Constitution of the United Kingdom

"British Constitution" redirects here. For the card game, see British Constitution (solitaire).
United Kingdom

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
the United Kingdom

Government[show]
• Sovereign
○ Queen
Elizabeth II
• The Crown
• The Privy Council
• Cabinet
○ Prime
Minister
 D
av
id
C
a
m
er
on
○ Full list of
members
• Her Majesty's Civil
Service
○ Departmen
ts
○ Executive
agencies
Parliament[show]
• State Opening of
Parliament
• Act of Parliament
 • House of Lords
○ Lord
Speaker
 T
he
B
ar
on
es
s
H
ay
m
an
• House of Commons
○ Speaker
 Jo
hn
B
er
co
w
M
P
○ Prime
Minister's
Questions
• Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition
○ Leader
 H
ar
rie
t
H
ar
m
an
M
P
○ Shadow
Cabinet
Judiciary[show]
• Supreme Court of
the United Kingdom
• Courts of the United
Kingdom
○ Courts of
England
and Wales
 ○ Courts of
Northern
Ireland
○ Courts of
Scotland
• Constitution
• Human rights
UK countries[show]
• Politics of England
○ English
Regional
Assemblies
○ Greater
London
Authority
• Politics of Scotland
○ Scottish
Governme
nt
○ Scottish
Parliament
• Politics of Wales
○ Welsh
Assembly
Governme
nt
○ National
Assembly
for Wales
• Politics of Northern
Ireland
○ Northern
Ireland
Executive
○ Northern
Ireland
Assembly
• Reserved matters
Elections[show]
• Elections in the
United Kingdom
• Parliament
constituencies
• Political parties
• Last election
 • Next election
Foreign policy[show]
• Foreign relations
• Politics of the
European Union

· Atlas
Other countries
Politics portal
view • talk • edit

The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the
United Kingdom is governed.
The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of most other nations. It is
therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten", uncodified, or de facto constitution.[1]
However, the word "unwritten" is something of a misnomer as the majority of the British
constitution does exist in the written form of statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The
constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and
the royal prerogatives.
The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of Parliamentary
sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final
source of law.[2] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new
Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid
today.[3] One reason for the uncertainty derives from the UK's membership of the European
Union.[4]

Contents
• 1 Key principles of the UK's Constitution
○ 1.1 Parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law
○ 1.2 Unitary state
○ 1.3 Constitutional monarchy
○ 1.4 Prime Minister and Government
○ 1.5 Judiciary
○ 1.6 Church of England
• 2 Sources
○ 2.1 Acts of Parliament
○ 2.2 Treaties
○ 2.3 EU law
○ 2.4 Common law
○ 2.5 Conventions
○ 2.6 Works of authority
• 3 Disputes about the nature of the UK Constitution
 • 4 Devolution
• 5 Other constitutional reforms
• 6 Key statutes and conventions
○ 6.1 Selected key statutes
○ 6.2 Some important conventions
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 Further reading
• 10 External links

