Parliament - HOL + HOC, LAW-MAKING Flashcards

Question

Explain the function of scrutiny and revision of legislation as function of the house of lords

Answer 1

The Lords does not really legitimise legislation. While it is true that any legislative bill must be passed by the Lords before becoming law, this does not mean that the Lords is granting consent as the Commons does. It does, however, give the Lords the opportunity to scrutinise proposed legislation, to give its opinion, possibly to ask the government and Commons to think again and possibly to amend and improve proposals. The HoL have much expertise who represent important interests and causes in society, so when scrutinising legislative proposals, they have much to offer and their advice is politically influential. However, the main way in which the Lords carry out scrutiny is through the ‘committee stage’ of a bill where they may table amendments – this is possibly the key role of the HoL. The committee stage often improves legislation, adds clauses that protect vulnerable minorities, clarifies meaning and removes sections that will not operate effectively. Heavy defeats in the HoL may even persuade the government to reconsider whether to revise or even continue with the legislation, particularly if it only passed the HoC with a small minority and the legislation is clearly controversial: · In 2008, clauses in the Counter Terrorism Bill to enable terror suspects to be held for 42 days without charge were decisively defeated in the Lords by 191 votes. Since these proposals had only passed the Commons by nine votes, Gordon Brown decided to drop them from the bill. · The way in which the HoL voted in favour of a number of far-reaching amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill was especially important in focusing Theresa May’s government on a softer Brexit. This is because, as PM of a minority government, she was not sure of the support of the HoC to overturn these amendments. However, as a result of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, te government can still pass legislation over the objections of the HoL. In 2000, for example, the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 2000, which refused the legal age for gay sex from 18 to 16, easily passed the HoC. The Lords’ opposition to the bill was overridden when the government invoked the 1911 and 1949 Acts to give the bill royal assent, effectively bypassing the Lords.

Answer 2

The Lords have the power to delay a piece of legislation for one year. When it does this, it is basically saying to government – ‘Think again. We do not have the power to stop it, but we have serious reservations about your proposal and want you to reconsider.

Answer 3

Most legislation emerging from government is actually secondary legislation – sometimes called delegated legislation. Primary legislation means important laws that need parliamentary approval, while secondary legislation refers to any law making or changes to the law that are being made by any members of government which do not need to pass through normal parliamentary procedures. These are more minor or specialised aspects of law and regulations that ministers make because they have been previously granted the power to do so according to parliamentary statute. In other words, parliament has delegated powers to ministers. Most of this legislation takes the form of statutory instruments: these are used to create laws but are not considered by Parliament, so there is little or no scrutiny and few checks on their use or quality. However, the HoL, has the time and expertise to consider all such legislation and decides what proposals might cause concern. Where concern is expressed, the matter is brought to the attention of the whole house and from there referred to the Commons. Such referrals are rare, but they do provide an important discipline on government. Members of the HoL also share in the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which checks secondary legislation for errors in wording and meaning. This role is one where the Lords can claim to be more important than the Commons. A key example of the HoL performing this function occurred in October 2015, when the Lords voted against a piece of secondary legislation which would have reduced the level of tax credits paid to low-income families. This action forced the government to amend the legislation until it was acceptable to peers.

Answer 4

One of the most important functions of the HoL is to debate national issues. This can help significantly raise the profile of an issue. The Lords tends to specialise in issues that have a moral or ethical dimension. In recent years, the Lords has held debates on such issues as assisted suicide, control of pornography, treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, stem cell research and the use of genetically modified (GM) crops. Such debates do not normally result in decisions but help to inform decisionmakers, especially as the Lords contains so many experts in these fields. In 2018 for example, following the killing of a large number of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by Israeli military forces, Lord Steel proposed a debate, ‘that this House takes note of the situation in the Palestinian Territories’.

Answer 5

- since members of the HOL do no have the constituency duties as MPs, they can devote more of their time to scrutiny - The fact that they are not elected also means that they are more able to act independently since they are not so bound by their party's manifesto - The large number of crossbenchers also make it more difficult for a government to dominate the HOL - Although Pm appointments to the HOL have been accused to cronyism, it is important to appreciate that the vast majority of appointments are non-controversial. Most life peers appointed to the lords are there because of the achievements and the specialist understanding that they can offer. - HOL also offers a unique opportunity for former members of the HOC to continue in public service, enabling their accumulated political experience to be used to advise the government. Lord fowler served as Margaret Thatcher's secretary of state for health 1981-97. By explaining that HIV/AIDS could be passed on by any sexual encounter in the 'Don't die of ignorance' campaign, he made combatting it much more effective as well as disassociating Aids from being a 'gay epidemic'. As a member of the HOL, Fowler went on to chair a committee on HIV/AIDS in 2010-11 which reported that the government Aids-Prevention measures had become 'woefully inadequate'. In 2014, he wrote 'aids: don't die of prejudice' and in 2016, he was overwhelmingly elected as lord speaker.

Answer 6

The right to insist on legislation: in cases of conflict over legislation, the Lords should ultimately give way to the Commons. Financial privilege: The Lords cannot delay or amend money bills. The power to dismiss the executive: if the government is defeated on a motion of no confidence, it must resign.

Answer 7

The Salisbury Doctrine: Bills implementing manifesto commitments are not opposed by the Lords. Reasonable time: The Lords should consider government business within a reasonable time. Secondary legislation: The Lords does not usually object to secondary legislation. However, conventions do not have the force of law and, in order to operate smoothly, a shared understanding of their application is required. A parliamentary Joint Committee on Conventions (2006) supported the primacy of the Commons and the principles underpinning these conventions.

Answer 8

The HoL does not have a veto over legislation approved by the HoC. It can only delay most bills passed by the HoC for up to 1 year. Prior to 1911, it could block bills passed by the Commons indefinitely. The Parliament Act 1911 restricted this veto power to two parliamentary sessions (i.e. 2 years), which was subsequently reduced to 1 year by the Parliament Act 1949. These measures transformed the Lords from a veto chamber into a revising chamber. The Lords can propose amendments to bills passed by the HoC – which can accept, reject or introduce new amendments of its own, but it cannot force the Commons to accept its amendments. If the Commons refuses to accept the wishes of the Lords, the upper house is faced with the choice of backing down or blocking the bill from becoming law for 1 year. If it chooses the latter, the bill can still be passed unchanged in the following session of parliament without the consent of the Lords.

Answer 9

The HoL cannot delay or amend money or amend bills (also known as ‘supply bills’): that is, bills solely concerned with national taxation, loans or public money. The Parliament Act 1911 states that any bill certified by the speaker as a money bill which is not passed by the Lords unamended within 1 month can receive royal assent without the agreement of the Lords. Each year, an Appropriation Bill authorising government spending is passed by the HoC – for this bill the HoL stage is a purely formal one. Sections of the Finance Bill, which follows the chancellor of the exchequer’s budget announcement, are not normally challenged in the Lords even though the bill is not usually designated as a money bill. The Commons can also claim financial privilege when the Lords passes an amendment to legislation that has financial implications, such as creating new spending.

Answer 10

The government requires the confidence and supply of the HoC to remain in office. Supply refers to the authorisation of government spending by parliament. Traditionally, a government defeated on a key supply bill is expected is resign. The Commons can remove the government by defeating it in a motion of no confidence (also known as a vote of confidence) or a confidence motion. The Lords does not vote on confidence motions. Before 2011, defeat in the Commons on such a motion or on the Queen’s Speech would trigger the resignation of the government. There have been 23 votes of no confidence and 3 votes of confidence since 1945. The only government defeat on a motion of no confidence since 1924 occurred in March 1979, when James Callaghan’s Labour government lost by one vote. The Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 clarified and limited what is treated as a confidence motion. Only a Commons motion stating, ‘That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’ is now treated as motion of no confidence. If passed, and no alternative government is approved by the Commons within 14 days, parliament is dissolved and a general election is called.

Answer 11

This states that the HoL should not vote against a bill that seeks to enact a manifesto commitment of the governing party. The convention developed in the 1940s as an acceptance that the unelected Lords should not frustrate the will of the elected Commons - the general election victory gives the governing party the authority to implement the programme it presented to the electorate. However, a convention is not a law but relies on a prevailing understanding that may change. The Salisbury convention has come under strain, particularly when a minority or coalition government is in power – the Lords can claim that the government has not won sufficient support at the election to claim a democratic mandate to enact its manifesto commitments.

Answer 12

The government needs to get is legislative proposals through parliament in a reasonable time. Whereas the government has significant control of the parliamentary timetable in the HoC, it does not have this in the Lords. The convention emerged that the Lords should consider all government business within a reasonable time and should not deliberately overlook or delay consideration of government bills – ensuring that they are passed by the end of the session. HoL reform proposals have stated that a 60-day limit should be introduced, but critics claim this would weaken parliamentary scrutiny.

Answer 13

Parliament delegates to ministers the authority to issue secondary legislation which brings into force or amends part of an Act. The Parliament Acts do not cover secondary legislation, but it is a convention that the HoL does not usually reject it. In 2015, the HoL amended two regulations on tax credits and the government responded by establishing the Strathclyde review of the primacy of the Commons in the area. The review recommended that the Commons should be able to override any Lords vote to reject secondary legislation. But the May government announced that it had no plans to curb the power of the HoL.

Answer 14

- examination and approval of the financial affairs of the government - complete veto of legislation in certain circumstances - dismissal of a government by a vote of no confidence - select committee examination of the work of government departments - final approval for amendments to legislation

Answer 15

- debating legislation and voting on legislative proposals - proposing amendments to legislation - calling government and individuals ministers to account - debating key issues of the day - private members may introduce legislation on their own

Answer 16

- examining secondary legislation and making recommendations for further consideration - delaying primary legislation for up to 1 year

Answer 17

the house of commons: - has sovereign powers - can veto legislation outright - remains sovereign even when the government has a mandate from the electorate - can dismiss a government - has potential control over public finance - MPs can defy the party whips if they choose - Has the final say on legislative amendments the house of lords: - lacks democratic legitimacy - can only delay legislation by 1 year at most - cannot obstruct the government's manifesto commitments - cannot dismiss a government with a vote of no confidence - cannot regulate financial affairs - is constrained by the threat of reform and even abolition - can propose amendments but can be overruled by the house of commons

Answer 18

since the removal of most hereditary peers in 1999, the HOL has become more assertive in the legislative process. It blocked the sexual offences (Amendment) Act 2000 and the hunting act 2004, forcing the government to employ the parliament act in the following session. This has lead to government defeats in the lords becoming more frequent: - the Blair-Brown governments were defeated only 7 times in the house of commons, but more than 400 times in the house of lords - The coalition government suffered 99 defeats in the lords, notably on judicial matters and welfare reform - In 2015-2016 alone, the conservative government was defeated on 60 votes.

