. Goldsmith! How does he fit into the Corbyn era?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An influential group of peers have warned Theresa May's flagship Brexit legislation is "constitutionally unacceptable" and will need to be substantially rewritten.

The stark warning comes as peers in the upper chamber gear up to begin the lengthy process of debating the legislation - passed with a seal of approval from the Commons earlier this month.

The EU (Withdrawal) Bill seeks to transpose all existing EU law onto the UK statue book in time for Britain formally leaving the bloc in March 2019.

More than 180 members are already lined up to speak during the two-day debate accompanying the legislation's second reading this Tuesday and Wednesday, and there are likely to be impassioned interventions from both prominent Leave and Remain voices.

But peers on the Lords Constitution Committee warn in a report to be released on Monday that, while the legislation is necessary to ensure legal continuity after Brexit, it has "fundamental flaws" in its current state.

The committee claims that at present the bill risks "undermining the legal certainty it seeks to provide" and gives "overly broad" powers to government ministers.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton, who chairs the committee, said: "We acknowledge the scale, challenge and unprecedented nature of the task of converting existing EU law into UK law, but as it stands this bill is constitutionally unacceptable.

"In our two previous reports we highlighted the issues this raised and we are disappointed that the Government has not acted on a number of our recommendations.

"However, we identify a number of practical ways in which the flaws in the bill can be addressed in line with existing constitutional principles and without compromising the Government's aims. We look forward to a constructive engagement with the Government on our recommendations."

Speaking ahead of the Lords debates on ITV's Peston on Sunday, the leader of the Lords Baroness Evans said the Government would "listen" to amendments brought forward by peers.

"I don't think it's going to be complicated," she said. "I think it's going to be challenge, I wouldn't be being honest if I didn't say that but, you know, we passed the referendum bill, we passed the Article 50 bill. Everyone at that point said the Lords won't let it happen - we did, we did our job.

"And our job is scrutinising and revising. The [House of] Lords is there to scrutinise and revise legislation, that's not the same as blocking, that's about asking questions."

But the shadow leader of the Lords, Labour peer Baroness Smith of Basildon, said her party would "change this bill so it becomes an enabling measure for, rather than an obstacle to, a transition period, as it currently the case".

She added: "Labour has consistently called for a transitional period based on current terms, including a temporary extension to our participation in the single market and customs union. This would prevent a cliff edge for consumers and businesses in March 2019, and provide additional time to finalise the future UK-EU relationship."

When the legislation passes its second reading in the Lords it will then go to 10 days on the floor of the House at committee stage before passing to report stage after the Easter recess. It is at report stage when the vast majority of votes occur in the upper chamber.

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
May's Brexit bill is 'constitutionally unacceptable' and gives too much power to ministers, Lords report warns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An influential group of peers have warned Theresa May's flagship Brexit legislation is "constitutionally unacceptable" and will need to be substantially rewritten. The stark warning comes as peers in the upper chamber gear up to begin the lengthy process of debating the legislation - passed with a seal of approval from the Commons earlier this month.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Taking nervous aunts to Reservoir Dogs'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A member of the House of Lords has an unusual analogy for a second EU referendum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - Westminster Hour - Downloads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Today in Parliament - Available now - BBC Radio 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News, views and features on today's stories in Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Andrew Marr Show - Available now - BBC One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Andrew Marr, former BBC political editor, interviews key newsmakers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Level British Politics | Is the House of Lords effective at scrutiny?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Analysis to help students about parliament, MPs, the House of Lords, House of Commons and relationship with the government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Public Accounts Committee examines reports produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) on value for money (VFM) studies of economy,...

# data[].attributes.body
The Structure of the Executive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

Who runs government

The Prime Minister

The Prime Minister is the leader of His Majesty's Government and is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions.

The Prime Minister also:

oversees the operation of the Civil Service and government agencies

appoints members of the government

is the principal government figure in the House of Commons

The Prime Minister is The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP.

Read more about the Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street

The Cabinet

The Cabinet is made up of the senior members of government. Every week during Parliament, members of the Cabinet (Secretaries of State from all departments and some other ministers) meet to discuss the most important issues for the government.
See who is in the Cabinet

Ministers

Ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister from the members of the House of Commons and House of Lords. They are responsible for the actions, successes and failures of their departments.
See full list of ministers

How government is run

Government departments and agencies

Departments and their agencies are responsible for putting government policy into practice.

Government departments

Some departments, like the Ministry of Defence, cover the whole UK. Others don't - the Department for Work and Pensions doesn't cover Northern Ireland. This is because some aspects of government are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Non-ministerial departments are headed by senior civil servants and not ministers. They usually have a regulatory or inspection function like the Charity Commission.

Executive agencies

These are part of government departments and usually provide government services rather than decide policy - which is done by the department that oversees the agency.

An example is the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (overseen by the Department for Transport).

