Debates on further reform | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 5 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 70 minutes
Debates on further reform A-Level Politics revision brings together the whole Edexcel Constitution topic. You need to judge whether constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 should go further, whether devolution should be extended in England, and whether the UK should adopt an entrenched and codified constitution, including a bill of rights. These debates require much more than describing reforms. You must weigh competing arguments about democracy, rights, sovereignty, accountability and constitutional stability, drawing together previous constitutional changes and more recent reform.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Assess whether constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 should be taken further.
Evaluate arguments for and against further House of Lords, electoral, devolution, rights and judicial reform.
Explain the arguments for extending devolution within England.
Assess whether England should have its own Parliament or rely on regional devolution.
Compare an entrenched and codified constitution with the UK's existing constitutional arrangements.
Evaluate the case for including an entrenched bill of rights within a codified constitution.
Revision Notes đź“š
What does Edexcel require?
The specification identifies three areas of debate:
The extent to which individual reforms since 1997 should be taken further.
The extent to which devolution should be extended in England.
Whether the UK Constitution should become entrenched and codified, including a bill of rights.
This lesson is therefore primarily about evaluation.
You already need knowledge of:
the nature and sources of the Constitution
reforms since 1997
devolution across the UK
The task now is to decide whether those arrangements should remain as they are or change further.
A useful way to approach every reform debate is:
What problem was the original reform designed to address?
↓
How successfully has it addressed that problem?
↓
Has it created new constitutional problems?
↓
Would further reform improve the situation or make it worse?
Should constitutional reform since 1997 be taken further?
Edexcel's 2024 assessment material presents a genuinely mixed picture of post-1997 reform.
Arguments for the success of reform include:
devolution has decentralised power
different electoral systems have increased the legitimacy of devolved institutions
the Human Rights Act has strengthened rights protection
the Constitutional Reform Act and Supreme Court have strengthened separation of powers and checks and balances
Arguments that reform remains incomplete include:
devolution has created new territorial tensions
England still lacks a clear equivalent national settlement
the Human Rights Act remains controversial
the Supreme Court has been criticised for becoming too political
some aspects of electoral reform have not increased participation as hoped
The key point is therefore:
A reform can be successful and still provide arguments for further reform.
Should House of Lords reform go further?
House of Lords reform began before 2010, but the debate about its final form remains unresolved.
Edexcel's 2024 source presents two sharply contrasting positions.
Argument for further reform: the Lords lacks democratic legitimacy
Critics of the existing House of Lords argue that an unelected chamber is difficult to justify in a modern democracy.
The 2024 source identifies criticisms including:
lack of a democratic mandate
concerns about appointments
continued hereditary membership
concerns about the size of the chamber
under-representation of the wider public
From this perspective, earlier reform did not go far enough.
A further reform could make the chamber:
more democratically legitimate
more representative of the regions and nations
smaller
less dependent on appointment
This connects directly to how the second chamber is constituted.
Argument against further reform: appointment supports effective scrutiny
The opposing argument is that the Lords performs useful constitutional functions partly because it is not elected.
The 2024 source identifies advantages including:
independence
expertise
absence of a government majority
greater time for legislative scrutiny
willingness to challenge legislation passed through the Commons
An elected chamber could create new problems.
If both Houses possessed electoral legitimacy, there could be disagreement about which chamber had the stronger democratic mandate.
Further reform could therefore disturb the existing relationship examined in the powers of Parliament's two chambers.
Overall assessment
The argument for further Lords reform is strongest if democratic legitimacy is treated as the most important criterion.
The argument against further reform is stronger if effective scrutiny and independence are prioritised.
A useful judgement is:
The post-1997 reforms substantially changed the House of Lords without resolving its basic legitimacy problem. However, replacing appointment with election could solve one constitutional weakness while creating another by producing rival democratic mandates in the two Houses.
Should electoral reform go further?
Post-1997 constitutional reform introduced different electoral systems for devolved bodies.
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme argues that the use of Additional Member System (AMS)Â and Single Transferable Vote (STV)Â increased representation and legitimacy within devolved institutions.
This creates a potential argument for further electoral change.
Argument for further reform
If alternative electoral systems have produced more representative devolved institutions, supporters of reform can argue that electoral change should go further.
The constitutional argument is based on:
representation
legitimacy
democratic participation
confidence in political institutions
A student could therefore question whether the electoral arrangements used elsewhere in the UK should remain different from the system used for Westminster.
This links directly to comparison of voting systems.
Argument against further reform
The effectiveness of electoral reform is not guaranteed simply by changing the voting system.
Edexcel's 2024 material points to lower turnout in devolved elections as a challenge to claims that constitutional electoral reform automatically increases democratic legitimacy.
Changing electoral rules may alter representation without solving:
political disengagement
low turnout
declining trust
The constitutional question therefore becomes:
Is changing the electoral system itself enough to improve democracy?
Overall assessment
There is a strong case that alternative electoral systems can improve proportionality and representation within institutions where Edexcel identifies these effects.
