Table of contents

Approximate read time: 20 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion on 22 October 2026:

Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench) to move that this House takes note of proposals for a written constitution.

1. Key points

  • The UK does not have a constitution codified in one document; its constitution comprises a variety of laws, judicial decisions, conventions and precedents.
  • The prime minister, Andy Burnham, has set out a policy agenda for greater devolution of powers within the UK, and he has said this strengthens the case for a written constitution.
  • Those in favour of a written constitution have argued that such a document would codify and clarify the relationship between the government, institutions and citizens; entrench individual rights and popular sovereignty; demarcate the limits of government; and foster greater political engagement and public understanding of the constitution.
  • Those opposed to a written constitution have argued that it is unnecessary; the current arrangement is evolutionary and allows for political reforms to adapt to changing circumstances; a written constitution could embolden the courts; it is a low priority for the public; and creating a constitution could be politically divisive.

2. Andy Burnham’s calls for a written constitution

The prime minister, Andy Burnham, has set out proposals for increased devolution of powers to the nations and regions of the UK, and he has argued that this agenda strengthens the case for a written constitution.[1]

Following his victory in the Makerfield by-election in June 2026, Mr Burnham gave a speech in Manchester in which he said he would establish a prime minister’s office in the north of England called ‘No 10 North’, if he became Labour leader. He said:

No 10 North will be the nerve centre for a rewired Britain. It will be the conduit through which we redistribute power and resources across the UK. It will coordinate all parts of government, at national and local level, to agree a long-term economic strategy and help all places set new growth ambitions.[2]

He said No 10 North would “be given a mission to strive for equivalent living conditions in all parts of Britain—borrowing from the German Basic Law”. The Basic Law is the written constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, adopted in 1949.[3]

Mr Burnham had previously called for a written constitution modelled on the German Basic Law in ‘Head North’, a book he co-authored with Steve Rotheram in 2024.[4] They said, “our failure fully to set out the rules for how the country should be run is one of the principal reasons why Britian is one of the most unequal major countries in the world”, as “our unwritten and murky constitutional arrangements have had the effect of hoarding power in a small number of hands”.[5] The authors argued that “if we want a country where all people and places have the same living standards, we need nothing more than a complete rewiring of Britain”.[6]

They claimed “significant power has to be taken out of Westminster and devolved to all parts of the UK”. They challenged the argument that constitutional reform was not a priority for the electorate:

In Westminster, there is a received wisdom held by people on all sides that changes to the way Britain is run are not a priority for the voters. Hence they are always put off. But it is time for this flawed thinking to be challenged. The things voters do cite as priorities […] won’t be available to everyone unless places across the UK have the power to deliver them. Therefore, constitutional changes are first order issues.[7]

The authors continued:

[…] we start with the recognition that none of it [devolution] will work unless we agree a new set of principles and rules for the running of the British state and the rights of its citizens; or, in other words, unless we build the new Britain on the strong foundation of a written constitution.[8]

Since becoming prime minister, Mr Burnham’s government has published a ‘Rewiring the state’ policy paper, which set out proposals for greater devolution of powers in England.[9] The policy paper did not refer to a written constitution, but Mr Burnham has subsequently said that his devolution agenda would “increase the case” for a written constitution.[10] He argued that his plans for devolution “start to point towards a new constitutional settlement […] with that commitment for equivalent living standards”.[11]

Lord Sumption, former justice of the UK Supreme Court, criticised Mr Burnham’s proposals in an article in the Telegraph on 9 August 2026. He argued that a written constitution would introduce two main effects, “both of them important and undesirable”:

The first is that any written constitution worthy of the name would serve as a code of supreme law, overriding all other sources of law. In other words, it would contain fundamental rules which could only be altered by a constitutional amendment under some special procedure such as a referendum or a super-majority in Parliament. This necessarily involves a certain rigidity […]

