Civilisation CM Anglais The British Constitution I. Origins ... - Leaparis10

A long side, a monarch whose rôle is largely ... This also means that statute law overrides any other form of source of law and all judicial bodies (Courts / judges).
107KB taille 18 téléchargements 215 vues
Civilisation CM Anglais The British Constitution I. Origins The UK is seen to be unik among Western Democracies, in that its Constitution is not as one would normally be, expect when talking about a Constitution, one codified and written document that defines the laws of the country, the ways in which the country is governed and how different acts intervene and interact within the system. Indeed, some of those say that the UK does not have a Constitution. It would be more exact to say that various written documents and unwritten conventions make up the British Constitution rather than one sample written document. This constitution can be stressed back to many levels and has been adapted over the centuries in accordance with the changing historical and political background or context. We can therefore describe the British Constitution as having followed an evolutionnary past as opposed to France or USA whose Constitution are the result of a revolutionnary past and opposed in one written codified document. II. Nature of the Constitution The UK has a parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy and this has been the case tje the end of the 17th century. « Constitutional monarchy » applies to a political system in which ab elected Parliament governs the country and passes laws (= voter une loi). A long side, a monarch whose rôle is largely ceremonial but who enjoys certain limited formal powers, including the improval of legislation and the dissolution of Parliament. There are 2 basic features of the British Constitution : Parliament sovereignty and the rule of law. A) Parliament sovereignty It means that the British Parliament and all decisions taken by it are sovereign. In other words, any statute law in Parliament can onlybe repealed or reformed by another act of Parliament. This also means that statute law overrides any other form of source of law and all judicial bodies (Courts / judges) must abide by (= respecter) statute law. Unlike the US, where the Supreme Court could take overriding / correctionnal decisions, in Britain there was before 2005 no body to oversee whether legislation passed by Parliament was in contradiction with the Constitution. However, the 2005 constitutionnal Reform Act providd for the creation of a supreme court. The question over Britain's membership of the European community has been a headed one. This is the case on several fronts, not list of which is the impact on British Parliamentary Sovereignty. By signing the Treaty of Rome and passing the European Community Act in 1972, Britain accepted the principle that European law is supreme in terms of UK law in cas of conflict between the two. This logically weakens the argument that the British Parliament is a sovereign law-making body. This signing of this single European Act (1996) by Margaret Thatcher only served to strenghten theses arguments and this act extended the areas on which the European Union can legislate. A British Parliament on the future could legally reverse this situation by voting and passing legislation to leave the European Union. However, this in not at the political agenda and is highly unlikely. Linked to this idea of parliamentary sovereignty there is a notion that Britain is a unitary state. In other words unlike Germany or the US, which are both federal states, the law in the UK applies to all the country, even though the Celtic nations Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have kept some of their system intact (such as their educationnal or legal system) and have had power devolved to them. Parliament in Westminster is the Supreme law-making body in the UK. B) The rule of law This was defined in the 19th century by a constitutionnal and legal expert : A.M. Dicey. It is based on legal rules and as such is the opposite of arbitrary law. It is made on 2 principles : 1) No person could be arrested or put on trial or imprisonned if they had not broken the law. 2) All citizens whatsever their social statutes are subjects to the law and equal before the law : -1-