Other public bodies

These have varying degrees of independence but are directly accountable to ministers. There are 4 types of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).

Executive NDPBs do work for the government in specific areas - for example, the Environment Agency.

Advisory NDPBs provide independent, expert advice to ministers - for example, the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Tribunal NDPBs are part of the justice system and have jurisdiction over a specific area of law - for example, the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

Independent monitoring boards are responsible for the running of prisons and treatment of prisoners - for example, His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons.

Civil Service

The Civil Service does the practical and administrative work of government. It is co-ordinated and managed by the Prime Minister, in their role as Minister for the Civil Service.

Around half of all civil servants provide services direct to the public, including:

paying benefits and pensions

running employment services

staffing prisons

issuing driving licences

The Civil Service is on GOV.UK.

Work for us

Find and apply for vacancies in departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

Work with us

Search Contracts Finder for any government contract over £10,000 and get details of all previous tenders.

Get involved

Read about ways to get involved.

Engage with government

Interact with government through consultations and petitions to inform and influence the decisions it makes.

Take part

Offer your skills and energy to a project in your neighbourhood, around the UK or overseas.

Legislation

Laws go through several stages before they are passed by Parliament. The House of Commons and the House of Lords work together to make them.

They can include:

Draft legislation

White papers outline proposals for new laws. Green papers ask for public comments before the white paper is published.

Bills are proposals for new laws or changes to existing ones. Once agreed by Parliament, they have to be approved by the King before becoming law.

Acts of Parliament

These are bills which have been approved by the Commons, the Lords, and the King. The relevant government department is responsible for putting the act into practice.
Visit www.legislation.gov.uk

Access to information

Freedom of information

The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to ask any public sector organisation for all the recorded information it has on any subject. Anyone can make a request for information - known as a Freedom of Information (or FOI) request. There are no restrictions on your age, nationality or where you live.
How to make a freedom of information request See FOI releases on GOV.UK
Statistics

Government produces Official Statistics about most areas of public life. Statistics are used by people inside and outside government to make informed decisions and to measure the success of government policies and services. Find out about the legislation that governs the publication of UK national and Official Statistics.
See statistics publications on GOV.UK
Transparency

The government publishes information about how government works to allow you to make politicians, public services and public organisations more accountable. We are committed to publishing information about:

how much public money has been spent on what

the job titles of senior civil servants and how much they are paid

how the government is doing against its objectives

See transparency releases on GOV.UK
Data

Putting data in people's hands can help them have more of a say in the reform of public services. On data.gov.uk you can easily find, review and use information about our country and communities - for example, to develop web applications.

Devolved government

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, devolved administrations are responsible for many domestic policy issues, and their Parliaments/Assemblies have law-making powers for those areas.

Areas the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for, include:

health

education

culture

the environment

transport

Local government

Councils make and carry out decisions on local services. Many parts of England have 2 tiers of local government: county councils and district, borough or city councils.

In some parts of the country, there's just one tier of local government providing all the functions, known as a 'unitary authority'. This can be a city, borough or county council - or it may just be called 'council'. As well as these, many areas also have parish or town councils.
Understand how your council works

Parliament

Parliament is separate from government. Made up of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, its role is to:

look at what the government is doing

debate issues and pass new laws

set taxes

Find out about how Parliament works

Read The Official Report at Hansard

History of government

Britain has one of the oldest governments in the world. Find out more about how it has worked and who has shaped it in the history section.

Read about past Prime Ministers, Chancellors and Foreign Secretaries in notable people. Learn more about historic government buildings on Whitehall and around the UK.

You can also find links to historical research, documents and records.

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About the UK system of government. Understand who runs government, and how government is run.

# data[].attributes.headline
How has the Prime Ministers' role changed since 1947?

# data[].attributes.subject
How has the Prime Ministers' role changed since 1947?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've just flicked the switch on moving all our digital resources to instant digital download - via our new subject stores.

For every subject you can now access each digital resource as soon as it is ordered. This will always be the latest edition of each resource too (and we'll update you automatically if there is an upgraded version to use).

Simply add the required resources to your cart, checkout using the usual options and your resources will be available to access immediately via your mytutor2u account.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prime Minister May's New Cabinet | tutor2u Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've just flicked the switch on moving all our digital resources to instant digital download - via our new subject stores. For every subject you can now access each digital resource as soon as it is ordered. This will always be the latest edition of each resource too (and we'll update you automatically if there is an upgraded version to use).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lord Howe of Aberavon - better known as Sir Geoffrey Howe - is known by many for his resignation speech in 1990 which was seen as the catalyst which ultimately destroyed Margaret Thatcher.

Lord Howe, who was abruptly dismissed as Foreign Secretary in 1989 and resigned from the unreal post of Deputy Prime Minister the following year, became increasingly exasperated at Mrs Thatcher's so-called "foghorn diplomacy" towards Europe.

