Hello, my name is Mrs. Tomassi, and I'm going to be working with you through this citizenship lesson today.

So if you've got everything sorted and you're all good to go, we can make a start.

So today's lesson is: what are the advantages and disadvantages of an uncodified constitution? And this is part of the unit, which is What is the nature of the British constitution? Hopefully by the end you'll be able to describe what an uncodified constitution is and consider the advantages and disadvantages of this.

Making a start with our keywords.

Now the first one is a really, really, obviously it's a keyword, but it's really important.

So it is constitution.

Now, this is the set of principles and rules by which a country is organised.

You then have a codified constitution when the principles and rules by which the country is organised are written down, usually in a single document, compared to an uncodified constitution, when principles and rules by which a country is organised are not written down in a single document.

These keywords will be in bold throughout, so you can always refer back to this page and what the keywords are.

If we've got them down, we will make a start with the first learning cycle, which is how was the UK's constitution shaped? So for this first part, we are going to have a little look at a timeline, and I want you to think about where the rules about how the UK is run come from.

Are there any events that you could think of or that you already know about that maybe helped form the UK's constitution? Have you heard of this one before? So we've got the Magna Carta there, and again, we will look through these in more detail as the lesson progresses.

At the moment, we're just introducing what they are.

Then we've got in 1649 the execution of Charles I.

The 1689, the Bill of Rights.

1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

1998, Human Rights Act.

And then the 2010 Equality Act.

Now if you haven't heard of these, hopefully by the end you will have an idea of what they are.

So we will start from the beginning.

So if we look at the Magna Carta, now, the Magna Carta, meaning great charter, it was signed to establish that the king and his government were not above the law.

This was the first time where it introduced something called the rule of law.

And that is the idea that nobody is above the law and everyone must follow it.

That includes the monarch.

So the reason this was a very key event is because the monarch has established that they are no longer above the law either.

So it brings everyone to account basically.

And you've got an image there of King John signing the Magna Carta.

So this is the beginning of shaping the UK's constitution.

Now, as it progresses, we start to see more and more that takes powers away from the monarch and then establishes more with the citizens.

So the reason that the Magna Carta played an important role is because it introduced the introduction of a council of churchmen and barons who were to be consulted by the monarch on decisions based on taxation.

What that meant was the monarch couldn't just no longer go, "Right, I'm doing this and that's it." And there was no discussion, nothing.

It meant that there was a beginning to have some consultation and back and forth.

It also confirmed the right to a fair trial for free men.

Now, it's not the same as the fair trial that we see today, but it was the beginning of what shapes a fair trial.

And the next one we lead on to, so we've got the execution of Charles I.

Now, Charles I was executed in 1649 following the English Civil Wars fought between the king and Parliament.

His execution was another milestone in the reduction of the monarch's influence because again, if we go back to the Magna Carta, there's now established this rule of law that nobody is above the law, and in this case it was shown that the king had committed treason and therefore was executed.

So it is always a reminder to the monarchs to listen to Parliament's advice.

So which event came first? Is it the Magna Carta, the execution of Charles I, or is it the Bill of Rights? It was the Magna Carta, which was in 1215.

Now we will move on to the Bill of Rights now.

So we've got William III and Mary II, who agreed to the bill in 1689.

It laid down further limitations and helped to shape the UK's constitution because it agreed parliamentary privilege, which means that Parliament has got the freedom to express and that people could vote for who they wanted to, and Parliaments would occur regularly.

So again, previous, yes, there was Parliament, but it wasn't as consistent.

So again, this event is now starting to lay down and evolve more.

In this probably a key point here is that the monarchy became constitutional, which meant it would not get involved in the day-to-day running of the country.

Parliament could make the new laws on how the country was run.

So it's no longer the monarch's role.

So again, how we see Parliament today where we've got the three separate branches, the monarchy is there, but the monarchy is not involved in the day-to-day running with Parliament.

If we now forward a few years, we're going into 1948, so post World War II, where the United Nations adopted the human rights.

Now, they came with 30 articles that were to be universally protected.

The reason that it's important to the UK's constitution is because it gave additional rights to citizens because the UK is a member of the UN and they agreed to uphold the declaration.

This is then shaped further by the Human Rights Act in 1998.

