Paper 2 Questions 2019-2024

Click HERE for the Specification

PAPER 2: UK GOVERNMENT

▪        Constitution

▪        Parliament

▪        Prime Minister and Executive

▪        Relations between Branches (Judiciary, HRA, Sovereignty)

2024 Edexcel Paper 2

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that there should be an elected House of Lords.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that constitutional reform since 1997 has been a success.

PARLIAMENT: Evaluate the view that sovereignty does not lie in Parliament alone.

PARLIAMENT: Evaluate the view that the government’s control of the House of Commons has weakened in recent years.

3a) To what extent are collectivist anarchism and individualist anarchism united over the idea that anarchy is order?

3b) To what extent do collectivist and individualist anarchism disagree on liberty?

5a) To what extent is feminism united about how society must be changed?

5b) To what extent is there more agreement than disagreement within feminism about equality?

7a) To what extent is there more agreement than disagreement within nationalism in its views on the state?

7b) To what extent is nationalism inclusive?

2023 Edexcel Paper 2

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK now needs an entrenched and codified constitution.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that power lies mainly with the Prime Minister and not the Cabinet.

PARLIAMENT: Evaluate the view that when it comes to fulfilling their respective functions the House of Lords can be seen as more successful than the House of Commons.

PARLIAMENT: Evaluate the view that select committees are the most effective way for the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account.

3a) To what extent is anarchism united in its view of the state?

3b) To what extent do collectivist anarchist and individualist anarchists disagree on economic freedom?

5a) To what extent is there more agreement than disagreement within feminism on the economy?

5b) To what extent is there more agreement than disagreement in feminism that the personal is the political?

7a) To what extent is nationalism united in its views on society?

7b) To what extent is nationalism progressive?

2022 Edexcel Paper 2

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that Parliament is largely ineffective in shaping government legislation.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that devolution has created more problems than it has solved.

JUDICIARY: Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court operates with sufficient judicial independence and neutrality.

PRIME MINISTER: Evaluate the view that the concepts of individual ministerial responsibility and collective ministerial responsibility are both still important.

3a) To what extent are views of individualist anarchists consistent with collectivist anarchists?

3b) To what extent do anarchists disagree over human nature?

5a) To what extent is there more disagreement within feminism than agreement?

5b) To what extent do feminists disagree over their views on patriarchy?

7a) To what extent does nationalism have a consistent view of self-determination?

7b) To what extent is Nationalism have a common view of the nation?

2021 Edexcel Paper 2

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that the roles and membership of the House of Lords require reform.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

DEVOLUTION: Evaluate the view that devolution has been good for Wales and Scotland but not for England and Northern Ireland.

PARLIAMENT: Evaluate the view that since 2010 the executive has dominated Parliament.

3a) To what extent are anarchists united in their views for opposing the state?

3b) To what extent do anarchists have a common view of an ideal society?

5a) To what extent does the state have a key role in securing feminist goals?

5b) To what extent do feminists agree about the nature of the economy in a future society?

7a) To what extent do nationalists agree on the core and principles ideas of the state?

7b) To what extent is Nationalism expansionist?

2020 Edexcel Paper 2

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that the principal role of backbench MPs is now to hold the government to account.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK’s constitution requires major change.

JUDICIARY: Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has too much influence over the executive.

PRIME MINISTER: Evaluate the view that since 2010 the UK has seen a return to cabinet government.

3a) To what extent are anarchist views on human nature utopian?

3b) To what extent do anarchists agree on the need for common ownership in a future anarchist society?

5a) To what extent do feminists agree over the best ways to achieve social change?

5b) To what extent do feminists agree that patriarchy is based on human nature?

7a) To what extent is nationalism more united than divided?

7b) To what extent do nationalists have a pessimistic view of human nature?

2019 Edexcel Paper 2

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that devolution is in danger of undermining the unity of the United Kingdom.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that Prime Ministers have too much power.

EU: Evaluate the view that membership of the EU undermined parliamentary sovereignty.

PARLIAMENT: Evaluate the view that although the House of Lords has less power than the House of Commons, in practice it exerts more influence on government decisions.

3a) To what extent do anarchists have a coherent view on the economy?

3b) To what extent is an anarchist society a realistic goal?

5a) To what extent do feminists agree over human nature?

5b) To what extent do feminists disagree about the nature of the society they wish to create?

7a) To what extent is nationalism regressive?

7b) To what extent does nationalism divide rather than unite societies?