In 18 minutes, the colleague who had served Mrs Thatcher in the Cabinet throughout her premiership delivered a clinically cold but savage denunciation of her attitude to Europe in front of shocked MPs.

Occasionally, as he spoke, Mrs Thatcher visibly flinched at the potency of his words.

At one point he said: "We commit a serious error if we think always in terms of 'surrendering' sovereignty and seek to stand pat for all time on a given deal - by proclaiming, as the Prime Minister did two weeks ago, that we have 'surrendered enough'.

"The European enterprise is not and should not be seen like that - as some kind of zero-sum game ..."

And he spoke of Mrs Thatcher's "nightmare image" of Europe, asking: "What kind of vision is that for our business people, who trade there each day, for our financiers, who seek to make London the money capital of Europe, or for all the young people of today?"

And in possibly the most savage passage, he said of Mrs Thatcher's attitude towards Europe and how her Chancellor and Bank of England officials could cope: "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain."

And he warned that the Prime Minister's perceived attitude towards Europe was "running increasingly serious risks for the future of our nation".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
lord howe and the speech which ulimately destroyed margaret thatcher. politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lord Howe and the speech which ulimately destroyed Margaret Thatcher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lord Howe of Aberavon - better known as Sir Geoffrey Howe - is known by many for his resignation speech in 1990 which was seen as the catalyst which ultimately destroyed Margaret Thatcher.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ministers - Selection and External Factors That Influence the Relationship

# data[].attributes.subject
Ministers - Selection and External Factors That Influence the Relationship

# data[].attributes.body
Complete the profile page for Thatcher and Blair.  Bring a copy of your findings to the lesson. We are required to do 2-3 case studies for Prime Ministers for this part of the course.  As a class we chose Thatcher, Blair and May.  For each of these you must look at evidence for the following:

- Examples demonstrating their ability to dictate events and determine policy
- Examples demonstrating their LACK of ability to dictate events and determine policy
- Examples demonstrating their power over the Cabinet
- Examples demonstrating their LACK of power over the Cabinet

# data[].attributes.body
There are case studies for Blair in each textbook.  Ensure you extract key examples and comment on how they affect the strength of the PM.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Baroness Thatcher came to power determined to curb the trade unions after the strike epidemic of the 1970s, and to reduce government subsidies to industry.

The steel industry was the first to be affected, after Ian MacGregor, a partner in a New York merchant bank, had been coaxed over to take charge. Steelworks that were not profitable, or not profitable enough, were ruthlessly closed down. In the steel town of Consett, County Durham, unemployment reached 50 per cent. Mr MacGregor was next delegated to perform the same surgery on the mines, where there was determined resistance from the Nation Union of Mineworkers (NUM), led by Arthur Scargill. Prior the 1984-85 miners' strike, the Tories had passed a succession of laws which in effect made it illegal to call a strike without a ballot, or to organise mass pickets.

Mr Scargill defied the law, which led to the NUM being heavily fined and his assets sequestered. After the defeat of the year-long strike came the pit closures that cut Britain's mining industry to almost nothing.

The same treatment was dealt out in 1983 to the print union, the National Graphical Association (NGA), when it tried to use mass pickets to force Eddie Shah's Stockport Messenger Group of local newspapers to accept union-approved staffing levels at a new printing plant in Warrington.

The combination of high unemployment, changes in the law and tough action all but crippled the union movement.
Labour - her greatest victory: when Tony Blair embraced her vision
When Margaret Thatcher was asked what she regarded as her greatest achievement, she is said to have replied: "New Labour".

Baroness Thatcher defeated Labour at three general elections and forced the party to drag itself into the modern world by supporting market forces; privatisation; reform of employment laws to reduce the power of the trade unions; lower taxation for individuals and business; an independent nuclear deterrent; a "special relationship" with America; public services geared more to consumers than producers and the sale of council houses to their tenants.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the two principal architects of New Labour, were dubbed "sons of Thatcher" for embracing her free-market reforms. Labour's conversion was epitomised by Mr Brown. In 1989, as a rising Labour star, he wrote a book called Where there is greed... Margaret Thatcher and the Betrayal of Britain's Future. It was dedicated to his Dunfermline East constituents who, he said, "have more reason than most to look forward to the end of the Thatcher era." Yet after becoming Prime Minister in 2007, Mr Brown inviting her to Downing Street and Chequers as he tried to bolster his own credentials as leader of the nation.

After the 1978-79 Winter of Discontent, the voters might not have trusted Labour to run the country again unless Lady Thatcher had diluted the unions' power. She forced them to hold ballots before strikes; opened them up to claims for damages if they took illegal industrial action and curbed the closed shop (which required workers to join a union). As shadow Employment Secretary, Mr Blair took on the unions and Labour left by accepting the key Thatcher reforms. On becoming Labour leader in 1994, he announced plans to ditch Clause IV of the party's constitution, its commitment to old-style public ownership, a change which mirrored the Thatcher privatisation programme.

