The United Kingdom: Management Essay


1. Whether the United Kingdom should have a written constitution without a monarchy.
2. Whether the House of Lords as a legislative chamber should be reformed.
3. Why the doctrine of implied repeal is essential to the proper workings of Parliament.


Unlike US, UK does not have a written constitution. Nearly all states have a written (or codified) constitution. Such constitution do not incorporate changes easily and are protected. Constitution of United Kingdom is not reduced into a single or collection of documents which shall represent the fundamental or superior law of the state.UK Constitution does not require any special form of legislation to bring about changes which reveals the legislative supremacy of the Parliament. Hence, UK system states its success of having a parliamentary democracy and solidity in the country. The reason for UK should continue with the written constitution is that it is very flexible as the solution can be applied individually to all the problems without any constitutional document. There is also a myth that there is no pressure on ministers to check if they are working properly, as they are subject to controversies if not working in the right manner. In written constitution there are more chances of getting matters into courts, political drama, formalities and unjust way of passing the final word in the hands of elected politicians and not the unelected judges. UK constitution believes in moving with the changing political and social condition and is not rigid like a written constitution framework. For this reason unwritten constitution is always up to date (UK Parliament, 2014). There should also not be any monarchy as it does not match with the concept of modern era. It is a mere wastage of money and creates difference among people by socially ranking them (Consoc, 2009). In case UK changes its system from an unwritten constitution to a written one it will only bring about disruption and weak structure in the country (UK Parliament, 2014). Therefore, United Kingdom should not have a written constitution without a monarchy.

The formation of House of Lords took place in the 14 th century where there were two separate houses of the Parliament being the Commons and Lords. Yes, the House of Lords as a legislative chamber can be reformed. There is need for reform and this arises from the lack of satisfaction. The first being the inherent base for being a member. The House of Lords Act 1999 effectively abolished membership of the House of Lords on the hereditary principle. However, for the time being, 92 hereditary peers retain the right to sit and vote in the Lords whilst a new constitution for the House is being settled. Many people state that the functionality of the House of Lords as basically not democratic. Looking at the present scenario of the undemocratic concerns and political concerns the opposition party states its worries for the effect that the non-Conservative Government's legislative programme shall have. Even though people of United Kingdom have little knowledge about the parliamentary effect from the reform of the House of Lords and its effect 43 per cent of the people have voted for change in the reform. The positive part and effects for which reforms should be brought are that the reforms can bring about non-legislative improvements, the labor party shall meet its commitment and make a well-established nominated chamber. Also the reforms would make liberal democrats move towards their goal. These are all positive aspects of the reform and should be made effective (UCL).

There are two types of appeal –express repeal where the Parliament states in an Act of Parliament that all or certain parts of an earlier Act are repealed. Irrespective to this there can be mismatch between different Acts of Parliament at the time of drafting which can be repealed by applying doctrine of implied repeal. The doctrine shall apply to the extent the two acts are inconsistent with one another. One such example is the case of Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corpn [1932] 1 KB 733 and Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590 per Maugham LJ at 597.

Doctrine of implied repeal is essential for proper working of the Parliament as the Parliament has the power to repealing an inconsistent law or legislation. It will wrong to say that doctrine of implied repeal is not a better method of deciding statutory discrepancies. Implied repeal has always been used as a tool of last resort for the purpose of statutory interpretation when the other alternative solutions fail in their approach.

The application of the doctrine is successful and accepted by all litigants. Parliament when enacting a legislation makes sure that the new legislation is not against the previous law. In the case of R V Pora , it was resolved as to whether the constitutional rights can be impliedly repealed or not. They shall fail only when the two acts are to be read together.


UK Parliament, 2014, The arguments for and against a written constitution against a written constitution for the united kingdom, Available From website <

Consoc, 2009, Monarchy, Available From website <

Prebble R., 2005, Constitutional statutes and implied repeal : the thoburn decision and the consequences for new Zealand, Available From website <

University College of London, Reform of the House of Lords, Available From website <

How to cite this essay: