UK Government Accountability Mechanisms

Section A

Question 1: "Discuss the extent to which the various political and legal mechanisms under the UK's constitutional setup are effective in holding government to account". (Include discussion of the constitutional conventions of individual and Collective Ministerial Responsibility in your answer)

Holding Government Accountable

Under the UK constitutional setup, several framework exist that checks the powers and delegation of duties of the executive as well as the parliament. The parliamentary committees such as the Committee of Public Accounts examine the accounts to check the sum approximation by the parliament and government acting as oversight tool. Such oversight tools ensure the policies and actions commensurate with the needs and in best interest of the public. The government, both nationally and locally, can only make decisions reflecting the scope and prominence of the bodies. The opposition in parliament, non-government party, questions day-to-day activities scrutinising policies and decision-making through no-confidence motions, budgets debates, question time, and the addressing-in-reply debate. Although these structures exist, the questions of actually holding the government to account largely depended on the bi-partisanship in parliament who may fail to challenge executive decision. The sovereignty of the parliament means the laws passed and implemented by other bodies such as executive and previous parliament can be reversed and repealed. Rejection of Theresa May’s Brexit proposal in three separate parliamentary votes forcing her to resign is evident powers of parliament in keeping executive on it toes.

Press regulation outlining the freedom of press coupled with freedom of expression is another approach of holding government in account. The Media segmentation comprising of free press, publicly owned broadcaster, private sector broadcasters, and rise of social media has given a wider platform for people to express their opinion and questioning policies and decision taken by parliament or the executive. The transformation in media landscape means public can originate, find, and share information challenging traditional setup. For instance, there is a rising concern that UK’s main media was backing conservatives’ policies with labour and liberal views having small platform to be heard, however, through social media and widening media landscape, people can easily express their dissatisfaction. This depoliticised operations has maintained a far more reach and regular non-partisan exposure.

Question 2: "Discuss the extent to which UK membership of the EU and Council of Europe might have impacted upon theorsists' views of the doctorine of Parilmentary Supremacy

Doctrine Parliamentary Supremacy

The parliamentary sovereignty is a concept holding that a parliament is a supreme over other institutions that include government bodies, the executive and judicial branches of government. Theoretically, under orthodox doctrine, the UK parliament is not subject to existing standing laws, policies, or regulations that include laws passed by previous parliaments and other governing bodies but rather can legislate and pass into law whatever it sees fit. Although supremacy of the parliament had been questioned because it cannot limit its own power, the European Union law taking priority over conflicting laws enacted by individual member states had raised more question on its supremacy. As a requirement to entry to the EU 1973, members were required to accept Community Law embodied in the Treaties of the European Communities as conditions of becoming a member. According to Lindeboom, the basic principle of the EU’s legal systems subjected the UK’s parliament to its provision as long as that membership persisted. The UK constitution, although not codified, has developed over the years based on traditions, cultural setup, court rulings, and Acts of Parliaments. However, entry into EU meant laws and provision applied by the UK courts and laws enacted by parliament had to considered cultural setup and view of other countries not just its own. This was evident in the rectification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and adoption of the Human Rights Act 1998that granted no power to the UK Courts but rather subject to EU laws and regulations on Human rights

Professor Sir William Wade argued that entry into the EU meant the UK judges had to make judgements based on the EU standing laws rather than act of UK parliament transferring the EU as ultimate law marker. Although one can argue that decision to join the EU through Act of Parliament and initiation the Brexit motion themselves justifies the supremacy of the UK parliament. Therefore, EU supremacy principle does not limit UK parliament supremacy in matter of UK law but bind it in EU matter and international law.

Section B

Condition on Conduct of Public Protest: Advise to Daisy and Environmental Rescue

First, Article 11 of human rights gives UK citizens a right to come together and peacefully express their views and authorities that include the police must allow people to take part in protests and marches. Planning and holding protest is within one’s rights. Moreover, one does not have to inform the police of planned protest. However, under the provision stipulated in Public Order Act 2019 (POA), section 1, one is only required to obtain police authorisation from the police authority if a planned public protest involves 50 or more adults (POA 2019 s1 (a) or causes obstruction on public road. In this case, Daisy and the schoolchildren are within their rights in planning and holding protest peacefully. Moreover, gathering of class of 15 years old does not require informing the police on the protest. However, inviting the parents to join the protest warranted seeking authorisation from the police only if the invited parents would be more than 50 adults. Therefore, confiscation of leaflets and intended stopping the protest was infringement of Daisy and the schoolchildren’s rights.

Secondly, the protest involves 50 children and ‘a few of them with their parents’ implying adults were less than 50. Because the protest involved children carrying ‘rubber gloves, brushes, and rubbish-bags’ a clear indication of a peace protect and engendered no life means the police had not jurisdiction of stopping or confiscating protests and personal items. POA 2019 (s2, b) gives the police authority to confiscate any protest equipment deemed endangering life, which was not the case here.

Thirdly, refusal by police chief to a meeting prior to the protest and saying police have better thing to do other than ‘looking after stupid trouble-makers’ goes against POA 2019 (s3 (c)) which requires police to attend public protest where children are likely to be present. The action of the police chief infringed on their rights of expression and protest while endangering the lives of the schoolchildren.

Bibliography

Craig, P. (2011). Britain in the European Union. The Changing Constitution, 61.

General, C.A., 2008. Enhancing Accountability for the use of public sector resources: How to improve the effectiveness of Public Accounts Committees.

Gordon, M., 2015. Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK constitution: Process, politics and democracy. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Lindeboom, J., 2018. Why EU Law claims supremacy. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(2), pp.328-356.

Lourenço, R.P., 2015. An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government information quarterly, 32(3), pp.323-332.

Mead, D., 2010. The new law of peaceful protest: rights and regulation in the Human Rights Act era. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Mitchell, J.M., 2015. Parliamentary supremacy in the UK since joining the European Union. Diffusion-The UCLan Journal of Undergraduate Research, 3(1).