Mr Blair deliberately copied the style of Lady Thatcher. He was determined to project a tough image to the public and to impose his will on his party and, when in power, on his Cabinet. Neither leader wanted to "waste time" on internal arguments. Both had a small trusted circle of people who were "one of us".

Lord Mandelson, another founder of New Labour, told The Independent: "Labour went through a near-death experience in the 1980s. We turned ourselves round but the effect of Margaret Thatcher was to remind the Labour Party that it had to listen to the public and not just its activist base in order to be re-elected. In particular, we had to speak to the aspirational working class to whom Lady Thatcher appealed and who we had to win back."

The former Cabinet minister admitted Labour would never have been able to reform employment laws or privatise utilities because of opposition from the trade unions. But because the Thatcher Government had made the changes, he said, Labour could decide not to reverse them.

Lord Mandelson said: "Perhaps Lady Thatcher's biggest effect on Labour's thinking was her creation of a more globalised Britain. The biggest symbol of this was the City 'big bang' - the radical changes in financial services and markets - which required better regulation when Labour returned in 1997. It is still arguable today whether Lady Thatcher went too far - including in her hostility to manufacturing that accompanied her favouring of finance. But undoubtedly the process of 'opening up' the UK economy to the global economy drove a lot of our growth in subsequent decades."
The Economy: Her Big Bang boosted the power of finance
George Osborne yesterday described Baroness Thatcher as "our generation's inspiration".

The Chancellor certainly seems to have been inspired by her radical 1981 Budget. The former Prime Minister defied the Keynesian conventional economic wisdom, slashing public expenditure and raising taxes in a recession in order to bring down public borrowing and inflation. The economy began to grow almost straight away, although unemployment carried on rising, peaking at more than three million.

The total burden of taxation did not shift much in the Thatcher era, hovering around 40 per cent of GDP. But personal taxes did come down.

During her time in office the top rate of income tax fell from 83 per cent to 40 per cent and the basic rate was reduced from 33 per cent to 25 per cent.

Lady Thatcher did succeed in bringing down inflation from its ruinous highs of 22 per cent in 1980 to a low of 4.2 per cent in 1987, despite abandoning command-and-control incomes policies and pay deals with the unions.

Inflation had risen to 10 per cent by the time she left office thanks to a housing boom her policies had helped to stoke.

Perhaps Lady Thatcher's most enduring economic legacy was the deregulation of the City of London in 1986, known as the Big Bang.

This resulted in an explosion of speculation as the old institutional divisions between stock buyers and stock sellers were torn down.

As the UK's manufacturing base contracted, the economy became increasingly dominated by the power of finance.
Housing: 'Right to Buy' raised billions and won support
Baroness Thatcher was determined to preside over an increase in the number of homeowners, believing that there were too many council tenants. During the 1970s, many tenants had wanted to buy their homes, but councils resisted because they had an obligation to house the homeless.

Lady Thatcher and her Environment Secretary, Michael Heseltine, legislated to compel councils to sell at a cut price to any tenant wanting to buy, and banned them from using the proceeds to build new homes. All of it went into reducing their debts.

More than 1.25 million tenants took advantage of the "Right to Buy" scheme, which raised £18bn and converted thousands of Labour voters into Conservatives - though as council-housing stock shrank, homeless beggars appeared on the streets for the first time in 30 years.

In 1979, there were also strict rules covering banks and building societies that stood in the way of first-time buyers.

Banks did not offer mortgages, and building societies were not allowed to hold savings accounts or borrow on the money markets.

The Thatcher government lifted these restrictions, allowing building societies to convert into banks, and banks to become mortgage lenders.

This set off a boom in house-buying which suddenly crashed in 1989, as families were plunged into negative equity.
Europe: Simmering distrust had little long-term impact
No other post-war Prime Minister looked across the Channel with such an air of simmering distrust.

The one positive thing that can be said about Baroness Thatcher's attitude to the European Union is that she never considered pulling out, as Ukip would have us do.

She put her signature on the Single European Act in 1986, which created the single market and reduced the number of issues on which the UK or any other member could wield a veto.

But from the beginning of her premiership, she shocked other European leaders with her handbag-swinging negotiating style.

This paid dividends at first, when she secured a reduction in the UK contribution to the EU budget.

The battle which contributed to her undoing was over the Exchange Rate Mechanism, precursor of the single currency, which tied the value of sterling to the German mark and other currencies.

Her vehement opposition triggered the resignations of her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, and former chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe.

Mr Howe accused her in his resignation speech of believing that Europe was "positively teeming with ill-intentioned people".