Answer 19

- Party balance - Enhanced legitimacy - Government mandate - Supports from MPs

Answer 20

Party balance - No party has a majority in the HOL, so governments must win cross-party support for their legislation. The votes of the LD peers proved crucial under Labour (1999-2010) & the conservatives (2015-); of they vote with the opposition, the government face defeat. The government is most likely to give ground when its own peers rebel or abstain.

Answer 21

Enhanced legitimacy - the reformed lords is more confident of its legitimacy and more willing to flex its muscles on legal and constitutional issues

Answer 22

Government mandate - Peers have questioned whether the Salisbury doctrine should apply in periods of coalition or when the governing party wins the support of less than a third of the electorate.

Answer 23

Support from MPs - The lords has been most effective in forcing the government to amend its proposals when MPs, particularly backbenchers from the governing party, support their amendments

Answer 24

- The House of Lords Act 1999, and subsequent reform proposals, focused primarily on the composition of the Lords rather than its relationship with the Commons, but changes in membership affect the legitimacy and powers of the Lords. - Supporters of a wholly or mainly elected upper house claim that only elections bring legitimacy and that an elected house would be better able to challenge executive power. If proportional representation were used, no single party would dominate and long, non-renewable terms in office would encourage members to be independent. - Those favouring an appointed house note that the Lords has a different role to the Commons. It is a revising chamber which has more time to scrutinise and are not constrained by concerns about re-election. An elected upper house, critics argue, would produce competing claims of legitimacy, creating a rival to the Commons and bringing legislative gridlock. They say wholly elected chamber would lose the independence of crossbenchers, and strengthen the role of parties.

Answer 25

YES = - A fully elected HoL would have the legitimacy that can only be derived from democratic elections. - It would be more confident in its work of scrutinising and amending government bills, thus improving the quality of the legislation. - If no party ahs a majority, as would be likely under proportional representation, it would challenge the dominance of the executive. - If elected by proportional representation, it would be more representative of the electorate. NO= - It would come into conflict with the HoC, as both Houses would claim democratic legitimacy. - Institutional conflict between two elected chambers with similar powers would produce legislative gridlock. - An appointed house would retain the expertise and independence of crossbench peers. - The problems associated with party control in the HoC would be duplicated in an elected upper house.

Answer 26

- An unelected legislature is simply not democratic. - Without elections members are not accountable for what they do. - Occasionally the HoL thwarts the will of the government and HoC without democratic legitimacy. - The appointment of life peers is open to abuse by party leaders, leading to charge of ‘cronyism’. Party leaders use appointment to the Lords as a way of securing loyalty and rewarding their allies (‘cronies’). - Too many members of the current HoL are not active or only semi active.

Answer 27

There have been several attempts to reform the HoL since the 1960s when a concerted effort by the Labour government of the day failed in 1968. Since then there has been a growing consensus that reform is need, but action has failed either because of a lack of political will or because there was no agreement on what should replace the existing arrangement. The debate wholly centres on the composition of a reformed chamber. There has been relatively little appetite for any significant change in the powers of the second chamber. This is for two reasons: - An increase in its powers would, it is feared, lead to an American style situation where legislating could become too difficult. In the US, the two legislative chambers have similar status and powers. This makes legislation complex, long-winded and very often too difficult. Furthermore, a more powerful second chamber would simply duplicate the work of the current HoC for no particular advantage. - If the second chamber had fewer powers than it currently exercises, the question would be asked, what is the point of it? So, the present powers of a second chamber are broadly supported.

Answer 28

A reformed second chamber would therefore continue to act as a safeguard against a government abusing authority and becoming an elective dictatorship without sufficient check by the HoC. It would also remain as a revising and delaying chamber.

Answer 29

- An all-appointed second chamber - An all-elected second chamber - A combination of the two - total abolition

Answer 30

- People with special experience and expertise could be recruited into the legislative process - The political make-up of an appointed body could be manipulated to act as a counterbalance to the government's HOC majority - Without the need to seek re-election, members would be more independent minded.

Answer 31

- an elected second chamber would be wholly democratic but which electoral system would be used: the composition of such a chamber would be greatly affected by the choice of system - if elected by some kind of proportional representation (PR), it would prevent a government having too much power - under PR, smaller parties and independent members would gain representation they cannot win through FPTP in the HOC

Answer 32

a second chamber that could enjoy the advantages of both alternatives e.g. all appointed and all elected

Answer 33

The supporters of this idea are most left-wing thinkers who see the second chamber as a means of perpetuating privilege and spreading excessive patronage. They also point to its expense and to the fact that is has very limited democratic functions. But, despite the apparent logic of these reasons, abolition is unlikely to happen. Most democratic states are bicameral, with good reasons. There are always occasions when a special safeguard is need against an alliance of government and a democratically elected legislature abusing their powers.

Answer 34

Parliament is the legislative branch or legislature, of a political system. This indicates that parliament's main function is making law. - A bill is a draft legislative proposal that is debated in parliament - When a bill has completed the legislative process and enters into law, it is known as an act of parliament

Answer 35

- private bills - private member bills - public bills

Answer 36

If an organisation, for example a local authority or a church wishes to take some action which the law currently forbids it from doing, it can apply for a private bill to be passed by parliament to allow it to go ahead. Often this concerns the building of roads or bridges or various new uses of land. The same process may also allow organisations to make compulsory purchases of land or buildings for a building project. - Private bills are not normally considered by either house as a whole but are considered by committees of one house or the other members of the public and other interested parties may give evidence to these committees or present petitions. It is rare for such legislation to attract publicity and the bills usually only concern private interests

Answer 37

Baroness Chakrabarti - Baroness Chakrabarti is a barrister and was director of civil liberties of pressure group liberty from 2003 to 2016. She often speaks on issues connected with civil liberties and women's rights Lord Winston - Lord Winston has been a member of the house of lords sine 1995. He is a professor, medical doctor, scientist, television presenter, labour peer and brilliant embryologist who pioneered in-vitro-fertilisation (IVF) in the 1970s. he has chaired the house of lords select committee on science and technology. Baron Shinkwin - Baron Shinkwin has worked for 20 years in the voluntary section, serving in various public affair roles such as Macmillan cancer research and the royal British legion and sits as a conservative life peer. He has secured reforms to coroners service for bereaved families and has been actively campaigning to advance the equal treatment of disabled people.

Answer 38

A prominent example of the lords being undemocratic and outdated in nature would be the fact that a proportion of peers are hereditary peers or are apart of the lord's spiritual who act in the capacity of a lord. This highlights the direct involvement of the church with the state which should not occur in modern multicultural British society as the anglican church only represents a strata of people and not the majority which is a key undemocratic element of the lords if they continue to be limited in their religious or non-religious representation. As well as this, the lords holding a disproportionate amount of power can be seen in the recent years where the media have reported on peers misusing their expenses or failing to participate fully in their duties with a famous example being Lord Paul who claimed over £47,000 of allowances for attending but only voted once or one peer claiming £25,000 without voting, while another claimed £41,000 but only voted once. This reinforces the idea that the lords does not provide any valuable contributions to the political system but rather acts as a preserve for the incompetent political elite which can have damaging consequences as some peers risk having their hard work discredited of the harmful wrongdoings of their colleagues. This has also led to questions on the effectiveness of the chamber and whether the chamber is needed in modern democracy or should be reformed as the chamber can be seen as a bloated, anachronistic and inefficient chamber that cannot perform its functions effectively

Answer 39

Private member bills are bills presented by individual or groups of MPs or peers. At the start of the year, members who wish to present such a bill enter their names in a ballot. Usually, seven bills are selected in this way. They are guaranteed at a least one reading. Such bills have virtually no choice of being turned into law. This is either because it is difficult to persuade enough MPs or peers to turn up for a debate and division ( a 'quarum' or minimum number is needed if the bill is to progress) or because is it opposed by the government However, if a bill attracts the attention of ministers and seems to be desirable, it may receive cross-party and government support. If it does, it will pass through the same procedures as a public or government bill. MPs and Peers know that their bills are unlikely to progress but use them to bring an issue to the attention of the government in the hope that ministers might take it up later

Answer 40

Most bills fall into the category of a public bill. They are presented by government and are expected to be passed without too much obstruction. Up to a year, before they are drafted and announced, they are normally preceded by a consultative green paper setting out options for the legislation and/or a white paper which summarises the proposal and explains the objectives of the government policy. Draft bills are scrutinised by a select committee or joint committee. At white paper stage a debate is held, and a vote taken. Any potential problems are identified and very occasionally, bills may be dropped if parliament has serious concerns. Assuming all goes well, the legislative process is pursued.