Now, this recognised in British law the European Convention of Human Rights.

So the reason this was important, again, we're offering more additional rights.

So for example here, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, right to an education, right to fair treatment before the law.

So at this point now we are starting to get more specific about the rights that people have rather than just having this idea that nobody is above the law.

This leads on to the Equality Act in 2010, which again goes into it in further depth.

And it meant that UK citizens are now protected against discrimination on nine protected characteristics.

Have you heard of any protected characteristics before? Have you got an idea what some of them are? If you do know any, did you see them there? So we've got age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

And what this means is that if a citizen is discriminated against based on any of those characteristics, they are supported in terms of the laws and it can be acted upon.

So true or false? The Equality Act 2010 helped shape the UK's constitution further.

That is true.

Why? Because it helps to protect UK citizens from discrimination on the grounds of any of them characteristics.

That moves us on to the first task for this learning cycle.

Can you choose two of the documents that have shaped the UK's constitution and explain how they have done this? Now it's up to you which documents you pick to do, but just take some time now, have a think, and then we will feedback on what you've decided to do.

How did you find that? Did you manage to think, so back to the timeline and pick two off of there? Now, if you picked the Magna Carta, an example you could have given is that by introducing a council of churchmen and barons to advise the monarch on decisions related to taxation meant that it shapes the UK's constitution.

They confirmed the right to a free trial for free men and held everyone accountable under the law.

It gave the barons a greater voice in decision making and marked the beginning of the rule of law, establishing the principle that no one, not even the monarch is above the law and everyone must follow it.

Now, you might have picked the Bill of Rights.

If you picked that, then you are looking at that shapes the UK's constitution because it further limited the powers of the monarchy.

It established that Parliament had freedom of expression, which is also called the parliamentary privilege, allowed people to choose their representatives through free elections, and required parliaments to meet regularly.

The bill also marked the beginning of a constitutional monarchy, meaning the monarchy no longer played a direct role in the day-to-day running of the country, while Parliament gained authority to make new laws on how the country would be governed.

If you picked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, now, that helped to shape the UK's constitution because as a member of the UN, the UK agreed to uphold it.

So the declaration gave citizens additional rights such as right to life, liberty, security.

By committing to these rights, the UK made sure to protect and respect basic freedoms, which has influenced how the country's law and government work.

And then you've got the Human Rights Act, which helped to shape it, as it brought the European Convention of Human Rights into British law, gave people important rights like freedom of thought, right to education, and fair treatment by the law.

And it made it easier for people to protect their rights in court and made the government more responsible for upholding them.

The final one, if you did the Equality Act, this helped to shape the UK's constitution because it protects citizens from discrimination based on nine protected characteristics, which are listed there.

And this law ensures everyone is treated fairly, helping to create a more equal society.

Hopefully that's given you a bit of an idea of how the UK's constitution was shaped.

Now we're going to move on and look at what different types of constitutions are there.

So if we go back and remind ourselves, because again, these terms are a bit tricky, so it's getting used to it, that a constitution is the set of principles and rules by which a country is organised and governed.

There are two main types of constitution.

There is codified and uncodified.

Now, just a little hint there, looking at the images about what they might be about.

Again, these were our key terms in terms of codified constitution and uncodified constitution.

So thinking, what is a code of conduct? Have you ever been somewhere where you've had to follow a code of conduct? What have they asked you to do? Did you have to follow some rules or was there some, you know, maybe a list of points that you had to follow? And it's this idea of how people should conduct themselves.

So in other words, how we kind of behave and treat each other.

Now, a code of conduct is a single document.

So it's often found in like schools or clubs.

And similarly, the way a country is run is sometimes written down in one document, a bit like your code of conduct.

Maybe it might be a bit longer with obviously in reference to what's relevant in running the country.

Now, we call this a codified constitution.

So obviously that image there, you've got the one document.

That's why the codified constitution is written down in a single document.

Now, most countries actually have a codified constitution.

Some examples include the US, Australia, Chile, Denmark, and France.

And actually, again, it's this idea how we evolve over time.

An example, Cuba only had their codified constitution ratified, which means it's given formal consent, in 2019.

So again, things evolve over time and they can change.