Civilisation CM Anglais « justice is blind ». In other words, if two persons commit the same crime or offense, they should expect the same treatment be they a member of the government, the head of a service, the monarch... W. Badgehot was another constitutionnal writter and expert, he wrote the English Constitution. He distinguished between 2 aspects of the Constitution : he argued that the British Constitution was made up of a dignified part (namely the monarch and the House of Lords) as opposed to an efficient part consisted of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the House of Commons. He claimed that the dignified parts no longer hold any real power but were rather the old and venerable of the article part of the Constitution. However, people still percieve them as sources of prestige and power which guarantee the legitimacy of the system and people's loyalty to it. On the other hand the efficient part is written as the sample and modern one (real power law). He stated that the Cabinet was the key area of power, the link between the executive and legislative branches of Parliament. C) Sources There are 6 sources : – statute law – common law – conventions and customs – the royal prerogatives – works of authority – European laws and treaties 1) Statute laws There are 2 types of law : statute laws and common laws. Statute laws are laws passed by Parliament. Statute laws are acts of Parliament , written pieces of legislation passed by Parliament and giving the royal assent. They are passed so they are unforceable by the Low Court. There are several different types of statute laws, this includes legislation establishing the relation between the different branches of Parliament. For example the Bill of Rights or the Parliament Act (1911-1949) are statute laws. Also there are acts regulating the voting right of citizens, notably the representation of the people acts of 1632, 1667, 1884, 1918, 1928 and 1969. We can also think of acts which define citizens' rights and their relationships with the state : the Habeas Corpus Amendment Act of 1679 or the European Human Rights Act of 1998. We can also consider acts regulating the make up of the UK, namely the acts of Union with Scotland (1707) and with Ireland (1800), as well as those establishing unions with other countries namely the European Community Act (1972). There in no penal code. Statute laws are the basic frameworks. 2) Common law (=jurisprudence). It refers to laws and customs. Even though there is no written, civil or ciminal code in Britain establishing the law of the land, common law is said to have binding force of precedent. It is made up with all the legal decisions and principles which are held over ther country by the Low Court. Any such decision must be followed by other courts. Common law is the source of the residual royal prerogatives of the monarch as well as the individual right of citizens and less defined by statute law. When a new case is not existing , judges have the authority to call precedent (= common law). Common law can establish legal precedent which are included in the government. There are situations in which the government does not want to make a law. Ex : the controversial subjects of dead bodies. -> creation of a crematorium. Parliament didn't pass a law, it just happened. Other example : marriage : most people believe thant a man and a woman living together are married. Other example : damages in case of injury of work (primary damages). But we also had the idea of -2-

Civilisation CM Anglais secondary victims. The judge decided we must have close ties love and affectation with the primary victim, have been present during the accident and must be directly involved to afford secondary damages. So in some cases, the judge take decisions which will apply to other similar cases. Common law is the way to expand statute law. Common law is part of the Constitution. 3) Conventions and customs The British consitution is not codified, it is not one symbol written document. It includes conventions which are accepted. A convention = doing something in a particular way because it has always been like that. These are codes of behaviour or practises which are not expressely defined in any written form of law. Nor are they reinforceable in any Low Court. They are based on precedent or custom and have come to be seen as binding through their efficiency. Some are linked to the relation between the executive and legislative branches of power. Example 1 : even since the beginning of the 20th century when the House of Commons achieved supremacy over the House of Lords, the Prime Minister has been chosen among MPs (convention). Example 2 : ministers except the principal have collective and individual responsabilities to vote the government and Parliament. Thus if a government loses a vote of no confident in the House of Commons, it will resign all ministers, all requests of dissolution of parliament in order to start another election. Cabinet ministers have always to support the policy of the minister. Ministers are therefore responsibles also for their department. As a result; by convention ministers sit in parliament (either for the House of Lords and the House of Commons). All ministers of government are Mps. Example 3 : the monarch is at the head of the country Example 4 : there is no statute law which say Britain has to have a Prime Minister Example 5 : the Queen will accept legislation by Parliament Example 6 : the only direct contact between the Queen and the Prime Minister is the government All these conventions help to make government function. Mostly everyone accept them. Where do these conventions come from ? They have developped over the centuries. When Queen Ann (who used to preside the Cabinet) died in 1740, power was given to Georges Ist (Hanover). He was 44 years on power and never learned English. In the Cabinet, they had to speak in French, but in 1718, the Prince stopped going to the Cabinet because they spoke English. It developped into a convention. Conventions have come from accidents, origins...but continue because they have worked. Business of conventions : flexible. 3) The royal prerogatives The monarch enjoys certain powers and privileges. It defines powers of the king (what he can (not) do). He or she has the power to declare ware as the head of the armed forces, to make treaties, appointments, ans is the head of the civil service. Although this royal prerogatives officially remained in the hands of the monarch, many of these powers have in fact passed to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Before the Glorious Revolution, England had had absolute monarchy. In the 17th century there had been various forms of extreme monarchy. When James II was deposed, Parliament called William of Orange, but it wanted stability so established a list of what the king can do. The king is at the heat of the state so must have certain powers : – declare war : when William of Orange was the king, he was a general. He could declare war. -3-