Answer 41

Most public bills start life in the house of commons, although occasionally bills may be introduced in the lords, especially if the commons is very busy. Whichever way the bill begins, they have to go through both houses if they are to become law. Normally, the lords will follow the lead of the commons and pass a bill without obstruction. The only occasions when the house of lords may be obstructive is if the government introduces a piece of legislation which is not part of its electoral mandate. Nevertheless, in recent years the Salisbury convention has become less important. In 2010-2015, the government did not enjoy an electoral mandate as it was a coalition of two parties. Since 2015 liberal democrat peers have suspended the Salisbury convention, largely because the government was elected on such a small popular vote. As a result, the lords have passed many amendments to legislation in defiance of government. However, in 2019 the conservatives were elected with an increased mandate to govern. If the house of lords proposes an amendment to legislation, it must go back to the commons, where it can be overturned. However, if the lords digs it heels and insists on an amendment, it may force the government and the commons majority into submission. This occurred in 2015, when a government proposal to cut the payments of tax credits was rejected in the lords and the government had to concede defeat. The house of lords can delay legislation for a year by forcing the house of commons to pass the same legislation in two consecutive sessions. This rarely results in a government defeat, but it does force the government and house of commons to think carefully before introducing controversial legislation

Answer 42

A bill can be introduced in either the house of commons or the house of lords. In whichever house it is introduced, it follows a similar route, as shown below: - first reading - second reading - committee stage - report stage - transfer - royal assent

Answer 43

the first reading stage is where a bill is introduced in either the house of commons or the house of lords. This stage is purely formal, is never challenged and designed to inform members that the bill is on the way/

Answer 44

the second reading stage is the most crucial stage. It is the main parliamentary debate on the principles of the legislation. It is followed by a vote or division. The party whips will request or order members of their party to vote in a particular way. The details are not discussed at this stage. The government expects to win this vote or virtually always does. A government defeat on the second reading would create at least a political problem. If it is a major piece of legislation it causes a political crisis. For very major pieces of legislation, such as the annual government budget, the committee stage may involve the whole house.

Answer 45

the committee stage is in the house of commons as a public bill committee is formed for each piece of legislation. These committees usually contain 18 members, chosen by the party whips. Their job is to consider the detail of bills. In each committee the government side has a majority, reflecting its strength in the whole house. This ensures that the government can win any votes at committee stage if it is determined. Defeats for the government are not unheard of at this stage but remain rare. Committees can call witnesses from interested parties and consider written evidence when considering the details of a bill. Each proposed change or amendment is voted on.

Answer 46

the report stage refers to when the whole house debates the whole bill again with all the amendments included. This is usually a formality

Answer 47

the transfer stage refers to if the bill started life in the commons, it is passed to the lords and follows the same procedures. if it started in the lords, it is passed to the commons

Answer 48

royal assent refers to when the monarch signs the bill, formally making it law. This stage is a formality and royal assent has not been refused since 1707.

Answer 49

- the role and significance of the opposition - the work of select committee - debate - the purpose and nature of ministerial question time, including PMQT - the role and significance of backbenchers

Answer 50

parliamentary privilege refers to the special privilege MPs and peers have when they are engaged in parliamentary business. The principle dates back to the bill of rights in 1689 and ensures that parliamentarians are free to raise any issue they wish in Westminster without the fear of being prosecuted or sued for libel or slander. This is a vital principle as it means that members can call government and ministers it account more effectively; they do not feel constrained but are free to criticise government and other agencies of the state. However, parliamentary privilege does not mean members can act exactly as they please but rather that parliamentary privilege means that both chambers regulate the behaviour of their members such as through discipling their members for using provocative language or abusing their position. They also should not gain any special financial advantage from their position as members. A key example of this principle occurred in 2009-10 where it was revealed that many members of both houses were abusing the system of expenses which was unregulated. This lead to a number of MPs being fined and several were forced to resign. However, in accordance with the parliamentary privilege, it was the leaders of the two houses who dealt with the problem rather than the criminal law. The conduct of members is also regulated by the parliamentary commissioner for standards. Conduct is also regulated by committees on conduct and the speakers of both houses

Answer 51

The opposition is the second largest party in the house of commons which is known as the official opposition or her majesty's most loyal opposition. Small parties are also part of the opposition, though with less privileges.

Answer 52

According to Edmund Burke, the conservative philosopher and MP: 'he that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens out skill. Our antagonist is out helper' which suggests that the opposition helps to not only hold the government accountable but strengthen the government. Burke encapsulates the importance of opposition parties in British politics as without a strong opposition, the government does not have to justify its policies and this encourages complacent and even incompetent governments. Therefore, the existence of a strong, effective opposition is central to the democratic workings of the government.

Answer 53

- to force the government to explain and justify its legislative programme, policies and decisions - use their frontbenchers to focus on the government department that they are shadowing and highlight the shortcomings of any policies and the way the government is running country - to present alternative proposals to those of the government if appropriate; - to make itself ready to be an alternative government if the current government is defeated at the next general election

Answer 54

- opposition parties have control over part of the parliamentary agenda as there are 20 days, known as 'opposition days', which are devoted to debates on issues chosen by the opposition. The 'official opposition' choose the motion for debate on 17 of these. - the opposition frontbench shadows the government frontbench and scrutinises its decisions. A strongly interrogative shadow minister has an important role in exposing the failings of government policy development and implementation - opposition MPs scrutinise proposed government legislation in public bill committees and offer amendments - if the government has a small/non-existence majority, opposition parties can also work closely with the more independent minded house of lords to uncover failures in government policy and to delay legislation. The large number of amendments which the house of lords made to the EU (withdrawal) bill, helped to encourage the opposition within the commons to a hard brexit - in parliamentary debate, for example on the budget and proposed government legislation, opposition parties play a very important role in forcing the government to justify its policies

Answer 55

Before 2015, the interplay between the government and opposition parties was relatively straightforward. However, after the 2015 general election, a weak government with a slim parliamentary majority was helped by a fragmented opposition. The labour party is split between its right and left wings and along with 56 SNP MPs plus assorted minor parties, presented an incoherent opposition. Jeremy corbyn has been hampered by the fact that he does not enjoy the support of a large proportion of his own party. In 2017, however the arrival of a minority government once again presented opportunities for the opposition parties to be an effective check on government. Unable to rely on the support of a parliamentary majority, the government has had to build a coalition of support for each initiative. Opposition members and the house of lords can exert influence over the government and have a genuine impact on policy

Answer 56

much of the work of parliament in calling the government is conducted by select committees. They focus on particular aspects of government work. They can escape the more formal, ritualized procedures of parliament and operate in a less formal, but more effective manner. All MPs other than government ministers must serve on legislative (public bill) committees from time to time, but not all sit on important select committees. There are many select committees in both houses, but the focus will be placed on those committees whose specific role is calling government to account

Answer 57

- a great strength of select committees is that MPs who make up their membership tend to be independent minded. They operate outside the normal constraints of party loyalty so that ministers and government officials increasingly have to take notice of what they say. Hearings are televised so that controversy receives media coverage. - select committees add an extra layer of scrutiny of the government as various select committees have become a growing part in parliament's role of demanding accountability. This is because the questioning of select committees can be intense and prolonged and MPs do not accept weak answers. Sometimes the hearings can resemble cross examination in a court of law. - they bring publicity to issues. call the government to account and recommend various courses of action

Answer 58

- all select committees in the commons suffer the same basic weaknesses - they do not have the power to enforce decisions and recommendations

Answer 59

The public account committee is the oldest and most influential of all parliamentary committees. Its role is to examine the public finances, it scrutinises the government and civil servants. by conducting investigations into various aspects of the government's finances, particularly how it allocates and spends public money on public services. It chairs and members are elected by all MPs and the chair is always a member of the main opposition party. Its members, despite being party supporters, always act independently ignoring their party allegiance. Its reports are often unanimous in their conclusions as the committees stands above party politics, It has a high profile in the media and many of its important hearings are broadcast news items. It gained more prominence under its chair, Margaret Hodge between 2010-2015 as she was determined to publicise major issues where the committee felt taxpayers were not getting value for money and called senior civil servants, ministers and outside witnesses to give evidence. The publicity forces the government to respond and therefore accountability is achieved.

Answer 60

Departmental select committees have existed 1979, there are 19 to investigate the work of each government department varying in 11-14 in size. The members are elected from the whole house and chair is elected by e committee – from any party. The governing party has a majority on each committee. Like the PAC: they act independently of party allegiance and often produce unanimous reports, they can call ministerial and external witnesses, their reports and recommendations are presented to the whole HoC and receive considerable publicity. . The impact and effectiveness of DSCs is growing alongside the PAC – the chairs have become important influential parliamentarians and governments now feel they need to respond to their criticisms and recommendations.

Answer 61

The liaison committee (TLC) which was created in its present form in 2002 and consists of the chairs of all the DSCs as well as several other SCs. . Its key role is to oversee the work of HoC SCs and to call the PM to account: twice a year the PM appears before TLC. It had been disappointing in its impact until 2016, when a Conservative Andrew Tyrie became its chair. He and the committee decided that the conduct of UK forces in Syria and the way drones are used should be scrutinised more effectively than had been done. With the current opposition fragmented and a small government majority, the committee will begin to have a great impact.

Answer 62

The backbench business committee (BBBC) was set up as part of the Wight reforms of 2010 to give a greater voice to backbenchers. It is made up of elected backbench MPs. . Its main role is to determine what issues should be debated on the one day a week allocated to backbench business. Previously, the parliamentary agenda was controlled by government and the opposition leadership. . Backbenchers decide the subject matter of such debates from: e-petitions which achieve more than 100,000 signatures, on the initiative of a SC, requests by MPs and requests emerging from national and local campaigns. . The most celebrated example of the committee’s work occurred in 2011 from an e-petition ordering the publication of all of the documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The government was forced to release secret papers leading to a new inquest and several inquiries into Hillsborough.

Answer 63

The public accounts committee was highly critical of the poor value of money and lack of accountability by the BBC. Recommended government find ways of making the BBC more accountable for how it spends the licence payers money

Answer 64

The public accounts committee was highly critical of the way in which the government financed the programme and for the poor performance of organisations receiving public funds

Answer 65

The committee was highly critical of variations in cancer treatment in different regions and for different age groups, criticised low cure rates and increased waiting times for treatment. Publicity caused government to review cancer treatment

Answer 66

Google's payment of back tax of £130 million for 10 years was considered far too low. HMRC will investigate ways of better regulating the tax affairs of multinational companies and making them more transparent.