However, electoral reform does not necessarily solve the wider problem of political participation.
A high-level answer should distinguish representativeness from participation rather than treating them as the same measure of democratic success.
Should devolution go further?
Devolution is one of the most extensive constitutional reforms since 1997, but it is also one of the clearest examples of reform generating demands for more reform.
Edexcel's 2024 source states that devolution has:
decentralised power
increased democracy
retained support for devolved institutions
but also argues that:
the territorial settlement remains unequal
nationalism has continued
England lacks a clear equivalent national voice
This means that the success and incompleteness of devolution are closely connected.
Argument for extending devolution
Further devolution could:
increase local democratic accountability
bring decision-making closer to citizens
reduce excessive centralisation
respond to regional or national identities
make the territorial settlement more balanced
Edexcel's 2025 material presents symmetry and clearer accountability as important arguments for further English devolution.
Argument against extending devolution
Further devolution could also:
create greater territorial competition
produce demands for additional money and powers
make responsibilities less clear
weaken the unity of the UK
create further constitutional asymmetry rather than solving it
The experience studied in devolved government across the UKÂ therefore supports arguments on both sides.
Does more devolution settle constitutional disputes?
Not necessarily.
Scotland and Wales have received additional powers, but Edexcel material notes that nationalist demands have continued and that the devolved settlement itself is not entrenched.
This creates an important evaluative point:
Further devolution can satisfy demands for greater self-government, but it can also increase expectations for still greater autonomy.
Should devolution be extended in England?
This is a separate requirement in the specification.
England is constitutionally distinctive because it is the only nation of the UK without its own national devolved Parliament.
Instead, English devolution has developed through arrangements including Metro Mayors.
The central debate is whether this should continue or whether England should receive a more extensive constitutional settlement.
The case for an English Parliament
The 2025 Edexcel source and mark scheme give four major arguments supporting an English Parliament:
symmetry
clearer democratic accountability
national recognition
a response to the West Lothian Question
1. Greater constitutional symmetry
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have national devolved institutions.
England does not.
Supporters therefore argue that four national parliaments could produce a more balanced constitutional settlement.
This could reduce resentment created by different nations possessing different levels of political recognition and power.
A useful chain is:
asymmetric devolution
↓
different constitutional treatment
↓
possible resentment and democratic deficit
↓
English Parliament creates greater symmetry
2. Clearer democratic accountability
The 2025 mark scheme argues that clearer divisions of power could help citizens understand which level of government is responsible for decisions.
An English Parliament could make policy specifically for England rather than requiring English matters to be dealt with through the UK Parliament.
Supporters argue that this could improve:
accountability
representation
clarity of responsibility
3. National recognition
England currently lacks an equivalent national political institution.
Edexcel's source presents the argument that an English Parliament could recognise and support English identity.
From this perspective, devolution should acknowledge all four national identities rather than three receiving national legislatures and England being treated differently.
4. The West Lothian Question
The West Lothian Question concerns the constitutional consequences of devolved representatives participating in Westminster decisions that affect England while equivalent matters may be devolved elsewhere.
The 2025 mark scheme argues that this could become particularly controversial if a future government's Commons majority depended upon seats in Scotland or Wales.
The abolition of English Votes for English Laws means this debate has not disappeared.
An English Parliament could provide a clearer structural solution.
The case against an English Parliament
Edexcel also provides several substantial counterarguments.
1. England could dominate the Union
England is considerably larger than the other home nations.
An English Parliament and English Executive could therefore become powerful rivals to Westminster.
The 2025 source argues that an English First Minister could directly challenge the UK Executive.
Instead of balancing the Union, an English Parliament might destabilise it.
2. It could encourage further constitutional conflict
A new English government could demand:
additional powers
additional funding
greater independence from Westminster
This could create the same type of territorial political competition already associated with other devolution debates.
The proposed solution could therefore become another source of constitutional tension.
3. It would not necessarily bring government closer to citizens
England itself is extremely large.
An England-wide Parliament would still govern a very large population and territory.
The 2025 mark scheme therefore questions whether this would genuinely produce localised government.
Regional devolution may bring political decision-making closer to communities more effectively.
4. The West Lothian Question may be exaggerated
The 2025 source argues that relatively few Commons votes have actually been determined by Scottish MPs in a way that makes the constitutional issue decisive.
If the practical problem is limited, creating an entirely new national Parliament could be a disproportionate response.
5. Metro Mayors provide an alternative
Instead of one English Parliament, Edexcel material presents Metro Mayors as a possible alternative model for further English devolution.
This approach involves expanding regional government rather than creating another national institution.
That could provide:
greater local responsiveness
regional political leadership
decentralisation without creating a rival national Executive
English Parliament or regional devolution?
The debate can be reduced to a useful comparison.
