HOL is Ineffective Flashcards
Reasons for ineffectiveness of the HOL
unelected second chamber
very little legislative power
not representative and don’t reflect society
many peers do not turn up to debates or only turn up to collect their expenses cheque.
Unelected second chamber
Many suggest legitimacy can only be gained through election.
This can be seen as very undemocratic as the people of Britain do not have a say in who sits in the chamber that is in the Parliament responsible for their country.
The Lords cannot be held accountable by the electorate as they do not have to rely on getting re-elected. This unelected nature weakens its role entirely and the chamber may lack support from the public.
Little legislative power
Even though they spend 60% of their time reviewing legislation it’s powers are weak as they cannot kill a bill
they can merely delay a it for 12 months or send it back to the commons for amendments to be made.
They also cannot touch any of the Bills concerning money.
If the Government and the Lords clash on a Bill, it can be passed by the House of Commons without incorporating the Lords suggestions if the Commons wait one year to pass it. (Parliament Act of 1949.)
An example of this is the Government of Ireland Act in 1914 which were both rejected by the Lords but were able to be passed by the Government anyway.
Not representative and don’t reflect society
The House is said to be full of old aristocrats.
Ex Conservative PM Harold Macmillan stated he “sticks out like a sore thumb in most places, but not in the House of Lords.”
The 92 hereditary peers previously have only been in the chamber solely due to their birth. A proportionately representative chamber would be a lot more representative of the electorate
Socially, the House of Lords still represents the educated, wealthy and privileged, which is not representative of the population as a whole and the working class is under represented.
The fact that there remain 26 Anglican Clergy suggests that the system is not representative of multi cultural and multi faith Britain.
many peers do not turn up to debates or only turn up to collect their expenses cheque
Nothing compels peers to attend the Lords and they are often very busy in their own careers. They therefore cannot commit to the amount of time to work effectively as a peer.
Peers will only turn up for debates that they are on an expert on and many feel inadequately qualified for debates they are unsure of.
In the case of manifesto commitments, the Salisbury convention requires that the lords will never frustrate the will of the elected house, which makes the Lords less effective.