In the long run, her attitude had curiously little impact on Britain's position within the EU, but created a lasting open wound in the Conservative Party, which has not properly healed even now.
Schools: She gave power to schools (after taking their milk)
Throughout her political career she was dogged by the epithet "Margaret Thatcher - Milk Snatcher", a result of her decision while Education Secretary to axe free school milk for 7-to-11-year-olds. She was moved to write in her autobiography: "I learned a valuable lesson - I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit."

As Prime Minister, though, she was responsible for many of the reforms now being built upon by the current Education Secretary, Michael Gove. Her Great Education Reform Bill - or "Gerbil" - was responsible for setting up the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) and a regular cycle of school inspections, allowing schools to opt out of local education authority control and manage their own budgets.

She could, however, be pragmatic. She retreated on plans to introduce student loans in the face of massive opposition from students, and middle-class Tory voters, in the early 1980s - although it was only a delay in their introduction. A surprising fact to emerge from her reign as Education Secretary was that she was responsible for the closure of more grammar schools than any other Education Secretary before or since.
Local Government: Unpopular 'poll tax' led to her downfall
Baroness Thatcher was no great believer in local democracy, despite being an alderman's daughter. The biggest single transfer of power from local government to the centre in modern times was when she abolished the business rate, which used to be paid directly to local councils but since 1990 has gone to the Treasury. Her government was also the first to use the law to restrict council spending. Councillors in Liverpool and Lambeth who refused to comply were disqualified and personally surcharged.

Finally, Lady Thatcher decided to go for what seemed like the ultimate weapon. The Conservative manifesto for the 1987 general election included a promise to abolish the rates outright and introduce a new "community charge" tax, dubbed by opponents the "poll tax". As councils set their poll-tax rates, there were disturbances across the country, culminating in a major riot in central London in May 1990. This contributed more than any other domestic policy to Lady Thatcher's downfall that year.
Health: Competition changed the NHS forever
It is often said the current NHS reforms are the biggest in its history. In terms of scale that may be true, but in terms of their direction of travel, that was set 25 years ago, announced by Baroness Thatcher on the BBC Panorama programme in 1988. The trigger was a crisis at Birmingham Children's hospital where heart operations had been postponed for lack of funding, putting young lives at risk. The NHS had lurched from crisis to crisis during the 1980s and the Government had once more been forced to seek an extra £100m from the Treasury to bale it out. Patience was wearing thin, and the Tory party was growing restive.

The review ushered in the NHS internal market, the mechanism that introduced what many in the health service still revile: competition. Health authorities ceased to run hospitals but instead "purchased" care from hospitals who had to compete with others. Every development since has been a refinement of this market structure. Has it improved the NHS? The service is better today than it has ever been, with shorter waiting-lists, better access and higher standards of care than at any point in the last 60 years. But many would say that has been achieved in spite of, not because of, constant reform.
Obituary: Margaret Thatcher, Britain's first and only female prime minister Margaret Thatcher: Round-up of today's full coverage
Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Margaret Thatcher's legacy: Spilt milk, New Labour, and the Big Bang -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Baroness Thatcher came to power determined to curb the trade unions after the strike epidemic of the 1970s, and to reduce government subsidies to industry. The steel industry was the first to be affected, after Ian MacGregor, a partner in a New York merchant bank, had been coaxed over to take charge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1 Transforming the City of London

Until the late 1970s, the Square Mile was a genteel all-male club dominated by pinstripe suits, public school accents and a culture of long lunches. Money was made at the Stock Exchange with effortless panache, as a coterie of licensed dealers acted on behalf of stockbroker firms with redolent names such as Quilter and Co.

The Big Bang blew the ancien regime apart. Within six months of Margaret Thatcher's election, exchange controls were lifted and foreign capital flooded into Britain. The deregulation of the Stock Exchange in 1986 was an invitation to the world's biggest beasts to enter the trading floor.

Traders began to send huge amounts of money fizzing around the world's financial networks. The towers of Canary Wharf rose silver and immaculate from the industrial desert of the former London Docklands. The capital began its journey to world financial domination.

The crash of five years ago cast a shadow on the free-for-all spirit that the Big Bang let rip. But Thatcher's deregulatory push created the new internationally focused City. For better and for worse, it hasn't looked back. At the start of this decade the financial sector was estimated to be worth £125.4bn, or 9.4%, in gross value to the UK economy.

2 Privatisation

As part of a famous television ad campaign from September 1986, an ordinary looking bloke is shown in a fictional village pub. Lost in thought, he almost knocks a passing postman from his bike. It turns out he is preoccupied with the news that he can buy shares in British Gas. After passing on the good news to the postie, he adds: "If you see Sid, tell him."