Answer 67

Home affairs select committee reports in 2012 - Into the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s (IPCC) role in the investigation into the 1997 Hillsborough disaster. --> The IPPC is investigating the disaster following the 2016 inquest. Defence select committees reports in 2014 - Into the circumstances when the UK should make military interventions in world conflicts. --> The government was urged to consider legislation about whether Parliament should control major armed interventions. Treasury select committees reports in 2015 - Into proposals for stricter regulation of the banking sector --> Insisted that government should implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. This pushed policy forward on banking regulation. Business, Innovations & skills select committees reports in 2016 - Into alleged bad working practices at Sports Direct. --> The company was forced to pay compensation to its workers for paying below minimum wage. Work and pensions select committees reports in 2016 - Into the collapse of BHS and the loss of much of the employees’ pension fund. --> The company was reported to the Pensions Regulator.

Answer 68

In 2012, the Liaison Committee set out ten core tasks for departmental select committees: Strategy: to examine the strategy of the government department, including its key objectives and priorities Policy: to examine policy and make proposals Expenditure and performance: to examine departmental spending and delivery Draft bills: to scrutinise draft bills Bills and delegated legislation: to help the HoC to consider bills and legislation Post-legislative scrutiny: to examine the implementation of legislation European scrutiny: to scrutinise EU policy developments and legislative proposals Appointments: to consider departmental appointments and hold pre-appointment hearings, if necessary Support for the House: to produce reports for debate in the HoC Public Engagement: to help the HoC to make their work accessible to the public

Answer 69

- Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Inquiry (2009-10) into press standards, privacy and libel was critical of the conduct of the press. It heard evidence of illegal phone-hacking by journalists at the now defunct News of the World newspaper, leading to police investigations and the Leveson Inquiry into press conduct. - Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Inquiry (2011-12) into phone-hacking at News International heard evidence from Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch - Health Select Committee Inquiry (2011) into public health identified problems with the coalition government’s proposals for NHS reform. It helped persuade the government to make significant changes to the Health and Social Care Bill. - Treasury Committee Inquiry (2012) into the banking crisis identified issues with the rigging of the LIBOR lending rate and helped shape policy on regulation of the banking sector. - Justice Committee Inquiry (2012) into the presumption of death of missing persons proposed a new statutory process in which a certificate of presumed death is issued. This subsequently became law through a private members’ bill, supported by the government, based on the committee’s recommendations. - Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee Inquiry (2016) into the sale and acquisition of the high-street department store chain BHS was highly critical of Sir Philip Green and concluded that he had a ‘moral duty’ to resolve problems with the BHS pension scheme. - Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee Inquiry (2016) into working practices at retailer Sports Direct concluded that Mike Ashley must be held accountable for ‘extremely disturbing’ working practices at the company. - Foreign Affairs Committee Inquiry (2016) into UK intervention in Libya concluded that the UK’s 2011 actions in Libya were ill-conceived and that other political options should have been attempted. It stated that David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent strategy.

Answer 70

Debate provides the opportunity for MPs to express their views and try to influence policy on a range of current issues and events, and impact on government issues. A major function of MPs is to debate the government's legislative programme. This enables MPs to weigh up the likely impact of public bills and private member bills encouraging public debate on such issues Half-hour adjournment debates held at the end of each day give MPs a chance to raise a particular issue. The government can also raise issues for debate and MPs can request an emergency debate on a specific matter requiring 'urgent consideration' - the speaker and MPs must approve the request. Only four emergency debates were held in the 2010-15 parliament, but four were then held in the 2015-16 session, including one on the European refugee crisis and one on the UK steel industry. One was also held in 2018 after Theresa May's failure to consult the HOC over military strikes in Syria in 2018. Major proposals by the executive, such as committing British troops to military action, will also generate full scale debates

Answer 71

Many debates can be significant, for example on e-petitions and on opposition day motions, also lack the force to change the law and many debates are poorly attended. Nevertheless, those at the time of crisis can provide moments of high drama: - in 1940, PM Neville Chamberlain resigned after losing the support of his party following a debate on the German invasion of Norway - in 2005, Blair failed to make the case for the detention of terrorist suspects for 90 days - in 2013, Cameron was defeated over military intervention in Syria against President Assad - Furthermore, the debates that preceded the 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2015 bombing of Syria saw high-quality contribution that reflected the difference of opinion across the nation

Answer 72

The number and range of issues debated in the commons has increased since the introduction of sessions in the grand committee room These deal with non-controversial issues, select committees reports and motions chosen by the backbench business committee (BBBC) and petitions committee However, amendments cannot be tabled or votes held on these debates - but there were 113 days of these debates in the 2015-16 session

Answer 73

The BBBC created in 2010, has given MPs greater opportunity to shape the parliamentary agenda. It decides the topic for debate on the floor of the commons and in Westminster Hall for roughly 1 day per week. MPs pitch ideas for debate to the committee reports (and until 2015, e-petitions) when determining subjects for debate. Topics selected for debate that subsequently shaped the parliamentary agenda include a referendum on the EU (2011), and the release of documents on the 1989 Hillsborough disaster (2011). However, the government can ignore motions passed in such debates as they did with the motion to lower the voting age to 16. In 2012, the government unilaterally changed the way the BBBC members are elected, so that they are now elected within the party groups rather than by the whole house - this makes it more difficult for MPs with a record of independence to get on the committee

Answer 74

As the executive sits within the legislature it can be regularly questioned, in both chambers, so that it can be held accountable for government policy. In the HoC, from Monday to Thursday an hour of parliamentary business time is set aside for oral questions to be put to ministers. In the HoL, half an hour is devoted to oral ministerial questions on the same days, although questions are directed to the government rather than a specific department. Ministers must also respond to written questions within a week, if they are asked in the Commons, and within 2 weeks if they are asked in the Lords. According to the Ministerial Code of Conduct, ‘Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest.’

Answer 75

The PM is expected to attend the HoC every Wednesday between 12-12.30pm to respond to questions from the chamber. This provides an important opportunity for the PM to be held accountable for government policy. On these occasions, the leader of the opposition is able to ask six questions, so it is important for both the PM and the leader of the opposition that they present themselves as effectively as possible. The leader of the next biggest party is given two questions to ask and then MPs have an opportunity to ask their own questions

Answer 76

in 2015, Sir Gerald Kaufman MP, who was first elected an MP in 1970, said that PMOQ had become ‘an exchange of pointless and useless declamations’. The way, too, in which the governing party’s MPs ask the sorts of questions which enable the PM to take credit for government successes has also led to some MPs calling it ‘Gardeners’ Question Time’ because there are so many ‘planted questions’. However, supporters of PMQT respond that it provides the opportunity for Parliament to interrogate the PM on a weekly basis in a way that is alien to presidential systems in which the executive is much less regularly accountable to the legislature. PMQT can also provide a powerful spotlight on the record of the PM, as well as enabling the PM to expose any inadequacies in the opposition

Answer 77

The main role of backbench MPs is to represent the interests of their constituents, scrutinise the work of government, consider the merits of legislation, legitimise certain government decisions, participate in debates on legislation and vote in divisions, raise issues that they regard as important, possibly be a member of a select committee, campaign and lobby on behalf of an interest or cause, introduce Private Member’s Bills etc.

Answer 78

The strengthening of select committees, the creation of the Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) (which provides backbench MPs with 35 days a year to control parliamentary business) and greater use of urgent questions have given backbench MPs more opportunity to scrutinise government. However, the high failure rate of private members’ bills suggests that backbench MPs have little impact on legislation.

Answer 79

The extent to which backbenchers wield influence certainly depends on the size of the government’s parliamentary majority. If a government has a very small or non-existent majority, backbenchers will be at their most influential. Having lost her parliamentary majority in the 2017 general election, Theresa May had to ‘manage’ rather than ‘lead’ Brexit in order to create as much cross-party support for her strategy as possible. MPs vote with their party on the overwhelming majority of divisions in the Commons and when a parliamentary rebellion occurs, it is usually small and can easily be absorbed by a government with a working majority. However, this can prove problematic if they only have a small majority. Rebellions have become more frequent in recent decades and, along with the threat of rebellion, may force concessions from the government. In the 1950s and 60s the Conservative governments did not face any defeats in the Commons. However, things changed in the 1970s, when ideological divisions within Conservative and Labour parties became more pronounced. The rate of rebellion has increased since the 1990s

Answer 80

Major government 1992-97: Conservative rebellions on the Maastricht Treaty (1992-93) saw Major call a confidence motion to force the treaty through the Commons. Further rebellions followed on gun control and VAT on domestic fuel.

Answer 81

Blair 1997-2007 and Brown 2007-10: The rebellion by 139 Labour MPs on the 2003 vote on the invasion of Iraq was the largest in a governing party in modern British politics. There were also significant rebellions on foundation hospitals, university tuition, 90-day detention of terrorist suspects, the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and the right of Gurkhas to live in the UK.

Answer 82

Conservation-Liberal coalition government 2010-15: Research by Professor Philip Cowley, coalition MPs rebelled in 35% of votes in the Commons between 2010-2015. This was the most rebellious parliament of the postwar era. However, the government experienced relatively few defeats because Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs tended to rebel on different issues. Conservatives rebelled on constitutional and European Union issues: 91 opposed the HoLs Bill in 2012 forcing it to be abandoned and 81 voted for a referendum on EU membership, with Eurosceptic dissent eventually forcing Cameron to promise an in/out referendum. Liberal Democrats rebelled most frequently on welfare and social policy. The government’s most significant defeat was on a 2013 motion on military action in Syria: 30 Conservatives and 9 Liberal Democrat MPs voted with the opposition to oppose air strikes

Answer 83

Conservative government 2015-17: It lost votes on EVEL (English vote for english laws), the conduct of the EU referendum and changes to Sunday trading laws.

Answer 84

MPs also exert influence through more subtle methods than rebellion. If the whips expect significant opposition to a measure, the government may withdraw or revise it rather than risk defeat or provoke ill-will. Labour made concessions on its 2008 plans to abolish the 10% income tax band and the Conservatives dropped tax changes in 2012 and 2015 because of fears of rebellion.