English Parliament | Expanded regional devolution |
Gives England national constitutional recognition. | Brings decisions closer to individual English regions. |
Creates greater symmetry between the four nations. | Accepts that England may need a different model because of its size. |
Could answer the West Lothian Question more comprehensively. | Avoids creating a powerful rival to the UK Parliament. |
Could strengthen English identity. | Builds on existing Metro Mayor arrangements. |
Could create conflicts with Westminster. | May leave the overall English settlement uneven. |
Overall assessment
The strongest argument for an English Parliament is constitutional symmetry.
The strongest objection is that treating England exactly like the other nations ignores the very large difference in its size and could create a dominant new political institution.
A reasoned judgement might therefore favour further English devolution without necessarily creating an English Parliament, particularly if the aim is to bring power closer to citizens rather than simply reproduce national institutions.
Should the UK Constitution become codified and entrenched?
This is one of the most important constitutional debates on the Edexcel course.
The specification requires students to assess whether the UK should replace its current arrangements with an entrenched and codified constitution, including a bill of rights.
Before evaluating this, keep the concepts separate.
Codified
A codified constitution would bring the main constitutional rules together into a single constitutional document.
The UK's existing Constitution is uncodified.
Entrenched
An entrenched constitution would require a special process for constitutional amendment rather than allowing constitutional rules to be altered in the same way as ordinary law.
The 2020 Edexcel examination source gives examples of possible special procedures such as:
a two-thirds parliamentary majority
a referendum
⚠️ Codified and entrenched are not synonyms.
Codification concerns where constitutional rules are located.
Entrenchment concerns how those rules can be changed.
This builds directly on the existing constitutional framework.
Arguments for a codified and entrenched constitution
The 2023 Edexcel source and mark scheme identify four major arguments:
greater clarity
stronger protection of rights
clearer rules governing devolution
greater public accessibility and democratic ownership
Argument 1: greater constitutional clarity
The UK Constitution is drawn from:
statute law
common law
conventions
authoritative works
treaties
This can make constitutional rules difficult to locate or understand.
Edexcel's 2023 source argues that a lack of clarity created difficulties during recent political disputes, including questions concerning:
referendums
parliamentary sovereignty
separation of powers
A codified constitution could provide clearer rules defining:
the powers of political institutions
relationships between branches
constitutional procedures
the position of devolved institutions
Why this matters
Clarity could reduce uncertainty during constitutional crises.
Instead of political actors disagreeing about where rules can be found or how conventions should operate, the constitutional framework would be more explicit.
Argument 2: stronger protection against excessive government power
The 2020 Edexcel source argues that without entrenchment, a government possessing a Commons majority may be able to make significant constitutional changes relatively easily.
An entrenched constitution could require additional consent before major constitutional rules were altered.
This could strengthen checks and balances by making constitutional change harder for one temporary parliamentary majority to impose.
Supporters therefore argue:
ordinary majority government
↓
can currently alter constitutional arrangements
↓
entrenchment introduces special barriers
↓
constitutional rules receive greater protection
This can be linked to later study of the relationship between government and Parliament.
Argument 3: stronger protection of rights
The 2023 Edexcel mark scheme identifies rights as one of the strongest arguments for codification and entrenchment.
The Human Rights Act 1998Â strengthened rights protection, but it is not entrenched and can be changed by Parliament.
Supporters argue that an entrenched bill of rights could give fundamental rights greater constitutional protection.
This would move beyond the current position studied in rights protection after 1997.
Argument 4: clearer protection for devolution
The territorial constitution has developed through different arrangements for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Edexcel's 2023 material argues that uncertainty about the division of powers between Westminster and devolved governments can cause constitutional conflict.
A codified and entrenched settlement could:
state clearly which powers belong to each level
give devolved arrangements greater constitutional protection
reduce disagreement over where political authority lies
The source even presents a possible federal arrangement as one way of giving stronger constitutional protection to devolution.
This would be a major departure from the existing unitary constitutional structure.
Argument 5: greater accessibility and popular ownership
The 2023 mark scheme argues that citizens may find the current Constitution difficult to access and that a codified document could increase:
transparency
understanding
trust in political institutions
A constitution written and understood by citizens might strengthen the concept of popular sovereignty.
Edexcel's 2025 constitutional source similarly presents criticism that the existing system gives insufficient importance to the sovereignty and political participation of the people.
This provides a useful connection to democratic legitimacy.
Arguments against a codified and entrenched constitution
The 2023 mark scheme identifies equally important objections:
reduced flexibility
danger of constitutional rules becoming outdated
divisive debates during codification
increased judicial power
practical problems surrounding who has authority to write the Constitution
Argument 1: the existing Constitution is flexible
One of the major advantages of an uncodified and unentrenched Constitution is that it can evolve.
Edexcel's 2025 source describes the existing Constitution as evolutionary and flexible, allowing individual problems to be dealt with as they arise.
The reforms studied across this unit illustrate that flexibility.
