House of Lords Flashcards
How is a member of the HoL appointed?
-Up until 1999, majority of the members were hereditary peers, who had inherited a seat due to them inheriting a title: the Lords Act 1999- reduced the number of hereditary peers to 92, the vast majority of lords were made up of life peers- appointed by the PM for various reasons e.g showing extreme loyalty to a certain party, special achievement in their field.
Legislation
*the Lords must pass a bill before it becomes law
*they can scrutinise proposed legislation
*they can amend legislation
*Parliament Acts 1911 + 1949- the HoL can only delay bills for up to a year. 1911 one, removed their power to veto most legislation
Scrutiny of govt
*cannot scrutinise the actual government but effectively scrutinise legislative made by the government
*many members who are experts in a certain field
*in the committee stage of a bill, when any peer can debate the bill or propose amendments and clauses which could even force the government to drop the bill.
*The HoL submits written questions to the govt e.g between 2016-2017 over 7000 written and spoken questions were given to the govt
*Life peerages mean that Lords don’t have to worry about losing their position, if they disobey a whip
*Lords don’t have constituencies= more time to scrutinise govt
Representation
*The HoL contains peers who represent people in society that are less well represented in public life.
*They represent a range of people who are specialists and experts in certain fields
*Represent different political views: Cons=250 peers, Labour=187 + LibDems= 98
Investigating public policy
*Select committees in the HoL conduct investigations in policy areas by hearing evidence from a range of people e.g experts in the policy area.
-From 2016-2017 the HoL produced 41 reports on areas such as Brexit and autonomous vehicles.
How has the HoL become more assertive?
-Under New Labour the life peers were more likely to defeat govt because they’ve got experience, expertise, autonomy/independence + are more likely to speak out. Removed all but 92 hereditary peers so they got rid of the in-built conservative majority
-Stood up against govt on Brexit as there was a weak mandate for brexit- defend the rights of those who didn’t vote, complex change required scrutiny, after 2019 election + large commons majority, HoL felt the need to challenge govt.
-More recently, Sunak faced challenges w/ the lords because he has a weak mandate, his policies haven’t been ‘tested’ by the electorate in a general election–> HoL more likely to challenge. E.g July 2023, the Lords inflicted 20 defeats on the govt flagship illegal migration bill.
Strengths
+No govt majority in lords since 1999 reform- much more willing to challenge govt and scrutinise effectively + since then have become more relevant in media/public eye.
+More independent- especially corssbench peers. Whips have little power, as peers have their job for life and don’t seek promotion, cannot be sacked or demoted.
+Lords have more time/scope to scrutinise than the Commons- debates are less controlled + Lords select committees look at wide-ranging issues e.g Human rights.
+More expertise with which scrutinise govt- can point out flaws and failings with a great deal of authority e.g Lord Dubs on child refugees.
Limitations
-Salisbury Convention + parliament act limits lords- interventions can still be easily dismissed by govt, and the lords generally concedes to commons wishes
-Not all peers are independent i.e political appointments, ‘cronies’. This weakens Lords’ legitimacy- less able to ‘cut through’ with public
-Many debates are poorly attended- not all ministers regularly attend/vote.
-Much of the public are still unaware of the expertise and work carried out by working peers- limits authority to challenge govt.