Now to give you an example of a codified constitution, we are looking at the US.

So the US Constitution begins with the words we the people, and includes seven articles, 27 amendments.

The first 10 amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

This was ratified in 1791 to define citizens' rights under the government.

Now, things included in their Bill of Rights include the Amendment II, which is to provide the rights to bear arms. What that means is the right to possess weapons for the protection of themselves, their rights, and their property.

There's also an Amendment IV, which prevents the government from unreasonable search and seizure of individuals or their private property.

And Amendments V and VI which provide protection for people accused of crime.

True or false? The US Bill of Rights has 27 amendments, which include protections such as the right to bear arms and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

That's false.

Why? Whilst most of this statement is true, and the full US constitution does have 27 amendments, the Bill of Rights is just the first 10.

That moves us on to an uncodified constitution.

Now, thinking if codified is one document, we've got the image there that might give you a little bit of a clue, what might an uncodified constitution be? It is going to be, it's not written in a single document.

Now, it doesn't mean there aren't rules and laws.

There are still limitations on the power of government, but they might be written in other sources, so things like statutes or common law and conventions.

It doesn't necessarily mean it's in that one single document.

Now, those sources help to determine how the country is governed.

True or false? An uncodified constitution means there are no rules or laws and limits on the government's power? That is false.

Why? There are still rules which limit the power of the government, but they're not written down in a single document.

So, some countries that use a uncodified constitution include the UK, and we'll look further into the UK's uncodified constitution.

You've also got there Canada, New Zealand, China, and Saudi Arabia.

So if we look into the UK, we're saying it's uncodified, used through multiple different sources and constitutional statutes throughout history.

Now, this has included the Magna Carta that we looked at earlier, the English Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Equality Act 2010.

Now, they've all helped to shape the constitution that we have.

So which of these following countries have uncodified constitutions? Is it A, Australia; B, New Zealand; C, United Kingdom; or D, United States of America? There are two.

So it is New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Now we move on to the task for this section.

So we've got Andeep and Alex here, and they both attend a debating club.

Andeep says, "I think we need to make sure students' rights and responsibilities are protected at the club." Alex said, "Well, we should set up our own constitution for the club to protect everyone." Create a codified constitution for the club.

Write down three to five rights you think every member of the club should have.

For each, explain why they are important.

So take some time with this one and just think about, you know, what are going to be, because you've only got three to five to write, what are going to be those core rights that are going to form the constitution of the club? What are them core things that you wouldn't want to change and you would want everyone to abide by? And then can you explain why they're important? If you obviously pause now and then come back and we can feedback and have a look at what you've done.

How did you find that? Now, here is an example.

Obviously you could have picked any other rights.

So we'll go through these ones now and then you might have some different ones.

You might have focused on different ideas.

So we've got here right to free expression.

So this ensures that all viewpoints can be heard, which creates diverse and dynamic discussions.

The right to a fair debate.

So it ensures that debate rules are followed, which promotes healthy competition and equal opportunities.

A right to a safe environment to ensure the debate remains focused on ideas, not personal attacks, and creates a positive atmosphere.

Equal opportunities, so ensures fairness and inclusivity, which allows every pupil to thrive regardless of their circumstance.

The right to take part in decision-making so everyone feels a sense of ownership and the members all feel part of the club.

So this idea is it's taken different sections.

So you've got there safety, ownership, inclusivity.

Maybe you might have had some similar ideas along that, but it's anything that's going to support people wanting to be part of it.

So this brings us on to our final learning cycle for today, which is, should the UK's constitution remain uncodified? Now, this has been debated over time.

So give you an example there, in 2008, you've got the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

This was members of the House of Lords and the Commons, and they wrote, "We recommend that a Bill of Rights and Freedoms should set out a shared vision of a desirable future society.

It should be aspirational in nature, as well as protecting those human rights which already exist.

We suggest that a Bill of Rights and Freedoms should give lasting effects to values shared by the people of the UK.

We include liberty, democracy, fairness, civic duty, and rule of law." So that leads us on to, we are going to discuss actually the advantages of being uncodified, but also the disadvantages that might link in with this idea of why it might need to change.

So to start with, what could the advantages of an uncodified constitution be, that the constitution comes from different sources? Now, an advantage you might have thought of is that it allows updates to be made.