Civilisation CM Anglais nominate PM and ministers dessolve parliament – call Parliament – create peers. The Queen today still has these powers. – –

Queen Victoria (1837) wad very protected. The PM ran the government. When she got married, the balance of power changed and the king had the power. He had access to royal families througout Europe and could influence policy. When the king died, she refused to make public appearance. Consequently, she wasn't playing a part in the political life. Everybody knows that there is a queen because she has no influence. She reprents the « dignified part of the politics ». Royal prerogatives in this time became effective. Royal prerogatives have moved to the PM : he is powerful, so can decide alone, make treaties, emigration questions (British citizenship)... This power is almost unlimited. In practise, PM and Parliament declare war but the PM don't need to ask Parliament. So do we need to revise the Constitution ? A statute law to redefine the PM's powers? But no PM wants to give up his powers. 4) Works of authority A fit source works of authority, these are theoratical works written by political and legal experts on various aspects of the British Constitution. That have come to be regarded as definitive works of reference. In matters of constitutional procedures, the 3 leadings references of this type are : – Parlamentary Practice, 1844 (Erskine May) – An introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution, 1844 (Dicey) – The British Constitution, 1867 (Badgehot) There are many other but when a problem arrives, we first refere to these documents. 5) European laws and treaties British's entry in the European Economic Community has had serious implication for the constitutionls European laws, as well as rulings made by the Euopean Court of Justice and treaties such as the Maastricht or Nice Treaty have become a source of British law. Thus, British Court of Law must apply European law in the same way as they apply British statute laws. The former has supremacy over the later. Although the British constitutional system has benn in place for over 3 centuries, it would be wrong to think that it is still the same today as it was in the 1690s. These change are taking place in terms of the bound of power among various bodies and actors involved, as well as the participation of the citizens in the political process. Britain has moved for being governed by oligarchy and powerful elite to be coming of fully pluralistic democratic system (legislative ans executive) which are the legislate elected and accountable to the people (= reponsables devant le peuple). This long process has seen the reduction of the monarchy absolute power in the 17 th century. They came to a rise of an importance of Parliament in the 19 th century and to several reforms of the electoral process. This gave power and greater representation to the people and helped tip the balance of power between the 2 parliamentary chambers in favor of the elected House of Commons, although the House of Lords by the early 18 th. By the time of he 1928 Equal Franchise Act, we can say that Britain has become a true parliamentary democracy. More recently, Britain joined the European Economic Community and signing subsequent EEC treaties as well as the constitutional reform initiated under Tony Blair, such as House of Lords Reform, human rights legislation and devolution have all brought about making changes in the way Britain is governed. III. Historical development -> Calls for reforms and actual (= real) reforms / Evolutionary aspect og the Constitution -4-

