ETVT the hol is an effective check on govt

Question 1

para 1- legislation- for

Answer 1

HOL have been sucessful in improving the quality of legislation
1. between 1997-2010, 44% of govt defeats have led to an alteration of legislation
2. 69 defeats alone in 2017-19

the 2020 agriculture bill was debated for 96h in the lords and only 32h in the commons

Question 2

1- legislation - against

Answer 2

there are serious limitations to their powers
1. 1911 and 45 parliament act limits what they can scrutinise (only delay for 1y and no money bills) e.g after a delay of 1y, the parliament act was invoked against the 2004 hunting act
2. the 2024 rwanda bill was passed after all of the lords amendments were rejected

Question 3

2- membership allows for an effective checking on hol- for

Answer 3

security of tenure and lack of party discipline enables free voting; compared to the whip in the commons
1. in the commons, there was a complete bipartisan vote in the police crime sentencing and courts act
2. 1/4 of peers in the lords are crossbench with no allegiance to any party

expertise and experience
1. most educated and old?
2. lord bird, who was homeless, now works with the big issue to tackle homelessness
3. the house of lords appointments committee is thorough

Question 4

2- membership - against

Answer 4

but there is corruption regarding the membership of the hol,
1. 1/10 tory peers have donated less than 100k to the party
2. in 2004, paul drayson donated 500k to the labour party and shortly recieved peerage, there he was able to secure a valuable govt contract for his company ‘powderject’

composition, ‘male,pale and stale’
average age 71, 6% BAME and 29% women

so they dont really check the commons if theyre colluding with them

Question 5

3- committees- for

Answer 5

1. HOL constitution committee debated on the application of the sailsbury convention to minority govts
2. expertise: lord Krebs, a zoologist, chaired the house of lords science and technology committee
3. Joint commitee with hoc on human rights were very influential in the safety of rwanda debate

Question 6

3- committees- against

Answer 6

the impact of committes are limited and they have no enforcement power

1. despite lords objections, the safety of rwanda act still passed
2. lords cannot directly interrogate govt through questions, so the hoc are more effective at this e.g privelidges committee found johnson was in contempt of parliament

overall, all they have is ‘soft power, and this is insufficient as a check on govt