2019 Edexcel Sources

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that devolution is in danger of undermining the unity of the United Kingdom.

The source has been adapted from the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution report entitled ‘The Union and devolution’, published in 2016. It considered the effect of devolution on the United Kingdom and the Union.

“England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger united than apart. Yet today, the Union is threatened by continuing demands for independence and also the tensions and inequalities created as policies diverge between devolved bodies – over health, education or tax, for example.

Power has been devolved in an uneven way: a power-sharing executive, a national assembly or parliament, a combined authority, or English Votes for English Laws. The cumulative impact of devolution on the unity of the United Kingdom has not been properly considered. The benefits of unity and the Union have been taken for granted. A coherent vision for the shape and structure of the United Kingdom is required, without which there cannot be constitutional stability.

On the other hand, devolution has been achieved without undermining our unitary state and without the need for federalism or codification of our constitution. The four nations are ‘stronger together’, in a relationship of clear mutual respect. Although nationalism remains strong in the devolved nations, devolution has satisfied some demands for self-government, avoiding a break-up of the union. Policy divergences reflect local democracy and identities, while maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom.”

✔ The nations of the UK are stronger when united in a Union. The UK has and continues to be a vibrant and prosperous union. There are differences but these act to provide unity, stability and prosperity. We can conclude that there is far more to lose if we break up the union. The union gives us strength as a collective unit.

✔ There has been increasing policy divergence because of devolution, creating tension and inequality. This may mean that in different parts of one state (the UK) we have different policies over issues that are important such as health and education. We can reach a verdict that life chances and opportunities within the state should not have vastly different outcomes, this is basically unfair in a unitary state.

✔ Power has been devolved asymmetrically – and it is uneven and unbalanced. All the regions where power has been devolved have different powers, scope and formats. We can form a judgement that this uneven distribution of power has had a backlash. In Wales and then Scotland more power was demanded and given. English backlash brought about EVEL. If you treat one unitary country with different rewards you can expect a backlash.

PARA on Asymmetry: Another negative aspect of devolution in threatening the Union is the asymmetrical dispersal of powers from Westminster to the nations and regions. The original asymmetry emerged following the 1997 referendum results in Wales and Scotland – whereas the Scots voted overwhelmingly for devolved power, the Welsh were more ambivalent. The margin of victory was barely 0.6%. This has created an uneven, unbalanced form of devolution that has generated different policy outcomes between nations. For example the Scottish Parliament abolished prescription charges in 2011, following Wales in 2007. This left England as the only nation still paying the charge and consequently generated tension. Therefore different powers lead to different policies which consequently creates greater disparity of outcomes – most harmful when this is linked to government largesse as SNP administrations have been accused of since 2007. We can conclude therefore that asymmetrical devolution

✔ The benefits of the Union have been taken for granted - we must think carefully for future stability and constitutional moves. Analysis leads us to consider that we have embarked on constitutional change without a holistic plan. This is due to the notion that devolution is a process rather than a perfectly defined ‘one off’ constitutional event. There is no ‘joined up’ thinking or vision and end goal. We can conclude that devolution is leading at least to constitutional instability and at worst it is setting the union on the path to the breakup.

✔ Own knowledge for AO1: • Devolution was essentially a New Labour project • Devolution has been/is very costly • If it were politically feasable the Conservative Party would reverse devolution.

DISAGREEMENT:

⮚ The process of devolution has run smoothly. Major constitutional change has been achieved and the UK remains a unitary state, uncodified and not federal. We can conclude that the changes that were introduced have considerable legitimacy as they came in via referendum and are thus democratic.

⮚ The outcome of the changes has curtailed nationalism and a stronger UK. Analysis shows that the devolution has actually created more mutual respect and tolerance in the nations of the UK. It is logical to form a judgement that devolution was the correct path for the UK to embark upon.

⮚ The demand for self-government in regions has ended. The Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 showed that Scotland wished to remain part of the UK. The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement had vast popular support. We can reach a verdict that if changes were not extended to the regions it would have caused major divisions which could have led to the breakup of the UK, devolution has saved the Union.

⮚ Policy divergence has strengthened local democracy and identity. It is clear to see that policy divergence has met national aspirations and feelings, for example in education and health. Far from being badly thought out policy options there have been changes in which England has followed or been influenced by - charges for carrier bags (Wales) or changes to care charges (Scotland).

