Parliament - HOL + HOC, LAW-MAKING Flashcards
state the main features of the house of commons
- members of parliament (MPs)
- Frontbench and Backbench MPs
- Party whips
- The speaker of house of commons
- The leader of the official opposition
Explain the house of commons feature of members of parliament (MPs)
There are 650 Members of Parliament (MPs), each elected to represent the interests of his/her constituency. The way in which constituencies are allocated is designed to ensure that all parts of the UK can claim roughly equal representation within the HoC, containing between 60,00 – 80,000 voters. There are 650 constituencies in England, 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland. There was a proposal to reduce the number to 600 by 2020. All MPs in the UK represent a political party, however occasionally, independent (non-party) MPs have been elected, but this rare.
Explain the house of commons feature of Frontbench and backbench MPs
MPs are divided into frontbench and backbench MPs: Frontbench MPs are more senior. In the governing party, they are ministers and party officials appointed by the PM. Normally there are about 90 frontbench MPs on the governing side. The leading members (spokespersons and shadow minsters) of the main opposition party are also described as frontbench MPs. There would normally be about 50 of these. The total number of frontbench MPs is therefore 140. Frontbench MPs are expected to be loyal to their party leaderships. Backbench MPs are very much the majority. They can be more independent than frontbench MPs but are still expected to show party loyalty. MPs do much of their work in committees. The main two types of committees are select committees and legislative committees.
Explain the house of commons feature of Party whips
All main parties appoint whips who work under a chief whip. The whips are mainly concerned with ensuring that MPs in their party are informed about parliamentary business. They also try to ensure party loyalty and to persuade reluctant MPs to support their party’s line – to maintain party discipline. Whips may also inform their party leadership how MPs are feeling about an issue and may warn of possible rebellions and dissidence. Therefore, they support the parliamentary leadership and encourage MPs to support the party line. On especially important issues, a three-line whip will be issued which will require MPs to attend a vote and to vote according to the demands of the leadership. If MPs refuse to do this they may have the party whip withdrawn from them, which means they lose their membership of the parliamentary party.
Explain the house of commons feature of the speaker of the house of commons
The proceedings of the HoC are presided over by the Speaker, who is an MP who is elected by all other MPs. Though the Speaker comes from one of the parties, s/he is expected to put aside their party allegiance when chairing the Commons and be impartial. The Speaker (there are also deputies) is expected to organise the business of Parliament along with the party leaderships and to ensure proper procedure is followed, to maintain order and discipline in debates, to decide who gets to speak in debates or question times and to settle disputes about Parliament’s work. Since the election of John Bercow in 2009, the Speaker has been elected by a secret ballot of all MPs. Once elected, they are then ceremonially dragged to the Speaker’s Chair and at the beginning of each new parliament, must seek re-election, although this is often a formality.
explain the house of commons feature of the leader of the official opposition party
The role of the leader of the official opposition is to ensure that the policies of the government are thoroughly scrutinised, while convincing the public that the official opposition is an alternative government in waiting. In order to do this, the opposition has been able, since the 1970s to claim ‘short money’ from public funds to finance the leader of the opposition’s office and help with parliamentary business. The leader of the opposition is also given the right to ask six questions at PMs Question Time (PMQT). This is a particularly important role since it enables the leader of the opposition to put high-profile pressure on the PM by highlighting any failures of policy and offering their own political solutions. The leader of the opposition will also select a shadow cabinet, whose task is to hold the government accountable as well as persuading the electorate that they could be trusted in government.