Key principles of the UK's Constitution

Parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law
In the 19th century, A.V. Dicey, a highly influential constitutional scholar and lawyer, wrote of
the "twin pillars" of the British constitution in his classic work An Introduction to the Study of
the Law of the Constitution (1885). These pillars are, first, the principle of Parliamentary
sovereignty; and, second, the rule of law. The former means that Parliament is the supreme law-
making body: its Acts are the highest source of British law. The latter is the idea that all laws and
government actions conform to certain fundamental and unchanging principles. These
fundamental principles include; equal application of the law - everyone is equal before the law
and no person is above the law, including those in power. Another is; no person is punishable in
body or goods without a breach of the law - as held in Entick v Carrington, unless there is a clear
breach of the law, persons are free to do anything, unless the law says otherwise, thus, no
punishment without a clear breach of the law.
According to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament may pass any legislation that
it wishes. By contrast, in countries with a codified constitution, the legislature is normally
forbidden from passing laws that contradict that constitution: constitutional amendments require
a special procedure that is more arduous than that for regular laws.[5]
The limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty have been debated for a number of years.
One purported example of its limits which is often given[by whom?] is provided by the category of
statutes (such as the 1931 Statute of Westminster) that were passed to grant independence to
former British colonies. It is said that it would clearly be beyond the power of Parliament to
repeal legislation of this sort and to return the former colonies to British rule. The counter-
argument is that Parliament could take such a step as a matter of British law even though it
would have no physical means of enforcing it (just as, for example, Taiwan continues in
principle to claim sovereignty over mainland China). One reply to this counter-argument is that a
doctrine that allows such apparent absurdities must in itself be defective.
There are many Acts of Parliament which themselves have constitutional significance. For
example, Parliament has the power to determine the length of its own term. By the Parliament
Acts 1911 and 1949, the default length of a term of parliament is five years, but this may be
extended with the consent of both Houses. This power was most recently used during World War
II to extend the lifetime of the 1935 parliament in annual increments up to 1945. However, the
Sovereign retains the power to dissolve parliament at any time on the advice of the Prime
Minister. Parliament also has the power to change the makeup of its constituent houses and the
relation between them. Examples include the House of Lords Act 1999 which changed the
membership of the House of Lords, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 which altered the
relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the Reform Act 1832
which made major changes to the system used to elect members of the House of Commons.
The power extended to Parliament includes the power to determine the line of succession to the
British throne. This power was most recently used to pass His Majesty's Declaration of
Abdication Act 1936, which gave constitutional effect to the abdication of Edward VIII and
removed any of his putative descendants from the succession. Parliament also has the power to
remove or regulate the executive powers of the Sovereign.[6]
Parliament consists of the Sovereign, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The
House of Commons consists of 650 members elected by the people from single-member
constituencies under a first past the post system. Following the passage of the House of Lords
Act 1999, the House of Lords consists of 26 bishops of the Church of England (Lords Spiritual),
92 elected representatives of the hereditary peers, and several hundred life peers. The power to
nominate bishops of the Church of England, and to create hereditary and life peers, is exercised
by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. By the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949
legislation may, in certain circumstances, be passed without the approval of the House of Lords.
Although all legislation must receive the approval of the Sovereign (Royal Assent), no Sovereign
has withheld such assent since 1708.
Following the accession of the UK to European Economic Community (now the European
Union) in 1972, the UK became bound by European law and more importantly, the principle of
the supremacy of European Union law. According to this principle, which was outlined by the
European Court of Justice in 1964 in the case of Costa v. ENEL, laws of member states that
conflict with EU laws must be disapplied by member states' courts. The conflict between the
principles of the primacy of EU law and of parliamentary supremacy was illustrated in the
judgment in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council,[7] which held that the European Communities
Act 1972, the Act that initiated British involvement in the EU, could not be implicitly repealed
simply by the passing of subsequent legislation inconsistent with European law. The court went
further and suggested that the 1972 Act formed part of a category of special "constitutional
statutes" that were not subject to implied repeal. This exception to the doctrine of implied repeal
was something of a novelty, though the court stated that it remained open for Parliament to
expressly repeal the Act[8]. It is politically inconceivable at the present time that Parliament
would do so, and constitutional lawyers have also questioned whether such a step would be as
straightforward in its legal effects as it might seem. The Thoburn judgment was handed down
only by the Divisional Court (part of the High Court), which occupies a relatively low level in
the legal system.
The House of Commons alone possesses the power to pass a motion of no confidence in the
Government, which requires the Government either to resign or seek fresh elections (see below).
Such a motion does not require passage by the Lords, or Royal Assent.
Parliament traditionally also has the power to remove individual members of the government by
impeachment (with the Commons initiating the impeachment and the Lords trying the case),
although this power has not been used since 1806. By the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 it has
the power to remove individual judges from office for misconduct.
Unitary state
 This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (May 2010)