Civilisation CM Anglais In britain, many calls have been made to reform the Constitution partially and totally. This may take the form of : – a legislative process – an acting change to haw certain aspects of the Constitution work – creating a codified written document that defines clearly the rules and laws of the land as well as UK citizens 1) Supporters for the Constitution Supporters consider the evolutionnary aspect of the Constitution to be the main reason for it successes and the justification for keeping it as it is. The arguments go as followed : by its very nature, Britain has proven to be flexible or organic. Reform has come through laws passed by Parliament even in times of crisis, be they national or otherwise. Thus the Constitution has been a guarantor of political stability. Indeed, since the Glorious Revolution, Britain has evolved into a stable and mature democracy, which has weakened none of the regime changes ans upheavals experiences by many of its neighbours and allies. Backers of the Constitution claim that it includes restrains on abuse of power without having enshrined formal checks and balances unlike the US.One example of this is shown by the fact that, although the executive has a quiet considerable power, it is still answerable before Parliament in the formal ministerial responsabilities and ministers questions. Parliament is itself answerable to the electorate which may show its desapprouval of the government at the next general elections, or oppose legislation as it was the case in 1990 with the boycott of these so-called poll tax and the write and protest against this new right form of taxation. Ms Thatcher eventually had to resign over this issue. Another example of the checks built into the system is the fact that no government can afford to over look the point of view of the opposition when debating legislation. Afterall, today's opposition could potentially be in government tomorrow and repeal / change legislation passed in the previous Parliament. 2) Criticism of the British Constitution Critics of the current constitution and advocates of constitutional reform make several points against this new codified set of sources. Groups such as Charter 88 among other argue that by its very nature, the British Constitution is opened to abuse as no set of written rules exist. Because it is based on conventions and built in restrain but not on a concrete separation of power or system of checks and balances, too much power has become concentrates in too few hands. Lors Chancellor Hailsham (1976) and Edwood Heath / Margaret Thatcher (1980s) said there was a danger of Britain becoming an elective dictatorship as he felt too much power has come into the hands of central government, especially the executive. The executive branche of power is made up principly of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Yet all are members of the House of Lords. Moreover, they have come to dominate the legislative process. During the 1980s, under margaret Thatcher, central government in Westminster appropriated for itself greater powers at the expense of local government. First established certain democratically elected local authorities, notably the Greater London Council, which were seen to interfere too muc into people's lives or were considered too extreme. It is interesting to note that the large majority of them were labour run councils. Then local councils and authorities saw their tax raising powers reduced and later removed. This means then no longer tax people locally paid for local services but recieved grants. Critics of the Constitution argue that it contains no guarantees or civil rights or liberties. However, by signing up to the European Convention of Human Rights in 1998, the government planned to have overtaken these criticism. Gordon Brown has recently promissed a Bill of Rights. Critics said it was very weak. Nevertheless, a number of statute lawspassed during the 20th century have been seen to impinge upon the principle of the rule of law and are still in place. For example, the official Greats Acts, the abolition of trial Jury in certain fraud cases as well as the abolition of a suspect's right to remain silent when questionned along with, -5-

Civilisation CM Anglais there are pieces of anti-terrorism leislation. The British Parliament's supremacy is a result of the representative nature of the House of Commons, as MPs are elected to represent the will of their constituents. Moreover the electoral system based on a simple majority first passed the post system does not reflect the will of the people as a government majority does not necessarly reflect its chair on the vote as the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections have shown. IV. Reforms 1) the House of Lords Despite the present life peers since the 1958 Life Peerage Act, the regatory House of Lords came to be seen by many as an acronysm. In 1969 the Wilson government introduced a bill to gradually replace the regatory House of Lords by an appointed one. But the legislation was rejected. It was only 30 years later in November 1999 that the make up of the House of Lords was radically transformed with the abolition of hereditary peers : over 92 hereditary peers were allowed to remain in the House of Lords. Their title would be disappear at their deaths. Only life peers appointed from all sections of society for their services to the nation would be able to seat in a smaller chamber, thus making it less elitist and more representative. However, an attempt to define its powers, and whether they would be elected or appointed and for how long, in a Lords vote in 2004 failed. Tony Blair was thought to favour a system of appointments made by the prime minister with numbers based on the share of seats each party enjoys in the House of Commons. The fear was that such a House of Lords would be dominated by friends or supporters of the PM, so-called « Tony's cronies ». A consultation vote in the House of Commons in early 2007 came out strongly in favour of an 80% or 100% elected upperhouse, and Gordon Brown has pledged legislation. 2) Devolution Since the 1960s both Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties have been calling for independence or a devolution of powers. The 1974 Labour election manifesto had included a commitment to grant limited regional powers to both nations following consultation in the form of referenda. Referenda were held in 1979 in Scotland and Wales but were rejected. In 1997, Tony Blair's government announced plans to create a tax-raising Scottish Parliament and National Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland with more limited powers, along with a Regional Assembly for London. Following various referenda, these bodies were all set up by 1999. Each enjoys certain powers, but Westminster remains in charge of foreign policy, defence, social security, macro economics, and in the case of Wales and Northern Ireland, fiscal policy. 3) Electoral reforms Despite the recommendations made by the Jenkins report in 1998 in favour of a proportional system for elections, change occured only in regional and European elections, not in general elections where the first past the post system remains in force. 4) Civil liberties By passing the Human Rights Act incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998, the Blair government gave to courts the power to overthrow any legislation seen to be in contravention of the Directive. Therefore, judges can overrule Parliament's decisions, thus further eroding the notion of Parliamentary sovereignty. 5) The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act This legislation removed many of the powers belonging to the Lord Chancellor, thus answering the long-standing criticism of his/her ambiguous position as a leadind figure in all three branches of power. An independent judicial appointments commission now will recommend candidates for -6-