Answer 85

The HoL is often asked to debate a great national issue. This is an opportunity for peers, particularly those who are former government ministers or civil servants, or heads of major organisations such as pressure groups, businesses or trade unions to influence such debates. The Lords is an important part of the legislative process and since 2010, governments have either had no secure majority or only a small advantage in the Commons, and therefore peers have increased influence over both the principles and detail of legislation. Peers take part in the scrutiny of legislation. Their experience and knowledge can be extremely useful in improving legislation and in ensuring that all sections of society are fairly treated.

Answer 86

Lord Adonis (Labour): is a former academic and minister who is an expert on economics, education and transport issues. He continues to play a leading role in advising both main parties on these issues. Lord Dannatt (crossbencher): was formerly chief of the general staff and thus the UK’s most senior soldier. He lends his huge knowledge of military matters to the work of the HoL. In 2015-16 he campaigned for UK ground troops to be redeployed in Iraq to fight against Isis. Lord Finkelstein (Conservative): is a prominent journalist on ‘The Times’ and a regular broadcaster on political affairs. He is one of the highest profile peers in the House and is known for his moderate, balanced views despite his party affiliation All three peers, along with many like them, are as influential as any backbencher member of the HoC. As well as their knowledge and experience, they have a high media profile, more so than many MPs, which alone gives them importance in the political system. However, for every active and influential peer, there are also many who are inactive.

Answer 87

* Backbenchers on select committees play an important role scrutinising the work of government departments * The Liaison Committee (chairs of select committees) holds the PM accountable for policy development & implementation. * MPs can provide ‘redress of grievance’ for their constituents by raising cases in the HoC. * MPs can raise public awareness of issues such as growing anti-Semitism in the LP (Luciana Berger) and speaking out about rape (Michelle Thompson). * Backbenchers can introduce Private Member’s Bills. Some of these, such as Dan Byles’ House of Lords Reform Act 2014, can be very significant. * The Backbenchers Business Committee has provided MPs with more control over the parliamentary agenda, enabling them to choose more topics for debate. * MPs can dismiss the executive with a vote of no confidence (1979, James Callaghan). * MPs can make amendments to legislation on Public Bill Committees. * MPs have an important legitimising role: deciding whether to commit British forces to military action and whether to agree to early dissolution of Parliament. * Since backbenchers are not bound by collective ministerial responsibility, they can oppose their whips over legislation. * Especially when the government has a small or non-existent parliamentary majority, MPs can exact concessions from executive in order to win their support for legislation. * If the government is not confident it has the support of enough backbenchers it can drop legislation. In 2005, having lost a Commons vote when 49 Labour MPs disobeyed a three-line whip, the Blair government abandoned proposals to allow terrorist suspects to be held for 90 days without charge. * By March 2019, backbenchers had defeated Theresa May’s Brexit deal three times. MPs also voted to reject a no-deal Brexit, as well as temporarily taking control of the Brexit agenda to see if they could agree on a way forward.

Answer 88

* The government can ignore the advice of select committees (the Foreign Affairs Committee advised against any military intervention in Syria). * MPs are expected to obey the party whip. Ambitious MPs who aspire to a frontbench position can become ‘lobby fodder’. * A vote of no confidence can only be called in exceptional circumstances when the government is vulnerable to defeat. * Public Bill Committees are whipped and so opposition amendments are unlikely to be accepted. * Most Private Member’s Bills fail because of insufficient parliamentary time being made available for them. * In spite of the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, the government still dominates most of the parliamentary agenda. * The government’s increasing use of secondary (delegated) legislation to change laws has negatively impacted on MPs’ legislative function. * The rise of political activism among Labour constituency parties has meant that MPs are increasingly expected to represent the wishes of their local party in the HoC rather than the Burkean principle that they should act according to their conscience. * In exceptional circumstances, the royal prerogative allows the PM to commit British Forces to military action without a parliamentary vote. * Although MPs can initiate debates and vote in favour of e-petitions, this does not mean that the government has got to act on or support these proposals. * If the government has a large parliamentary majority, it will have an inbuilt majority of backbench support. It will thus be able to survive even large backbench rebellions. Scrutinisng Brexit: The way in which the HoLs proposed 15 amendments to the government’s EU (Withdrawal) Bill was criticised in the ‘Daily Mail’ for challenging the outcome of the EU referendum. According to Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Lords were ‘cavalier’ with the constitution in some of their amendments. However, the Brexit minister, Lord Callanan, thanked the Lords for their amendments: ‘Although I regret the number of defeats I am grateful to those many Lords who I think have worked constructively to improve the Bill…. This House as done its duty as a revising chamber. The Bill has been scrutinised.’ In total the EU (Withdrawl) Bill was scrutinised in Parliament for 272 hours – 112 hours in the Commons and 160 hours in the Lords. During the parliamentary ‘ping=pong’ between the two houses, the government accepted on of the Lords’ amendments and made concessions on eight of them.

Answer 89

- role: holding the government to account: select committees are increasingly significant and Ministers must still face questioning in both houses. - role: proving democratic legitimacy: The UK’s system is stable with widespread consent. Parliament provides strong legitimacy and The HoL cannot provide this as it is neither elected nor accountable. - role: scrutinising legislation: The HoLs does an increasingly effective job, often improving legislation and blocking unfair or discriminatory aspects of proposals. Also, Experts in various fields in the Lords use their knowledge to good effect, - role: controlling government power: Increasingly both houses are checking the power of government, especially when the governing party does not have a commanding majority in the Commons - role: representing constituents: This is an acknowledged strength of the Westminster system, - role: representing outside interests: . Especially, strong in the HoL. Also, Many MPs, too, support external causes and groups. - role: representing the national interest: When there is a free vote, both houses are seen at their best. - role: acting as a recruiting ground for potential ministers: Parliament is a good training ground for future ministers, demonstrating their abilities well.

Answer 90

role: holding the government to account: MPs still lack expertise, knowledge, research back-up and time to investigate government thoroughly. . PMQT remains a media ‘event’ rather than a serious session. - role: proving democratic legitimacy: The HoL cannot provide this as it is neither elected nor accountable. - role: scrutinising legislation: As legislative committees in the Commons are whipped, this is largely ineffective. - role: controlling government power: The power of the prime ministerial patronage and control by party whips still means that MPs are unwilling to challenge government - role: representing constituents: It is absent in the HoL. . MPs’ care of their constituencies varies from MP to MP. There is still no effective mechanism for removing poorly performing MPs. - role: representing outside interests: When there is a clash between party policy and the interests of groups and causes, party loyalty often wins out. - role: representing the national interest: When votes are whipped, party loyalty wins out over national interest - role: acting as a recruiting ground for potential ministers: Being effective in parliamentary work does not necessarily mean a politician could manage a department of state.

Answer 91

. The executive’s control over the parliamentary timetable has been weakened by the creation of the BBBC and the greater use of urgent questions. . Backbench MPs provide greater checks on government policy than in the past, with increased incidents of rebellion a constraint on government action. . The reformed HoL, in which no party has a majority, is more an effective revising chamber – amendments made in the Lords often force the government to rethink legislation. . Select committees have become more influential, with governments accepting around 40% of their recommendations. The election of select committee chairs and members has enhanced their independence.

Answer 92

. The executive exercises significant control over the legislative timetable and MPs hoping to steer legislation through parliament face significant obstacles. . Government defeats are rare – most backbench MPs from the governing party obey the whip on a majority of votes. . The government is usually able to overturn hostile amendments made in the HoL and can resort to the Parliament Act to bypass opposition in the Lords. . Select committees have little power. The government is not required to accept their recommendations and often ignores proposals that run counter to its preferred policy.

Answer 93

- delegate model - trustee model - constituency representation - party representation - descriptive representation

Answer 94

A delegate is an individual selected to act on behalf of others on the basis of clear instructions – they should not depart from these instructions in accordance with their own views and judgements. However, MPs are not expected to be delegates – they are representatives who are free to exercise their own judgement on issues.

Answer 95

Edmund Buke (1729-97) proposed the trustee model of representation, where MPs are responsible for representing the interests of their constituents in parliament. However, once elected they are free to decide how to vote based on their own independent judgement – as it assumed that MPs knew better than their constituents.

Answer 96

MPs are expected to protect, advance and champion the collective interests of the constituency they represent, and to represent the interests of individual constituents. Constituency work takes up about half of an MPs time.

Answer 97

Political parties dominate elections. Almost all successful general election candidates are elected not for their personal beliefs and qualities, but because they represent a political party. The aim is to strike a balance between representing the views of the local party members who selected them and of the voters who elected them.

Answer 98

Descriptive representation occurs when a legislature mirrors the society it represents. From this perspective, parliament should be a microcosm of society with all major social groups included in numbers proportional to their size in the electorate. However, the representative nature of parliament has been called into question – this is explored in greater detail below.

Answer 99

Although there are social distortions in the make-up of the HoC, (as shown below), there was some improvement in social balance in June 2017. A record number of women were elected and ethnic minority membership rose from 6% in 2015 to 10% in 2017. More MPs than ever were comprehensively educated and 45 LGBT members were in the House. The HoL suffers similar distortion. In 2016, 26% of peers were women and 6% were from ethnic minorities. The average age of peers is 69 compared to 51 in the Commons (as one would expect). So, while there is a wide variety of occupational background represented in the Lords, it is more socially distorted than the Commons. This aspect of Parliament is a persistent weakness. Case Study: Increasing the number of female candidates: Parties have used a number of methods to increase the number of female candidates at general elections. These include: All-women shortlists: Used by the Labour Party in every GE since 1997 (except 2001), these gender quotas require some constituency parties to select their parliamentary candidate from a list consisting only of women. This boosted the number of female Labour MPs elected in 1997. The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 permits political parties to use positive discrimination to reduce gender inequality in parliament. All-women shortlists are ‘equality guarantees’: they ensure a female candidate will be selected in a constituency. However, critics argue that candidates should be selected on the basis of merit alone. Priority lists: David Cameron introduced a priority list (the ‘A list’) in 2005 for the top 100 Conservative target seats. Constituency associations were required to draw up shortlists on which at least half the aspirant candidates were women. This was an ‘equality promotion’ initiative that set a general target of more female MPs, but did not guarantee that females would be selected in winnable seats. Only 19 of the 49 women Conservative MPs elected in 2010 had been on the ‘A list’. This approach was dropped – but the culture in the party was changing and more women were selected in winnable seats in 2015.

