Parliament Flashcards
Evaluate the view that Parliament is able effectively to call government to account (House of Lords)
The House of Lords Act 1999 reduced the membership of the Lords from 1,330 to 669 mainly life peers, removed the right to inherit a seat, and removed all but 92 hereditary peers.
Thus, since this reform, the Lords has become increasingly assertive.
As a result, between 2005 and 2010, the government suffered 175 defeats in the Lords.
However, Cameron, irritated by this series of government defeats decided to appoint 189 peers in his 6-years as PM, a faster rate of elevation than any PM in British history, in order to tip the chamber balance into the Tory favour. As a result, the Conservative Party possessed the most peers (at 243) in the Lords out of all the other parties
Thus, as a result, the 2010-15 Parliament saw rather fewer occasions when the government had lost votes at only 80, signifying its weaker effectiveness at scrutinising the executive.
Evaluate the view that Parliament is able effectively to call government to account (House of Lords) Evaluation
Despite the fact that 243 life peers are Conservative, 183 are cross-benchers with no political affiliation, and so aren’t under the influence of any particular party, ensuring that the Lord remains largely politically neutral in order to be most effective at scrutinising the government.
In addition, in her April 2017 announcement Theresa May cited the need to clamp down on the Lords’ opposition to Brexit as one of the reasons behind her decision to go to the polls.
Evaluate the view that Parliament is able effectively to call government to account (Select Committees)
Select committees are small groups of MPs or peers that are established to investigate a specific issue in detail. This allows them to call in officials and experts for questioning and can demand information from the government.
An example of successful scrutiny of government by a select committee was the Iraq Inquiry Committee (chaired by Lord Chilcot) which summoned over 150 witnesses, including ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, his Chancellor Gordon Brown, as well as former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
The report exposed the UK’s determination to join the invasion of Iraq before peaceful options had been exhausted, that there was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, and that British intelligence agencies produced “flawed information”.
In addition, the 2010 Wright Reforms recommended a series of procedural changes aimed at restoring the Commons’ authority over its own affairs in order for more effective government scrutiny.
One of the recommendations implemented by the coalition government in 2010 included the election of members and chairs of Select Committees by secret ballot.
This mean that party whips can no longer influence the appointment of Select Committee members or, importantly, their chairs.
Hence, the effectiveness of government scrutiny by the select committees has improved since 2010 considering that their appointments are no longer subject to external influence which can manipulate the scrutinisation process into its favour.
Evaluate the view that Parliament is able effectively to call government to account (Select Committees) Evaluation
The government has 60-days to respond to reports, but is not compelled to take up any recommendations. For example, in response to the Environmental Audit Committee report on Pollinators and Pesticides, the Conservative government rejected the scientific case for a ban on pesticides, linked to bee decline.
In addition, the turnover of members damages committee effectiveness.
The Defence Committee saw an 83% turnover during 2010-15. Consequently, replacements may not be fully informed or motivated, meaning that the level of effective scrutiny may suffer as a result.
Evaluate the view that Parliament is able effectively to call government to account (Opposition and backbenchers)
John Bercow was first elected Commons Speaker in 2009, after pledging to give his backbenchers more opportunity to hold the government into account. Almost immediately, he began granting Urgent Questions far more frequently- allowing MPs to summon ministers to the despatch box to answer questions on an urgent matter the same day.
Thus, scrutiny of the government has arguably become much more effective as there were 73 UQs granted in 2016-17, compared to just 9 in 2006-7, when Michael Martin was Speaker.
In April 2018, Labour MP Diane Abbott asked Home Secretary Amber Rudd if she would make a statement about the use of removal targets in the Home Office, after documents revealed targets were set for voluntary removals. Hence, following her initial insistence that there were no targets, she declared that the Home Office had been using “local targets for internal performance management”.
Thus, having been exposed for her knowledge of these deportation targets, calls for Rudd’s resignation culminated to the point that she was forced to resign at the end of the month.
Hence, Urgent Questions are extremely effective in scrutinising the government.
Evaluate the view that Parliament is able effectively to call government to account (Opposition and backbenchers) Evaluation
Opposition Day motions are arguably futile attempts at holding the government into account by the opposition as the party-in-government often abstains (meaning that they aren’t classed as government defeats), rendering the motions meaningless; this is consolidated by the fact that the government isn’t bound to legislate them.