⮚ Own knowledge for AO1: • Devolution was introduced with vast support • Devolution has created peace and unity in Northern Ireland • We now need further steps in devolution to England and the regions.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that Prime Ministers have too much power.

This source is adapted from the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report entitled the ‘Role and powers of the Prime Minister’ published in 2014. This examines whether there is adequate public understanding and clarity about the Prime Minister’s role and powers, and whether the checks and balances on those powers are sufficient.

“Prime Ministers have significant powers of patronage such as appointing ministers. They set the Cabinet agenda and are able to control the Cabinet - including deciding who chairs the most important Cabinet committees. If a Prime Minister is an electoral asset, they are fairly secure in office and, as long as they have the support of their closest allies in Cabinet and a large Commons majority, they face very few limits to their power.

However, Prime Ministers cannot appoint whoever they want to Cabinet. They must reflect the balance of party opinion and appoint the ‘big beasts’, as it’s better to have them `inside the tent rather than outside’. Theresa May had to retain a balance of `Brexiteers’ and `Remainers’ in her Cabinet, reflecting Conservative Party divisions.

Prime Ministers can be brought down by their party. Tony Blair was arguably forced to resign. Margaret Thatcher resigned after losing the support of her Cabinet, when her ‘Poll Tax’ was rejected by the public. Prime Ministers with small majorities, or no majority, cannot take Parliament for granted. Theresa May avoided votes in Parliament which she expected to lose and the Commons prevented Cameron from going to war over Syria.”

✔ Prime ministers have huge powers of patronage. Prime ministers can appoint people to a vast range of posts – from Government to Chairs of Public Inquiries. We can conclude that this power of patronage creates a subservience from parliamentarians who seek the PM’s gift.

✔ The PM’s power over the Cabinet is immense. Not only does the PM decide who is in the Cabinet s/he also decides their seniority and controls the Cabinet agenda. We can conclude that the power over political life in the UK is immense with the PM controlling a subservient Cabinet.

✔ If a clear and tight bond is formed with senior allies in the Cabinet the PM is untouchable. Lacking a serious rival inside the Cabinet gives security of tenure. The Blair/Brown union, the Major/Heseltine union, the Cameron/Osborne union. We can conclude that PM power is untouchable if a small cabal of senior ministers stand firm behind the PM and that trouble emerges when splits appear.

✔ A large Commons majority means few limits on their power. If a prime minister has a large Commons majority, they are unlikely to lose votes and therefore they are able to pursue their legislative agenda with few fears of defeat. We can conclude that prime ministers with large majorities can dominate parliament and thereby the political landscape. Thatcher and Blair were both ‘in the ascendancy’ following landslide election wins, for example.

✔ Prime ministers who are electoral assets face few limits on their power - they are likely to lead their parties to re-election and they are less likely to face leadership challenges. Thatcher, Cameron and Blair are best recent examples. We can conclude that Prime ministers who are electoral assets have immense power and influence.

✔ Own knowledge for AO1: • Media support makes PM power increase • A strong PM in foreign affairs makes a PM untouchable – such as sending troops to war (Falklands) • Favourable opinion polling secures the PM’s position.

DISAGREEMENT:

⮚ Prime ministers have limits on who they appoint to cabinet, despite the notion of patronage. In practice prime ministers are limited in who to appoint as they need to have the ‘big beasts’ in cabinet. Thatcher had to have her ‘wets’ before 1983 and Cameron as a coalition PM was restricted as he had to include Lib Dem MPs with Clegg’s agreement. May had to include Johnson in 2017 and ‘one nation Tory’ Sunak had to include the right in his Cabinet (Braverman and Badenoch).

⮚ A PM must have balance in the Cabinet across several fronts. Remainers and Brexiteers, various wings of the party etc. Blair had to include ‘Brownites’ and Callaghan had to include the left in 1979. We can conclude that a PM has many interest groups to please when he presents the government to the people.

⮚ Prime ministers can be brought down by the cabinet. A cabinet can and does exert its authority, limiting the PM’s tenure and agenda. We can conclude that if a cabinet unites against a PM then that PM is doomed – Thatcher, May, Johnson and Truss were all brought down by Cabinet resignations.

⮚ Prime ministers are limited by Parliament. If the PM does not have a large majority (or even a minority) of MPs on their side their legislative power is severely restricted. We can conclude that without Parliament behind them the PM is really limited - May over Brexit and Cameron over Syria. Also consider the hung Parliament suffered by Callaghan in 1976-9, leaving him reliant on Liberal and SNP votes to cling to office.

