House of Lords v House of Commons Flashcards
arguments to suggest that the House of Lords can act as a check on the powers of the House of Commons
being unelected enables it to be an effective check on the powers of the Commons
possesses many powers that enable it to be an effective check on the Commons
far more representative and contains a wide range of people with different experiences and occupations, enabling it to effectively scrutinise the Commons
arguments to suggest that the House of Lords cannot act as a check on the powers of the House of Commons
being unelected means they lack the democratic legitimacy to hold the Commons to account
lacks the power to be an effective check on the Commons
still largely unrepresentative, which restricts its ability to act as a check on the powers of the elected Commons
being unelected enables it to be an effective check on the powers of the Commons
being unelected has some strengths in terms of holding the government to account
any further reform would restrict their ability to hold the executive to account, the fact that they are unelected enables them to be a very effective check on government and the reforms that have already taken place have led them to become more assertive
the House of Lords, in particular, can be said to be a very effective check on the executive because the party whip is considerably weaker and less influential, meaning that they are freer from party control and can focus more on being an effective check on the executive
this is because once a Lord is appointed they hold that position for life and do not need to stand for re-election every 5 years
in other words, they are not under as much pressure to obey the party whip and align with their party because their careers are not on the line and do not depend on obedience
therefore, the Lords can operate more freely and be an effective check without fear of the consequences on their careers - being elected would eliminate this power
examples of the Lords being an effective check on the Commons
the Labour government from 1999-2010 suffered more than 450 defeats in the Lords
the upper house is also becoming more independent and willing to oppose the government which could be because of the Blair reforms, including the removal of hereditary peers in 1999 which has made them more legitimate and democratic so as a result, they feel more confident in scrutinising the government
for example, in 2015, the Lords voted to delay planned cuts to tax credits and compensate those affected which raised a constitutional issue because tax credits are a financial issue that the Lords should not be involved in as the Commons has financial privilege over them
however, the Lords still voted to delay and as a result the government decided to review the cuts and listen to the concerns of the Lords, which illustrates just how effective the House of Lords can be as a check on the executive
this suggests that current reform has been enough to make the house of lords more willing to scrutinise the government and any more reform would weaken their ability to fulfil this role
being unelected means they lack the democratic legitimacy to hold the Commons to account
the HOL is still unelected and undemocratic – restricts their ability to act as a check on the powers of the Commons as they lack democratic legitimacy, needs further reform
the government ended the right of most hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, but there are still 92 hereditary peers left
rather than get rid of all hereditary peers the government had to compromise as the Lords threatened to use their powers to obstruct and delay reform and no agreement was made on making the Lords wholly or partly elected, so it continues to lack democratic legitimacy
under the coalition government of 2010-15, some democratisation of the House of Lords took place but this process remains incomplete
it is unfair that unelected forces are able to intervene with the elected representatives, who have the backing of the people
the Lords is an unelected and thus unaccountable body, it is not elected by the people and does not have their consent, so does not have to face the public at general elections every 5 years like the House of Commons does
in other words, as their positions are guaranteed for life and do not depend on being viewed positively by the people, the Lords can theoretically act however they please without fear of repercussions for their careers
possesses many powers that enable it to be an effective check on the Commons
does not need major reform to its powers, it has sufficient powers and more power would be undemocratic as they are unelected (as discussed above)
acts mainly as a revising chamber, proposing amendments to government legislation, the government can either accept or reject these amendments
possesses the power to delay non-financial legislation for up to a year according to the 1949 Parliament Act
the House of Lords retains its veto if the government was attempting to prolong the life of a parliament beyond the legal maximum of five years — the Lords can force it to hold a general election if such a situation was to arise
three main roles — questions and scrutinises the government, shapes laws (works with the House of Commons) and investigates issues (committees examine bills, etc)
no time limit for them to consider bills
lacks the power to be an effective check on the Commons
backs down due to being unelected
arguably, further reform needs to take place to enable them to have more powers to hold the executive to account
the House of Lords tends to back down as they are not democratically legitimate and want to avoid conflict with the elected government
this was seen in 2017 when after detailed scrutiny, they voted on amendments to the EU bill that had been previously voted down in the Commons regarding residency rights of EU citizens in the UK and a pledge to ensure that Parliament has a vote on the final Brexit deal
however, the Lords eventually backed down and the bill was passed without the amendments as many Lords felt that they did not have the right to pressure the government in such a way, which demonstrates limits on their powers to be an effective check
perhaps making them elected will make them better able and more willing to challenge the executive as they will be democratically legitimate
lacks the power to be an effective check on the Commons
other limits on the power of the Lords
other limits on the Lords’ ability to check the executive include the Salisbury Convention, which states that the Lords cannot oppose policies included in the government’s manifesto as that government has mandate to implement those policies following the win of the general election
moreover, the government can usually use its majority to overturn critical Lords amendments and if the upper house maintains its opposition then the government can use the Parliament Act to force a bill through
this was used three times by Blair, including in 2004 in regard to banning hunting with dogs
far more representative and contains a wide range of people with different experiences and occupations, enabling it to effectively scrutinise the Commons
it can be argued that the Lords is still far more representative than the Commons in terms of types of professions and occupations represented
many different people with various occupations and skills sit in the House of Lords (e.g. doctors, actors, etc) — the upper house represents areas of interest rather than regions like the House of Commons
the Lords also contains many ‘People’s Peers’, such as Lord Bird
being a People’s Peer means he has been chosen by an independent panel/commission to bring wider experience into the House of Lords
he founded the Big Issue, advocates housing and helps the homeless, providing a lot of experience and knowledge on a specialist subject to the upper house
this suggests that Lords does not need major reform, maybe some steps need to be taken to make it more representative but overall it is still effective in carrying out its role
still largely unrepresentative, which restricts its ability to act as a check on the powers of the elected Commons
needs major reform to make it more representative of the general public – restricts their ability to hold the government to account as they are often criticised for being unrepresentative and therefore not in the best position to hold the gov to account
the Lords is responsible for shaping legislation and even delaying it, but this important role is carried out by a huge and unwieldy body made up of mainly elderly and mainly white men
it is unrepresentative of the population it is supposed to serve: over 50% of the House of Lords are over 70, 20% are over 80, while only 4% are under 50, 75% of peers are male and only around 5% are from ethnic minority backgrounds
at the same time, the House of Commons is drawn from an ever-narrowing range of backgrounds – this makes having a representative House of Lords very important as the Lords should compensate for the deficiencies in the membership of the Commons rather than amplify them
largely unrepresentative of the general public, with the average Lord being a white man over 70 and only 1 in 4 Lords being female — there are around 200 female peers but 800 male peers
yet despite their unrepresentative and unelected nature, the Lords still wield significant powers and often challenge the elected government, playing a huge part in decision making (e.g. Tax Credits)