The United Kingdom comprises four distinct countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland.[9] Nevertheless, it is a unitary state, not a federation (like the United States, Brazil or
Russia) or a confederation (like Switzerland and the former Serbia and Montenegro). Although
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as of 2001, possess their own legislatures and executives,
England does not (see West Lothian question). The authority of all these bodies is dependent on
Acts of Parliament, and they can in principle be abolished at the will of the British Parliament in
Westminster. A historical example of a legislature that was created by Act of Parliament and
later abolished is the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which was set up by the Government of
Ireland Act 1920 and abolished, in response to large-scale political violence in Northern Ireland,
by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (Northern Ireland has since been given another
legislative assembly under the Northern Ireland Act 1998). Likewise the Greater London Council
was abolished in 1986 by the Local Government Act 1985, and a similar institution, the Greater
London Authority was established in 2000 by the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
Parliament contains no chamber comparable to the United States Senate (representing the
interests of the states) or German Bundesrat (representing the Länder). England contains over
80% of the UK's population, produces over 80% of its combined gross domestic product and
contains the capital, London.
In England the established church is the Church of England. In Scotland, there is no state church,
the Church of Scotland having been formally recognised as not having that status with the
Church of Scotland Act 1921; Wales and Northern Ireland have no established church. England
and Wales share the same legal system, while Scotland and Northern Ireland each has its own
distinctive legal system. All these distinctions have been created by Act of Parliament, and could
theoretically be altered by Parliament in the future.
Constitutional monarchy
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy: succession to the British throne is hereditary,
governed by the principle of male preference primogeniture, but excludes Roman Catholics or
those who marry Roman Catholics.
Under the British Constitution, sweeping executive powers, known as the royal prerogative, are
nominally vested in the Sovereign. In exercising these powers, however, the Sovereign normally
defers to the advice of the Prime Minister or other ministers. This principle, which can be traced
back to the Restoration, was most famously articulated by the Victorian writer Walter Bagehot as
"the Queen reigns, but she does not rule".
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (May 2010)