explain the term bicameralism
Bicameralism describes a political system which has two chambers in the legislature (the branch of government responsible for passing laws), that is a parliament with two chambers:
- the house of commons (HOC): this is the lower chamber and members are directly elected by voters in a general election
- the house of lords (HOL): this is the upper chamber and the composition of this house varies: it be may directly elected or indirectly elected (e.g. appointed by ministers), or a hybrid of both
In addition, the monarch retains a formal and ceremonial role in parliament
differentiate between the two institutions: government and parliament
government:
- government formulates policies
- government drafts legislation
- government ministers and their departments run the day to day affairs of the country
Parliament:
- Parliament debates and passes opinion on them
- Parliament scrutinises legislation suggests changes and occasionally may veto it
- Parliament seeks to ensure it does so efficiently, give good value for taxpayers money and govern fairly
What is the house of lords
HoL is referred to as the ‘upper chamber’, its authority is considerably less than that of the HoC. This is because it is an appointed chamber and so cannot claim the democratic legitimacy that the HoC can. Its size is not regularized by law and the method of appointing its members remains controversial.
Explain the feature of hereditary peers of the house of lords
Ninety-two members are hereditary peers, people (nearly all males) who have inherited a noble title which entitles them to sit in the Lords (‘Lords temporal’). The number was determined in the House of Lords Act 1999, (the Labour government of Tony Blair attempted to reform the HoL by removing the right of the 750 hereditary peers to continue sitting in the upper chamber. However, in order to avoid a confrontation with the Lords, he compromised, whereby 92 hereditary peers could be elected by hereditary peerage). When a hereditary peer dies, his/her successor must be elected by all the remaining hereditary peers. Although they are not professional politicians, hereditary peers in the Lords are expected to take their position seriously, attend and vote regularly and take part in committee work.
Explain the feature of lords spiritual in the house of lords
Twenty-six members are archbishops and bishops of the Church of England (the ‘Lords spiritual’). This reflects the fact that Anglican Christianity is the established religion of the UK. Recently, however, leaders of other religions which flourish in the UK have also been appointed
Explain the feature of life peers in the house of lords
The other members of the Lords, commonly known as life peers, are appointed. Technically, life peers are appointed by the reigning monarch, but this power was given up many years ago. Unlike hereditary peers, they have never been able to pass their title on to their children; it dies with them. Most life peers are nominated by the PM and the leaders of the other main parties – they are political appointments – this means they are expected to follow their party’s line on issues, (they were given this power by the Life Peerages Act 1958). There are also non-political peers appointed on the recommendation of non-government organisations and (even) by members of the public, appointed on the basis of their service to the nation. There is a HoL Appointment Commission, which decides which people shall be appointed and which can also veto unsuitable nominees nominated by party leaders.
Explain the feature of nominations in the house of lords
There is no firm constitutional principle concerning the balance of party members in the Lords. In general, there is a convention that parties are able to make nominations roughly in proportion to their strength in the HoC. Thus, since 2010, the CP has made more nominations than other parties and before 2010, the LP made more nominations. But, as life peers are appointed for life, it can take many years to change the balance of party strengths in the HoL.
Explain the feature of political make up in the house of lords
The political make-up of the HoL is different to that of the Commons. In particular, it is now the case that the governing party does not have an overall majority of members. There are so many non-political members (known as crossbenchers) that there cannot be a government majority. For example, it can be seen that the CP had only 248 out of a total of 808 members.
Explain the feature of roles in the house of lords
There are frontbench spokespersons in the HoL, just as there are in the Commons. The government must have representatives in the Lords as virtually all its business goes through both houses. Like their counterparts in the Commons, frontbench peers are expected to be especially loyal to their party leaderships. As in the Commons, much of the work of peers takes place in committees. There are legislative committees (in which all peers are allowed to participate) to consider proposed legislation and select committees. However, select committees in the HoL are much less significant than those in the Commons. The equivalent of the HoC Speaker is the Lord Speaker
state the functions of the house of commons
- Legitimation
- Legislation
- Scrutiny and accountability -
- Debate
- Recruitment of ministers
- Representation
explain the house of commons function of legitimation
Legitimation was Parliament’s original function and remains its main constitutional function. It involves the process of passing legislation and approving public finances. Government is elected to develop laws, but it needs a device to make its legislative proposals legitimate. This means that it needs some way of securing the consent of the people. The people cannot be assembled to approve legislation or hold a referendum every time a new law is proposed, so Parliament does it for them – this is what it has been elected to do. If Parliament did not exist, the proposals produced by government would be arbitrary and would lack democratic legitimacy. In this sense therefore, Parliament is supporting government by granting a legitimacy for what it does. It strengthens government, rather than weakens it.
