Debates

Question 1

debates about the Houses of Parliament

Answer 1

The House of Lords becoming more assertive and important

The House of Commons maintaining its supremacy

Question 2

the House of Lords becoming more assertive and important: what did the removal of most hereditary peers do?

Answer 2

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

Question 3

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?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

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

Answer 4

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

Question 5

the House of Lords becoming more assertive and important: how important are crossbench peers?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: in what ways is the House of Commons still the dominant house?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: what process does a bill go through?

Answer 7

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

Question 8

the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: how can the government push through a bill?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: what will the House of Lords usually do?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

the House of Commons maintaining its supremacy: what does the tax credits case study demonstrate?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

the House of Commons: maintaining its supremacy

what can the government do if the House of Lords opposes it?

Answer 11

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

Question 12

the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: what has occurred in recent years?

Answer 12

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

Question 13

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?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

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?

Answer 14

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)

Question 15

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?

Answer 15

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

Question 16

the House of Lords is now more willing to challenge the government and is becoming more assertive: what happened during the coalition government?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

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?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

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?

Answer 18

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

Question 19

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?

Answer 19

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

Question 21

examples of clashes between the House of Lords and the House of Commons

Answer 21

Tax Credits 2015

Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005

EU Bill 2017

Question 22

CASE STUDY: Tax Credits

what happened in 2015?

Answer 22

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

Question 23

CASE STUDY: Tax Credits

why was this a constitutional issue?

Answer 23

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

Question 24

CASE STUDY: Tax Credits

what did the Lords not support? what did this highlight?

Answer 24

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

Question 25

CASE STUDY: Tax Credits

what did the government do in response?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

CASE STUDY: EU Bill 2017

Answer 26

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

Question 27

CASE STUDY: 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill

Answer 27

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