The precise extent of the royal prerogative has never formally been delineated, but it includes the
following powers, among others:
• The power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister
• The power to appoint and dismiss other ministers.
• The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament
 • The power to make war and peace
• The power to command the armed forces of the United Kingdom
• The power to regulate the Civil Service
• The power to ratify treaties
• The power to issue passports
• The power to appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England
• The power to create peers (both life peers and hereditary peers).
The most important prerogatives still personally exercised by the Sovereign are the choice of
whom to appoint Prime Minister, and whether to grant a dissolution of Parliament on the request
of the Prime Minister. The most recent occasion the monarch has had to exercise these powers
were in February 1974, when Prime Minister Edward Heath resigned after failing to secure an
overall majority in Parliament. Queen Elizabeth II appointed Harold Wilson, leader of the
Labour Party, as Prime Minister, exercising her prerogative after extensive consultation with the
Privy Council. The Labour Party had the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but
not an overall majority.
The Sovereign normally grants any request of the Prime Minister for a dissolution of Parliament.
However, several authorities agree that a Prime Minister who is granted a dissolution must win at
least one vote of confidence from the newly elected Commons before he or she has the right to
request any further dissolution. This would mean that, for example, a sitting Prime Minister who
suffered defeat in a General Election, and was then defeated in the first confidence motion he or
she faced in the new Commons, would not be granted a dissolution.[10] No refusal of a requested
dissolution has happened since the beginning of the twentieth century.[10]
The last Sovereign to dismiss a Prime Minister who had not suffered a defeat on a motion of
confidence in the House of Commons, or to appoint a Prime Minister who clearly did not enjoy a
majority in that House, was William IV who in 1834 dismissed the Government of Lord
Melbourne, replacing him with the Duke of Wellington.
Queen Victoria was the last sovereign to veto a ministerial appointment. In 1892, she refused
William Ewart Gladstone's advice to include Henry Labouchère (a radical who had insulted the
Royal Family) in the Cabinet.[11]
The last sovereign to veto legislation passed by Parliament was Queen Anne, who withheld
assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.
The Royal Prerogative is not unlimited; this was established in the Case of Proclamations (1610),
which confirmed that no new prerogative can be created and that Parliament can abolish
individual prerogatives.
Prime Minister and Government
The Prime Minister is appointed by the Sovereign. When one party has an absolute majority in
the House of Commons, the Sovereign appoints the leader of that party as Prime Minister. When
there is a hung parliament, or the identity of the leader of the majority party is not clear (as was
often the case for the Conservative Party up to the 1960s, and for all parties in the nineteenth
century), the Sovereign has more flexibility in their choice. The Sovereign appoints and
dismisses other ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister (and such appointments and
dismissals occur quite frequently as part of cabinet reshuffles). The Prime Minister, together with
other ministers, form the Government. The Government often includes ministers whose posts are
sinecures (such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) or ministers with no specific
responsibilities (minister without portfolio): such positions may be used by the Prime Minister as
a form of patronage, or to reward officials such as the Chairman of the ruling Party with a
governmental salary.
If the Commons votes against the Government on a matter of confidence, the Prime Minister
must either resign (along with the entire government) or ask the Sovereign to dissolve parliament
and call fresh elections.The Government usually resigns immediately after defeat in a general
election: however this is not required: for example Stanley Baldwin's government lost its
majority in the general election of December 1923, but did not resign until defeated in a
confidence vote in January 1924.[12] A request by the Prime Minister to dissolve parliament is
usually granted by the Sovereign: however the Sovereign may refuse such a request immediately
after a general election, and instead invite another leader to form a government.[13]
The Prime Minister and all other ministers take office immediately upon appointment by the
Sovereign. In the United Kingdom, unlike many other countries, there is no requirement for a