In relation to public finances, the role of Parliament is to approve taxation and expenditure by the government every time a change is proposed. This process occurs every spring and summer after the chancellor of the exchequer has announced the annual Budget. It is extremely rare in modern times for the Commons to obstruct such proposals, but formal approval is always required
explain the house of commons function of the legislation process
(a) First reading: The formal presentation of the title of the bill on the floor of the house by a minister from the responsible department. There is no debate at this stage.
(b) Second reading: The main debate on the principle of the bill. The government minister explains and justifies the objectives of the bill, the shadow minister responds and backbenchers contribute to the debate. If the bill is contested, a vote is taken. Government
defeats at second reading stage are extremely rare, occurring only twice since 1945. (The last was in 1986 when the Sunday Trading Bill was defeated by 14 votes, despite a government majority of 140).
c) Committee stage: Bills are sent to a public bill committee – (known as a standing committee until 2006) – where detailed scrutiny of each clause takes place and amendments can be made. Amendments are often tabled by the government as it seeks to clarify or improve the bill. A new public bill committee is established for each bill and is named after it. Once the bill has completed this stage, the committee is dissolved. Membership varies from 16-50, it reflects party strength in the Commons and the whips instruct MPs how to vote. Public bill committees may take evidence from outside experts. Finance bills and bills of constitutional significance (e.g. on the EU referendum) are scrutinised on the floor of the Commons, in a Committee of the Whole House.
(d) Report stage: Amendments made in committee are considered by the full HoC. It may accept, reject or alter them. MPs not on the public bill committee now have the opportunity to table amendments. In 2015, new procedures were introduced for bills concerned only with English matters: English votes for English laws (EVEL).
(e) Third reading: A debate on the amended bill on the floor of the House. No further amendments are permitted.
(f) House of Lords stages: The bill is sent to the HoL, where these stages are repeated. If amendments to the bill are made in the Lords, the Commons may agree to them, reject them or amend them further. A bill may go back and forth between the two houses in a process known as ‘parliamentary ping-pong’. This happened between 2010-12 when the Commons overturned a series of Lords’ amendments on legal and welfare reform. If agreement cannot be reached, the government must decide whether to accept changes made by the Lords, drop the bill or invoke the Parliament Act. Most public bills pass all stages in one session of parliament, but the HoC may vote to carry over a bill and complete it in the next session. In post-legislative scrutiny, government departments can submit memorandums on legislation to select committees between 3 and 5 years after a law came into force. The committee may conduct an inquiry into the Act.
explain the house of commons function of the scrutiny and accountability
Parliamentary scrutiny is an essential function of a legislature to ensure government accountability. This is achieved through the following routes within the HoC:
(a) Public Bill Committees: These can gain written and verbal evidence from experts and relevant parties. MPs can also cooperate on committees and although opposition amendments are rarely accepted in full, if they are persuasive enough, they can make the government rethink the detail of a bill.
(b) Select Committees: These were set up to monitor the performance of the major departments of state. They have also been set up to investigate specific policy commitments, while the Woman and Equalities Committee monitors the progress being made on achieving a more inclusive society. The membership of a select committee (SC) is generally composed of 11 highly regarded backbenchers and they are non-partisan, which means MPs from all parties are expected to work together. The chairs of SCs are elected by MPs as a whole, ensuring that they possess considerable cross-party support. They also receive a significant financial bonus, providing them with the same sort of salary as a junior minister. These factors combine to provide the leadership of SCs with a strong mandate directly from the legislature with which to confront powerful departments of state.