The Constitution has been able to change through:
devolution
House of Lords reform
rights legislation
judicial reform
changes in English devolution
Supporters of the current system therefore argue:
the Constitution does not need comprehensive codification because it is already capable of adapting.
Argument 2: a codified constitution could become outdated
A document written for one political period may not suit future circumstances.
Edexcel's 2023 mark scheme argues that codified rules could become obsolete and require continual interpretation by the courts.
The current uncodified system can instead evolve gradually.
This creates a direct trade-off:
Codification | Current arrangements |
Greater clarity | Greater flexibility |
More entrenched rules | Easier adaptation |
Greater constitutional certainty | Greater capacity for gradual evolution |
The evaluation depends on whether certainty or flexibility matters more.
Argument 3: writing the Constitution could be politically divisive
Codification would require agreement about what should actually be written into the document.
Edexcel identifies potentially divisive constitutional questions involving:
rights
devolution
the monarchy
Rather than settling political disagreements, constitutional codification could force disputes over issues that are currently managed through flexible arrangements.
The process of constitutional reform could therefore create instability.
Argument 4: judges could become too powerful
An entrenched constitution must be interpreted.
If constitutional rules were legally superior to ordinary Acts of Parliament, judges could potentially gain greater power through judicial review.
The 2023 mark scheme presents the argument that an entrenched bill of rights could increase judicial activism and allow unelected judges greater power over legislation.
Critics argue that this could shift power:
away from elected Parliament
and
towards unelected judges
This creates a democratic objection to codification.
The debate links naturally to judicial power and independence.
Argument 5: codification would challenge parliamentary sovereignty
The existing Constitution is based on parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliament can make, amend or unmake law.
If a constitutional document were genuinely entrenched and superior to ordinary legislation, this would fundamentally alter that principle.
The 2020 Edexcel source defends parliamentary sovereignty because it allows Parliament to respond flexibly to political threats and changing circumstances.
So this debate is not simply about organising constitutional rules neatly into one document.
It raises a fundamental question:
Should ultimate constitutional authority continue to lie with Parliament, or should Parliament itself become subject to a higher entrenched constitutional law?
Should the UK have an entrenched bill of rights?
The Edexcel specification specifically requires a bill of rights to be considered within the codification debate.
This should not be treated as an unrelated topic.
It forms part of the wider argument about whether fundamental rights should receive special constitutional protection.
The case for an entrenched bill of rights
The 2023 mark scheme argues that the Human Rights Act is not entrenched and can therefore be changed through the existing parliamentary process.
Supporters of an entrenched bill of rights argue that it could:
state citizens' fundamental rights clearly
make rights more accessible
give rights greater protection from temporary parliamentary majorities
strengthen checks on government
A key argument is therefore:
rights should not depend entirely on the willingness of the current parliamentary majority to preserve them.
An entrenched bill of rights could place stronger constitutional limits on political power.
The case against an entrenched bill of rights
The main objection concerns who would interpret and enforce those rights.
If judges had the power to prevent legislation from taking effect because it breached entrenched constitutional rights, judicial power would increase significantly.
The 2023 mark scheme presents the concern that this could:
encourage judicial activism
involve judges in political decisions
reduce the authority of the elected Commons
change the constitutional balance between Parliament and the judiciary
Critics may therefore argue that rights are better protected through the current combination of:
parliamentary legislation
the Human Rights Act
an independent judiciary
rather than through a constitution that allows judges to override parliamentary legislation.
Human Rights Act or entrenched bill of rights?
Human Rights Act model | Entrenched bill of rights model |
Rights protection operates within the existing framework of parliamentary sovereignty. | Rights would receive stronger constitutional protection. |
Parliament retains ultimate legal authority. | Parliament's ability to change protected rights could be restricted. |
Flexible and capable of amendment. | More difficult to amend. |
Critics argue protection is insufficient because it is not entrenched. | Critics argue judges could receive excessive political power. |
A strong essay should identify the fundamental trade-off:
greater legal protection for rights
versus
continued democratic authority of Parliament.
Has post-1997 constitutional reform already gone far enough?
A strong answer needs to consider the reforms collectively.
Arguments that reform should go further
Previous reforms remain incomplete
The 2020 Edexcel material describes the Blair reforms as incomplete and lacking a comprehensive constitutional vision.
Examples of continuing debates include:
an unelected House of Lords
unresolved English devolution
continuing territorial tensions
unentrenched rights
uncertainty about the wider constitutional framework
This supports the argument that the UK has undergone piecemeal reform without reaching a final settlement.
Reform has sometimes created new constitutional problems
Edexcel's 2025 constitutional source presents the criticism that recent constitutional reforms can create further problems rather than providing permanent solutions.
For example:
devolution
may increase local democracy
but also creates questions about:
England
territorial equality
national independence
Further reform may therefore be needed precisely because earlier reform altered the political system without producing a complete settlement.