The age of Sid was not simply a PR myth. Initially there really was a popular scramble by ordinary folk to sign up to the "people's capitalism" and reap the rewards. Four million people applied for British Gas shares at 135p a pop with a minimum purchase of 100. Many then sold them almost immediately for a quick profit. In Thatcher's second term, Jaguar, British Telecom, BritOil and British Aerospace were also sold off. Later, British Steel, British Airways, BP, water and electricity would follow. Thatcher said that privatisation was a chance to give "power back to the people". In fact, as Robert Philpot, director of the Progress pressure group, wrote last week: "Now, in 2012, it's clear that the result of electricity privatisation was to take power away from the people. Small British shareholders have no influence over the overwhelmingly non-British owners of the firms that generate and distribute power in Britain."

3 The Saatchi and Saatchi effect

Saatchi and Saatchi's "Labour isn't working" political poster, apparently featuring a long dole queue (made up of actors), became perhaps the most famous in the nation's history. British electioneering was changed for ever.

4 The decline of the north

When Britain's first female prime minister was in her pomp, northern football fans travelling to away games in London would be taunted by home supporters waving wads of £10 and £20 notes. The brutal repartee of the terraces expressed a fundamental truth of the Thatcher period: the north suffered the worst of the deep recession and high unemployment of the early years; and it benefited least from the eventual boom of the late 1980s.

It would be wrong to say that Thatcher planned the decline of the north's most vital industries and sources of employment. In fact, northern England suffered precisely from the absence of a plan in Westminster.

In 1985, explaining why she believed regional planning in Britain was a non-starter, Thatcher said: "If we try to discourage development and economic growth in large parts of the south of England, in the hope that it will happen in the large cities in the north, we risk losing them altogether."

Left to its own devices, the British economy rebalanced irrevocably to the south. Employment in the manufacturing industry, vital to the north's wellbeing, slumped, falling from 7.1 million in 1979 to 4.4m in 1993. Services and the booming City eventually took up much of the economic slack, but the good times were happening in the south.

5 A diminished role for trades unions

Thatcher came to power ready to take on the the National Union of Mineworkers, which had humiliated her Tory predecessor, Edward Heath, during the 1970s.

The miners' strike of 1984-85 allowed her to destroy the power of the NUM and institute a series of legal obstacles to industrial action - which she believed had bedevilled Britain in the 70s. Meanwhile, the decline in Britain's manufacturing industry, which Thatcher's government did little to reverse, destroyed the power bases of British trades unionism.

High unemployment and recession critically weakened the unions' bargaining power in the early- to mid-1980s. Since 1980, union membership in Britain has halved.

6 Open all hours

A backlash by the Christian right meant that Thatcher's shops bill, designed to allow Sunday trading, was voted down in 1986. It was her only defeat on an entire bill in the Commons. But the road to deregulation for shops and pubs had begun.

7 Shattering the postwar political consensus

After the second world war, British politics seemed to have come to a lasting settlement on the fundamentals of running the country. Both the Conservatives and Labour cherished the "mixed economy", balanced between public and private ownership. Pragmatism was the order of the day, as union leaders such as Jack Jones and Joe Gormley enjoyed beer and sandwiches at No 10. Economic policy was forged through achieving "tripartite consensus" between employers, unions and the government of the day.

The winter of discontent sounded the knell for that way of doing things. Thatcher arrived in power armed with the free-market philosophy of Ronald Reagan's adviser, Milton Friedman. "Managers must be allowed to manage" became the mantra, and a new style of politics was born.

8 The rise of power-dressing

The rise of the City of London, and its new money-focused ethos, spawned its own style. Designer labels came of age, suited to the new aspirational spirit. Actresses such as Joan Collins, (a Thatcher admirer) in the American glamour soaps Dallas and Dynasty, patented the look for would-be female power-dressers.

Shoulder-pads and sharply tailored suits ruled. Thatcher swore by her blue skirt suit, pearls and Asprey handbag, a look that was to influence powerful women from Hillary Clinton to Condoleezza Rice.

9 The Northern Ireland peace process

Among republicans in Northern Ireland, Thatcher is loathed for her intransigence during the Maze prison hunger strike of 1981, which led to the death of Bobby Sands. But four years later she appalled unionists by signing the Anglo-Irish agreement, which gave the Republic of Ireland a say in the affairs of the north, paving the way for the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998.

10 Education reforms

Thatcher's education secretary from 1986-89, Kenneth Baker, transformed the state school system, creating a proto-market that is being enthusiastically embraced and developed by one of his successors, Michael Gove. Baker insisted that attainment levels be made public, allowing a "league table" of schools to emerge. At the same time, he instructed schools to accept all applicants, local or otherwise, unless already full.

The choice agenda was born: parents could, in theory if not always in practice, decide which school their child would go to. Local authority control of education was also much-reduced by the Education Act of 1988, which gave autonomy over budgets and appointments to heads and school governors.

Gove has deepened that autonomy with his academy programme and added the further option of free schools.