Since 2014, Sarah Wollaston MP, a former GP, has been chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. In 2015, Frank Field, an MP since 1979, who has throughout his career, focused on issues connected with poverty and welfare was elected chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. Both are seen as ideally suited for this role by other MPs since they have the expertise and confidence to lead scrutiny of these departments. SCs consult widely with ministers, civil servants and experts and can send for ‘persons, papers and records’ to help them with their investigations. They can compel attendance from members of the public and because of parliamentary privilege, MPs can ask them the most potentially libellous questions without fear of prosecution. The government must respond to select committee reports, however they do accept around 40% of their recommendations. but is not required to accept their recommendations Even though the reports that SCs issue are not binding, the non-partisan way in which they work and the expert witnesses that they can summon, ensure that they can have a significant impact on government decision making.
(c) Parliamentary questions: Government ministers face questions from MPs on the floor of the house. The parliamentary timetable includes question time sessions for ministers from each government department. In addition to questions tabled in advance, ministers answer questions on topical questions on issues relating to their department. The most high-profile event is PMQs which takes place every Wednesday at noon for half an hour. This provides an opportunity for the leader of the opposition, the leader of the third party and backbenchers to question the PM. However, many backbenchers may ask questions drafted by the whips which are designed to flatter rather than probe. Nevertheless, the leader of the opposition may try to shape the agenda or highlight policy failure. Corbyn has tried to move away from the gladiatorial style by asking questions sent in by members of the public. In the main, PMQs provides parliamentary theatre, rather than effective scrutiny. In 2015-16 there were 35,000 written questions requesting information from ministers.
(d) The opposition: The largest party not included in the government forms the official opposition. They are expected to perform two major tasks: First, it should oppose many of the government’s legislative proposals and harry the government by tabling amendments and forcing votes. Secondly, they should appear as a government-in-waiting, developing its own policies as well as supporting government measures that it agrees with. When the government has a small majority, the opposition may be able to force policy retreats. Opposition parties are permitted to choose the topic for debate on 20 days of the parliamentary year, 17 of which are allocated for the official opposition. This gives them an opportunity to advance their agenda or expose government failure.
(e) Debate: A major function of MPs is to debate the government’s legislative programme
Explain the house of commons function of debate
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 Members Bills encouraging public debate on such issues. The government can also raise issues for debate and MPs can request and emergency debate (as they did after Theresa May’s failure to consult the HoCs 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. The significance of parliamentary debate is disputed. Many debates, for example on e-petitions and on opposition day motions, also lack the force to change the law. However, in 2005, Blair failed to make the case for the detention of terrorist suspects for 90 days and in 2013 Cameron was defeated over military intervention in Syria against President Assad.
Explain the house of commons function of recruitment of ministers
Parliament is a recruiting ground for government and traditionally, future ministers forge their reputations in the HoC. Around one in five MPs worked in politics (in roles such as researchers or advisers) before entering parliament. However, parliament’s effectiveness in the recruitment and development of future government ministers has become questionable - the proliferation (growth) of career politicians, with little experience of life beyond politics, widens the gap between the political class and ordinary voters.
Explain the house of commons function of representation of interests
MPs are accountable to their constituents which ensures a close relationship between them. They are not delegates, so they don’t do exactly what their constituents want – instead, they balance the interests of their constituents with the demands of the party whips and the dictates of their own conscience. It is the role of MPs to thoroughly engage with the life of the community and the local issues; to spend time there and to have regular surgeries where constituents’ concerns can be discussed, regardless of who they voted for and to join local campaigns.
They many lobby a minister whose department might be proposing something that is unpopular in the constituency or raising the matter within the commons where it will receive publicity – this is known as redress of grievances: where the MP pursues a grievance that a constituent or constituency has. Sometimes the interest of a constituency may run counter to government of party policy, so this presents a dilemma for MPs in terms of where their allegiance should lie. Organisations such as pressure groups try to recruit MPs to their cause as it gives them exposure in Parliament and increasingly campaign groups encourage supporters to write to MPs in large numbers to further their cause. MPs also form themselves into groups to represent a particular interest or cause, e.g. Ageing, counter-extremism, sex equality, race and community etc. These groups transcend party allegiance and seek to exert collective pressure on government over key issues.