⮚ Prime ministers are limited by their own party. They lose personal power bases within their parties; May and Johnson suffered this due to declining political success or mounting gaffes/scandals. We can conclude that a PM is in danger of being toppled if they haemorrhage MP support.

⮚ Own knowledge for AO1: • The media has the potential to undermine a PM • A PM who is out of touch with public opinion is doomed • Failure to stand up for the UK abroad undermines PM power.

2020 Edexcel Sources

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that the principal role of backbench MPs is now to hold the government to account.

The source considers the changing role of backbench MPs. It was written in 2019 during the May premiership.

“In the mid-20th century, most backbenchers loyally did whatever the front benchers told them to do. Party loyalty was all important, and between 1945 and 1970 there were no government defeats due to backbench rebellions. Recently, May’s government was defeated more often in the Commons than Cameron’s, losing the vote on her ‘Brexit’ deal in January 2019 by 230 votes, after 118 Conservative MPs rebelled. Backbenchers are asserting parliament’s sovereignty. Whips are weaker and MPs are more willing to defy their party, claiming to ‘represent’ their constituents instead. Governments avoid defeats by backing down - as May did over additional grammar schools. MPs increasingly use select committees, urgent questions and the Backbench Business Committee to exert their influence. However, MPs continue to undertake constituency work, holding regular surgeries, representing their geographical area. They debate topical issues of the day. They act on constituents’ problems by asking questions, writing to ministers, voting for new legislation where needed and legitimising parliamentary decisions. Some argue that Brexit is very much a ‘one-off’, with a deeply divided minority government and a divided opposition. If so, government dominance may soon be restored. Or, alternatively, perhaps things will never be the same again.”

⮚ May suffered a historic defeat on Brexit - the largest Commons defeat in modern parliamentary history which shows that backbench MPs see their principal role as holding the government to account. We can conclude from this that the principal role of backbench MPs is to hold the government to account.

⮚ Whips are weaker and MPs are increasingly willing to defy the whip to hold the government to account and force them to back down. The increasing number of backbench rebellions and cross party amendments shows that backbench MPs see their principal role as holding the government to account. We can conclude from the growth in cross party amendments and backbench rebellions that the principal role of backbench MPs is to hold the government to account.

⮚ There have been significantly more government defeats in the Commons than in the period 1945 to 1970. The substantial increase in the number of government defeats in the Commons, especially since 2017, shows that backbench MPs are taking their role in holding the government to account more seriously. We can conclude from the growth in government defeats that the principal role of backbench MPs is to hold the government to account.

⮚ Backbenchers have increasingly used their powers to hold the government to account. The Wright reforms in 2010 have allowed more independently minded MPs to hold the government to account whilst MPs are more willing to use urgent questions. We can conclude from the growing use of their powers, that the principal role of backbench MPs is to hold the government to account.

DISAGREEMENT:

⮚ Brexit is a one-off. May’s experience was very unusual and temporary, due to her minority government and the deep Conservative party divisions over Brexit. We can conclude that it’s rare for MPs to hold such power and to see their principal role as holding the government to account.

⮚ Executive dominance always returns. The electoral system is still likely to produce majority governments (as in 2019) in which the role of backbench MPs will be less significant. We can conclude that due to FPTP, the principal role of backbench MPs is not to hold the government to account but it is a role they play alongside voting on new legislation and legitimising parliamentary decisions.

⮚ Backbench MPs from the governing party tend to support the executive in important votes, normally support the manifesto they stood on and are kept disciplined by the whip system and patronage. We can conclude from this that the principal role of backbench MPs from the governing party is not to hold the government to account but it is a role they play alongside voting on new legislation and legitimising parliamentary decisions.

⮚ Backbench MPs have other duties such as representing their constituents. ‘Holding the government to account’ is only one function of backbench MPs - they also have a duty to represent their constituents and this is why some of them rebelled over Brexit. We can conclude that MPs have multiple roles that they regard as equally valuable and important.

⮚ Own knowledge for AO1: • Blair was very rarely defeated in the Commons – his first defeat was in 2005, representing an eight-year stretch of success. • Governments can use patronage to discourage backbench MPs of the governing party to rebel. • Changes to the select committee system and the introduction of the Liaison Committee have strengthened the role of backbench MPs to hold governments to account. • Governments with large majorities rarely suffer significant defeats such as Thatcher and Blair • Many MPs are serially loyal to their front benches. • The Commons still has a weak committee and accountability structure.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK’s constitution requires major change.