Answer 100

The British legislature made up of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the monarch. Parliament refers to an assembly that has the power to debate and make laws.

Answer 101

The primary chamber of the UK legislature, directly elected by voters.

Answer 102

The second chamber of the UK legislature, not directly elected by voters.

Answer 103

The convention whereby the House of Lords does not delay or block legislation that was included in a government’s manifesto.

Answer 104

The right of MPs or Lords to make certain statements within Parliament without being subject to outside influence, including law

Answer 105

Proposed laws passing through Parliament

Answer 106

committees responsible for looking at bills in detail.

Answer 107

MPs or Lords who do not hold any government office.

Answer 108

Committee responsible for scrutinising the work of government, particularly of individual government departments.

Answer 109

The MPs and Lords who are not members of the governing party or parties.

Answer 110

Historically, Uk Parliament which is an assembly that has the power to debate and make laws, has always operated under a bicameral system which consists two chambers in the legislature: the house of commons and the house of lords which perform various effective functions and make valuable contributions to the political system in the UK. This has lead to the debate as to whether parliament is effective in carrying out its various functions with political commentators arguing that the parliament performing many significant functions such as legislation, debate, representation and scrutiny and revision of legislation, it is evident that parliament is effective in carrying out its functions. However, some political commentators have argued that parliament is not effective in carrying out its functions and rather it carries out none of its functions adequately such as parliament not being proportional in representation, undemocratic elements of some functions which lack legitimacy which has led to functions not being performed properly. In this essay, i will evaluate the extent to which parliament is effective in carrying out its functions.

Answer 111

Firstly, it could be argued that parliament is effective in carrying out its functions due to parliament holding the government to account through its function of scrutiny and accountability. -This is because parliamentary scrutiny of the executive over the recent years has been enhanced due to select committees' reforms in the house of commons, Prime ministers question time, debates and the official opposition which has helped to hold the government to account and ensure that the government is not misusing their power which is vital for democracy to thrive. This is significant as select committees have been increasingly important in improving the quality of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive as select committees who are made up of MPs are independent minded and non-biased will monitor the performance of the major government departments, investigate into various issues and policy commitments, make reports, conduct interviews and question government ministers and the prime ministers. This is evident with select committees such as the liason committee which was created in 2002, which had the key role of overseeing the work of HOC select committees and calling the prime minister to account twice a year with the prime minister coming before the committee to discuss the government’s current policies and also the backbench business committee which has the role to determine what issues and subjects should debated on the one day of the week allocated to backbench business with a celebrated example of the committee’s work occurring in 2011 from an e-petition ordering the publication of all the documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster which led to the government releasing secret papers and a new inquest into the disaster. - As well as this, parliament controls government power and holds the government to account through parliamentary questions otherwise known as prime ministers question time and ministeral questions. This is significant as it allows both houses of the legislature: the house of commons and lords to question the executive on a regular basis, especially when the governing party does not have a commanding majority in the commons e.g 2017 hung parliament. During PMQTs the prime minister is expected to respond from questions from the chamber which provides an opportunity for the prime minister to be held accountable for government policy by the chamber and opposition who can ask six questions. Secondly, it could be argued that parliament is effective in carrying out its functions due to parliament scrutinising and revising legislation through the legislative process. -This is significant as the house of the lords effectively performs the function of scrutinising and improving legislation by blocking any unfair or discriminatory aspects of proposals and recommending amendments. This is beneficial as the lords bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise from peers from various fields who represent many interests and causes such as Lord Sugar who is a very successful businessman who brings a great amount of knowledge about the financial world or Baroness Chakrabarti who is a well-known barrister and director of civil liberties for the pressure group Liberty, who often speaks on issues connected to civil liberties and women's rights. -This is because the lords appoint members based on their expertise and who aim to represent the important interests and causes in society which can beneficial when the lords scrutinize legislation through the ‘committee stage’ as they will often help to improve legislation by adding clauses that protect vulnerable minorities, clarifying any meanings and removing any sections that will not operate effectively. This is significant as it allows parliament to get an objective view on legislation and ensure that laws are compatible with each other which highlights how lord’s advice is politically influential as heavy defeats for legislation in the chamber may persuade the government to reconsider whether to revise or even continue with the legislation, particularly if it only passed the commons with a small minority and the legislation is clearly controversial. This was evident in 2008, where clauses in the counter terrorism bill enabled the terrorist suspects to be held 42 days without charge was decisively defeated in the lords by 191 voters and due to this proposal being passed in the commons by nine voters, Brown decided to drop the bill. - Democratically representative Each MP in the commons represents an area in the UK However FPTP distorts the representation of parties, so MP's are often elected by less than half of their constituents The lords is unelected Doesn't 'look like England' - mostly white upper class

Answer 112

- holding the government to account However, this argument could be considered premature and not as convincing as although select committees are significant, MPs still lack expertise, knowledge, research back-up and time to investigate the government thoroughly. - PMQT remains a media 'event' rather than serious session which can deeply scrutinise the government properly. Only single 30 minute session on Wednesday after 1997- fewer opportunities to question the PM. Encourage viewers to focus on short, witty sound bytes. Pre-prepared statements, questions that postively support party. 2014 Ed Miliband called for a more serious tone- little change. PMQs televised- political point scoring and 'punch and Judy'- gov uses planted questions to make themselves look good gov can ignore elect committees, gov also has majority on select committees and party whips can appoint loyal MPs to them- can criticise policy but not change it However, there are limits to the effectiveness of Select Committees: Legal powers could be strengthened- Individuals summoned can refuse to attend, limited punishments for those who lie or mislead. Do not follow 66% of recommendations made -this argument could be considered premature, as the lords can only veto legislation up to one year and the government as a result of the parliament act 1911 and 1949 can still pass legislation over the objections of the lords which was seen when the lords refused to pass the sexual offences amendment act 2000 but the legislation still easily passed despite lords opposition as the government invoked the parliament acts to give the bill royal assent and effectively bypass the lords

Answer 113

- it could be argued that parliament is not effective in carrying out its functions due to parliament inadequately performing its function of representation. Disproportionate representation in commons - socially distorted. This was evident in social makeup of parliament in 2017 where women only made up 32% of the commons despite the national proportion of women in the Uk being 50% or the fact that 6% of ethnic minorities were in each house despite the national proportion of ethnic minorities being 15%. This is significant as it highlights how socially exclusive and disproportionate representation in parliament is and perhaps arguably elitist with 29% of the commons being privately educated despite the national proportion of privately educated are only 8%. As well as this, parliament's political representation is extremely distorted in the house of commons due to the electoral system first the past post which converts votes into seats in parliament which leads to the outcome of general elections being distorted and unrepresentative. For example, UKIP won 12.6% of the popular vote, yet only one seat while the CP won 39.9% of the popular vote but secured 51% of the seats which highlights the disproportionate and undemocratic nature of representation in parliament which can potentially conflict with wishes of the electorate. counterargument - there was some improvement in social balance in June 2017. A record number of women were elected and ethnic minority membership rose from 6% in 2015 to 10% in 2017. More MPs than ever were comprehensively educated and 45 LGBT members were in the House. - it could be argued that parliament does not carry out its functions adequately through legislation as The bulk of parliaments time is spent considering the government’s legislative programme. Only a small number of private member bills are initiated by backbenchers, and these are only successful if they have government support. For example between in 2014 – 2015, 6% private member bills were given royal assent and 100% government bills were passed. This shows how backbenchers have little legislative power, as the number of private members bills passed is significantly low compared to the government, enhancing the idea that government is effectively making legislation rather than parliament. Party control of the House of Commons, through whips and party loyalty means that government bills are rarely defeated, as the government tend to have a majority of seats so therefore can be easily passed, and most amendments affects the details of legislation, not its major principles. It is a better way to say that legislation is passed through parliament rather than by parliament. - Legitimacy, a function of parliament is sometimes undermined. One way legitimacy is undermined is the House of Lords as it unelected. As it is not an elected chamber but is still part of the legislature and is involved in scrutiny, debates and amending government bills, which have a mandate, can be seen as not legitimate as the people did not select the Peers. Respect for parliament has been undermined by scandals such as ‘cash for peerage’, ‘cash for questions' and peers misusing their expenses. As well as this, the lords holding a disproportionate amount of power can be seen in the recent years where the media have reported on peers misusing their expenses or failing to participate fully in their duties with a famous example being Lord Paul who claimed over £47,000 of allowances for attending but only voted once or one peer claiming £25,000 without voting, while another claimed £41,000 but only voted once. This reinforces the idea that the lords does not provide any valuable contributions to the political system but rather acts as a preserve for the incompetent political elite which can have damaging consequences as some peers risk having their hard work discredited of the harmful wrongdoings of their colleagues. This has also led to questions on the effectiveness of the chamber and whether the chamber is needed in modern democracy or should be reformed as the chamber can be seen as a bloated, anachronistic and inefficient chamber that cannot perform its functions effectively.