The representative role of MPs has been criticised, on the grounds that the HoC is not sufficiently representative of the social configuration of the UK, as it is still largely dominated by white MC, middle-aged males. And therefore, the legislature does not mirror the society is represents. Although the number of female MPs has increased in recent decades to 208 in 2017, females make up 51% of the population, but only 33% of MPs.
State the House of lords functions
- Scrutiny and revision of legislation
- Delaying
- Scrutiny of secondary legislation
- Debate
Explain how the house of lords are limited in their functions and why
The fact that the HoL is neither elected nor accountable means it lacks democratic legitimacy. This in turn means that its roles are more limited than those of the HoC, which is elected and accountable. Its political and legal constraints are as follows:
· Because members recognise their lack of legitimacy, they tend to restrain themselves and only challenge government in unusual circumstances.
· The Salisbury Convention dating from the 1940s states that the HoL must not obstruct any proposal that was contained in the current government’s last manifesto as they have an electorate mandate to carry out its legislative programme. The unelected HoL has no authority to defy the people’s mandate.
· Amendments to legislation proposed in the Lords must be approved by the HoC. Occasionally, the Lords repeatedly passes the same amendment even after it has been rejected each time in the Commons. This game of ‘legislative ping pong’, as it is known can go on for some time, but the Lords usually back down in the end.
· Two Parliament Acts in 1911 and 1949, have established two principles – first that the HoL can have no control over the financial control over the financial business of the government and second, that the Lords can only refuse to pass a piece of legislation once. If the legislation is passed in two consecutive years in the Commons, the Lords will be bypassed. This means that the Lords can delay legislation, but not veto it.
Explain the function of scrutiny and revision of legislation as function of the house of lords
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.
explain the function of delaying legislation as a function of the house of lords
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.
explain scrutiny of secondary legislation as function of the house of lords
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.
Explain debates as a function of the house of lords
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’.
state the advantages of the HOL that the HOC lacks
- 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.
State the powers of the house of commons on the Lords
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.
The primacy of the Commons is underpinned in legislation, notably the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and in constitutional conventions.
state the main conventions covering the relationship between the two chambers are:
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.
Explain the parliament act
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.
explain financial privilege
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.
Explain confidence and supply
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.
explain the Salisbury convention
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.
explain ‘reasonable time’ convention
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.
explain secondary legislation and the lords
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.
state the powers and functions of the commons only
- 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
state the powers and functions of both houses ( house of lords and commons)
- 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
state the powers and functions largely of the lords only
- examining secondary legislation and making recommendations for further consideration
- delaying primary legislation for up to 1 year
contrast the house of commons and lords
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
Explain how government defeats in the lords have become more frequent
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.
The increased effectiveness of the HOL in checking the powers of the executive and forcing changes to the legislative proposals has lead to what factors?
- Party balance
- Enhanced legitimacy
- Government mandate
- Supports from MPs
Explain Party Balance
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.
Explain Enhance legitimacy
Enhanced legitimacy - the reformed lords is more confident of its legitimacy and more willing to flex its muscles on legal and constitutional issues
Explain Government mandate
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.
Explain support from MPs
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
Explain how the house of lords has been reformed since the parliament act 1911 and 1949
- 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.
state arguments for ‘should the house of lords be wholly elected’ ?
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.
state problems with the current HOL
- 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.
Explain attempts to reform the house of lords
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.
how does a reformed second chamber act as a safeguard against a government
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.
state the four main proposals for reform on the house of lords
- An all-appointed second chamber
- An all-elected second chamber
- A combination of the two
- total abolition
state arguments for an all-appointed second chamber
reformed second chamber
- 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.
state arguments for an all-elected chamber
reformed second chamber
- 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
state arguments for part-elected/ part appointed
a second chamber that could enjoy the advantages of both alternatives e.g. all appointed and all elected
Explain the other proposal for reform such as total abolition
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.
Explain the nature of legislation
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
