Separation of Powers

Lord Lloyd once said: ‘the separation of powers is not part of our constitution.’ How far do you agree with this statement in light of the recent constitutional reforms?
The earliest government in the world, for instance Mesopotamia took place in the form of kingship where all the powers were in the hands of the Kings. However, such administration inexorably became corrupted and dictatorial. Therefore, the tyrant was dethroned by the community who subsequently instituted an aristocracy where the power was held by a few of the most famous citizens from the class of elite. However, the successors were corrupted by the opportunity to gratify their desires. Thereupon, the community overthrew the oligarchy where political power mostly rested with small segment, usually being the most powerful in the society. A democracy was established but yet the people were potentially debauched by evil leaders which may lead to the collapse of society.
The saga mentioned above did show perceptibly that separation of power is of significant importance to ensure an effective and efficient government. This concept is of great antiquity since it is traceable far back to Aristotle, but a clearer exposition is found in De I’Esprit des Lois written by Montesquieu. Essentially, he voiced the necessity for three organs of government, explicitly the legislature, executive and judiciary, to have defined area of power and clear demarcation of functions between them. This is to prevent monopolization of power which in turn may preserve human liberty and protect society from dangers of capricious rule.
Due to the absence of a codified constitutional text in United Kingdom, several queries regarding the doctrine have arisen in the society. For instance, Lord Lloyd was of the view that separation of powers was not part of the constitution. This was further explicated by Lord Woolf who believed that there were important departures from the classical doctrine and hence it could never be relied...