Exam Q - Constitutional change since 1997 - House of Commons and Lords Reform Flashcards
Democratisation
Labour Reform of the House of Lords 1997
- Wanted radical reform.
+ Stage 1: Removal of hereditary peers and voting rights. An all-appointed chamber of life peers and Church of England bishops.
+ Stage 2: Elected or partly-elected chamber - ran into more obstruction and a lack of political consensus - taken off the agenda.
House of Lords Act 1999
- Reduced the number of hereditary peers but compromised to allow 92 to retain their seats.
- Now, a high proportion of the membership were life peers - appointed based on their knowledge in their specific area (Lord Sugar and Lloyd Webber), becoming a more professional and efficient body to scrutinise legislation.
- General membership dropped from 1,360 to 669.
Labour Reforms
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005
- An independent Supreme Court was established, separate from the House of Lords and with its own independent appointments system, staff, budget and building.
- An independent Judicial Appointments Commission was created with responsibility for selecting candidates to recommend for judicial appointment to the Secretary of State for Justice.
Was the reform of the House of Lords under Labour more democratic?
Yes:
- Separated the judiciary from the Lords - independent and neutral.
- High proportion now earned their title by merit rather than birth - slightly democratic.
- Became a more professional, knowledgeable and efficient body - scrutinise legislation.
- Became more assertive and confident to challenge the govt than career MPs in Commons, as election would reduce expertise.
No:
- Lords obstructed further reform - compromised by allowing 92 HP but the membership remains unelected.
- Only the Church is recognised in the Lords by allowing 26 bishops.
- No radical change of powers.
House of Lords Reform under the Coalition Government
House of Lords Reform Act 2014
- Allows Lord members to resign and retire - before, the only way to leave their title was to pass away.
- Before MPs, could remain a member of HOL whilst in prison (couldn’t force the person to leave) - happened with Geoffery Archer.
Was the reform of the House of Lords under Coalition government more democratic?
No/Yes:
- No large increase of democracy, remains unelected and therefore unrepresentative.
- However, the Lords are held accountable for poor behaviour - e.g if jailed like Geoffery Archer, they risk loosing the benefit of being a life peer of the House of Lords.
House of Commons Reform under Labour
- Created the Backbench Business Committee in 2010 - power to scrutinise the Govt’s work.
- MPs control 20 parliamentary days to debate issues of their choosing - small increase in Backbench influence and control.
- Introduce a system for electing members of select committees - the election of members (by other MPs) increased independence of mind and action.
Was the reform of the House of Commons under Labour more democratic?
Gradual but superficial reform - no quick effect.
Yes:
+ Party leaders can elect select committee members and other MPs helped increase independence of mind and action.
+ MPs controlling 20 parliament days to discuss BB and public issues - increase backbencher’s control.
No:
+ Not enough number of days.
Coalition Reform of the House of Commons
Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011
+ An election could only be triggered out of the normal five-year parliamentary cycle by two scenarios:
- The govt lost a vote of no confidence or 2/3 of the House of Commons voted in favour of one.
- Removed the PM’s prerogative power to call a general election whenever they want to, removing the advantage to surprise the opposition with a snap election.
Was the reform of the House of Commons under the coalition government more democratic?
Yes:
+ Coalition govt must collaborate - increases stability.
+ Weakens PM’s powers.
No:
+ Electorate looses opportunities to vote more, as other countries have elections every four, not five years.
Conservative Reforms (2015-present)
The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
Repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA) and made the maximum term of a Parliament (rather than the period between general elections) five years.