The source contains arguments for and against retaining our current constitutional arrangements.  “Without entrenchment, it is too easy for a government with a simple majority to make significant constitutional changes which may threaten our fundamental rights. Entrenchment would require a written, codified constitution where constitutional changes would entail special procedures such as a two thirds majority in parliament or a referendum. Many of the fundamental principles of the UK’s political system exist in conventions, which are not enforceable. Significant constitutional reforms were begun by the Blair government but these are incomplete and we lack a comprehensive vision for the structure and rules of the political system. With our hereditary head of state and an appointed second chamber, the UK is out of step with other modern democracies. However, we are regarded as one of the most democratic countries in the world. The constitution has changed dramatically from an all-powerful monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary sovereignty. Much of our uncodified constitution has been written into our laws. Our rights have been respected and updated by politicians and protected by an independent judiciary. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that there is no higher ‘constitutional law’, and that parliament can legislate to respond flexibly to threats, such as terrorism.”

⮚ It is too easy for a government to make significant constitutional changes. Under our uncodified system it is too easy for a government with a majority in the Commons to make significant constitutional changes, including those which affect our fundamental rights. We can conclude from this that the UK’s constitution requires major change, such as codification, since it does not sufficiently limit government power.

⮚ Many principles of the UK’s political system exist in only conventions. Many of the fundamental principles of the UK’s political system exist only in conventions and can be over-ridden. These include parliament’s developing right to vote before taking military action, which Sunak ignored in 2023 (a return of Crown prerogative in this executive area). We can reach a verdict from this that the UK’s constitution requires major change.as many key principles are only conventions.

⮚ Blair’s constitutional reforms are incomplete. The constitutional reforms begun by the Blair government are incomplete. For example, we retain a partially reformed second chamber and the HRA can be potentially repealed by a future parliament. We can form a judgement that the incompleteness of the Blair reforms shows that the UK’s constitution requires major change.

⮚ The UK is out of step with modern democracies. The UK’s system is out of step with other modern democracies, with an appointed rather than elected second chamber, because our system has evolved over a long period of time. We can conclude from the fact that the UK is out of step with other modern democracies that the UK’s constitution requires major change.

DISAGREEMENT:

⮚ The UK’s uncodified constitution has successfully evolved. The UK’s uncodified constitution has gradually evolved over a long period of time, adapting and retaining relevant elements that make the system work and protecting our rights. We can reach a verdict that the successful evolution of the UK’s uncodified constitution shows that it does not require major change.

⮚ Much of the UK’s constitutional order has been written in to law. A significant proportion of the UK’s constitutional order has been written in to law, such as the HRA and Devolution Acts, and so it is codified to some extent. We can conclude that since much of the UK’s constitutional order has been written in to law, this shows that it does not require major change.

⮚ Rights in the UK are respected by politicians and protected by the judiciary. Rights are now a key part of our culture and our political system. Politicians consider rights in passing law whilst our rights are protected by the independent judiciary with the passage of the HRA 1998 and Constitutional Reform Act 2005. We can form a judgement that since the rights are respected and protected that no major constitutional changes are needed.

⮚ Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can respond flexibly to any sudden situation. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can legislate to respond appropriately to threats, e.g. terrorism, or to changing realities, such as the desire for devolution, more quickly than in countries with rigid and codified systems. As Parliament can respond flexibly to events, we can conclude that it does not require major change.

Own knowledge for AO1: • Successful changes have already been made, such as devolution, and now is the time to let the constitutional changes settle in. • There is no wide-spread public demand to change our constitution. • The monarchy is popular and provides continuity. • Close referendum results, in Scotland and over the EU, might show the need for minimum ‘super majorities’ to provide consent for major constitutional changes. • Political pressure put on the Supreme Court over e.g. the proroguing of Parliament in 2019 show the need for a clearer separation of powers. • When ‘stress tested’ over events such as Brexit, some have argued that our system has shown it is unable to cope.

2021 Edexcel Sources

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that the roles and membership of the House of Lords require reform.

Adapted from an article in the Financial Times in November 2019.

“Nigel Farage claimed that Brexit party supporters were offered peerages in an attempt to persuade the party not to field parliamentary candidates in the 2019 general election. After the general election, Farage vowed to campaign for a new political system by reforming the Lords, which he states has no democratic legitimacy. The average age of peers is 70 with too few women. The system of appointment produces an unprofessional chamber with ‘working’ and ‘non-working’ peers. Lacking legitimacy, the chamber is too weak to do its job. In 2015, research suggested a relationship between large political donors and nominations to the Lords is statistically significant.

