Component 1.2 to 1.4: how the constitution has changed since 1997 under Labour, the Coalition and later governments, the role and impact of devolution, and the debates on further reform.

What this dot point is asking

Edexcel wants you to explain how the constitution has changed since 1997 (under Labour 1997 to 2010, the Coalition 2010 to 2015, and later governments), the role, powers and impact of devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, and the debates on further reform, including whether devolution should be extended and whether the constitution should be codified and entrenched. This is examined through the 30-mark source and essay questions.

Constitutional change since 1997

Edexcel expects the reforms grouped by government.

Labour (1997 to 2010)

The most active reforming period: devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (1998); the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporating the European Convention; House of Lords reform (the 1999 Act removed most hereditary peers); electoral reform for the devolved bodies (AMS and STV); and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which created the Supreme Court (opened 2009) and reformed the role of Lord Chancellor.

The Coalition (2010 to 2015)

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (fixing elections every five years, later repealed in 2022); further devolution to Wales; and a failed attempt to reform the Lords and the rejected 2011 AV referendum.

Later governments (since 2015)

Further devolution to Scotland (the Scotland Act 2016) following the 2014 independence referendum and the "Vow", giving Holyrood more tax and welfare powers; continued city-region devolution in England with elected metro-mayors.

The devolved bodies and their impact

The impact of devolution includes genuine policy divergence (free personal care and no tuition fees in Scotland, free prescriptions in Wales), the easing of the Northern Ireland conflict through power-sharing, greater participation and accountability, but also the West Lothian question (Scottish MPs voting on English-only matters), tensions with Westminster, and a boost to Scottish independence sentiment.

The debate on further reform

The specification asks how far the post-1997 reforms should go further:

• Extending devolution, including an English settlement (an English Parliament, regional assemblies, or "English votes for English laws").
• Completing House of Lords reform, replacing the largely appointed chamber with an elected or partly elected one.
• Codifying and entrenching the constitution, including a bill of rights, to lock in reforms and protect citizens.

Each is double-edged: further devolution improves local accountability but complicates the union; an elected Lords gains legitimacy but could challenge the Commons; codification clarifies and entrenches but sacrifices flexibility and parliamentary sovereignty.

Examples in context

• The Scotland Act 1998 and 2016, the core of Scottish devolution and its later extension after the 2014 referendum.
• The Good Friday Agreement (1998), devolution as conflict resolution in Northern Ireland.
• The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and its 2022 repeal, a reform made and unmade by ordinary statute.
• English metro-mayors (Greater Manchester, the West Midlands), the limited shape of devolution in England.

Try this

Q1. Explain and analyse three constitutional reforms introduced since 1997. [9 marks]

• Cue. Devolution, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the creation of the Supreme Court, each developed.

Q2. Evaluate the view that devolution should be extended to England. [30 marks]

• What the marker wants. A two-sided AO1 to AO3 essay weighing the democratic and West Lothian case for an English settlement against the cost, complexity and risk to the union, reaching a justified judgement.