Conversely however, attitudes towards OD motions have drastically shifted recently, especially since Keir Starmer deployed an arcane parliamentary procedure known as a “humble address” in November 2018 to force the government to release what they had hoped would be assessments into the likely impact of Brexit on the UK economy. This kickstarted a chain of events which resulted in the government found being in contempt of Parliament for the first time in history as the Conservatives had refused to disclose legal advice on Brexit.
Highly effective mode of scrutiny which deeply embarrassed the Conservative Party in the process.
Evaluate the view that the House of Lords performs a meaningful role in UK democracy (Legislation)
The House of Lords shares responsibility for making laws with the House of Commons, as bills have to go through various stages in both houses before they become laws. It examines and revises bills from the Commons, carefully checking government proposals and making changes through debate on amendments.
The House of Lords Act 1999 reduced the membership of the Lords from 1,330 to 669 mainly life peers, removed the right to inherit a seat, and removed all but 92 hereditary peers.
Thus, since this reform, the Lords has become increasingly assertive, and a result, between 2005 and 2010, the government suffered 175 defeats in the Lords.
Evaluate the view that the House of Lords performs a meaningful role in UK democracy (Legislation) Evaluation
Cameron, irritated by this series of government defeats decided to appoint 189 peers in his 6-years as PM, a faster rate of elevation than any PM in British history, in order to tip the chamber balance into the Tory favour.
As a result, the Conservative Party possessed the most peers (at 243) in the Lords out of all the other parties.
Consequently, the 2010-15 Parliament saw rather fewer occasions when the government had lost votes at only 80, however, the recognition of its increased assertiveness by the PM is evidence that the Lords performs a meaningful role in UK democracy.
Evaluate the view that the House of Lords performs a meaningful role in UK democracy (Legislation) Counter-evaluation
The Parliament Act 1911 and 1949 made the lords less powerful than the Commons, preventing the Lords from rejecting legislation and only allowing them to delay for a year.
In addition to this, any Lords amendments that are rejected 3 times by the Commons become ineffective. For example, in 2012, the Lords returned the Welfare reform act to the Commons with 7 amendments, all of which were defeated.
Evaluate the view that the House of Lords performs a meaningful role in UK democracy (Expertise)
The expertise of its members is often cited as one of the most distinctive features of the House of Lords. Peers, it has been claimed, bring professional experience and expertise to the scrutiny of legislation. As a result of this presumed expertise, debates in the Lords have been credited as more informed than in the Commons as a result also.
In addition to this, the value of these expertise are also transferred to the Lords select committees who investigate public policy, proposed laws and government activity.
An example of this is the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by Michael Forsyth who has expertise in corporate finance and investment banking.
Evaluate the view that the House of Lords performs a meaningful role in UK democracy (Expertise) Evaluation
House of Commons select committees have grown in influence and authority, are arguably more important that Lords select committees. Since the Wright Reforms of 2010, they have become much more effective in scrutinising the government.
For example, the Health Committee brought about changes to the 2010-15 coalition’s Health and Social Care Bill.
In addition to this, Margaret Hodge, while chairing the Public Accounts Committee, called Starbucks and other firms to account over the amount of tax they pay.
In the House of Lords, there are no departmental select committees in the Lords to scrutinise the Government in this powerful manner
Evaluate the view that the House of Lords performs a meaningful role in UK democracy (Independent nature)
Despite the fact that 243 peers are Conservative, 183 are crossbenchers with no political affiliation, and so aren’t under the influence of any particular party, ensuring that the Lord remains largely politically neutral in order to be most effective at scrutinising the government.
In addition, in her April 2017 announcement Theresa May cited the need to clamp down on the Lords’ opposition to Brexit as one of the reasons behind her decision to go to the polls. Thus, despite the fact that the Conservatives are the largest party in the Lords, Conservative peers are freer to act against their party establishment by voting against them more frequently in comparison to their Commons counterparts.
For example, between 2010 and 2012, the Lords defeated the coalition 48 times, while the Commons did not defeat the executive on any proposed legislation
Evaluate the view that the House of Lords performs a meaningful role in UK democracy (Independent nature) Evaluation
The Lords is still not certainly less driven by partisan politics. Just like in the Commons, a strong whipping system exists in the Lords, and has meant that 70% of peers took a party whip in the 2016/17 session.
In addition, despite the fact that almost a quarter of Lords are crossbenchers with no political affiliation, this does little to improve the independence of the Lords considering that only 41% of them voted fewer than 10 times in 2016/17
