Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin and I'm going to be taking you through this citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be successful and I'm also going to pause and tell you when to complete a check for understanding or a task.

Hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called How Do Citizens Influence the Law? And it comes from the unit of lessons How can we play a part in the legal system? By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to explain the factors that influence a citizen being successful or unsuccessful in changing the law.

Before we start this lesson, it's important that we look at the ground rules.

So the ground rules for this lesson are to make sure that we're listening to each other.

It's okay to disagree with each other, but we should listen properly before making assumptions or deciding how to respond.

When disagreeing, challenge statement not the person.

We also need to make sure that we're respecting privacy.

We can discuss examples, but do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone, including ourselves.

We need to make sure that we're having no judgement.

We can explore beliefs and misunderstandings about a topic without fear of being judged.

And we also need to remember that we can choose our level of participation.

Everyone has the right to choose not to answer a question or join discussion.

We never put anyone on the spot.

So let's just make sure that we keep those ground rules in mind as we go through this lesson.

Our keywords for today are factors and these are elements or conditions that influence an outcome.

Campaign, actions or events organised by an individual or a group of people to achieve an aim.

And influence, the power to affect or change someone's thoughts, actions, or decisions.

Our lesson outline for how citizens influence the law is first we're going to have a look at how can citizens successfully change the law, and then we're going to have a look at when have citizens failed to change the law.

And for each of these we're going to look at a real life case study so we can really examine all of those different factors that can make someone either successful or unsuccessful.

And we're going to start by looking at how can citizens successfully change the law? So Jacob's asking, "Can citizens make law?" So pause while you have a go at answering this question.

So citizens cannot make law.

The only way in which laws can be made or amended in the UK is via judiciary when creating common law and through parliament when making or amending an act of parliament.

So citizens cannot make law.

However, citizens can have an impact on law making through applying pressure to decision makers.

So applying pressure to those people in Parliament who can make law.

So Jacob's asking, how does this pressure impact law making? What do you think? So governments have the power to make laws through mandate.

Often the laws that they implement will link directly to what they set out to achieve as described in their manifesto.

However, remaining popular with the electorate is also important.

To remain in their position, the Government needs to win each subsequent election.

So having the backing of the public is important and this may make government more likely to listen to pressure from the public.

So let's break that down a little bit.

So ultimately when a government gets in, they've got a mandate which means that the ideas and the policies that they had in their manifesto, they're able to start implementing those.

However, there does have to be a balance of making sure that what they're doing, what they're implementing is going to be popular with ultimately the citizens because they are the electorate, and obviously the government want to be able to stay in power for as long as possible, so that there is that balance there.

There are many factors that can help citizens to successfully change the law.

For example, these are some of the things that we'd be looking for.

So large numbers of people supporting the change and that goes back to what we've just said that shows to government and politicians that it's popular.

Lots of media coverage, lots of people talking about it, lots of lovely positive media coverage.

Members of parliament, so MPs and political parties, who are willing to support the issue because ultimately they're going to be the ones that have got that power to make the change.

A focused, realistic goal about what it is they're wanting to change in relation to the law.

Data, expert opinions, or real life stories to strengthen the case.

And of course perseverance, as campaigns to change or amend laws can often take years.

So the Marriage and Civil Partnership Minimum Age Act was passed in 2022 and this law means that people must be 18 years old to marry in England and Wales.

Before this, people could get married at 16 or 17 years old with their parents' consent.

So, it could be that actually 16 or 17-year-olds as long as their parents gave permission could get married.

In 2022, the law changed and you must now be 18 or over.

The change in law aim to protect children from being coerced or forced into marriage without their consent.

So Jacob's asking, "How did citizens play a role in this law change?" Just think, have you got any ideas if and how citizens might have played a role in this law change? Multiple charities and pressure groups actively campaigned for a change to the law.

So some of these were the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation and they campaigned for years against child marriage.

They highlighted that early marriage disproportionately affects girls and they've been campaigning for years in many different countries to make sure that children were not legally able to get married.

So this is one of the charities that actively spoke out.

There was also the charity Girls Not Brides UK and that's a global network of over 100 countries campaigning for a universal end to child marriage.

The members share learning and evidence and work together to influence governments.