11 Changing the way we watch football

Thatcher had no interest in football, despite occasional cringeworthy photo-ops, such as the pose outside No 10 with footballers Kevin Keegan and Emlyn Hughes before the 1980 European Championships. But when one of the worst incidents of football hooliganism broke out at a Luton-Millwall match in March 1985, she acted. The Football Spectators Act was passed in 1989, controversially making ID cards compulsory for fans.

After the Hillsborough disaster that year, in which 96 Liverpool fans died, the plan was never acted upon. Lord Taylor's Hillsborough inquiry recommended all-seater stadiums in English grounds. A revolution in who watched football and how they watched it was under way.

12 Inspiring a generation of Eurosceptics

When the European Economic Community began to develop far beyond a free-trade agreement, Thatcher's strident opposition to anything beyond a single market became a hallmark of her premiership. She inspired a generation of Eurosceptics and changed the chemistry of the Tory party. In much of the nation, fed on a diet of "Up yours, Delors!" style headlines and exposés of life aboard the "Brussels gravy-train", the mood gradually shifted from one of relative indifference to antipathy towards the EU.

13 Relations with Rupert Murdoch

Murdoch's Sun switched from backing Labour to the Tories for the 1979 election that launched Thatcher. The relationship became mutually beneficial from then on as she helped him create a power base that would be threatened only 30 years later, during the hacking inquiry.

In the early 1980s Murdoch launched a bid for the Times Group newspapers, which ordinarily would have been referred to the competition authorities, given his existing media holdings. Instead the deal went through on the nod after private meetings between Thatcher and Murdoch at Chequers.

Murdoch would later revolutionise the British media, defying the print unions and moving his News International media group to Wapping in an overnight coup de theatre. Thatcher backed him. According to cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."

14 The revolution in home ownership

Britain was not always a country obsessed with house prices. But the Housing Act of 1980, which allowed council house tenants to buy their own homes, changed the face of home ownership in Britain. Many former local authority tenants paid less than £10,000 for homes that would be worth 10 times that a decade later. Over the next 30 years, this radical move towards "a nation of home-owners" led to a trail of unintended consequences.

A prolonged boom in house prices took place along with a chronic shortage of affordable housing - yet to be resolved by a series of governments - and the gradual emergence of a culture of debt, incurred on the presumption that the value of property would keep rising. In the private sector, rents soared.

In the first half of 1988 alone, house prices rose by 30%. On the back of the housing boom, much of Britain mortgaged itself up to the hilt and household debt reached record levels.

15 A new prestige for the armed forces

Winning the Falklands war in 1982 transformed Thatcher's standing in the opinion polls. Fighting it put the armed forces back on the centre stage for the first time since Suez. The Falklands revived the prestige of soldiering, as huge crowds gathered to wave off and welcome home the troops in Portsmouth. Later came the Gulf, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and the tributes to the fallen at Wootton Bassett.

16 Framing the debate

No one talks about abolishing private schools any more. Unilateral nuclear disarmament is not embraced by any of the three main political parties. In 1979, as Thatcher took power, the top rate of income tax was 83%. The ferocious battle this year over lowering the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% illustrates how far the debate on tax has shifted.

17 Transforming the Labour party

Losing three times to Thatcher led directly to the creation of New Labour and the emergence of Tony Blair as a leader who embraced her emphasis on choice, competition and an expanding role for the private sector in the economy. Following the crash of 2007, Labour under Ed Miliband has still to decide whether to make the break from that consensus.

18 The Tories and the Church of England

The observation that the Church of England amounts to "the Tory party at prayer" is thought to date to the 18th century. Thatcher's terms of office severely damaged that relationship, possibly beyond repair. The publication in 1985 of the C of E report Faith in the City, A Call to Action by Church and Nation, caused an almighty political row between the church and the Conservative party which has reverberated to the present day. Endorsed by Dr Robert Runcie, then archbishop of Canterbury, the document followed riots in Britain's inner cities. It was a cry of anguish over the dilapidated, alienated state of the inner cities, after years of recession, gloom and rising unemployment. Relations between the Tories and the established church have never truly recovered.

19 Transforming television

Thatcher saw the BBC licence fee as a tax imposed on television viewers irrespective of whether they wanted to watch BBC programmes or not. As prime minister, she believed that a leftwing bias permeated its coverage. During the Falklands war, rightwingers renamed the corporation the Stateless Persons Broadcasting Corporation - a dig at its refusal to describe British troops as "our" troops and Argentinian soldiers as "the enemy".

It was hoped that the 1990 Broadcasting Act would tame the institution, forcing it to outsource at least 25% of its production, and allowing new players into the market. But the legacy of the Thatcher era has been to drag the BBC into a perpetual culture war. And she helped create Channel 4 in 1982, probably not anticipating that it would popularise fiercely anti-establishment output.