Civilisation CM Anglais appointments as judges. An elected Speaker, similar to the one in the lower house ans who is not a member of the government chairs sittings of the House of Lords. Finally, a Supreme Court was set up to act as the ultimate court of appeal in place of the law Lords in the upper house. The Executive branch of power Who detain the Executive ? The monarch and the Prime Minister (PM). The rôle of the executive branch is to put into effect laws enacted by the legislative branch. In the UK, this rôle is officially played by the monarch, although in practical terms it's her Majesty's government which implements the legislations passed by the British Parliament. The monarch is nominally the head of government but on practice, the PM fulfills this rôle. Indeed, s/he heads the Cabinet, shares Cabinet meetings and so is at the heart of the political decisionmaking process. The period of the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights established a constitutional monarchy. During the 18th century, the monarch continued to play a central executive rôle, but s/he came to rely on a group of private advisors who appointed ministers and formed the Cabinet. One particular minister, the favorite, was to become the leading member of government. He would share ministerial meeting in the absence of the monarch, under the title of First Lord of the Treasury, or, later, Prime Minister. As we should see, the monarch's powers were to decrease through the 18th/ 19th centuries, the PM came to be the most powerful figure in the Cabinet and in the country. However it would be wrong to say that the monarch plays no rôle in the executive branch of power. Indeed, although the monarch is now said to belong to the degnified part of the Constitution (cf. Badgehot), his/her laws and satutes in terms of the Constitution can not be over laws. She is seen as the symbol of national unity and the protector of the parliamentery system, but officially we say that the Queen reigns but does not rule. The monarch is the head of state, therefore, the head of the Executive, giving the royal assebt to legislation passed by Parliament. Without this royal assent, legislation can't become law. However, the last monarch to have refused to give her consent to legislation was Queen Ann in 1709. Nothing could stop the monarch but the very existence of the monarchy would be called into question. The monarch appoints the Prime Minister and members of the government and creates peers (nobles...). S/he summons and prorogs Parliament after every yearly setting and dissolves Parliament when a new election is to be held, and invites the PM to form a government. The monarch reads the adress from the throne, more commoncly called « The Queen's speech », at the state opening of Parliament every year, presenting the government legislature programm for the next parliamentaty year. The monarch is called the founding of justice = s/he appoints judges and grants royal pardon. She is also known as the Commandan-inchief of armed forces and therefore can declare war, make peace and appoint military officers. She is also the bounding of honors. She confers honors such as « Sir », « OBs », « MBs ». As the defender of the faith, the monarch is the head of the Church of England : s/he establishes Anglican religion and appoint all Anglican archbishops and bishops. The current monarch takes the rôle very seriously and each week, she has a private audience with the PM to discuss matters of state. Although as we should see the monarch is seen to play a symbolic rôle rather than an exercising real power, in theory, s/he can interve directly in the affaire of state. In the case of Hung Parliament (no clear a parliamentary authority), the monarch would have to choose who to invite to form a government (1974). Also, theoraticcaly, the monarch could refuse to dissolve a Parliamnt ih s/he considers the Parliament's request unsuitable. Ex : in 1993 (Maastricht Treaty), the Queen could dissolve Parliament if the Treaty was rejected. In the 18 th century, the monarch consulted his cabinet and the PM. The first person to be called PM (an insult at the time) was Wall Paul. However, he was not a PM is the modern sens of the term. He could be removed at any time if he failed from favor of the monarch, who still enjoyed considerable powers. Increasingly during the 18th century as the monarch relied more and more on the Cabinet and the PM, so those became more and more powerful. The electoral reforms of the 19th century enhanced the power of the elected House of Lords, especially the second Reform Act (1867), which opened the way for a mass electorate to develop. Modern political parties emerged and the leader of the party with the members of government in Parliament would be called on to form a government and electoral success could depend on his/her influence and charisma. From 1885 to 1902 : Salisbury was the PM. Only members of the House of Commons could become PM (underline democratic -7-