Arguments that reform has already gone far enough
Many reforms have been successful
Edexcel's 2024 material provides arguments that:
devolution has increased democracy
electoral reform has created more representative devolved institutions
the Human Rights Act has strengthened rights
the Supreme Court has strengthened checks and balances
If reforms are already operating successfully, further change may be unnecessary.
Continuous reform could undermine stability
A Constitution needs some degree of predictability.
If every successful reform produces demands for further change, constitutional politics could become permanently unsettled.
The 2023 source argues that repeatedly rewriting fundamental constitutional arrangements could destabilise the system.
Piecemeal evolution may be preferable
The UK Constitution has historically developed gradually rather than through one comprehensive redesign.
This is consistent with its historical development.
Supporters of the existing arrangements argue that individual reforms can be introduced when particular problems arise without replacing the entire constitutional system.
Piecemeal reform or comprehensive reform?
This is one of the most useful ways to frame the entire topic.
Piecemeal reform
Advantages:
flexible
deals with particular problems
avoids reopening every constitutional issue
preserves parliamentary sovereignty
allows gradual evolution
Disadvantages:
can produce inconsistent arrangements
may lack an overall constitutional vision
can create new problems requiring further changes
may leave reforms incomplete
Comprehensive reform
A codified and entrenched constitution could attempt to establish:
clear constitutional rules
clearer territorial relationships
stronger rights protection
explicit limits on institutions
However, it would also require major decisions about:
parliamentary sovereignty
judicial power
devolution
rights
constitutional amendment
That makes comprehensive reform potentially clearer but also much more disruptive.
Overall assessment of further constitutional reform
The strongest overall judgement depends on what problem you think constitutional reform should solve.
If the priority is clarity, equal territorial arrangements and stronger protection of rights, there is a powerful case for further reform.
The existing settlement still contains:
an unelected second chamber
asymmetric devolution
unresolved English representation
unentrenched rights
constitutional rules spread across several sources
However, if the priority is flexibility, parliamentary democracy and constitutional stability, the argument for a single comprehensive reform is weaker.
The Constitution has repeatedly adapted through incremental reform without requiring one entrenched constitutional document.
A defensible overall judgement is:
Some post-1997 reforms have strong cases for further development, particularly the settlement for England and the unresolved composition of the House of Lords. However, this does not automatically establish the need for a fully codified and entrenched constitution. Targeted reform can address specific democratic weaknesses while preserving the flexibility that has characterised the UK Constitution.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint: Define both codified and entrenched when answering a codification question. The 2023 examiner report specifically praised stronger introductions that accurately defined both terms and established a clear line of argument.
Do not use the terms interchangeably.
Examiner hint:Â Pair arguments that genuinely compete with each other. Stronger 2023 responses matched arguments such as constitutional clarity against flexibility and rights protection against increased judicial power. Poorly matched arguments made analysis much harder.
A good paragraph structure is therefore:
argument for reform → directly competing argument → comparison → judgement.
Examiner hint:Â For English devolution questions, focus on the precise proposal in the question. The 2025 report found that weaker responses wrote generic essays about whether devolution had succeeded rather than evaluating whether England should have a Parliament.
Always identify the exact constitutional reform being proposed.
Examiner hint:Â Pay attention to words such as "now". Stronger candidates in 2025 directly addressed whether contemporary circumstances meant that the case for an English Parliament had become stronger or weaker.
Command wording is part of the debate, not decoration.
Examiner hint:Â Use breadth when the question concerns constitutional reform generally. The 2024 report found that candidates who discussed only devolution limited their answers to a broad question about the success of constitutional reform since 1997.
A broad constitutional question needs a suitable range of reforms.
Examiner hint:Â Do not simply list the arguments for reform and then list the arguments against it. The 2025 examiner report found that this structure restricted comparative analysis. Stronger answers paired competing arguments and reached supported interim judgements.
Examiner hint:Â Your final judgement should not surprise the examiner. Both the 2023 and 2025 reports emphasise that judgements need to be developed throughout the response so the conclusion follows logically from the argument.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Treating codified and entrenched as the same concept
Why this is incorrect: Codification concerns whether constitutional rules are brought together in one document.
Entrenchment concerns how difficult those rules are to change.
How to improve:
Use two questions:
Where are the rules? → codification.
How can the rules be changed? → entrenchment.
Mistake: Assuming further constitutional reform is automatically desirable
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel requires you to assess the extent to which reforms should be taken further.
Existing reforms can provide evidence both for and against additional change.
How to improve: For each reform, learn:
What remains unresolved?
and
What might be lost if reform goes further?
Mistake: Turning an English Parliament question into a general devolution essay
Why this is incorrect: The 2025 examiner report specifically identified this as limiting candidates' analysis.
How to improve: Compare the specific advantages and disadvantages of:
English Parliament versus existing or expanded regional devolution.
Mistake: Saying an English Parliament is the only possible form of English devolution
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel's 2025 material specifically presents expanding Metro Mayors as an alternative approach.
How to improve: Recognise that "more English devolution" and "an English Parliament" are not identical proposals.