The second way in which a written constitution would make a difference is that by formalising the rules governing the operations of the state, it would hand enormous political powers to the courts. No written constitution can anticipate every problem that may arise. The most that it can be expected to do is to lay down general principles. The courts would necessarily have the power to interpret those principles, and to overturn acts of Parliament, however strong the democratic mandate for them, if they did not measure up to the courts’ interpretations.[12]

3. Is the UK constitution unwritten?

The UK does not have a “written” constitution, meaning one that is codified in a single document. When the House of Lords Constitution Committee was established in 2001, its first report included the following definition of the elements that comprised the UK’s constitution (at that time the committee took the UK’s membership of the EU to be a settled constitutional principle):

The constitution is uncodified and although it is in part written there is no single, accepted and agreed list of statutes which form that part of the constitution which is indeed written down […] We offer the following as the five basic tenets of the United Kingdom constitution:

  • sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament

  • the rule of law, encompassing the rights of the individual

  • union state

  • representative government

  • membership of the Commonwealth, the European Union, and other international organisations.[13]

The UK Supreme Court has also made this point in its judgment on the unlawful prorogation of Parliament in 2019:

Although the United Kingdom does not have a single document entitled “The constitution”, it nevertheless possesses a constitution, established over the course of our history by common law, statutes, conventions and practice. Since it has not been codified, it has developed pragmatically, and remains sufficiently flexible to be capable of further development.[14]

The 2011 cabinet manual, which set out the rules and conventions on the operation of government, stated:

The UK does not have a codified constitution. There is no single document that describes, establishes or regulates the structures of the state and the way in which these relate to the people. Instead, the constitutional order has evolved over time and continues to do so. It consists of various institutions, statutes, judicial decisions, principles and practices that are commonly understood as ‘constitutional’.[15]

The cabinet manual listed various elements of the UK constitution, including:

  • statutes (for example, Magna Carta in 1215; the Bill of Rights and Scottish Claim of Right Act in 1689; the Acts of Union; the Parliament Acts in 1911 and 1949; and the Human Rights Act 1998)
  • the royal prerogative
  • judicial decisions
  • conventions (rules of constitutional practice that are regarded as binding in operation but not in law)
  • European and international law[16]

In June 2026, the then prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, made a House of Commons written statement in which he announced his government would update the cabinet manual:

The manual was first published in 2011 and has not been updated since. As a result, it has become significantly out of date, most notably in its descriptions of general elections, the UK’s relationship with the EU, and the devolution settlements […] An update will therefore restore the manual’s status as an authoritative guide.[17]

Mr Burnham’s government has confirmed that the process of updating the manual is ongoing, and that it would reflect “changes in legislation and practice since 2011”.[18]

The House of Commons Library has published the briefing ‘The United Kingdom constitution: A mapping exercise’ (29 September 2026), which provides further information on the various sources of the UK’s constitution. These include the Crown, Parliament, central government, local government, the judiciary, the Commonwealth and overseas territories, and international obligations.

See also:

4. Arguments for and against a written constitution

In 2010, the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee established a long-running inquiry to investigate the principle of a written constitution for the UK. The inquiry was undertaken in collaboration with the Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies at King’s College London, led by Professor Robert Blackburn and with the assistance of Dr Andrew Blick. In 2014, the committee published the outcome of the inquiry in its report ‘A new Magna Carta?’. The report stated that the UK was one of “very few democratic countries” that did not have a codified constitution—the other two being Israel and New Zealand.[19] The report included a summary of the arguments for and against a written constitution and three “illustrative blueprints” of potential constitutions the UK could adopt. The committee said it was “deliberately not supporting a position for or against a codified constitution, believing it is for the British people ultimately to decide that question”.[20]

The committee report included an extensive discussion of the arguments for and against a written constitution.[21] These arguments are summarised below, along with suggestions for further reading.