However, the Lords display ‘independence of thought’ with many crossbenchers not being aligned to any political parties; many members see it as their duty to hold governments to account. Governments are regularly defeated in the Lords, which provides expert advice and informed scrutiny to the process of legislation. The independent House of Lords Appointments Commission vets all nominations for life peers, including those nominated by party leaders. This has increased the numbers of experts selected, and the Lords is now more representative: over 25% are women and around 6% come from ethnic minorities.”

⮚ Peerages can be offered as part of patronage (for previous service and/or large donations to political parties). The clear statistical link between large donors and successful nomination to the Lords is evidence that rich donors are being rewarded by becoming peers – i.e. repeated cash for honours scandals, thus distorting the membership of the Lords. We can conclude that the current system is open to abuse of patronage and therefore the membership of the Lords requires reform.

⮚ The House is not representative. The average age of the Lords is 70; just over a quarter are women and only 6% are from ethnic minorities whilst the educational background and class background of peers is also very skewed. We can form a judgement that the current system produces a House that is deeply unrepresentative of the wider public so it membership is in need of reform.

⮚ The House lacks democratic legitimacy. The Lords have no democratic connection with the public and are not held accountable by the electorate via elections. The lack of democratic legitimacy weakens the House and weakens democracy in the UK. We can form the conclusion that since the current system produces a chamber which lacks the authority to challenge the elected government, it cannot effectively fulfil its purpose of scrutiny, and therefore requires reform to its membership.

⮚ The chamber is too weak to do its job. The current system lacks the legitimacy of the system of electing MPs and produces a legislature which lacks the authority (and the power) to do its job as a revising chamber that scrutinises legislation and its job of checking and challenging the actions of the government. We can conclude that the role and membership of the House of Lords needs reform if it is to perform its key functions within UK democracy.

DISAGREEMENT

⮚ The appointment system allows for an increased number of experts to be selected. The independent House of Lords Appointments Commission, established in 2000 vets all nominations to the Lords and has helped to introduce more experts to the chamber. This produces a more expert membership than the Commons, helping the Lords to fulfil its roles. We can conclude from the independence and impact of the Appointments Commission on membership of the Lords that the current system does not require reform as it enables the Lords to perform its role.

⮚ Membership of the Lords has become more representative. The Appointments Commission has contributed to improving the representativeness of the second chamber. This is likely to further improve in the future. We can reach a judgement that the improved representativeness of the Lords shows that its membership does not require reform.

⮚ The House of Lords has become more professional. The increased number of life peers, often experts in their field and/or with significant political experience has produced a more effective chamber and committee system. We can form a judgment that the increased professionalism of the Lords shows that it fulfils its role as a second chamber and does not require reform.

⮚ The government is regularly defeated by a more assertive Lords. The fact that the government is regularly defeated in the Lords since the House of Lords Reform Act shows that the second chamber effectively fulfils its purpose. It has the independence and confidence it needs to challenge the executive. We can come to the judgement that the higher number of government defeats in the Lords shows that the current system produces a chamber that is able to challenge the government and that therefore the current system does not require reform.

⮚ AO1 own knowledge: • Many crossbenchers are less likely to vote or attend than party political peers. • Whipping is often ineffective in the Lords. • Peers can be difficult for parties to control as they can’t be sacked, e.g. Lord Heseltine favouring a ‘People’s vote’ on Brexit. • The House needs reform as it has become super-sized and there have been allegations of peers claiming their allowance without voting or speaking in the chamber.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

Adapted from a Guardian article in September 2019. It reports on the unanimous judgement by the Supreme Court that the proroguing of Parliament by Boris Johnson was unlawful. The Court ruled that the original decision by the High Court was void, and the Speaker recalled Parliament.

“Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen called the Supreme Court’s judgement ‘…an absolute disgrace. It’s the worst possible outcome for our democracy, with unelected judges completely ignoring the referendum vote we had in 2016 to leave the European Union.’

Critics argue that the Court has become too powerful, undermining parliamentary sovereignty in areas like ‘Brexit’, where judges should not stray. The increased use of judicial review means that in effect Parliament, as well as government, is often challenged. Our system, having no separation of powers, lacks clarity, which has enabled the Supreme Court to undermine Parliament.