Mistake: Claiming codification would simply make everything clearer without trade-offs
Why this is incorrect:
Edexcel identifies serious counterarguments, including:
reduced flexibility
divisive constitutional debates
greater judicial power
possible constitutional obsolescence
How to improve: Every advantage of codification should be compared with a potential constitutional cost.
Mistake: Saying the Human Rights Act is entrenched
Why this is incorrect: The 2023 source explicitly states that the HRA is not entrenched and does not possess special constitutional protection.
How to improve: Use the current position as part of the argument for an entrenched bill of rights.
Mistake: Assuming an entrenched bill of rights only affects rights
Why this is incorrect: Stronger legal rights protection would also alter the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary.
How to improve: Always analyse both:
rights protection
and
who gains constitutional power to enforce those rights.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define an entrenched constitution. (1 mark)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
One mark for an answer explaining that an entrenched constitution requires a special procedure for constitutional amendment.
Question 2
Explain one difference between a codified constitution and an entrenched constitution. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Award marks for a developed distinction:
a codified constitution concerns bringing constitutional rules together into one main constitutional document
an entrenched constitution concerns protecting constitutional rules through special amendment procedures
a constitution can therefore be discussed in terms of both its form and its amendment procedure
Question 3
Explain two arguments for extending devolution further within England. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Possible arguments include:
Greater democratic accountability
more decisions could be taken away from Westminster
citizens could have clearer regional or English political representation
Greater constitutional balance
England currently lacks an equivalent national devolved parliament
further devolution could reduce the asymmetry of the existing settlement
Responding to the West Lothian Question
further English institutions could clarify responsibility for England-specific policy
Regional devolution
expanding Metro Mayors could bring some political decisions closer to communities
Full marks require developed explanations rather than a list.
Question 4
Explain two arguments against creating an English Parliament. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Possible arguments include:
Dominance of England
England's size could make an English Parliament a powerful rival to the UK Government and other devolved institutions
Threat to the Union
conflict over money, powers and responsibility could increase territorial tensions
Limited decentralisation
an England-wide institution would still govern a very large territory and may not bring government closer to citizens
Alternative already exists
further regional devolution through Metro Mayors may provide a more suitable solution
West Lothian Question may be overstated
creating an entire Parliament may be disproportionate if the practical impact is limited
Question 5
Analyse why the debate over an entrenched bill of rights involves both rights protection and parliamentary sovereignty. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
A strong answer should establish the relationship.
Rights protection:
the HRA is not entrenched
Parliament can alter legislation concerning rights
an entrenched bill of rights could therefore provide stronger protection against temporary political majorities
Parliamentary sovereignty:
Parliament currently remains the ultimate law-making authority
stronger entrenchment would restrict its freedom to change protected constitutional rights
judges interpreting an entrenched bill of rights could gain greater influence
The analytical conclusion is:
The debate is not simply about whether rights are important. It concerns whether stronger rights protection justifies limiting parliamentary sovereignty and increasing judicial power.
Question 6
Study the following information.
Proposal for further reform | Possible benefit | Possible problem |
Elected House of Lords | Greater democratic legitimacy | Rival mandate to the Commons |
Further English devolution | Greater accountability and decentralisation | Greater constitutional complexity |
Codified constitution | Clearer constitutional rules | Reduced flexibility |
Entrenched bill of rights | Stronger protection of rights | Greater power for judges |
Using the information, analyse why further constitutional reform often involves a trade-off between democratic reform and constitutional stability. (10 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative analysis:
House of Lords
election could improve democratic legitimacy
but two elected Houses could create disputes over which possesses the stronger mandate
English devolution
further decentralisation could strengthen accountability
but additional institutions could make territorial government more complex or unstable
Codification
clearer rules could increase accessibility and constitutional certainty
but constitutional flexibility would be reduced
Bill of rights
rights could receive stronger protection
but judges could become more politically powerful
A high-level conclusion should identify the underlying pattern:
Constitutional reform often strengthens one principle while weakening another.
For example:
legitimacy versus expertise
decentralisation versus unity
clarity versus flexibility
rights protection versus parliamentary sovereignty
Question 7
Read the following source.
The constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 should now be taken further. The House of Lords still lacks full democratic legitimacy, devolution has left England without an equivalent national voice, and fundamental rights remain unentrenched. Bringing the main constitutional rules together in a codified document could make government more understandable and accountable, while an entrenched bill of rights could protect citizens from excessive government power.However, reform has already produced stronger devolved institutions, improved rights protection and greater separation of powers. Further constitutional change risks creating new problems. An elected second chamber could challenge the Commons, an English Parliament could destabilise the Union, and an entrenched constitution could reduce flexibility while transferring excessive authority from elected representatives to judges.
Using the source, evaluate the view that constitutional reforms introduced since 1997 should now be taken significantly further. (30 marks)
In your response you must:
compare and contrast different opinions in the source
examine and debate these views in a balanced way
analyse and evaluate the political information presented in the source
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
A high-level response should directly pair the arguments.
