Debates Flashcards
debates about the Houses of Parliament
The House of Lords becoming more assertive and important
The House of Commons maintaining its supremacy
the House of Lords becoming more assertive and important: what did the removal of most hereditary peers do?
Although their formal powers are restricted, it is argued that the House of Lords is becoming more assertive and important
The removal of the most hereditary peers in 1999 meant that the House of Lords was dominated by life peers, appointed based on merit, which increases the legitimacy of the upper house
This led to the House of Lords being more willing to challenge the government
For example in 1979 to 97 the government was defeated 241 times but after the majority of hereditary peers were removed, from 1997 to 2010 the government suffered 528 defeats — A considerable increase
the House of Lords becoming more assertive and important: when did the Conservative dominance of the House of Lords end and what was the effect of this?
Moreover, after the majority of hereditary peers were removed, the Conservative dominance over the House of Lords also came to an end
Now no party has dominance or control over the upper house, meaning careful management of the house has become more important to governments
the House of Lords becoming more assertive and important: examples of the Salisbury convention being undermined and called into question by the House of Lords
After the 2005 general election, LibDem peers opposed Blair’s proposal for identity cards even though it was in the labour manifesto and argued that the Salisbury convention no longer applied as the government had been elected on a very low share of the vote (only 35%)
The Salisbury convention was also called into question when the coalition formed in 2010 as this scenario had not been put to the voters or approved by them
the House of Lords becoming more assertive and important: how important are crossbench peers?
Crossbench peers are important in holding the government to account as they are neutral and more likely to assess a bill on its merits and decide accordingly whether to support it or oppose the government
For example crossbencher Lord Owen opposed the coalition government’s controversial Health and Social Care Bill, the measure was eventually passed in 2012 after the government accepted all amendments proposed by the House of Lords
Further examples of the House of Lords becoming more assertive can be seen in the tax credits case study
the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: in what ways is the House of Commons still the dominant house?
The House of Lords may be becoming more assertive but the House of Commons remains the dominant house
The two houses are not always in conflict, many amendments in the House of Lords are actually sponsored by the government themselves (for example, on occasions when it notices flaws in its own legislation)
But when there is conflict, the government will usually use its majority in the House of Commons to overturn the Lords amendments if it chooses to do so
in 2012, the coalition government rejected 7 amendments to its Welfare Reform and Work Bill, arguing that only the Commons was entitled to take decisions with large financial implications
the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: what process does a bill go through?
A bill can go back and forth between the houses in a process known as Parliamentary ping-pong
the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005 (which introduced control orders) involved heavy debate between the houses, there was even a sitting lasting 30 hours
the House of Lords wanted to be able to include a ‘sunset clause’, meaning the bill would expire after a year unless further legislation was passed to renew it
However it is always up to the government to accept or reject amendments from the House of Lords and in this case the Lords backed down following a compromise in which the government promised to review the bill a year later — The Lords will usually back down
the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: how can the government push through a bill?
If the Lords decides to maintain its opposition to the Commons, the government can use the Parliament Act to force through a bill
This is usually rare but was used 3 times by Tony Blair…
- In 1999 over changing the voting system for European Parliamentary elections
- In 2000 over equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual people
- In 2004 over banning hunting with dogs
the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: what will the House of Lords usually do?
The House of Lords will usually back down and drop its opposition because it recognises that it lacks the democratic legitimacy needed to push its case further
the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: what does the tax credits case study demonstrate?
the tax credits case study illustrates the willingness of the House of Lords to take a stand on an issue
but also shows the self restraint that usually prevails when there is a clash between the two houses
the House of Commons: maintaining its supremacy
what can the government do if the House of Lords opposes it?
The government can usually use its majority in the House of Commons to overturn critical Lords amendments if it chooses to do so
in 2012, the coalition government rejected 7 amendments from the Lords to their Welfare Reform and Work Bill
If the upper house maintains its opposition to the House of Commons, as a last resort the government can use the Parliament Act to force a bill through — This is rare but was used three times by Tony Blair (e.g. in 2004 over banning hunting with dogs)
The House of Lords usually backs down and avoids conflict with the House of Commons
the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: what has occurred in recent years?
Over the past 16 years, members of the House of Lords have become more rebellious
In 2015 the debate on Chancellor George Osborne’s cuts to tax credits is just one example of the peers’ willingness to challenge the government
the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: what has happened since the House of Lords reform?
Since the House of Lords was last reformed in 1999, the upper chamber has grown bigger, less conservative as no party holds a majority and inevitably more defiant
The removal of most hereditary peers led to a change in both the composition and attitude of the House of Lords
for the two centuries before the House of Lords reform act 1999, the Conservative party dominated the upper chamber, but this is no longer the case
the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: what happened in the months before the reform act?
in the months before the act was passed, the upper chamber twice opposed the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16
this is a rare example of the House of Lords proving less liberal than the House of Commons (the Labour government eventually used the parliament act to force through the reform)
the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: how many defeats did the Labour government face after the reform of the House of Lords?
After the reforms of Tony Blair’s Labour government, Liberal Democrat and crossbench members began to hold the balance of power in the Lords, making the benches home to more left-leaning and assertive peers
The governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown suffered more than 450 defeats in the House of Lords from 1999 to 2010
Although most defeats can in theory be overturned when bills return to the house of commons, in practice they are often not
under new Labour it was arguably the House of Lords, rather than the House of Commons, that sought to uphold civil liberties, for example by blocking restrictions on jury trials and the detention without charge of terrorist suspects
the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: what happened during the coalition government?
The House of Lords inflicted 99 defeats on the coalition government in 2010 to 15
it also took on established conventions such as the financial privilege of the House of Commons whereby the Lord’s refrains from amending legislation solely concerning taxation and expenditure
That privilege dates back to the 17th century and is enshrined in the 1911 parliament Act that proposed that money bills should not be amended by the Lord’s
This is the financial privilege that the government is citing in regard to tax credits
This convention was tested in 2015 when the House of Lords sought to block or amend some cuts to public spending, most notably around legal aid and work and pensions Secretary Ian Duncan Smith’s cap on working age benefits
Opposition Lords say the convention does not apply this time around because the tax credit legislation, like that concerning legal aid, is not part of a dedicated finance bill
Nevertheless they admit that the scale of public spending at stake (more than £4 billion a year) is unprecedented
the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: how has the House of Lords grown in size?
The Lord has become more assertive and it has also grown in size, especially so under David Cameron
It has been calculated that in the 11 years of Labour government from 1999 to 2010 the upper chamber increased by 40 to 70 members, depending on whether those on the leaves of absence are included
But in David Cameron’s first term, the upper chamber grew 2 to 3 times as fast, reaching 826 members — Whereas there are only 650 MPs in the House of Commons
the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: why has the House of Lords become more unpopular?
The House of Lords is bigger and bolder but it has also proved less popular
in a study in 2015, the UCL constitution unit found that the upper chambers reputation among the public and the national media had declined sharply since 2010
In part this reflects the expenses and other scandals, such as the resignation of Lord Sewel Who quit in 2015 after a tabloid newspaper published a video apparently showing him snorting cocaine with two prostitutes
However it is also suggested that the House of Lords declining popularity may also be because the aspect the public likes most about the upper chamber (its independent expertise) has been diluted under David Cameron
David Cameron’s appointments to the House of Lords have been disproportionately political
The House of Lords appointments commission, which proposes expert independent peers, has been invited to make only eight nominations since 2010 — Compared with the 31 in 2005 to 10
In his election manifesto David Cameron resisted calls to further reform the House of Lords saying that it was not a priority, although the controversy over the cuts to tax credits may persuade the Prime Minister to think again
the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: what are the factors that have led to the increased assertiveness of the House of Lords?
Life peers instead of hereditary peers — Has made the House of Lords more legitimate and harder working, life peers take their roles more seriously as they have earned their titles through experience and merit rather than inheriting it
Dominance of the Conservatives in the House of Lords has come to an end, no party holds a majority meaning that the government faces more opposition in the House of Lords
Crossbenchers play a more important role in holding the government to account (for example Lord Owen, a former doctor, played a lead role in opposing the coalition government’s controversial Health and Social Care Bill)
Formation of the 2010 coalition cast further doubt on if the Salisbury convention still applied, giving the House of Lords more room to grow in assertiveness as restrictions that previously held back their powers have been called into question in recent years
examples of clashes between the House of Lords and the House of Commons
Tax Credits 2015
Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005
EU Bill 2017
CASE STUDY: Tax Credits
what happened in 2015?
In 2015, the House of Lords voted to delay planned cuts to tax credits and compensate those affected
This was emotionally charged because the purpose of tax credits was to support low income working people
CASE STUDY: Tax Credits
why was this a constitutional issue?
this raised a constitutional issue because tax credits are a financial measure and the House of Lords should not be involved in financial issues at all as they are unelected and do not have the right
the House of Commons has financial privilege over the House of Lords
However, technically they could get involved because the tax credit changes with secondary legislation rather than primary and the House of Lords has the power to reject secondary legislation
CASE STUDY: Tax Credits
what did the Lords not support? what did this highlight?
However, the House of Lords chose not to support the Liberal Democrat motion to block the changes completely as this was more controversial and would cause conflict with the elected house
This highlighted the limits to the powers of the Lords as the Lords showed restraint — they usually try to avoid all out conflict with the elected house
this shows that the House of Lords tends to back down to avoid conflict and that there are limits on their powers
CASE STUDY: Tax Credits
what did the government do in response?
In response, the government ordered a review (the Lord Strathclyde commission/review) of the powers of the Lords but eventually backed away from further confrontation on the issue
The review proposed to stop the Lords from being able to veto secondary legislation, but this restriction never happened
they eventually did decide to review the cuts and listen to the concerns of the Lords
CASE STUDY: EU Bill 2017
The EU Bill in March 2017 is another example of a clash between the House of Lords and the House of Commons
The House of Lords voted on amendments to the bill regarding residency rights of EU citizens in the UK and a pledge to ensure that Parliament had a vote on the final Brexit deal — Both of which were voted down in the House of Commons
the Lords eventually backed down and the bill was passed — This highlights the limits on the House of Lords powers
on one hand, many peers felt they had the right to pressure the government
but on the other hand, they must be careful not to overstep the boundaries, particularly since the decision to leave the EU had legitimacy by being backed by a UK wide referendum
CASE STUDY: 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill
The 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill entailed a marathon sitting of 30 hours in the Lords — There was heavy debate between the two houses over the bill
The House of Lords wanted the bill to include a sunset clause, meaning that the bill would automatically expire a year later
they eventually backed down but the government did promise to review the bill a year later