However, Gina Miller said this is ‘a win for parliamentary sovereignty, against an over-mighty executive’. It is right that the legality of the Prime Minister’s decision was challenged as he was denying Parliament the right to scrutinise his ‘Brexit’ policy. Judicial reviews are an essential component of the rule of law, often upholding the will of Parliament against an executive that oversteps its powers under legislation.

With no separation of powers or a codified constitution, the Court has helped to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and the executive. However, critics argue declarations of incompatibility made by the Court challenge the sovereignty of Parliament and can be controversial.”

⮚ With no separation of powers or a codified constitution, the Court has helped to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and the executive. The establishment of the SC has led to a significant re-balancing of the powers between parliament and executive - the Miller/Cherry cases were not about Brexit but about where constitutional powers lie. We can conclude that this shows that the SC can serve to strengthen and advance parliamentary sovereignty.

⮚ Judicial reviews, such as this, often uphold the rights of Parliament. Judicial reviews are an important way of limiting the powers of governments that act ultra vires, trying to by-pass parliament. We can form the judgement that the SC therefore has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

⮚ The SC’s defends parliament against an overmighty executive, acting as guardian of democracy. As the executive has grown in power, it has been seen by some to be aiming to avoid scrutiny and accountability in Parliament for its actions undermining democracy. The Court’s decisions have helped to protect Parliament against this. We can reach the judgment that this significant rebalancing has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty against an over-mighty executive.

⮚ The SC upholds the rule of law. As the SC upholds the rule of law, as legislated by parliament, this in turn strengthens parliamentary sovereignty. We can conclude that the SC’s support for maintaining the rule of law shows that it has strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

DISAGREEMENT

⮚ Judges should not make judgements in political areas, such as Brexit. This judgement shows that the SC has strayed into areas of ‘politics’ and this undermines parliamentary sovereignty. Politics should be left to the democratically elected House. We can form the judgement that the SC has not strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

⮚ Judicial reviews lead to unelected judges challenging the will of the government and thus in effect Parliament. Judicial reviews can lead, in practice, to challenges to decisions taken by an elected government, whose democratic power is based in Parliament and should be held accountable by a democratically elected Parliament rather than an unelected Court. We can conclude therefore that the use of judicial review by the SC has not strengthened parliamentary sovereignty.

⮚ Declarations of incompatibility challenge parliamentary sovereignty. Where the Courts decide an Act of Parliament is incompatible with human rights, it can make a declaration of incompatibility. i.e. Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 or Civil Partnerships Act 2004. This is a challenge to parliamentary sovereignty as it implies a higher form of justification of law than parliament. We can form a judgement that parliamentary sovereignty is not strengthened by the introduction of declarations of incompatibility in Section 4 of the HRA.

⮚ The current system lacks clarity. The effect of this lack of clarity is to undermine parliamentary sovereignty as the SC has taken on additional powers at the expense of parliament. We can reach a judgement that parliamentary sovereignty has not been strengthened by the lack of clarity of our political system.

⮚ AO1 own knowledge: • The Supreme Court practices judicial activism so is increasingly becoming involved in creating rights – a role that should belong to the elected parliament. • In practice there have been very few declarations of incompatibility, and most are uncontroversial. • The Court practices judicial restraint and does not challenge the will of the elected. The Court is independent and neutral not political.

2022 Edexcel Paper 2

1a) Using the source, evaluate the view that Parliament is largely ineffective in shaping government legislation.

The source examines the legislative process for government bills in Parliament.

“If the government cannot maintain the support of their own backbenchers, their bills will be defeated in the Commons; so the government shape their proposed legislation accordingly and make concessions to win support. In public bill committees, evidence from outside experts and proposals from non-government parliamentarians can alert ministers to where changes to the legislation are needed.

In the House of Lords, there is more time for detailed scrutiny, and many experts, whose contributions often worry government. Crossbenchers are particularly feared since they can put forward proposals that sometimes gain widespread support across both Houses. However, most amendments to legislation are made by Ministers, which can be interpreted as a sign of government reflection, a response to detailed parliamentary debate and the calculation of what proposals are most likely to attract majority support.

Government bills are rarely defeated and generally only government-proposed amendments succeed in the Commons, where the government majority prevails. There is also a lack of time for scrutiny and a lack of specialism within the party-whipped public bill committees. The House of Lords has limited powers due to its unelected nature but since there is no government majority, it does sometimes make passing legislation difficult for government.”