Pair 1: House of Lords
Further reform:
appointment creates problems of legitimacy
an elected chamber could strengthen democracy
Against further reform:
appointment contributes to independence and expertise
election could create a rival mandate to the Commons
Judgement:Â assess whether legitimacy matters more than the existing scrutiny benefits.
Pair 2: Devolution
Further reform:
England lacks equivalent national representation
asymmetric devolution creates unresolved questions
Against:
existing institutions have delivered decentralisation
further constitutional structures could increase instability
Pair 3: Rights
Further reform:
the HRA is not entrenched
a bill of rights could provide stronger protection
Against:
existing rights protection has already strengthened checks on government
entrenchment could weaken parliamentary sovereignty and increase judicial power
Pair 4: Codification
Further reform:
one document could increase clarity, accessibility and constitutional certainty
Against:
the existing Constitution is flexible and evolutionary
codification could become outdated or force divisive questions to be resolved
A strong conclusion should not simply say reform is "partly needed".
It should identify which reforms need to go further and why.
For example:
Targeted reforms to unresolved democratic weaknesses may be more convincing than comprehensive constitutional reconstruction, because they can improve legitimacy while avoiding the loss of flexibility associated with full codification and entrenchment.
Question 8
Read the following source.
England needs its own Parliament. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have national devolved institutions while England does not. An English Parliament could make the territorial constitution more symmetrical, recognise English political identity and create clearer democratic accountability.However, England's size means that an English Parliament could dominate the other parts of the UK and become a rival to Westminster. It would not necessarily bring government closer to citizens, while extending regional devolution through arrangements such as Metro Mayors could decentralise power without creating another national legislature.
Using the source, evaluate the view that an English Parliament is the best way to extend devolution within England. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Arguments supporting an English Parliament
England is the only UK nation without its own national parliament
equal national institutions could create greater constitutional symmetry
it could strengthen democratic accountability
it could recognise English political identity
it could offer a clearer response to the West Lothian Question
Arguments against
England's size could allow it to dominate the territorial constitution
an English Executive could become a rival to the UK Executive
further demands for powers and money could destabilise the Union
a national English Parliament would not necessarily bring government much closer to citizens
the West Lothian Question may not justify such extensive reform
Metro Mayors provide an alternative form of decentralisation
The strongest evaluation should compare an English Parliament with the alternative, rather than only asking whether more devolution is desirable.
A defensible judgement is that further English devolution may be justified, but regional devolution can provide greater decentralisation without the constitutional risks created by a powerful England-wide Parliament.
Question 9
Evaluate the view that the UK should adopt an entrenched and codified constitution, including a bill of rights. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Arguments for an entrenched and codified constitution
Clarity
constitutional rules would be easier to identify and understand
disputes about institutional powers could be reduced
Limits on government
constitutional change could require special procedures
temporary Commons majorities would face stronger constitutional restrictions
Rights
an entrenched bill of rights could provide stronger protection than an unentrenched HRA
Devolution
the powers and status of devolved institutions could be clearly defined and protected
Popular legitimacy
a constitution could make political rules more accessible and give citizens greater ownership of the political system
Arguments against
Flexibility
the UK Constitution can adapt to new political problems without difficult amendment procedures
Obsolescence
codified rules could become outdated
Divisiveness
writing a constitution would force agreement on controversial matters including rights, devolution and the monarchy
Judicial power
judges could gain greater authority in interpreting entrenched constitutional rules
Parliamentary sovereignty
entrenchment would fundamentally alter Parliament's existing constitutional position
A strong overall judgement must compare what would be gained with what would be lost.
One defensible conclusion is:
Codification and entrenchment could produce greater clarity and stronger rights protection, but these benefits would come at the cost of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional flexibility. Unless clarity and entrenched legal protection are judged more important than democratic legislative authority, targeted constitutional reform provides a less disruptive response to the weaknesses of the existing system.
Answers and mark scheme
Question 1
One mark for an answer explaining that an entrenched constitution requires a special procedure for constitutional amendment.
Question 2
Award marks for a developed distinction:
a codified constitution concerns bringing constitutional rules together into one main constitutional document
an entrenched constitution concerns protecting constitutional rules through special amendment procedures
a constitution can therefore be discussed in terms of both its form and its amendment procedure
Question 3
Possible arguments include:
Greater democratic accountability
more decisions could be taken away from Westminster
citizens could have clearer regional or English political representation
Greater constitutional balance
England currently lacks an equivalent national devolved parliament
further devolution could reduce the asymmetry of the existing settlement
Responding to the West Lothian Question
further English institutions could clarify responsibility for England-specific policy
Regional devolution
expanding Metro Mayors could bring some political decisions closer to communities
Full marks require developed explanations rather than a list.