4.1 Arguments for a written constitution

The committee report included the following summary by Professor Robert Blackburn of the arguments for a written constitution:

The case for a written constitution is that it would enable everyone to know what the rules and institutions were that governed and directed ministers, civil servants and parliamentarians in performing their public duties. The sprawling mass of common law, acts of Parliament, and European treaty obligations, surrounded by a number of important but sometimes uncertain unwritten conventions, is impenetrable to most people, and needs to be replaced by a single document of basic law dictating the working and operation of government in the United Kingdom easily accessible for all. Furthermore, it has become too easy for governments to implement political and constitutional reforms to suit their own political convenience, and entrenched procedures to ensure popular and parliamentary consent are required that necessitate a written constitution. The present ‘unwritten constitution’ is an anachronism riddled with references to our ancient past, unsuited to the social and political democracy of the 21st century and future aspirations of its people. It fails to give primacy to the sovereignty of the people and discourages popular participation in the political process. A written constitution would circumscribe the boundaries of the British state and its relationship with Europe and the world. It would become a symbol and expression of national identity today and a source of national pride.[22]

For further arguments in favour, see:

4.2 Arguments against a written constitution

The committee report summarised the arguments against:

The case against a written constitution is that it is unnecessary, undesirable and un-British. The fact that the UK system of government has never been reduced to a single document is an indication of the success of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy and the stability it has brought to the country. This is in contrast to most other countries whose written constitutions were the product of revolution or independence. The unwritten nature of the constitution is something distinctively British, it reminds us of a great history, and is a source of national pride. Contrary to claims that it is out of date, it is evolutionary and flexible in nature, more easily enabling practical problems to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms made, than would be the case under an entrenched constitutional document. While some are concerned about the supposed existence of an “elective dictatorship” and inadequate checks and balances in the political system, there is in fact a wide range of considerable pressures exerted upon ministers seeking to make controversial changes. A written constitution would create more litigation in the courts, and politicise the judiciary, requiring them to pass judgement on the constitutionality of government legislation, when the final word on legal matters should lie with elected politicians in Parliament, not unelected judges. There are so many practical problems inherent in preparing and enacting a written constitution, there is little point in considering the matter. As a public policy proposal it lacks of any depth of genuine popular support and, especially given the massive amount of time such a reform would entail, it is a very low priority even for those who support the idea. An attempt to introduce one would be a distraction and might well have a destabilising effect on the country.[23]

In 2023, Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench), who has tabled the motion for the House of Lords debate, delivered a public lecture on ‘Writing a constitution’ at the Statute Law Society.[24] He summarised the arguments for and against a written constitution and set out three options for reform: restatement (“an authoritative written account of our existing constitutional arrangements”), renewal (a programme of democratic reform to address constitutional issues of concern to the public) and revolution (introducing a written constitution). He argued that he was in favour of the first two options, but not the third. He concluded:

The constitution needs to be clearly written: but it is by restating and renewing our constitutional settlement, not revolutionising or judicialising it, that we can best equip it for the trials that lie ahead.[25]

For further arguments against a written constitution, see:

5. Previous proposals for a written constitution

A literature review published as an ancillary paper to the 2010–14 House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee inquiry summarised previous proposals for a codified constitution, published by various political parties, think tanks and academics.[26] These included:

In addition, former prime minister Gordon Brown has expressed support for codification of the UK constitution. In 2007, Mr Brown’s government published ‘The governance of Britain’, a green paper which claimed there was a:

[…] growing recognition of the need to clarify not just what it means to be British, but what it means to be the United Kingdom. This might in time lead to a concordat between the executive and Parliament or a written constitution.[27]

The green paper accepted that a written constitution could not “come into being except over an extended period of time, through extensive and wide consultation”.[28]

From 2020 to 2022, Mr Brown chaired the Labour Party’s Commission on the UK’s Future. In 2022, it published its report, ‘A new Britain: Renewing our democracy and rebuilding our economy’.[29] It called for a range of political and economic reforms for the UK, built on “new constitutional foundations”. It stated:

Our constitution should guarantee rights and ensure opportunities—offered by the UK to all its citizens so that all individuals in every place can benefit equally from our shared resources.[30]

The report’s authors said they could “see the force” of arguments for “a wholly codified constitution to put constitutional limits on the power of government”, but they conceded that that it “would be a very major undertaking”.[31]

6. Opposition party views

6.1 Conservative Party

In recent years, the Conservative Party has legislated in areas of constitutional reform, but it has not called specifically for a written constitution. In 2019, Boris Johnson’s Conservative government said in answer to a written parliamentary question that it had no plans to introduce a codified constitution.[32]

The Conservative Party manifesto for the December 2019 general election included a commitment to introduce a “constitution, democracy and rights commission” to develop proposals to “restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates”.[33] The manifesto said the commission would examine issues such as the relationship between the government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the royal prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; the Human Rights Act 1998; and the process of judicial review.

Ultimately, the Johnson government did not formally establish the commission, and in 2021 the government said it had instead introduced reforms through a “range of workstreams rather than a single commission”.[34] The government highlighted legislation such as the Judicial Review and Courts Bill (which received royal assent in 2022), that gave effect to the government’s manifesto commitment to reform judicial review.

In 2020, Mr Johnson’s government launched an independent review of the Human Rights Act 1998.[35] The review’s final report was published in 2021.[36] In response to the outcome of the review, the government consulted on proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new Bill of Rights. The government claimed this would introduce “common sense to the application of human rights in the UK” and would “reverse the mission creep that has meant human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of wider society”.[37]

The government introduced a Bill of Rights Bill in 2022, which would have repealed and replaced the Human Rights Act. However, the bill did not progress past its first reading in the House of Commons before Mr Johnson left office. The bill was not proceeded with by the Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak governments. For further information on the proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act, see the House of Lords Library briefing, ‘Human Rights Act 1998: Does it need replacing?’ (7 July 2022).

6.2 Liberal Democrats

Liberal Democrat general election manifestos in 2019 and 2024 both contained commitments to introduce a written constitution.[38] The party’s 2024 manifesto committed to “transfer greater powers away from Westminster and Whitehall, [and] introduce a written constitution for a federal United Kingdom with strong voices for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.[39] It said it would do this by creating a “UK constitutional convention, with the aim of drafting a new federal constitution that sets out the powers of the government at each tier”.[40]

6.3 Reform UK

The Reform UK manifesto for the 2024 general election did not include a commitment in favour of a written constitution, but it said the party would introduce a “British Bill of Rights” and that “our freedoms must be codified and guaranteed”.[41]

The leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, has previously argued for a written constitution when he was leader of other parties. In 2014, as leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), he gave a speech at the Institute for Government in which he said he was in favour of a written constitution.[42]

When Mr Farage was leader of the Brexit Party at the 2019 general election, its manifesto stated:

The way the political establishment has conspired to frustrate democracy over Brexit has highlighted the need for fundamental political reform […] It is now time for a debate on a written constitution.[43]

6.4 Green Party of England and Wales

The Green Party manifesto for the 2024 general election committed to establish a “constitutional commission to start a vital national conversation about a new constitutional settlement”.[44]

6.5 Scottish National Party

The Scottish National Party also supports the creation of a written constitution for an independent Scotland.[45]

7. Read more

Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Updated 19 October 2026 to add three further articles.