formal vote of approval by the legislature either of the Government as a whole or of its
individual members before they may assume office.
The Prime Minister and all other Ministers must serve concurrently as members of the House of
Commons or House of Lords, and are obliged by collective responsibility to cast their
Parliamentary votes for the Government's position, regardless of their personal feelings or the
interests of their constituents. The Prime Minister is normally a member of the House of
Commons. The last Prime Minister to be a member of the House of Lords was Alec Douglas-
Home; however, he resigned from the Lords and became a member of the Commons shortly after
his appointment as Prime Minister in 1963. The last Prime Minister to serve a full administration
from the House of Lords was Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, who served until 1902.
Thus the executive ("Her Majesty's Government") is "fused" with Parliament. Because of a
number of factors, including the decline of the Sovereign and the House of Lords as independent
political actors, an electoral system that tends to produce absolute majorities for one party in the
Commons, and the strength of party discipline in the Commons (including the built-in payroll
vote in favour of the Government), the Prime Minister tends to have sweeping powers checked
only by the need to retain the support of his or her own MPs. The phrase elective dictatorship
was coined by former Lord Chancellor Quintin Hogg in 1976 to highlight the enormous potential
power of government afforded by the constitution.[14]
The need of a Prime Minister to retain the support of his own MPs was illustrated by the case of
Margaret Thatcher, who resigned in 1990 after being challenged for the leadership of the
Conservative Party. The strength of party discipline within the Commons, enforced by the whip
system, is shown by the fact that the two most recent votes in which a Government was defeated
occurred in 1986 and 2005.
Judiciary
As mentioned above, there are three separate judicial systems in the United Kingdom: that of
England and Wales, that of Scotland, and that of Northern Ireland. Under the Constitutional
Reform Act 2005 the final court of appeal for all cases, other than Scottish criminal cases, is the
newly created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: for Scottish criminal cases, the final court
of appeal remains the High Court of Justiciary.
Vacancies in the Supreme Court are filled by the Sovereign based on the recommendation of a
special selection commission consisting of that Court's President, Deputy President, and
members of the judicial appointment commissions for the three judicial systems of the UK. The
choice of the commission may be vetoed by the Lord Chancellor (a government minister).
Members of the Supreme Court may be removed from office by Parliament, but only for
misconduct.
Judges may not sit or vote in either House of Parliament (before the 2005 Act, they had been
permitted to sit and vote in the House of Lords).
Church of England
The Church of England is the established church in England (though not in Scotland, Wales or
Northern Ireland). The Sovereign is ex officio Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and
is required by the Act of Settlement 1701 to "join in communion with the Church of England".
As part of the coronation ceremony, the Sovereign swears an oath to "maintain and preserve
inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and
government thereof, as by law established in England" before being crowned by the senior cleric
of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury - a similar oath concerning the established Church
of Scotland, which is a Presbyterian church, having already been given by the new sovereign in
his or her Accession Council. All clergy of the Church swear an oath of allegiance to the
Sovereign before taking office.
Parliament retains authority to pass laws regulating the Church of England. In practice, much of
this authority is delegated to the Church's General Synod. The appointment of bishops and
archbishops of the Church falls within the royal prerogative. In current practice, the Prime
Minister makes the choice from two candidates submitted by a commission of prominent Church
members, then passes his choice on to the Sovereign. The Prime Minister plays this role even
though he himself may not be a member of the Church of England or even a Christian—for
example Clement Attlee was an agnostic who described himself as "incapable of religious
feeling".[15])
Unlike many nations in continental Europe, the United Kingdom does not directly fund the
established church with public money (although many publicly funded voluntary aided schools
are run by religious foundations, including those of the Church of England). Instead, the Church
of England relies on donations, land and investments.
Sources
Acts of Parliament