So this is a charity that is working in lots and lots of different countries and they also helped and support and campaigned for the law change in England and Wales.

And the NSPCC and Bernardo's, both very well-known charities, both called for changes to the law and they publicly supported the campaign to raise the legal marriage age.

So straight away this law change, as you can see, was backed by lots of different organisations and charities were experts in understanding this area.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What did campaigners hope to protect children from with the introduction of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Minimum Age Act in 2022? So, the campaign is hoped to protect children from? Let's have a look.

Child marriage as previously 16 and 17-year-olds could get married with parental permission.

So ultimately they wanted to protect children from child marriage and the law now prevents children from being coerced or forced into marriage without their consent.

So we also aim to protect children from being coerced or forced into doing something that they did not want to do.

Survivors of child marriage also shared their personal stories to raise awareness of the harms caused by the practise.

Their real life testimonies help the public to better understand and empathise with the issue, which increased public support for changing the law.

These powerful accounts were shared through public talks, interviews, and social media so they were able to reach large audiences.

Hearing directly from those affected made the issue feel more real and urgent for many people because it might be that for lots of adults they had no experience of this.

This was something that had never impacted them or anyone that they knew.

So being able to hear from people that it had impacted really helped to gain that public support.

And this public pressure helped to influence politicians and contributed to the successful campaign to raise the legal age of marriage in England and Wales.

In June 2021, Conservative MP Pauline Latham introduced the Marriage and Civil Partnership, Minimum Age Bill as a Private Member's Bill.

Latham worked closely with campaigners, including survivors of child marriage, to ensure the bill was thorough and clear in its proposed intention.

So it was really clear what this bill was aiming to achieve.

The Bill gained cross-party support.

Now that was absolutely crucial for it to progress, managing to pass through both chambers of Parliament unopposed.

Because ultimately, as a bill is making its journey through Parliament to become a law, there is opportunities for lots of people to disagree, to debate, to change.

So it was really, really important and crucial that this bill actually did gain that cross-party support.

So ultimately what that tells us is that MPs across the different political parties agreed and were willing to work towards making this bill become a law.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Why is a bill gaining cross party support a positive thing? Cross-party support is crucial for a bill to progress as it means it is able to pass through both chambers of Parliament unopposed in order to become an Act of Parliament.

Let's take a look at a timeline of progress.

So in 2018, charities and survivors began really campaigning using data, expert opinions, and real-life stories to sway public opinion.

In 2019 and 2020, that public support really started to grow and this was amplified by charities speaking out against child marriage and petitions being widely shared on social media.

In 2021, the Private Members Bill was introduced and gathered cross-party support.

The Bill passed through Parliament without objection.

In 2022, Royal Assent was granted and the Bill became law.

And in 2023, the Marriage and Civil Partnership Minimum Age Act officially came into effect.

So this case study highlights how citizens can be instrumental in changing the law and how they are more likely to be successful if they can gain media coverage and the support of MPs.

Furthermore, if they have a focused and realistic goal with data, expert opinions, or real-life stories, this can strengthen their case and increase their chances of success.

Finally, they also need to have perseverance, as changing the law is often a lengthy process.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Outline three factors that can help citizens to successfully change the law.

So you might have said any of these.

Large numbers of people supporting the change.

Lots of media coverage.

MPs and political parties who are willing to support the issue, particularly cross-party support.

A focused, realistic goal.

And data, expert opinions, or real-life stories to strengthen the case.

And of course perseverance.

For Task A I'd like you to outline the different factors that can support citizens with successfully changing the law.

You do not need to cover each point separately, but you should refer to the different factors whilst making your overall summary.

So, pause while you have a go at this task.

When outlining the different factors that can support citizens with successfully changing the law, your answer may have included: If citizens want to successfully change the law, there are a few important things that can really help.

First, it makes a big difference if lots of people support the issue because it shows a government that it matters to the public.

Media coverage, like on the news or social media, helps get the message out and builds pressure.

It also helps if MPs and political parties back the idea because they're the ones who can actually help make the change in Parliament.

Cross-party support is particularly useful.

You might have also gone on to say the campaign needs to have a clear and realistic goal, not something that's impossible to achieve.

Using facts, expert opinions, and real-life stories can make the case stronger and more emotional, so people understand why the law needs to change and public opinion can be swayed more easily.

