Evaluate the view that the House of Lords has less power than the House of Commons

Question 1

INTRO

Answer 1

talk about relationship between two

commons is effective lords is dignified (Bagehot)

Question 2

LoA

Answer 2

House of Lords is less powerful than the commons

Question 3

Para 1 theme?

Answer 3

power of delay

Question 4

para 2 theme?

Answer 4

scrutiny

Question 5

para 3 theme?

Answer 5

unelected

Question 6

para 1 - delay

Answer 6

• The House of Lords can only delay non-financial legislation for one year due to the 1949 parliament act = delay in the fox hunting act 2004.
  
  • The House of Commons is the chamber that deals with taxation and public expenditure and although the Lords can debate money bills they cannot interfere with them, meaning the commons retain complete financial sovereignty over the Lords.
    Any Lords amendments that are rejected three times by the commons become ineffective e.g. in 2012 the Lords returned the Welfare Reform act to the Commons with seven amendments, all the amendments were defeated

Question 7

para 1 - however

Answer 7

• The government has lost some legislation in the Lords
  
  • Some controversial pieces of legislation have been effectively dealt with in the Lords e.g. tax credits, NHS reform, welfare reform.
  • The Lords also defeated the government in 2012 over tis welfare reform act and in 2013 over its plans to cut legal aid
    The Lords defeated government 14 times over Brexit legislation

Question 8

para 1 rebuttal

Answer 8

• Commons retains legislative superiority - can use the parliament act to force a bill through, although this is very rare. Blair used it when changing the voting system for European Parliament election (1999), equalising the the age of consent for gay and straight people (2000) and banning hunting with dogs (2004)
  Furthermore, the existence of the Salisbury convention means that the Lords is unlikely to be confrontational in the face of the commons.

Question 9

para 2 - scrutiny

Answer 9

• The HofL acts mainly as a revising chamber, proposing amendments to government legislation, which it is up to the government decide whether to accept or reject.
  
  • In comparison to the House of Commons it is ineffective at scrutinising. PMQs and ministerial question time only happen in the Commons, while there are only government spokespeople in the Lords. For example, over party gate, Boris faced continuous amounts of questions during PMQs and was scrutinised from the commons and nothing from the Lords
  • MPs must respond within a week to MPs written questions, but two weeks to peers - shows balance and significance

Question 10

para 2 - however

Answer 10

• Lords spend most of the time scrutinising legislation, unlike MPs in the commons. Between 2010 and 2015, for example, the Lords voted against reforms to constituency boundaries, the NHS, the House of Lords, the Alternative Vote referendums and caps on welfare payments
  Furthermore, Lords are appointed due to their expertise. For example, Lord Walton, the former president of the BMA and Lord Hogan-Howe, the ex police chief

Question 11

para 2 - rebuttal

Answer 11

• The House of Lords is merely advisory and the government does not have to listen to them
  In comparison to the Commons whose scrutiny can make real change e.g. Health Committee brought about changes to the coalition’s health and social care bill

Question 12

para 3 - unelected

Answer 12

• The House of Lords are unelected, meaning they are illegitimate and have less powerful as they lack a mandate. This is where the Salisbury Convention carries a lot of weight, as an unelected body it is not allowed to question the election promises of the elected body.
  This means they cannot legitimise as they are not directly elected.

Question 13

para 3 - however

Answer 13

• The House of Lords are experienced and specialise in areas, such as aforementioned Lord Walton and Lord Hogan-Howe
  
  • Party discipline is weaker in Lords so it is more independent. They have a large number of cross-benchers, so more freedom for peers to debate and express their own views. in 2016 over the dubs amendment on child refugees, in 2012 by voting against a £26,000 benefit cap.
  • The removal of most hereditary peers in 1999 have provided more legitimacy, whilst also removing the Conservative dominance from the House
    Cross bench peer Lord Owen, a former doctor, played a leading role in opposing the coalition government’s controversial health and social care bill

Question 14

para 3 - rebuttal

Answer 14

• Being unelected means it cannot question the legitimacy of the Commons - Salisbury convention
  
  • Although there are a large number of cross benchers, this means very little as they are still unable to question Parliament