One of several shelves full of books about the UK constitution at a law library
Acts of Parliament are laws (statutes) that have received the approval of Parliament - that is, the
Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. On rare occasions, the House of
Commons uses the "Parliament Acts" (the Parliament Act 1911 and the Parliament Act 1949) to
pass legislation without the approval of the House of Lords. It is unheard of in modern times for
the Sovereign to refuse to assent to a bill, though the possibility was contemplated by George V
in relation to the fiercely controversial Irish Home Rule Act 1914.[16]
Acts of Parliament are among the most important sources of the constitution. According to the
traditional view, Parliament has the ability to legislate however it wishes on any subject it
wishes. For example, most of the iconic mediaeval statute known as Magna Carta has been
repealed since 1828, despite previously being regarded as sacrosanct. It has traditionally been the
case that the courts are barred from questioning any Act of Parliament, a principle that can be
traced back to the mediaeval period.[17] On the other hand, this principle has not been without its
dissidents and critics over the centuries, and attitudes among the judiciary in this area may be
changing.[18][non-primary source needed]
One consequence of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that there is no hierarchy
among Acts of Parliament: all parliamentary legislation is, in principle, of equal validity and
effectiveness. However, the judgment of Lord Justice Laws in the Thoburn case in 2002
indicated that there may be a special class of "constitutional statutes" such as Magna Carta the
Human Rights Act 1998, the European Communities Act 1972, the Act of Union and Bill of
Rights which have a higher status than other legislation. This part of his judgment was "obiter"
(i.e. not binding) -- and, indeed, was controversial. It remains to be seen whether the doctrine
will be accepted by other judges.
Treaties
Treaties do not, on ratification, automatically become incorporated into UK law. Important
treaties have been incorporated into domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament. The European
Convention on Human Rights has, for example, to a considerable extent been incorporated into
domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998.
EU law
On one analysis, EU law is simply a subcategory of international law that depends for its effect
on a series of international treaties (notably the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty). It
therefore has effect in the UK only to the extent that Parliament permits it to have effect, by
means of statutes such as the European Communities Act 1972, and Parliament could, as a
matter of British law, unilaterally bar the application of EU law in the UK simply by legislating
to that effect.
On another analysis, which was first authoritatively articulated by the European Court of Justice
in the 1963 case of Van Gend en Loos, EU law represents a new legal regime which is
qualitatively different from other forms of international law and which takes precedence over the
internal legal and constitutional arrangements of member states. On this view, the notion that
Parliament could unilaterally legislate "as a matter of British law" to withdraw the UK from the
ambit of EU law is anachronistic and unreal[citation needed].
In any event, British membership of the EU has had a very considerable impact on the
constitution and governance of the country. In the Factortame litigation, for example, the House
of Lords took the unprecedented step of granting an injunction to "disapply" an Act of
Parliament (the Merchant Shipping Act 1988).
Common law
The United Kingdom uses the common law legal system (except in Scotland where some civil
law is incorporated, see Scots law) and court judgments also commonly form a source of the
constitution: generally speaking, judgments of the higher courts form precedents or case law that
binds lower courts and judges.
Historically important court judgments include those in the Case of Proclamations, the Ship
money case and Entick v. Carrington, all of which imposed limits on the power of the executive.
A constitutional precedent applicable to British colonies is Campbell v. Hall, which effectively
extended those same constitutional limitations to any territory which has been granted a
representative assembly.
Conventions
Many British constitutional conventions are ancient in origin, though others (like the Salisbury
Convention) date from within living memory. Such conventions, which include the duty of the
Sovereign to act on the advice of his or her ministers, are not formally enforceable in a court of
law; rather, they are primarily observed "because of the political difficulties which arise if they
are not."[19]
Works of authority
Works of authority is the formal name for works that are sometimes cited as interpretations of
aspects of the UK constitution. Most are works written by nineteenth- or early-twentieth-century
constitutionalists, in particular A.V. Dicey, Walter Bagehot and Erskine May.
Disputes about the nature of the UK Constitution
The legal scholar Eric Barendt argues that the uncodified nature of the United Kingdom
constitution does not mean it should not be characterised as a "constitution", but also claims that
the lack of an effective separation of powers, and the fact that parliamentary sovereignty allows
Parliament to overrule fundamental rights, makes it to some extent a 'facade' constitution.[20]
In one article, Lord Scarman presents a spirited argument for a written constitution for the UK,
but still refers to the 1688 compromise and resulting acts of parliament as a constitution.[21]
A. V. Dicey identified that ultimately "the electorate are politically sovereign," and Parliament is
legally sovereign.[22] Barendt argues that the greater political party discipline in the House of
Commons that has evolved since Dicey's era, and the reduction in checks on governmental
power, has led to an excessively powerful government that is not legally constrained by the
observance of fundamental rights.[20] A Constitution would impose limits on what Parliament
could do without a legal majority. To date, the Parliament of the UK has no limit on its power
other than the possibility of extra-parliamentary action (by the people) and of other sovereign
states (pursuant to treaties made by Parliament and otherwise).
Proponents of a codified constitution argue it would strengthen the legal protection of democracy
and freedom.[23]
Devolution
Reforms since 1997 have decentralised the UK by setting up a devolved Scottish Parliament and
assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. The UK had previously been an essentially unitary
state since its foundation in 1801, though Scotland had always had a separate legal system and
Ireland had repeatedly been subject to attempts to devolve power from London. Some
commentators[24] have stated the UK is now a "quasi-federal" state: it is only "quasi" federal,
because (unlike the other components of the UK) England has no legislature of its own, and is
directly ruled from Westminster (the devolved bodies are not sovereign and could, in theory at
least, be repealed by Parliament - unlike "true" federations such as the United States where the
constituent states share sovereignty with the federal government). Attempts to extend devolution
to the various regions of England have stalled, and the fact that Parliament functions both as a
British and as an English legislature has created some dissatisfaction (see, for example, the
article on the "West Lothian question").
Other constitutional reforms
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (May 2009)