So actually, if there are lots of little documents, you can just focus on that individual document rather than having to review the whole constitution in one go, which in that case actually means that it's more flexible and it's a bit quicker.

Now, an example was that new anti-terrorist laws were included following the 7th of July London bombings.

So it meant that they were able to respond to a situation that had happened and allowed for quicker changes to be made for the future and the safety of others.

The uncodified constitution also supports devolution.

To give an example, you've got the Scotland Act 1998, and that's part of the UK's constitution, which means that Scotland has control over their education policy and it meant that they were able to abolish university tuition fees when other parts of the UK weren't.

So it supports the devolved nations.

A check for understanding here.

So which student has the correct advantage of an uncodified constitution? Is it Sam, who says, "Having one document provides clear written rules that are easy to understand." Or is it B, Jacob, who says, "Having separate documents means updates can be made to each one individually without the need to review the entire document." It is Jacob.

So what Sam's given is an advantage of a codified constitution, so it's remembering the difference between the both.

So, disadvantages of an uncodified constitution.

Now, this links into the statement we saw at the start of why they might want to change the UK's system.

And it's because having many different documents can make it seem more complicated or harder to understand.

So although yes, we are saying, you know, it's flexible and it's easier because changes can be made, for somebody looking in when there are bits and sources here, there, and everywhere, that can make it seem more complicated.

And it also, again, flip side that it can be quicker to make changes, it can take time to identify the part of the constitution that's causing a problem.

So if you have one document, you can go through and go, okay, yep, it's this part.

However, when there are all different documents, it's finding the problem and then fixing the problem.

So that part could be more time-consuming.

And in a way, again, that the advantage.

So a lot of these advantages of a uncodified constitution can also be disadvantages.

So yes, it's flexible, which is great.

However, when it is too flexible, this can undermine the protection of human rights because too many changes could be made or parts can be misunderstood.

True or false? A disadvantage of an uncodified constitution is that it is not flexible, so can undermine the protection of human rights.

That is false.

Why? It is flexible, so changes can be made in a timely manner.

However, it can be too flexible, which can be a disadvantage because changes can be made more easily and that could undermine the protection of human rights.

So moving on to our final task for today, you've got Andeep and Alex and they're having a discussion now.

So Andeep says, "The UK should remain uncodified because it's developed over hundreds of years and reflects the development of human rights in the UK.

The system is flexible and allows for a quicker response." Whereas Alex is saying, "The UK shouldn't remain uncodified as most countries have codified constitutions, and a new codified constitution could bring together all the values of our many documents and guide future generations." Decide who you agree with more and write an additional argument point and explanation for their debate.

So once you've decided who you agree with, can you give them another point for why either the UK should remain uncodified or it should not remain uncodified? Once you've done that, we can go through and have a look and see if you've got a similar response.

You might have a different response.

Now, if you agreed with Andeep and believe that the UK constitution should remain uncodified, you could have had an answer that says: if there's an issue with one of the documents that makes up the constitution, then Parliament can edit that one rather than having to review the whole constitution, which makes it easier and quicker to make any needed changes.

However, if you agreed with Alex and you believe that it shouldn't remain uncodified, it could be because it's more time-consuming if there is an issue with the constitution.

This is because Parliament will have to work out which document and part of the constitution is causing issues before they can look at fixing it.

You might have also looked at ideas about flexibility, or you could have even had a different answer.

Hopefully though you found that all right, and starting to grasp what the constitution is.

So I'll go through the summary now and hopefully, again, it's given you a better understanding of what a constitution is and the codified and uncodified.

So we've got here, a constitution is the set of principles and rules by which a country is organised.

It outlines the key principles in a country.

A codified constitution is when these principles and rules are written down, usually in a single document.

An example is the US, where the Constitution is set in the US Bill of Rights 1791.

An uncodified constitution is where these principles and rules are not written down in a single written document.

This can be seen in the UK, for example, through different documents such as the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, UDHR, Human Rights Act, and the Equality Act.

Advantages of an uncodified include it being more flexible and can adapt and develop over time.

However, disadvantages include it can seem more complicated or harder to understand.

Thank you for working through this session with me today and I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.