Question 4
Possible arguments include:
Dominance of England
England's size could make an English Parliament a powerful rival to the UK Government and other devolved institutions
Threat to the Union
conflict over money, powers and responsibility could increase territorial tensions
Limited decentralisation
an England-wide institution would still govern a very large territory and may not bring government closer to citizens
Alternative already exists
further regional devolution through Metro Mayors may provide a more suitable solution
West Lothian Question may be overstated
creating an entire Parliament may be disproportionate if the practical impact is limited
Question 5
A strong answer should establish the relationship.
Rights protection:
the HRA is not entrenched
Parliament can alter legislation concerning rights
an entrenched bill of rights could therefore provide stronger protection against temporary political majorities
Parliamentary sovereignty:
Parliament currently remains the ultimate law-making authority
stronger entrenchment would restrict its freedom to change protected constitutional rights
judges interpreting an entrenched bill of rights could gain greater influence
The analytical conclusion is:
The debate is not simply about whether rights are important. It concerns whether stronger rights protection justifies limiting parliamentary sovereignty and increasing judicial power.
Question 6
Indicative analysis:
House of Lords
election could improve democratic legitimacy
but two elected Houses could create disputes over which possesses the stronger mandate
English devolution
further decentralisation could strengthen accountability
but additional institutions could make territorial government more complex or unstable
Codification
clearer rules could increase accessibility and constitutional certainty
but constitutional flexibility would be reduced
Bill of rights
rights could receive stronger protection
but judges could become more politically powerful
A high-level conclusion should identify the underlying pattern:
Constitutional reform often strengthens one principle while weakening another.
For example:
legitimacy versus expertise
decentralisation versus unity
clarity versus flexibility
rights protection versus parliamentary sovereignty
Question 7
A high-level response should directly pair the arguments.
Pair 1: House of Lords
Further reform:
appointment creates problems of legitimacy
an elected chamber could strengthen democracy
Against further reform:
appointment contributes to independence and expertise
election could create a rival mandate to the Commons
Judgement:Â assess whether legitimacy matters more than the existing scrutiny benefits.
Pair 2: Devolution
Further reform:
England lacks equivalent national representation
asymmetric devolution creates unresolved questions
Against:
existing institutions have delivered decentralisation
further constitutional structures could increase instability
Pair 3: Rights
Further reform:
the HRA is not entrenched
a bill of rights could provide stronger protection
Against:
existing rights protection has already strengthened checks on government
entrenchment could weaken parliamentary sovereignty and increase judicial power
Pair 4: Codification
Further reform:
one document could increase clarity, accessibility and constitutional certainty
Against:
the existing Constitution is flexible and evolutionary
codification could become outdated or force divisive questions to be resolved
A strong conclusion should not simply say reform is "partly needed".
It should identify which reforms need to go further and why.
For example:
Targeted reforms to unresolved democratic weaknesses may be more convincing than comprehensive constitutional reconstruction, because they can improve legitimacy while avoiding the loss of flexibility associated with full codification and entrenchment.
Question 8
Arguments supporting an English Parliament
England is the only UK nation without its own national parliament
equal national institutions could create greater constitutional symmetry
it could strengthen democratic accountability
it could recognise English political identity
it could offer a clearer response to the West Lothian Question
Arguments against
England's size could allow it to dominate the territorial constitution
an English Executive could become a rival to the UK Executive
further demands for powers and money could destabilise the Union
a national English Parliament would not necessarily bring government much closer to citizens
the West Lothian Question may not justify such extensive reform
Metro Mayors provide an alternative form of decentralisation
The strongest evaluation should compare an English Parliament with the alternative, rather than only asking whether more devolution is desirable.
A defensible judgement is that further English devolution may be justified, but regional devolution can provide greater decentralisation without the constitutional risks created by a powerful England-wide Parliament.
Question 9
Arguments for an entrenched and codified constitution
Clarity
constitutional rules would be easier to identify and understand
disputes about institutional powers could be reduced
Limits on government
constitutional change could require special procedures
temporary Commons majorities would face stronger constitutional restrictions
Rights
an entrenched bill of rights could provide stronger protection than an unentrenched HRA
Devolution
the powers and status of devolved institutions could be clearly defined and protected
Popular legitimacy
a constitution could make political rules more accessible and give citizens greater ownership of the political system
Arguments against
Flexibility
the UK Constitution can adapt to new political problems without difficult amendment procedures
Obsolescence
codified rules could become outdated
Divisiveness
writing a constitution would force agreement on controversial matters including rights, devolution and the monarchy
Judicial power
judges could gain greater authority in interpreting entrenched constitutional rules
Parliamentary sovereignty
entrenchment would fundamentally alter Parliament's existing constitutional position
A strong overall judgement must compare what would be gained with what would be lost.
One defensible conclusion is:
Codification and entrenchment could produce greater clarity and stronger rights protection, but these benefits would come at the cost of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional flexibility. Unless clarity and entrenched legal protection are judged more important than democratic legislative authority, targeted constitutional reform provides a less disruptive response to the weaknesses of the existing system.
Comments