The Labour government under past-Prime Minister Tony Blair instituted sweeping constitutional
reforms in the late 1990s and early-to-mid 2000s. The effective incorporation of the European
Convention on Human Rights into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 has granted
citizens specific positive rights and given the judiciary some power to enforce them. The courts
can put pressure on Parliament to amend primary legislation that conflicts with the Act by means
of "Declarations of Incompatibility" - however only of an advisory capacity as Parliament is not
bound to amend the law nor can the judiciary void any statute - and can refuse to enforce, or
"strike down", any incompatible secondary legislation. Any actions of government authorities
that violate Convention rights are illegal except if mandated by an Act of Parliament.
These reforms have undermined the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty somewhat, even
though Parliament could still abolish the devolved assemblies and repeal the Human Rights Act.
In reality such action is unlikely so these restrictions on the legislative power of Parliament are
likely to remain on the statute book for the time being.
The passage of the Freedom of Information Act has challenged the traditional British notion that
governments should not disclose too many details of their operations.
Recent changes also include the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which alters the structure of the
House of Lords to separate its judicial and legislative functions. For example the legislative,
judicial and executive functions of the Lord Chancellor are now shared between the Lord
Chancellor (executive), Lord Chief Justice (judicial) and the newly created post of Lord Speaker
(legislative). The role of Law Lord (a member of the judiciary in the House of Lords) was
abolished by transferring them to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in October
2009.
Gordon Brown launched a "Governance of Britain" process when he took over as PM in 2007.
This is an ongoing process of constitutional reform with the Ministry of Justice as lead ministry.
Key statutes and conventions
Below are listed some of the statutes that may be considered "constitutional" in nature and some
of the more important conventions.
Selected key statutes
• Magna Carta (1215) • Royal and Parliamentary
• Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 Titles Act 1927
• Petition of Right (1628) • Representation of the
People Act 1928
• Habeas Corpus Act 1679
• Statute of Westminster
 • Bill of Rights 1689 - for England and Wales 1931
• Claim of Right 1689 - for Scotland • Representation of the
• Act of Settlement 1701 People Act 1949
• Acts of Union 1707 - union of the Kingdom of • Life Peerages Act 1958
England & the Kingdom of Scotland to form the • Representation of the
Kingdom of Great Britain People Act 1969
• Act of Union 1800 - union of Great Britain & • European Communities
Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Act 1972
Britain and Ireland • Northern Ireland
• Reform Act 1832 Constitution Act 1973
• Reform Act 1867 • Human Rights Act 1998
• Reform Act 1884 • Scotland Act 1998
• Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 • Government of Wales
• Representation of the People Act 1918 Act 1998
• Government of Ireland Act 1920 • Northern Ireland Act
1998
• Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, Irish Free
State Constitution Act 1922, and Irish Free State • House of Lords Act 1999
(Consequential Provisions) Act 1922 • Freedom of Information
Act 2000
• Constitutional Reform
Act 2005
• Government of Wales
Act 2006