Finally, you need perseverance, because these changes don't happen overnight.

Some campaigns take years before anything happens.

For example, the campaign for changing the minimum age of marriage took several years before the law was passed in 2022.

So we've had a look at a case study where citizens were involved in successfully changing the law.

We're now going to have a look at when have citizens failed to change the law.

So Alex is saying, "So it's pretty easy for citizens to change the law, right?" What do you think? No, it's really not.

Changing laws is a really complex process and citizens can face a wide range of obstacles when they try to influence legislation.

The Marriage and Civil Partnership Minimum Age Act was successful because there was a range of factors that went in its favour, including the public and political support, positive media coverage, and emotive real-life stories.

However, these factors are not always present.

There are a number of factors that can make it difficult for a citizen to change the law.

So opposition from the government and other MPs, even if public support is high, if those in power oppose the suggested legislation, it's highly unlikely to succeed.

And if powerful and influential interest groups are against the law change, they might lobby against the legislation which can make change more difficult and they could influence a general public too.

So, if you've got experts, people that we kind of view to be experts in that field, in that area saying, "No, this law changes a bad idea," that can really impact what the public think and it can also really impact what the government think as well.

Societal attitudes may be slow to change, especially on moral or controversial issues, and this can mean that public support is more difficult to gather, making a law change less likely.

And also a campaign may have a lack of resources or be poorly organised, both making a law change less likely.

Campaigning can be costly.

Yes, there are things that you can do that are free, but actually really effective campaigns often do have a cost attached.

And even if costs are saved by using free methods of campaigning such as social media, for example, this still requires a clear and coordinated campaign plan.

So it's really time-consuming as well, which is something that not all citizens have.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Can you match the head to the tail to complete the sentences.

So our heads are opposition from the government, interest groups that are against the campaign, societal issues can be slowed to change, and a lack of resources.

And the tails are makes it highly unlikely a campaign will succeed.

Meaning public support remains low for the campaign.

Often leads to an uncoordinated campaign plan.

And may use data to reinforce their opposing stance.

So pause while you have a go at matching the heads to the tails.

Let's see how you got on.

So opposition from the government makes it highly unlikely a campaign will succeed.

Interest groups that are against the campaign may use data to reinforce their opposing stance.

Societal issues can be slow to change, meaning public support remains low for the campaign and the lack of resources often leads to an uncoordinated campaign plan.

So Alex is asking, "Are there any examples of citizens failing to change the law because of these factors?" Another think to yourself, do you know of any? So yes, a well-known and ongoing example is the campaign to legalise cannabis in the UK, which has so far failed to be successful due to a variety of these factors.

So this campaign gained momentum after the 1997 Labour Government was elected.

So this was a period where there was lots and lots of of talk and debate with the general public about the potential legalisation.

Many drug reform campaigners used this change in government to lobby politicians for cannabis to be legalised.

The Labour Government did commission a report to examine drug policy, and as a result in 2004, there was a change in legislation with cannabis being reclassified from a class B drug to a class C drug.

And this impacted the law.

This meant sentences for possession of cannabis would be less serious.

So you can see from 1997 when there was that momentum, it did still take a while.

A few years later there was, after that examination, there was a change in legislation.

It wasn't legalised, it changed in classification.

This legislation change was met with lots of opposition.

Senior spokespeople within the police, for example, claimed that the change of law would give mixed messages regarding the use of cannabis because it was ultimately still an illegal drug.

And some people were concerned that change in the classification might be confusing.

People might think it was now okay.

So they suggested that it might cause problems. Conservative MPs, remember at the time we had Labour Government, so conservative MPs also accused Labour of being soft on drug crime and stated that the change in legislation could be dangerous.

This opposition to the change in classification highlights that a law change to legalise the drug would likely be met with even fiercer opposition.

So if we can compare this to the marriage change in law, where actually political parties were all in agreement, there was cross-party support, you can see here there was already lots of sort of conflict and differences of opinion.

There were also reports in the media that seem to speak against this change to the law.

With some newspapers running articles suggesting links between cannabis use and mental health.

Some media outlets publicly urge the government to change cannabis back to a class B drug.

Media outlets can shape what many people think because they reach so many viewers and readers.