Civilisation CM Anglais representative). In 1911, the Parliament Act drastically limited the powers of the House of Lords and gave supremacy to the House of Commons. Officially the PM « primus inter pares » is first among equals : in theory, he has the same powers, the same rule as other Cabinet members. However, in practice, the PM has come to be the dominant figure of the Cabinet. Many of the PM powers are defined by conventions. As head of the party and the government, the PM played a political and governmental rôle. S/he is the head of the government and shares Cabinet meetings. S/he decides the Cabinet agenda and timetable and gives approval to the official compte rendus (a lot of power, says what happens). The monarch officially appoints ministers but it's is the Premier who really choose them, especially in the Cabinet reshuffle, so the PM dominates Cabinet. He chooses the date of general election (time favorable to the government) having requested the monarch for dissolution. The PM can protect and pass legislation. He attends all NATO, UE and UN meetings -> tremendous powers. He has the power of peetronage (patronage). As the head of the Cabinet, the PM's rôle is significiant. Several observers today or in the last 40 years have argued that so much power has accumulated in the hands of the PM to the detriment of Cabinet or Parliament. The veru nature of Britain's government was in the 60s and 70s regarded as a prime ministerial form of government. Recent PMs, particularly Margaret Thatcher, and Tony Blair, had dominated politics to such an extend ignoring the convention of Cabinet government and relying more and more on the cultury of their own personal advises that a presidential style of government has been said to have develop. Limits : when he chooses the ministers, he can not simply imply his friends. He has to consider the party opinions and ballots. He has necessarly to satisfy the majority. The government, and especially the PM, must keep aware from party opinion, policy questions, as the support of MPs is essential. The government must have the confidence of Parliament. If they lose its confidence, government has to resign. Question time : every week, the PM must answer questions. It's a sort of control, he has to be accountable before Parliament. Despite these checks on the PM, we can conclude that in the UK, Executive power has passed from the monarch first to the Cabinet and the PM (first among equals), and then in the hands of a dominant PM who appoints Cabinet whose role still involves initiating and debating legislative policy and supervising administration, but to a lesser extent then before, and some critics assert that the role of Cabinet now is simply to approve the PM's wishes. Thus, they claim that the Cabinet has now joined the monarch and the House of Lords among the degnified part of the constitution, leaving the real sources of Executive power in the hands of PM, who has acquired the majority of prerogatives originally confered on the monarch. The legislative branch -> = Parliament (House of Lords + House of Commons) The role of the legislative branch of power is to enact or mark the law of the country. In britain, this is done by the British Parliament, which is made by 3 bodies : the House of Lords (the Upper House), the House of Commons (the Lower House) and the monarch. We have a history of conflicts between the monarch and the Parliament : Glorious Revolution + Bill of Rights (1688-1689), Civil War, Restoration... From this period of Glorious Revolution/Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement (1701), we now have legislation which has established a parliamentary monarchy and which has put in place a system in which Parliament is supreme. The 1842 Act changed the balance of power. As the franchise was expanded (Reform Act), the main effect was to strenghten the position of the House of Commons because it was elected. Therefore, it had legitimacy to become representative (opposed to hereditary system). This was definitly set up in 1911 (formly established the supremacy of the House of Commons) [culmination of the conflict when the House of Lords refused the Budget Act]. This new liberal government abolished the Lords' veto : they could only now delay the passage of legislation passed in the House of Commons for 2 weeks, after which the legislation would become a law. The lords retained one veto on any legislation proposing to extend the lenght of Parliament. The key to power and supremacy was finance (money bill). Any financial legislation passed in the HC would automatically become a -8-

