2. parliament Flashcards
exclusive powers of the house of commons
- the right to insist of legislation: in cases of conflict over legislation, the lords should ultimately give way to the commons
- financial privilege: the lords can’t delay or amend money bills
- the power to dismiss the executive: if the government is defeated on a motion of no confidence, it must resign
- exclusive authority: to give consent to taxation and expenditure
- this is because the HoC represents the taxpayer, so the lords can see the bills but not interfere with them
- this also means that the chancellor must come from the commons
confidence and supply
- this can occur in the event of a minority government, where the governing party doesn’t join a formal coalition but relies on a limited agreement with another party
- eg the conservative party agreement with the DUP in 2017
- the supporting party will provide backing on a vote of no confidence (confidence) and will vote through the government’s budget (supply)
- more flexible and less stable than a formal coalition
- the government requires the confidence and supply of the HoC to remain in office
- supply refers to the authorisation of government spending by the commons
- the commons can remove the government by defeating in a motion of no confidence
main powers of the HoL (conventions)
- the primary of the HoL is underpinned in legislation, notably the parliament acts of 1911 and 1949 in constitutional conventions
- the main conventions between the two chambers are the:
- sailsbury addison convention: bills implementing manifesto commitments are not opposed by the lords
- reasonable time convention: the lords should consider government business within a reasonable time
functions of the HoL
- the lords do not usually object to secondary legislation
- the main functions of the HoL are the:
- mainly a revising chamber, proposing amendments to government legislation
- delay non financial legislation for up to one year in order to force the government to reconsider
- the only scenario in which the lords retains its veto is in the unlikely case that if a government were to attempt to prolong the life of parliament beyond its legal maximum term of five years, the lords is legally empowered to force it to hold a general election
parliament acts do not effect the bills that
are sent from the commons less than a month before the end of a session
how did the parliament acts get passed in the first place
- the 1911 act was pushed through after two general elections in 1910 gave the liberal government a strong mandate
- the threat of many new liberal peers being created forced the Lords to push it through
- the 1949 act was never agreed by the HoL but was forced onto the statute books using the 1911 Act so its legality has been challenged a number of times (most recently in 2004, with the hunting bill)
when the lords support to the commons
- it is the default position and therefore largely unreported
- the general aim is to have the law enacted with a year because, if its any longer, events will have overtaken the original intent or purpose of the bill
- eg firearms (1997), the human rights act (1998)
reasonable time convention
- the government needs to get its legislative proposals through parliament in a reasonable time
- whereas, the government has significant control of the parliamentary timetable in the HoC, it doesn’t have this in the HoL
- it should not be deliberately overlooked or delay consideration of government bills and should ensure that they are passed by the end of the session
- reform proposals have included a 60 day limit for consideration of government business by the lords although critics claim this would weaken parliamentary scrutiny
secondary legislation and the house of lords
- parliament delegates to ministers the authority to issue secondary legislation which brings into force the amendments part of an act
- the parliament acts don’t cover secondary legislation but it is convention that the lords does not usually reject it
- it is neither rigid nor universally accepted
- in 2015, the HoL amended two regulations on tax credits
- the government responded by establishing the Strathclyde review of the primacy of the commons in this area
- the review recommended that the commons should be able to override any lords’ vote to reject secondary legislation
- May 2017 government announced it had no plans to curb the powers of the lords
a more assertive lords
- the HoL has become more assertive in the legislative process since the removal of hereditary peers in 1999
- it blocked the sexual offences (amendment) act (2000) and the hunting act (2004), forcing the government to employ the parliament act in the following session
- government defeats have become more frequent
- the Blair-Brown governments were defeated 7 times in the HoC but more than 400 times in the HoL
- many defeats on judicial and constitutional matters (eg counter terrorism and restrictions on the right to trial by duty)
debating major issues
- parliament is the place where people expect issues of major importance to be discussed
- eg HoC held debates before they decided to go to war in Iraq
- parliament becomes the focus of the nation’s attention on these occasions
- in the HoC, PMQs held every Wednesday is the media focus for the debates
- if a crisis emerges during a parliamentary recess, it is usual for members to demand that parliament be recalled in order for the issue to be discussed
debating major issues - urgent questions
- an MP or lord can request an urgent question
- it is the speaker’s decision as to whether they accept this and it is timetabled for the beginning of the next parliamentary session
- the power to ask an urgent question is equal for all MPs
- urgent questions are asked at the beginning of the day and a request is submitted to the speaker
- if it is deemed not important, it gets binned
- if the speaker honours this request, the government and opposition are notified
- example: when the SNP asked an urgent question on the supreme court’s decision to now allow Scotland a second referendum in the House of Commons
debating major issues - petitions
- the petitions committee refer petitions that achieve over 100,000 signatures to be debated in parliament
- if the petitions committee has no petitions over this threshold and a petition is important enough, they may request its debate