Some important conventions

• Relating to monarchy
○ The Sovereign shall grant the Royal Assent to all Bills passed by Parliament (the
Royal Assent was last refused by Queen Anne in 1708, for the Scottish Militia
Bill 1708, on the advice of her ministers).[25]
○ The monarch will not dissolve Parliament without the advice of the Prime
Minister.
○ The monarch will ask the leader of the dominant party in the House of Commons
to form a government, and if there is no dominant party, the leader most likely to
be able to form a coalition government.
○ The monarch will ask a member of the House of Commons (rather than the House
of Lords or someone outside Parliament) to form a government. It remains
possible, however, for a caretaker Prime Minister to be drawn from the House of
Lords.
• All ministers are to be drawn from the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
 • The House of Lords will accept any legislation that was in the Government's manifesto
(the 'Salisbury Convention') – in recent years this convention has been broken by the
Lords, though the composition of the Lords (which was the justification for the
convention) has radically changed since the convention was introduced.
• Individual Ministerial Responsibility
• Collective Ministerial Responsibility
See also
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of
UK Constitution and Government
• Category:English constitutionalists
• Commonwealth of Britain Bill
• Constitutional government
• History of the British constitution
• History of democracy
• House of Lords Constitution Committee
• Ministry of Justice
• Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom)
• Rights of Englishmen
• Power Inquiry
• Unlock Democracy
References
1. ^ Barnett, H. (2005). Constitutional and Administrative Law (5 ed.). London: Cavendish. pp. 9.
"Conversly, "A written constitution is one contained within a single document or a [finite] series
of documents, with or without amendments", id."
2. ^ This principle was famously enunciated by the legal scholar Albert Venn Dicey, and can be
found, for example, in Justice Megarry's judgment in the 1982 case of Manuel v Attorney
General.
3. ^ Turpin, Colin; Tomkins, Adam (2007). British government and the constitution: text and
materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0521690294.
http://books.google.com/books?id=QYuF6jmoem8C&lpg=PT94&ots=OaElg56P-
_&dq=parliamentary%20sovereignty%20doubts&pg=PT95#v=onepage&q=&f=false.
4. ^ Beatson, Jack (1998). Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom: practice and principles.
London: Hart Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 978-1901362848. http://books.google.com/books?
id=YEEgDsCYmbQC&lpg=PA45&ots=4Ew2D93sAA&dq=parliamentary%20sovereignty
%20doubts%20european%20union&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=&f=false.
5. ^ Runciman, David (2008-02-07). "This Way to the Ruin". London Review of Books.
6. ^ Bradley, A.; Ewing, K. (1997). Constitutional and Administrative Law. London. pp. 271.
7. ^ Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151 ("Metric
Martyrs" ruling) 18 Feb 2002 (Extract)
 8. ^ Akehurst, Michael; Malanczuk, Peter (1997). Akehurst's modern introduction to international
law. London: Routledge. pp. 65–66. ISBN 9780415111201. http://books.google.lu/books?
id=4doebHRhGT8C&dq=repeal+European+Communities+Act+1972+%22international+law
%22+dualist&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0.
9. ^ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823
10.^ a b http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAsQFjAB&url=http
%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fcommons%2Flib%2Fresearch%2Fbriefings%2Fsnpc-
04951.pdf&ei=mcnhS-
THAsP68Aas7JWdDA&usg=AFQjCNEQsCWsFWCb6gR2Aozrn1QOLBVxgA&sig2=Uve2Zc
B5_OneZMLkYgGtaQ
11.^ Bogdanor p. 34
12.^ Bogdanor, p. 148
13.^ Bogdanor, p. 176
14.^ "Elective dictatorship". The Listener: 496–500. 21 October 1976.
15.^ Brookshire, Jerry Hardman (1995). Clement Attlee. New York: Manchester University Press.
p. 15. ISBN 071903244X. http://books.google.com/books?id=Tn27AAAAIAAJ.
16.^ Bogdanor, Vernon (1997). The Monarchy and the Constitution. Oxford University Press.
p. 131. ISBN 0198293348. http://books.google.com/books?id=HEC6Ivq2JK8C.
17.^ See Prof. Jeffrey Goldsworthy's study The Sovereignty of Parliament, OUP 1999.
18.^ See in particular Jackson and others v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack-1.htm
19.^ Bradley and Ewing, p.24
20.^ a b Barendt, Eric (1997). "Is there a United Kingdom Constitution". Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies 137. http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/1/137?
maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitlea
bs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/
1997&resourcetype=HWCIT.
21.^ Scarman, Leslie (2003-07-20). "Why Britain Needs a Written Constitution". Charter88
Sovereignty lecture. Charter88.
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/charter88archive/pubs/sovlecs/scarman.html. Retrieved
2010-01-31.
22.^ Dicey, A.V. (1915). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. London:
Macmillan and Company. p. 70. http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm.
23.^ Abbott, Lewis F. (2006). "Five: "The Legal Protection Of Democracy & Freedom: The Case
For A New Written Constitution & Bill Of Rights"". British Democracy: Its Restoration &
Extension. ISR. ISBN 978-0-906321-31-7. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xwN-
MIMtE6sC&dq=isbn=090632131X.
24.^ Bogdanor, Vernon (2001). Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. p. 293. ISBN 978-0-19-280128-9. http://books.google.lu/books?
id=9LybuHbzj4EC&pg=RA1-PA293#v=onepage&q=&f=false.
25.^ Smith, David L. "Change & Continuity in 17th Century English Parliaments". History Review,
2002. p. 1.

Further reading
• Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law (Pearson, 2003),
ISBN 0-582-43807-1
• Report on the British constitution and proposed European constitution by Professor John
McEldowney, University of Warwick Submitted as written evidence to the House of
Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, published to the public on 15 October 2003.
• From Unwritten to Written: Transformation in the British Common-Law Constitution,
David Jenkins, 2003
• Prof. Conor Gearty's 2007 lecture "Are judges now out of their depth?"