Answer 114

Select committees Allow for the scrutiny of government departments through thorough examination They have the power to send for 'persons, papers and records' However Often review problems after they have occurred and criticize the government for this Government is not obligated to act upon the recommendations of the committees PMQ's Easy and can give MP's a chance to air the views of their constituents Gives the leader of the opposition a chance to scrutinise the government However Has become a 'shouting match' Answers are often vaguely answered or ignored Legislative committees Public bill committees were strengthened in 2007 improving the scrutiny of legislation They are far less independent than select committees as their membership is still dominated by party whips Amendments that are contrary to a majority governments wishes are rarely accepted

Answer 115

- 2010 Backbench Business Committee- the committee chooses issues that Parliament will debate, many e- HOW EFFECTIVE ARE BB MPS? petitions are debated e.g petition against Donald Trump's state visit- leads to debates on topics which may not have otherwise been chosen, they respond to proposals that command cross-party support- incentive for MPs to work together - Backbench rebellions- number of rebellions against govt has increased despite number of MPs taking part decreasing e.g coalition MPs rebelled in 35% of the division in 2010-15 compared to 28% of MPs in 2005-10, if a government is not certain of getting its laws through it may choose not to proceed rather than risk defeat from backbenchers e.g coalition dropped 2013 House of Lords Reform bill due to risk of defeat - Urgent questions- allows an MP to raise an important matter requiring an immediate answer from a govt minister, the speaker allows questions, John Bercow allowed 3547 urgent questions 2009-13 whereas the past speaker only allowed 1234 in a longer period e.g 2017 Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green was summoned to answer an urgent question regarding Personal Independence Payment 27 How are backbench MPs INEFFECTIVE? - lack of legislative power- they can draw attention to issues they are interested in but they might not succeed in any action being taken e.g adjournment debate- after the official business of the House is over, there is opportunity to raise an issue and a minister will reply, 10 minute rule- allows MPs to speak for 10 minutes on their chosen subject before the beginning of an official debate HOWEVER the only result is likely to be an airing of the MPs concern rather than starting a debate - public bill committees- propose amendments to legislation HOWEVER govt has majority on these committees and uses its strength to introduce its own amendments rather than listening to proposals from MPs - whips- power of loyalty and patronage is reinforced by whips, important and tell MPs what to do, can force MPs to vote along with the government - aren't effective because they aren't representative- most MPs are white, male, middle age etc so they don't represent people affected by the issues they bring up - MPs follow the manifesto of their party and their party policy so can't affectively challenge government on all issues - MPs/parties are often influenced by pressure groups so they can't bring forward their own criticisms of govt - Liberalism- MPs are to represent individuals in society and protect their civil rights, can't do this if they aren't representative of the people

Answer 116

- represent each govt department e.g Liason committee- consists of heads of the other committees, Public Accounts committee- examines govt expenditure - committee chairs are now elected by fellow MPs rather than chosen by party whips- democratic and represents voters because MPs have stong connection with constituents - their work is evidence-based, hearings are televised and reported to the media which increases their influence e.g Transport select committee held Transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin to account for controversy over 2012 West Coast Main Line rail franchise - can scrutinise legislation e.g Treasury Select Committee has the right to veto the Chancellor of the Exchequer's choice for head of the Office for Budget Responsibility- they are powerful - long-serving members can accumulate more knowledge of a particular area than ministers, some experienced chairs have become public figures e.g Margaret Hodge, chair of Public Accounts Select Committee said she had more influence than when she was an MP - have direct influence on govt policy e.g 2014 Home Office took the Passport Office back under ministerial control after criticisms How are select committees INEFFECTIVE? - majority of select committee members will be drawn from the governing party, there is tradition that MPs from the govt side chair the Treasury, foreign affairs and defence committees- means they aren't effective at scrutinising govt as they won't want to go against their party - although resources available have increased, committees can only cover a limited range of topics in depth and there is tendency to avoid long term investigations- means they can't be fully effective, may miss out on some topics they could scrutinise govt with - high turnover rate for membership, some MPs do not attend committees regularly- can't be fully effective if members do not attend the committee - govt accepts around 40% of select committee recommendations, rarely involves major changes of policy- not very effective in practice, parties don't drastically change policies they want to make - committees can summon witnesses but they can be blocked e.g Theresa May blocked the Home Affairs committee from interviewing the head of MI5,Andrew Parker - aren't effective because they aren't representative- most MPs are white, male, middle age etc so they don't represent people affected by the issues they bring up - MPs follow the manifesto of their party and their party policy so can't affectively challenge government on all issues - MPs/parties are often influenced by pressure groups so they can't bring forward their own criticisms of govt - Liberalism- MPs are to represent individuals in society and protect their civil rights, can't do this if they aren't representative of the people

Answer 117

- opposition parties are given 20 days a year to propose subjects for debate, 17 are given to the leader of the official party ad the other 3 are given to the second largest opposition e.g in 2015 SNP used them to debate the Trident nuclear defence system which they strongly opposed- gives them opportunity to give their views on govt policy - opposition is stronger and more powerful when the govt is small (minority) - opposition is given Short money- compensates for the fact that they don't have access to the civil service, usually spent on policy research and salaries of staff that work for the opposition - opposition has opportunity to challenge all govt policies and offers alternatives, can be used to potentially remove legislation they don't agree with - PMQs held every Wednesday- gives opportunity for leader of the opposition to scrutinise the PM and for them to gain publicity by appearing as the alternate leader How is the role of the opposition INEFFECTIVE? - debates are limited- govt ministers can have a counter motion to support government policy, opposition can talk about issues in debates but govt will stop votes against their policy going through, little can be done about this - short money is limited- government has more resources of the state and civil service to back them up, opposition don't really have this, short money was cut after 2015 as part of general austerity cuts - opposition can appear negative and complaining with no clear counter argument to govt, may not appear statesmanlike which doesn't appeal to voters - can be argued that PMQs are less about policy, more about statesmanship, it is all about performance of the leaders rather than scrutinising govt e.g David Cameron attacked Jeremy Corbyn over his appearance- not about Corbyn's policy - aren't effective because they aren't representative- most MPs are white, male, middle age etc so they don't represent people affected by the issues they bring up - MPs follow the manifesto of their party and their party policy so can't affectively challenge government on all issues - MPs/parties are often influenced by pressure groups so they can't bring forward their own criticisms of govt - Liberalism- MPs are to represent individuals in society and protect their civil rights, can't do this if they aren't representative of the people

Answer 118

every Wednesday, attracts considerable TV and press attention - obliges PM to engage with the opposition on a range of topics- may not have been discussed otherwise, means that topics the public voted for are being discussed - PMQs give the opposition opportunity to question individual ministers e.g Jeremy Corbyn recently questioned Theresa May on how Brexit was being carried out, he accused May of ‘incompetence’ and ‘failure’ - ministers answer questions about their own departments which can be used to better scrutinise govt, ministers are given a notice about the questions that will be asked and have opportunity to prepare their answers with help of civil servants- allows opposition MPs to inform themselves about govt policy and individual MPs can raise concerns of their constituents which can scrutinise govt How are PMQs INEFFECTIVE? - questions are given in advance, government ministers and PM can plan their answer- means that PMQs may not be as effective in scrutinising/getting answers from ministers because they have time to plan and could avoid questions- Theresa May has been criticised for not directly answering the questions she is asked e.g when in 2016, Jeremy Corbyn asked if any ministers agreed with her stance on grammar schools, she replied that education has been improving with "1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools" - 'planted' questions- arranged usually by MPs which are the same party as govt, asked to make government look good e.g in 2012 Cameron's parliamentary private secretary revealed he had asked Conservative MPs to create a 'protective wall of sound' around the PM- PMQs can be manipulated so aren't very effective at scrutinising govt - ministers get civil servants' help to plan answers to questions they will be asked, can even submit answers civil servants wrote for them- means govt policies may not be fully revealed and govt can't be effectively scrutinised - aren't effective because they aren't representative- most MPs are white, male, middle age etc so they don't represent people affected by the issues they bring up - MPs follow the manifesto of their party and their party policy so can't effectively challenge government on all issues - MPs/parties are often influenced by pressure groups so they can't bring forward their own criticisms of govt - Liberalism- MPs are to represent individuals in society and protect their civil rights, can't do this if they aren't representative of the people

Answer 119

One problem is MPs loyalty to party They are mostly elected because of the party they are in rather than because of there own interests They may not represent the views of those who elected them However - It is elected and therefore is representative Parliament isnt an accurate representation of society as a whole 29% are of parliament is female - 51% of population Ethnic minorities are only 6% - 13% of population However things are dramatically improving - with FPTP distorts the representation of parties so MPs are often elected by less than half their constituents Votes are free and anyone can vote ``` The Lords is an unelected body Unrepresenative However House of lords reform has reduced the amount of hereditary peers Get expertise ```

Answer 120

The Commons is more effective than the lords, using the themes of scrutiny, representation and attitude. Scrutiny (critical observation of government work) The House of Commons: do show poor and ineffective methods of scrutiny, such as PMQ's which are highly adversarial, and aimed at embarrassing the opinion, as well as being easy to deflect important questions. However, select committees can be a useful and unbiased form of scrutiny. These were improved by the 2010 Wright Reforms which required the chair of the select committees to be elected. Moreover, Backbench Business Committee (BBBC) allow for backbench MPs to have their voices heard and further scrutinise the government . House of Lord: They are experts in their fields which allows for detailed scrutiny, and also can spend more time on the detail of legislation. Yet, the Salisbury Convention meant that the Lords can not reject a 2nd reading of legislation, and also can not amend bills related to taxation/government spending = no real scrutiny Representation Commons: Elected members from the public. Yet, electoral system is disproportionate, and they lack representation of females and ethnic minorities. Lords: They are more diverse than the commons (ethnic minorities). But, have 26 Bishops which is archaic and unrepresentative of over half of the population who are not religious. They are unelected, and appointed by Prime Ministers mostly, Cameron appointed 236 peers. Attitude Commons: Elected, and thus are obligated to do things correctly, will not retain their seats if they fail. Backbenchers have the ability to get much more involved (BBCOM and PMB's). However, arguably too busy to do their job properly and scandals such as the expenses scandal show a poor attitude coming from many MPs. Lords: 1999 act reduced the number of hereditary peers to 92 making the institution much more credible and rebellious (Blair suffered 450 blocks from the Lords). But, low attendance, 5% never turn up, and 61% turn up less than half the time. Many accused of clocking in and out within minutes in order to claim £300 pay. Conclusion: Commons as more effective, as although perhaps not that effective at representation, there presence is much larger and thus have much more legitimacy for effective scrutiny, and the institution has much more involvement than the Lords, allowing for a better attitude and usefulness overall.