20 Changing the world

Defeat in the Falklands war signalled the end of the road for Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri Castelli, head of Argentina's last military dictatorship. Thatcher's friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev helped hasten the cold war to its end, as the economically moribund Soviet Union collapsed. However, her refusal to back sanctions on apartheid South Africa, and description of Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist", arguably delayed the fall of that regime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Margaret Thatcher: 20 ways that she changed Britain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Until the late 1970s, the Square Mile was a genteel all-male club dominated by pinstripe suits, public school accents and a culture of long lunches. Money was made at the Stock Exchange with effortless panache, as a coterie of licensed dealers acted on behalf of stockbroker firms with redolent names such as Quilter and Co.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Later in the year, on July 31, there was a Cabinet discussion on teachers' pay when at one point Mrs Thatcher sought to underline the importance of 'sound money'. Jim Prior immediately responded, 'I don't give a damn for sound money.'

It was a response in the heat of the moment revealing above all his concern at the mounting unemployment. But the issue could not be allowed to rest there. Looking around the Cabinet table, Mrs Thatcher said quietly that if anyone felt that they could not support the Government's economic policy then they should let her know. There was an embarrassed silence.

Nine months later, on March 10 1981, there came perhaps the most difficult Cabinet meeting of all. It was the pre-Budget meeting when the Chancellor, Geoffrey Howe, briefed ministers on what he would be saying in a few hours' time on the floor of the House of Commons. The 1981 Budget was an avowedly tax-raising one, which may have been necessary to reduce borrowing but was deeply unpopular at the time. There was nothing that we ministers could do at this stage to change the Chancellor's proposals, but that did not prevent a full-scale Cabinet attack.

Jim Prior described the proposals as 'disastrous', adding that they would do nothing for growth and send unemployment figures above three million. He was supported by the so-called economic 'wets', such as Ian Gilmour and Peter Walker, who on this occasion were joined by Francis Pym and Christopher Soames. Even Keith Joseph had his doubts as he argued for more private investment in public industries. Seldom can a Chancellor have gone into battle - and battle it was - with such little encouragement from his colleagues.

It also points up one of the great paradoxes of the Thatcher years. Although Geoffrey Howe was entirely indispensable to her plans and shielded her from the brunt of internal criticism, relations between the two were never good. From the beginning she appeared impatient of his deceptively low-key style - and perhaps she never entirely trusted his traditional One Nation instincts, which she identified with Ted Heath's Government.

The 1981 Budget marked the low point inside the Cabinet. A few months later a reshuffle brought in Nigel Lawson, Norman Tebbit and Cecil Parkinson and saw the dismissal of Ian Gilmour and Christopher Soames and the exile to Northern Ireland of Jim Prior. The balance of the Cabinet changed, and the success of the Falklands operation finally established her ascendancy.

It was in the period after her third election victory in 1987 that the legend of the Cabinet dictator began more closely to match reality. She was now determined to implement policies that more cautious voices had always argued against - policies such as the introduction of the community charge (soon to be known as the 'poll tax') and education reform. She intended to drive them through.

In this process Cabinet itself became increasingly sidelined. The real decisions were taken by smaller groups of ministers in Cabinet committees, with the Prime Minister very firmly in the chair. If a new minister were in any doubt about what was expected, Margaret Thatcher would indelibly mark his card. At one meeting she looked down at the departmental proposals that had been tabled and asked the other ministers, 'Does anyone other than the Secretary of State agree with this paper?'

Worse still, Cabinet ministers found that advisers at No 10 were exercising more and more influence. The advisers could scupper a minister's plans - even plans that in most situations would be called 'Thatcherite'.

I found my own plans to privatise the employment offices vetoed in this way.

While in preparation for the important 1988 European Council meeting in Madrid, Geoffrey Howe, by then the Foreign Secretary, found that advisers such as Charles Powell were being consulted while he and the Chancellor Nigel Lawson were excluded. It was a process that was bound to end in tears - and indeed a year later Lawson resigned from the Government when the Prime Minister in effect backed her adviser, Alan Walters, rather than her Chancellor over exchange rate policy.

Yet even at this stage Margaret Thatcher never took her position as prime minister for granted. I learnt this as I prepared myself to leave the Cabinet at the beginning of 1990. At the second of our meetings she used all her considerable charm to persuade me to stay. When I declined, the mask slipped for a moment. 'Norman,' she said, 'I don't want to see this Government falling apart.'

It seemed inconceivable to me - and most other Cabinet ministers - that she was in such danger. But of course she was right and, 11 months later, this remarkable woman fell from power.

Lord Fowler served in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet from 1981 to 1990.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet was a battle of wills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Later in the year, on July 31, there was a Cabinet discussion on teachers' pay when at one point Mrs Thatcher sought to underline the importance of 'sound money'. Jim Prior immediately responded, 'I don't give a damn for sound money.'