Civilisation CM Anglais law one month after to be set to the HL. Effectively, this meant that the Lords lost the power to vote on financial legislation, particularly the budget. Finally, this Parliament Act reduced the lenght of the Parliament. In other words, the number of years for which a Parliament is elected was reduced from 7 to 5. At the beginning of the 20th century, the HC has become the dominant Chamber. The second parliamentary Act of 1949 reduced the power enjoyed by the HL to one year. In 1969, an attempt to replace the hereditary system and to do so gradually by an appointed HL failed. However, we had a first attempt. The HL is no longer a hereditary body. The 1999 Reform reduced its number by half and abolished all hereditary titles. Only 92 hereditary peers were allowed to remain in the HL bus as « life peers » (appointed to this title) : when they die, the title dies. Further reforms had been discuss since : 1) 2001 : several proposals were made : should the HL be partly / fully elected ? Partly / fully appointed ? How exactly this system shouls operate (who appoints ? For?). However, no agreement could be reach. 2) 2006 : the Consultation Vote was held in the HC to decide whether the HL should be elected and how many people should be elected / appointed. A significant majority voted in favor of whether a fully elected HL or a 80% elected HL, but the modalities would not agree. Since 1902, every PM has been an elected MP. The fact is that the major sources discussed that the real power is in the HC, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the real power lay within the Lower House because the Parliament/Government operate here. Powers of the HC : 1) a legislative one. To a logic sense, this simply involves legitimacy, legislative decisions taken by the Cabinet. Approximately, 90% of all public legislation introduced in done so by the Government, which has a parliamentary majority. This legislation would go through several stages between final votes (=divisions) are held. If the bill is passed by the House, it's set to the Lords, where it goes through the same process and if approved by the lords, is sent to the monarch for her/his royal assent. During these different stages of the legislative process, MPs have the opportunity to influence the contente or fate of legislation by proposing amendment to it or opposing it. They can also introduce legislation in the form of private members' bill. Several major social reforms were passed using private members' bill in the 1960s, when the Labor party in government allocated parliament retail to this sponsors of this bill. 2) It scrutinzes and examines government policy proposals, executive actions and government expenditures (dépenses). This role is particularly important for opposition parties as well as back benches who, during question time, may put question to a minister in any subjet within his confidence. PM's questions occur one a week, every Wednesday and last 30 minutes, during which time the opposition leaders and all other MPs can call on the PM to account for or explain government actions, decisions or policies. The House of Commons is a representative body : all members are elected to represent all of their constituency (circonscription électorale) even though MPs receive and answer constituency letters and organize surgeries = constituency come to meet the MPs and try to have their difficulties / grievances resolved, be they local or national. The MPs would then contact local or national authorities or the relevant minister in order to seek a solution or / and answer of their constituency behaviour (very important part of an MP, they take serioulsy the rôle). In this way, the commons is said to give expression to public opinion or sentiment. MPs may raise points at any time The final role power duty of the HC is the principle forum for debate in the UK. Debate are made on specific matters or on major specific issues. Ex : the decision to send troops in Iraq followed a common debate during it all MPs had the chance to show their opinion. The House of Lords Even though the HL is no longer the main source of legislative power and has taken second place behind the HC, it still hase an important role to play in judicial terms. The HL has a legislative role : -9-

Civilisation CM Anglais – –

can initiate legislation, particularly on controversial bills (legal, constitutional legislation what is above political party) takes part in legislative process

This is mainly a mean to seek parliament retail. Since 1995, about 25% of all public bills had been initiated in the Upper House. Legislation is passed in the HC then the HL proposes amendments, and legislation. If amended, it is sent back to the Commons, where it can be accepted or reversed (= rejected), bur they can not be imposed. The HL can delay legislation but can not defeat it. However, the HL can influence the outcome of legislative debate. Recently, the lords rejected a proposed amendment of Blair to « Fox hunting » : the real concern of real voters who felt there were be ignored by the HC (the bill finally was past only when government used emergency powers). The lords play an important deliberating rôle and take an active rôle on public debates or national issues. From a judicial point of view, the HL used to be the highest Court of appeal in the UK for both civil and criminal matters. The lord Chancellor and 2 Law Lords made up this body of a panel of 3 (normally 5). The law lords would be called upon to rule on constitutional questions or on important legal appearance. This system has been replaced by the 2005 reform (Constitutional Reform), which set up a supreme court along the live of the American Supreme Court.

- 10 -