When newspapers, TV news, or social media platforms take a stand against something, they can change how the public feels about that issue.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What are the missing words.

The media can be very something on public opinion as it can reach large audiences.

Therefore, when media outlets publicly something with an issue, this can negatively shape public opinion on a campaign.

Let's check to see if you've got those words correct.

The media can be very influential on public opinion as it can reach large audiences.

Therefore, when media outlets publicly disagree with an issue, this can negatively shape public opinion on a campaign.

Between 2007 and 2009, there was another change to cannabis legislation.

Gordon Brown, then Labour Party Prime Minister, ordered a review of the previous legislation claims, and in 2009, the drug was reclassified as class B.

So it was taken back up to class B due to those concerns surrounding mental health and also public disorder.

Again, this legislation change was met with much division.

So let's have a look at some for and against in terms of people's opinions towards that.

So for.

The Police Superintendents' Association supported the reclassification as they believed it would help tackle public disorder concerns.

So remember, they were concerned that when cannabis was taken to a class C, that might have people using it more frequently or not quite understanding the law, which could cause problems. And then let's have a look at the against.

So the Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs stated that scientific evidence should be considered and that alcohol is actually more harmful than cannabis.

So there were other people suggesting that actually there are things that are already completely legal to use in this country, like alcohol, that have been proven to be harmful.

So it was straight away there lots and lots of debate and lots of differences in opinions about the law relating to cannabis.

And this highlights how opposing opinions can mean that legislation changes are met with resistance or concern.

In 2019, there was some cross-party support for the legalisation of cannabis, and the Liberal Democrats even outlined a move to full legislation in their manifesto.

However, the Conservative Government during this time remained opposed to the idea of legislation.

So therefore, nothing happened.

This opinion was shared by the police and many mainstream media outlets as well.

As of 2025, there are still calls for the legalisation of cannabis, but these currently remain unsuccessful.

The opinion of the public is split, with about 45% supporting legalisation and about 42% opposing with some that don't have an opinion.

This isn't dissimilar to MPs with 39% supporting and 50% opposing.

So the lack of full public support, as well as political backing, means campaigners are failing to gain the law change that they hope for.

Although there are still pro-legalization of cannabis groups in the UK, these remain underfunded and lack media support and attention.

Unlike in the USA, where similar pro-legalization of cannabis groups receive major corporate support, groups in the UK rely solely on volunteers and crowdfunding making their reach much smaller.

This case study highlights how, without public interest groups or political support, positive media coverage and organised campaign efforts, it can be very difficult for citizens to change legislation.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Identify three factors that can make it difficult for citizens to change the law.

You might have said inconsistency of public and political backing.

A lack of media support.

Lack of organised and funded campaigning.

And the opinions of interest groups.

For Task B, I'd like you to evaluate the campaign to legalise cannabis, explaining why it has been unsuccessful to date.

You might want to refer to inconsistency of public and political backing, the lack of media support, lack of organised and funded campaigning, and the opinions of the police.

When evaluating the campaign to legalise cannabis, explaining why it's been unsuccessful to date, you may have included: campaign to legalise cannabis in the UK has been mostly unsuccessful because there hasn't been enough consistent support from both the public and politicians.

While some people are in favour, others still believe the legalisation of cannabis is dangerous and this makes it difficult to change the law.

Many media sources have published negative stories about cannabis, further reducing public support for the campaign.

Existing campaign groups also have limited resources and therefore lack organisation compared to other causes, so their message hasn't spread as widely.

Additionally, the police have not yet supported legalising cannabis, which adds to the government's resistance.

In summary of the lesson, How do citizens influence the law? Citizens can influence the law, especially if the following factors apply.

Public support, positive media coverage, cross-party support, a focused, realistic goal, inclusion of data, expert opinions, or real life stories, and perseverance.

These factors were all present when citizens campaigned to have the age of marriage in England and Wales raised to 18.

Citizens may fail to influence the law if there is inconsistency in public and political backing, a lack of media or expert support, a lack of organised and funded campaigning, and societal views that go against the change.

These factors have all impacted the success of the legalisation of cannabis campaign.

That brings us to the end of the lesson.

Well done for all of your hard work and I hope to see you back for some more citizenship lessons in the future.