Discuss the implications of codifying conventions and royal prerogative powers.

If the “Ponsonby Rule” convention became codified it would allow parliament to obtain the statutory right to consider and debate the current issues within treaties before ratification.  The legislation would have to incorporate the flexibility which is a current feature of the rule itself as there are only few but valid exceptions to the “Ponsonby Rule”  and these should be accommodated for if the convention was placed into statutory footing. If the “Ponsonby Rule” was placed into statute, maybe deliberation should be given to whether to specify the effect of a vote against ratification. The Green Paper The Governance of Britain said that: “[The Ponsonby convention]...should be formalised...” and subsequently amount to accountability by means of statutory provisions.

Other existential conventions comprise the Salisbury-Addison convention stating that the House of Lords does not vote against measures in the governing parties manifesto. The problems from codifying this convention may lie with the “...the will of the people and the views expressed by the House of Commons did not necessarily coincide...” and if so being the case the opposing House had obligations to reject. The convention is considered to work well alongside Acts of Parliament, and for that reason codifying maybe unnecessary.

Conventions are not always clear, confusion may arise as to who should follow what convention. Conclusions of unfairness may be drawn regarding previous repercussions/lack of in previous cases of broken conventions, the issue of if codification emerges it wont be retrospective and so previous Ministers avoided a penalty which future ministers may have to pay. The Baroness of Scotland failed to resign over breaking laws regarding illegal immigration. Although public reprimand and ministerial disapproval burdened her position, she maintained that position. Arguably codification will lead to certainty and consistency to the maintenance of our constitution as a result of stronger obligations to be followed.

Similarly with regard to conventions, the codification of Royal Prerogative Powers may constrain the undemocratically appointed monarch and the executive preventing abuse of their rights. Judicial review of prerogative powers was determined in the GCHQ case 1985 if the subject matter of a prerogative power is justiciable then the exercise of the power is open to judicial review in the same way as a statutory power. The House of Lords held that the availability of judicial review depends, inter

alia, on the justiciability of the exercise of the particular executive power.

One of the main uses of prerogative powers is to Deploy and Use the Armed Forces Over Seas (cnd v PM). Codifying this power is directly allowing controversial issues to be exercised without Parliaments say so: “[endless votes on foxes]...no right...vote on whether we kill people”  

If codification of conventions/prerogative powers means placing the rules into statute and the Queen abused her level of power, could she be tried in her own courts? It may cause rigidity and over exertion for the judicial system. Courts already use conventions as guidelines but they are not enforceable. The implications of placing into statue would be a longer process to modernise and renew conventions. The flexibility of the constitution at present will be affected greatly if codification was to occur. Moreover would the codification of the Royal Prerogative Powers and conventions result in further diminishing responsibilities for the monarch and lead to a new, written Constitution for the UK?