⮚ Only government proposed amendments succeed in the Commons. Due to the majority for the government, the whip system and party loyalty in the Commons, nearly all successful amendments to bills require government backing with only 1% of proposals from non-government parliamentarians succeeding (UCL). We can conclude that the government’s domination of the Commons makes Parliament largely ineffective at shaping government legislation.

⮚ There is a lack of time and specialism in party whipped public bill committees. Public bill committees have long been criticised for their weaknesses; their adhoc nature, lack of time and their partisan approach which limits effective scrutiny of government legislation. We can conclude that the lack of effective scrutiny at this crucial stage prevents the Commons from improving government legislation.

⮚ The House of Lords has limited powers due to its unelected nature. The unelected House of Lords is limited by the Parliament Acts, the Salisbury Convention and the Commons’ Financial Privilege effectively limits the Lords’ power over government legislation. We can conclude the Lords is not fit for purpose as it acting beyond its constitutional role in challenging the will of the elected government.

⮚ Government bills are rarely defeated. The government rarely suffers defeats on legislation in Parliament, reflecting Parliament’s weaknesses in defeating government legislation and ability to force concessions from government. We can conclude that Parliament’s inability to say no to government legislation means it is ineffective at shaping government legislation.

DISAGREEMENT

⮚ The government shapes and amends its legislation in order to maintain the support of its own backbenchers. The reason the Government suffers so few defeats in Parliament, is that it shapes it legislation and makes concessions in the form of amendments to win over a majority of votes in both houses to pass legislation. We can conclude that Parliament is effective at shaping government legislation by forcing government to shape and amend the bills to win parliamentary support.

⮚ Public bill committees in the House can trigger changes in legislation due to pressure from the Opposition and due to the nature of evidence from outside experts. Public Bills committees allow non- government parliamentarians and outside experts to alert ministers about where changes are needed, even if those changes are proposed by Ministers. We can conclude though most amendments are proposed by Ministers, the government is willing to incorporate changes that improve legislation proving that parliament is effective.

⮚ There is more time for scrutiny in the Lords and a higher degree of specialism and Crossbenchers can succeed in getting widespread support for their amendments. The expertise and specialism (since the Reform Act of 1998) of the Lords means that it is effective at the detailed scrutiny of legislation whilst amendments made in the Lords can often gain widespread support in Parliament, leading government to amend legislation in response. We can conclude that the expertise, time and non-partisan nature of crossbenchers often leads to amendments being proposed that force government amendments and changes.

⮚ The House of Lords is under no party control making it difficult for the government to pass legislation. This means the government is generally more likely to suffer defeats in the Lords than the Commons, and these defeats often trigger changes to government legislation as the government prefers negotiation to confrontation. We can conclude that the Lords is effective at shaping government legislation, by making government amend legislation to win over a majority in the Lords in order to pass legislation.

⮚ AO1 own knowledge: • The control of the Parliamentary timetable allows the government to restrict the power of the Commons to shape legislation. • The separation of public bill committees from select committees in unhelpful and reduces the chances of legislation being scrutinised by expert MPs. • The payroll vote gives the government a real advantage over the Commons.

Knowledge Against the view: • The removal of all but 92 Hereditary peers has made the Lords more effective at shaping government legislation. • The weaker party system in the Lords gives it greater independence and greater ability to shape legislation. • The increasingly rebellious nature of backbenchers makes the Commons more effective at shaping government legislation.

1b) Using the source, evaluate the view that devolution has created more problems than it has solved.

The source explores a 2019 Institute for Government discussion about the impact of devolution.

“Devolution has won legitimacy in Scotland and Wales by giving people more policy choices since they are now governed closer to home; also, public trust in government has been improved. However, turnout in devolved elections has been lower than in general elections. In Northern Ireland, devolution has delivered peace and an Executive and Assembly, although these devolved institutions have been suspended on more than one occasion.

In narrowing the democratic deficit elsewhere in the UK, devolution transferred a legitimacy problem to England. The West Lothian question remains problematic. England’s only devolution has involved mayors being created with some executive, spending and strategic powers though lacking the public support that underpins devolution elsewhere. Inconsistently, much of England has no devolution at all.

In terms of the unity of the UK, some people in Scotland and Wales saw devolution as a path to independence, while others saw it as a means of preserving the place of Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement allowed both supporters of a united Ireland and supporters of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union to support the measure. However, Brexit has strained devolved governments’ relationship with Westminster.”