The document discusses whether the UK's constitution should remain uncodified. It notes that the uncodified nature provides flexibility and allows the constitution to evolve over time. However, it is also argued that the constitution is too flexible, allowing parliament and governments to change it without constraints. Some argue it is antiquated and ill-defined, and civil liberties are not well protected. Overall, the document presents arguments on both sides of whether the UK's flexible uncodified constitution is an advantage or if a more codified system would be better. The second document discusses how effective parliament is at checking executive power. It outlines tools like questioning, debates, and select committees. However, it is suggested these tools have limitations and parliament

1. Should the UK’s constitution remain un-codified? (40 Marks)
The UK has an un-codified constitution. It derives from a number of sources some
written others part of accepted conventions. This unique nature has given rise to many
benefits and advantages implying that its nature should not be altered or fully written
and codified as is the case with most countries.
The un-codified nature provides numerous benefits.
It is extremely flexible and changes can be introduced swiftly and with relative ease.
Its nature is evolutionary, meaning that the constitution does not fossilise and it keeps
abreast of the changes in the morals held by society.
Its format gains widespread acceptance witnessed by the high degree of contentment
from the general public: this is a testimony to its approval and thus a strength and a
reason not to change format. The conservative argument “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is
often cited, it works and functions so do not destroy a working model.
Civil liberties are well defined and protected under the present constitutional
arrangements.
We do not have absolutism in government and the constitution provides process for
both individual and group challenge to the government.
However, it is equally possible to provide a case that the UK’s constitution should no
longer remain in its un-codified form.
It is argued that the un-codified constitution is too flexible, for Parliament and strong
governments can change the constitution without constraints.
Similarity it is argued that the constitution is antiquated and is not up to date both in
content and its method of operation.
Furthermore it is argued that the general public is ill informed as to the nature and
operation of the constitution resulting in the fact that the constitution is ill defined and
ethereal.
Recent events prove that civil liberties are not well defined and tend to be eroded.
Pertinent political examples may be referenced to develop and enhance the response.

2. How effective is Parliament in checking executive power? (40 Marks)
The Houses of Parliament have a range of methods by which they scrutinise the
executive.
Questioning is highly relevant and this takes several forms such as Prime Ministerial
questions, Ministerial questions, and written and oral to government Ministers. Should a
Prime Minister or government minister fail to impress in these questioning arenas this
can cause considerable embarrassment or censure to the government.
Parliamentary debates take place on salient and contemporary topics where
governmental actions are probed. Debates took place on the decision to send troops to
Iraq for instance.
There are formal mechanisms for checking government actions through the
adjournment processes and numerous routes to censure and monitor government.
Formal opposition days are built into the Parliamentary calendar set aside for the
agenda to be determined by the official opposition party.
Legislation going through Parliament is scrutinised by standing committees.
Departmental Select Committees (DSC) are permanent bodies to check defined areas of
executive power. These committees have discovered flaws in executive actions in a
range of areas.
Ultimately Parliament has the key scrutiny power in that it can ask for a vote of
confidence in the executive: this was last used in 1979 which saw the fall of the
Callaghan Labour government.
All of the above mechanisms and procedures ensure that Parliament is well
equipped to check executive power.
However it has been suggested that Parliament is less effective than supposed in the
area of checking executive power.
Questioning has may identified flaws, PM question time is seen as a charade, with the
PM using it as an opportunity for spin and scoring points over the opposition party
leaders.
Likewise ministerial questioning is equally seen as a shambles with no real force used
by parliament in the process, Government ministers are not put under any real pressure
by the process.

3. Parliamentary debates are party biased with the Government here and in standing
committees having an in-built majority to defeat any real or meaningful censure.
No special impact arises from the debating process and the procedures are seen as
archaic and out of touch with the modern world.
The opposition is limited by time, resources and numbers especially in the Commons to
really check the executive.
Legislation may be amended but seldom dropped as a result of the majority usually
held by the government.
DSC reports are often ignored and lack impact despite their credibility and worth.
The process adopted by Parliament is not held in high esteem by the public and it is
increasingly sidelined by the media.
Pertinent political examples may be referenced to develop and enhance the response.