Answer 121

HOUSE OF LORDS - HOL 1. Not bound by salisbury convention: convention that can't vote against things in party manifesto - since coalition govn, not governing upon manifesto, on coalition agreement. - because of this, HOL more obstructive - since 2010 voted against reform to constituency boundaries, reform to NHS, reform to HOL, AV referendum, caps on welfare payments HOL - has experts and peforms the function of scrutiny - less loyal to parties and constituents : 181 crossbenchers - no party loyalty - whipping less effective. independent to own views - no constituents, unelected - do not owe anything to anyone, votes entirely rely on own principles HOUSE OF COMMONS: parliament act 1949: Less powerful than HOC as by 1949 Parliament Act, statute prevents them from dismissing legislation - only allowed to delay for a year e.g Fox Hunting Ban - rarely propose legislation - mandate: house of lords unelected so lack mandate - easy for government to ignore recommendations on account of this - hoc select committees: No departmental SCs in HOL - vital means by which operation scrutinised - SCs becoming more prominent in HOC - 2010 SC chairs elected by backbenchers - no longer form of patronage party whips - produce detailed reports e.g Health committee brought about changes to coalition Health and Social Care Bill - can question ministers, civil servants, relevant knowledgeable people - arguably HOL benign with existence of select committees as no longer needed for expertise. Each specific dept provided with advice and knowledge from an SC in HOC.

Answer 122

The House of Commons is the elected lower chamber of Parliament, the members of which are determined through the First Past the Post electoral system. By contrast, the House of Lords is the unelected second chamber consisting of appointed and hereditary peers. The UK’s bicameral system ensures that both houses have a prominent role in passing legislation. However, the extent to which they fulfil their functions well has become a point of contention. As a result, there has been a debate that the Commons needs more reform than the Lords, with many arguing that its representative function fails to operate effectively. However, it will be argued that the Commons has experienced sufficient reform in recent years but the archaic Lords is arguably in need of greater reform at it lacks legitimacy. The main criticism in favour of greater House of Lords reform over the Commons is its undemocratic nature. Because it is unelected, many argue that it lacks the democratic legitimacy needed to be held accountable to the public. Former Labour leader Ed Miliband described how “it fails to represent large parts of the UK’’. Consisting of 26 Bishops and an overwhelming majority of white wealthy men, the House of Lords falls short in representing the intersections of a multi-faith and multi-ethnic society. Moreover, the House of Lords Act (1999) removed all but 92 hereditary peers. It should be argued that If the Lords is committed to wholesale reform, this should not be on a piecemeal basis. At the moment, the chamber is appointed by the Prime Minister through her powers of patronage, this gives rise to the claim of cronyism. For Conservatives however, this promotes the ideal of ‘change to conserve’, the slow, gradual reform of the Lords is vital in preserving its institutional strength. Jeremy Corbyn has called for a “radical overhaul” of the Lords, to deal with the ‘democratic deficit’. An elected chamber would address the current democratic deficit, giving the Lords a full mandate to initiate and amend legislation. In comparison the House of Commons, which is democratically elected under FPTP ensures a strong link between an MP and their constituency and thus remains fully accountable to the origin of sovereignty, the people. On the other hand, many argue that the House of Lords has experienced sufficient reform and the argument for an elected second chamber is problematic. The House of Lords Act (1999) removed the bulk of hereditary peers. In doing so, this has provided a greater increase of talented individuals who can enrich political debate without party affiliations. An elected second chamber ensues the danger that it could become a ‘mirror image’ of the Commons. People would be likely to vote along their usual party lines, meaning that Lords would have to focus on political tactics to get elected, such as charisma, rather than expertise. Many current Lords are human rights experts or have scientific and technical expertise. The Blair and Brown government were defeated 400 times in the HOL over judicial and constitutional matters, including counter-terrorism and restrictions on the right to trial by jury. Despite these examples of the growing expertise of the chamber, these people would be less likely to stand for election or be successful. As a result, an elected Lords would merely replicate the party politics of the Commons by losing the independence of crossbenchers and strengthening the role of parties. The House of Lords Act led to a balanced composition of parties and non-affiliated Lords, with no one party having overall control. Elections would not be able to replicate this. Conservatives would suggest this balance represents the power of tradition over rationality, favoured by liberals. However, the fact that unelected people can decide on fundamental principles like human rights undermines Britain’s claim to be a modern liberal democracy. This strengthens the argument that the House of Lords needs greater reform, perhaps one legitimised with the implementation of a codified constitution. The argument that the House of Lords needs greater reform than the Commons is supported by the claim that the executive dominates it. As the selection of peers occurs via the Prime Minister, the chamber is argued to be a ‘half-way house’ of appointments. This gives rise to cronyism, where members are elected through political patronage rather than merit, undermining the liberal principle of meritocracy. In August 2014, former speaker of the House of Commons Betty Boothroyd criticised successive prime ministers for filling the second chamber with ‘lobby fodder’ in an attempt to help their policies become law. If no party has a majority, as would be likely under proportional representation, it would challenge the dominance of the executive. An elected second chamber by proportional representation would also be likely to increase the quality of electoral representation, by avoiding problems created by FPTP such as electoral deserts. Therefore, the HOL needs greater reform to lessen the influence of the executive and ensure democratic legitimacy. Nonetheless, an elected second chamber could also lose power to hold the executive to account because peers would be subject to the same dominance as the Commons. As Lords cannot currently be dismissed except for ‘major misconduct’ (HOL Reform Act 2014), they do not have to worry about government officials ‘withdrawing the whip’ – essentially, they do not have to toe the party line in order to keep their jobs. They can oppose government decisions. In 2015, George Osborne’s plans to reduce tax credits for low-paid workers were reversed after the House of Lords shrugged off warnings of a constitutional crisis and voted to delay the £4.4bn package of cuts. Instead, Lords can focus on protecting the rights of civilians without political interference. Moreover, proportional representation – the system most likely to be used, as suggested in Clegg’s 2012 House of Lords Reform draft bill – could lead to unpredictability, as it would be likely that no party would achieve a majority. This increase in adversarial politics in the chamber could prevent legislation ever being passed. As in the USA, gridlock could be a common occurrence, and the governing party would not be able to fulfil their manifesto commitments. However, there are currently restrictions on their power that could be lifted if it was elected, such as the 1949 Parliament Act’s ruling that it can only delay the passage of legislation for one year. Moreover, proportional representation in an elected HOL could be a viable solution to avoid the disenfranchisement of smaller parties. For example, in 2015, UKIP got just below 4 million votes and only one seat due to the FPTP system, this proved unrepresentative of the nation’s views. An elected HOL under PR could prevent this. This points to the pressing problems of the House of Commons, which many on the otherhand argue needs more reform than the Lords. Ethnic minorities make up 6% of the Commons compared to 13% of the population, suggesting that it still has a long way to go in fulfilling its representative function. Moreover, the whip system ensures that MP’s largely remain lobby fodder and toe the party line. For example, despite her margin of victory being significantly narrower than her supporters expected, Theresa May survived a vote of no-confidence (2017) triggered by members of her own party over her handling of Britain's departure from the European Union. As the government dominates the timetable, only 20 days are allocated a year to the opposition, limiting their ability to effectively account the executive. For some Conservatives the elevated role of the executive is integral in preserving the natural authority of paternalistic leaders. Liberals would differ, when governments are elected with huge majorities they in effect become ‘elected dictatorships’, this undermines democratic accountability and renders the Commons weak. It can be argued that the House of Commons needs reform. As the main democratic branch of parliament, it falls short of representation and holding the executive to account. The House of Commons has experienced sufficient reform already that have considerably addressed some of its problems, significantly more in comparison to the Lords. The 2010 Coalition introduced reforms as part of the implementation of the Wright proposals. These recommendations included the election of Select Committee Chairs and the creation of the Backbench Business Committee which has acted to give room to the timetable on behalf of backbench MPs. These reforms have proved vital in increasing the power of the legislative branch. It can be argued that the Hung Parliament era has facilitated the increasing significance of the Commons. Since 2017, the Prime Minister has had a working majority, helped through a fragile confidence and supply agreement with the DUP. As a result, opposition day motions have become more successful. Keir Starmer deployed an arcane parliamentary procedure known as a "humble address" during an opposition day debate in November 2018 to force the government to release legal information into the impact of Brexit on the UK economy. This resulted in the Contempt of Parliament motion on December 4 2018, a decisive defeat for the government in failing to lay before Parliament any legal advice on the proposed EU withdrawal agreements. The growing power of backbenchers has led to May’s government facing 20 defeats in the Commons between 2017 and the end of 2018. The power of the whips has declined and both party’s face growing rebellion on their backbenches. This increasing significance of the Commons, especially over Brexit, leads to the conclusion that the House of Lords is arguably in greater need of reform as it lacks fundamental legitimacy. Whilst functioning as a successful revising chamber, In a democratic age, it is inappropriate to have an unelected chamber making decisions and amendments without any accountability to the public. Whilst the Commons can also be unrepresentative at times, this is more due to the fundamental flaws in the electoral system. However recent hung parliaments have reduced the detrimental effects of huge majorities. The House of Lords is a place of patronage where unelected and unaccountable individuals hold a disproportionate amount of influence and power which can be used to frustrate the elected representatives of the people. This points to the underlying constitutional arrangement of the UK. A codified constitution may go some way to clarifying and modernising Britain’s undemocratic institutions but it is clear the House of Lords requires more urgent reform than the Commons.

Answer 123

Ways in which the executive does control Parliament include the following: * The whips operate using the influence of prime ministerial patronage. * The government controls most of the parliamentary agenda. * The payroll vote guarantees a large number of votes for the government under collective responsibility. * Legislative committees are whipped to prevent unwanted amendments to legislative proposals. * The government uses patronage to exercise some control over Lords membership. * Government can usually overturn unfriendly Lords amendments or legislative vetoes. Ways in which the executive does not exercise full control include: • Ultimately the Commons can veto legislation. • The Commons can also insist on some amendments. • The Lords can be extremely obstructive. • Select committees can be critical. • MPs now have some control over the parliamentary agenda. • The executive no longer controls membership of select committees. • Ministers must make themselves accountable to Parliament. • Many members of the Lords are independent.