References

  1. Josh Halliday and Aletha Adu, ‘Devolution plans strengthen case for written UK constitution, says Burnham’, Guardian, 2 August 2026. Return to text
  2. Miranda Pell, ‘Andy Burnham’s speech in full as he promises to give UK ‘new direction’’, Manchester Evening News, 29 June 2026. Return to text
  3. Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, ‘The Basic Law’, accessed 12 October 2026. Return to text
  4. Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram, ‘Head North: A Rallying Cry for a More Equal Britain’, 2024. Return to text
  5. As above, p 164. Return to text
  6. As above, p 163. Return to text
  7. As above. Return to text
  8. As above, p 164. Return to text
  9. Cabinet Office, ‘Rewiring the state: Cabinet statement’, 31 July 2026. Return to text
  10. Josh Halliday and Aletha Adu, ‘Devolution plans strengthen case for written UK constitution, says Burnham’, Guardian, 2 August 2026. Return to text
  11. As above. Return to text
  12. Jonathan Sumption, ‘Andy Burnham, a written constitution is fundamentally un-British’, Telegraph (£), 9 August 2026. Return to text
  13. House of Lords Constitution Committee, ‘Reviewing the constitution: Terms of reference and method of working’, 11 July 2001, HL Paper 11 of session 2001–02, paras 18 and 21. Return to text
  14. UK Supreme Court, ‘Judgment: R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent), Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)’, 24 September 2019, [2019] UKSC 41, para 39. Return to text
  15. Cabinet Office, ‘The cabinet manual: A guide to laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government’, October 2011, p 2. Return to text
  16. As above, pp 2–3. Return to text
  17. House of Commons, ‘Written statement: Cabinet manual (HCWS78)’, 2 June 2026. Return to text
  18. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Cabinet manual (20541),’ 29 September 2026. Return to text
  19. House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, ‘A new Magna Carta?’, 10 July 2014, HC 463 of session 2014–15, p 5. Return to text
  20. As above, p 3. Return to text
  21. As above, pp 19–28. Return to text
  22. As above, p 19. Return to text
  23. House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, ‘A new Magna Carta?’, 10 July 2014, HC 463 of session 2014–15, p 24. Return to text
  24. Lord Anderson of Ipswich, ‘Writing a constitution’, Statute Law Society, 30 November 2023. Return to text
  25. As above, p 24. Return to text
  26. House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, ‘Codifying—or not codifying—the United Kingdom constitution: A literature review’, 23 February 2011. Return to text
  27. Ministry of Justice, ‘The governance of Britain’, 3 July 2007, CM 7170, p 62. Return to text
  28. As above, p 63. Return to text
  29. Labour Party, ‘A new Britain: Renewing our democracy and rebuilding our economy’, 2022. Return to text
  30. As above, p 8. Return to text
  31. As above, p 135. Return to text
  32. House of Commons, ‘Written question: British constitution (290315)’, 30 September 2019. Return to text
  33. Conservative Party, ‘Conservative and Unionist Party manifesto 2019’, November 2019, p 48. Return to text
  34. House of Commons, ‘Written question: Constitution, democracy and rights commission (87641)’, 14 December 2021. Return to text
  35. HM Government, ‘Independent Human Rights Act review’, 10 December 2020. Return to text
  36. Ministry of Justice, ‘The independent Human Rights Act review’, December 2021, CP 586. Return to text
  37. Ministry of Justice, ‘Human Rights Act reform: A modern Bill of Rights—Consultation’, updated 12 July 2022. Return to text
  38. Liberal Democrats, ‘Liberal Democrats manifesto 2019’, November 2019, p 79; Liberal Democrats, ‘Liberal Democrats manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 100. Return to text
  39. Liberal Democrats, ‘Liberal Democrats manifesto 2024’, July 2024, p 100. Return to text
  40. As above, p 104. Return to text
  41. Reform UK, ‘Reform UK manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 21. Return to text
  42. Institute for Government, ‘Nigel Farage: A keynote speech on the role of the state’, 23 June 2014. Return to text
  43. Brexit Party, ‘Brexit Party manifesto 2019’, November 2019, p 6. Return to text
  44. Green Party of England and Wales, ‘Green Party manifesto 2024’, June 2024, p 33. Return to text
  45. Scottish National Party, ‘A modern constitution for an independent Scotland’, 19 June 2023. Return to text