backbench MPs and debate
- backbench MPs can speak in the second reading (most important debate) on any bill, but do not have an equal right to speak
- the speaker, who presides over debates, normally gives preference to ex-ministers, especially on important issues
- in most cases, an MPs will enjoy the right to be heard of they wish to say anything
parliamentary privilege
- MPs have parliamentary privilege
- this meant that they can’t be sued for anything mentioned during a speech within the confines of Westminster
- example: Bob Seely, MP for the Isle of Wight, used parliamentary privilege to name layers helping Russian oligarchs in the UK
- they can also initiate adjournment debate, which gives them a chance to publicly share their views on subjects important to them
- MPs can put down early day motions for the same purpose, giving their views in writing in the hope that enough MPs will offer supporting signatures to win publicly for the cause
- early day motions are never debated but they can serve to make a point provided that sufficient signatures can be obtained
standing order 43
- a convention that means that personal insults can’t be given in the chamber
- ‘dodgy dave’
sustaining government
- the UK has a system of parliamentary government so as well as holding the government to account, parliament should ensure that the government can actually govern
- this is achieved by the governing party having a majority of seats in the HoC
motion of no confidence/confidence motion
- party: no confidence in the leader
- eg Theresa May 2018 (survived), 2019 (removed), Boris Johnson 2022 (removed)
- government: timetabled motion that is debated and voted on
- however, they won’t vote if it doesn’t benefit them
parliament is effective in holding the government to account
- the executive’s control over the parliamentary timetable has been weakened by the creation of the backbench business committee and the greater use of urgent questions
- backbench MPs provide greater checks on government policy that in the past, with increased incidents of rebellion (a constraint on government action)
- the reformed HoL, in which no party has a majority, is a more effective revising chamber amendments made in the lords often force the government to rethink legislation
- select committees have become more influential, with government accepting 40% of their recommendations, the election of select committee chairs and members has enhanced their independence
- government has accepted restrictions on the exercise of certain prerogatives (right to authorise military action), even if this is not legally binding an important precedent has been set
- the increased assertiveness of the HoL has led to many government defeats
parliament is not effective in holding the government to account
- the Sailsbury convention
- government controls parliament’s agenda, so the limited amount of time allocated to PMBs and debates selected by the opposition is limited
- the power of the whips and the inducements of prime ministerial patronage remain important tools of executive power; using parliamentary private secretaries and ministers the government has a payroll vote of about 100, which is a majority hard to beat
- ministers can still obstruct select committees from summoning officials to their hearings and do not have to act on their reports
- government defeats are rare, most backbench MPs from the governing party obey the whip on most votes
examples of HoL appointments using patronage power
- Gordon Brown (2008-2010) appointed Lord Alan Sugar to the HoL in 2009
- David Cameron (2010-2016) appointed Ed Llewellyn, his former chief of staff, as a member of the HoL in 2016
members of the House of Lords
- lords spiritual: archbishops and bishops
- lords temporal: life peers and hereditary peers
example of a select committee
the home affairs select committee investigated a disagreement in 2011 between Theresa May, the home secretary at the time, and Brodie Clark, a civil servant, over UK border force failings
committee system
- a large part of the work of the HoC and HoL takes place in committees made up of around 10 to 50 MPs or lords
- these committees examine issues in detail from government policy and proposed new laws to wider topics, like the economy
- types of committees: select, joint, general, grand and public bill
select committee development
- in 1979, the HoC select committees were introduced to monitor the performance of the major departments of the state
- select committees now work in both houses
- they check and repot in areas ranging from the work of government departments to economic affairs
- they have also been set up to investigate specific policy commitments, eg HS2
- the results of these inquiries are public and many require a response from the government
why can select committees have a strong mandate
- the membership of a select committee is a minimum of 11, (unlike public bill committees) they are non partisan so all MPs are expected to work together
- the political parties vote members into select committees, rather than the whip being involved (increases party legitimacy)
- they are generally well regarded backbenchers and/or have lots of experience
- chairs of select committees are elected by MPs as a whole, ensuring they posses considerable cross party support
- they receive a financial bonus for this work
select committee example
- since 2014, Sarah Wollaston, MP has been chair of the health and social care committee
- as a former GP and independent (former conservative) MP, she is ideally suited for the role and is considered to have the expertise and confidence to lead scrutiny of the department of health and social care
select committee wider interactions
- select committees consult widely with ministers, civil servants and experts
- they can send for ‘persons, papers and records’ to help them with their investigations
- they can compel attendance from members of the public
- im select committees, MPs are still protect by parliamentary privilege
- as a result of this, select committees can engage in intense questioning of relevant parties without fear of prosecution
- critics claim that the way in which committees interrogate witnesses creates a ‘bear pit’ atmosphere
- witnesses are expected to attend and have no right to sit in silence, creating an adversarial and hostile environment