Politics UK (textbook) - chapter 19

Question 1

Why is the House of Lords perceived as inferior to the House of Commons?

Answer 1

This is primarily due to its lack of representative capacity, leading to the House of Commons taking its place as the superior body of the legislature.

Question 2

How did the Reform Acts decrease its power?

Answer 2

It could delay a non-money bill for no more than two sessions in 1911 and then one session in 1949.

Question 3

What is the biggest controversy in the House of Lords?

Answer 3

Hereditary peerage, in which you are peer by privileged birth.

Question 4

What is the 1958 Life Peerage Act and the 1999 House of Lords Act?

Answer 4

The Life Peerages Act 1958 made provision for people to be made members for life of the House of Lords, their titles –​and the entitlement to a seat in the House of Lords –​to cease upon their death. This was designed to strengthen the House by allowing people who objected to the hereditary principle to become members.

The House of Lords Act removed from membership of the House all but 92 of the hereditary members. The effect was to transform the House from one composed predominantly of hereditary peers to one composed overwhelmingly of life peers.

Question 5

How many embers of the House today?

Answer 5

830.

Question 6

What is the composition of the House of Lords?

Answer 6

It is a majority Conservative House, this is primarily due to the hereditary peers remaining in the House. There are slightly less Labour peers and significantly less Lib Dems. There are, as of 2020, 181 cross-bench peers.

Question 7

How has life peerages affected membership of the Lords?

Answer 7

It has brought into the House a body of individuals who are experts in a particular field.

Question 8

How has activity in the House of Lords changed?

Answer 8

The creation of life peers led to higher amount of attendance within the House of Lords, this can be attributed to the speciality they brought to the House of Lords.

Question 9

How does procedure work in the House of Lords?

Answer 9

The presiding office has no power to call peers to speak or to enforce order. This responsibility falls with the House itself. The House of lords is more chamber oriented than the House of Commons also. It also has less divisions than the Commons, reflecting the recognition by peers of the political dominance by the elected chamber. The Salisbury Convention means that the House does not divide on the second reading of any bill promised in the government’s election manifesto.

Question 10

What are two features of the Lords where it differs from the Commons in terms of procedure?

Answer 10

The house discusses all amendments tabled to bills whereas in the Commons it is limited.

There are no timetabled motions which means peers continue so long as they wish to speak.

Question 11

What are the two primary functions of the House of Lords?

Answer 11

Legitimisation and Recruitment.

Question 12

Explain Legitimisation in relation to the House of Lords?

Answer 12

Legitimisation refers to its seal of approval it gives to bills. Although it can reject bills it can be overridden by the Commons later. In very rare circumstances is its veto absolute.

Question 13

How does recruitment work in relation to the House of Lords?

Answer 13

The Prime Minister appoints ministers from the Upper House primarily for political and managerial reasons. This is because the government is not guaranteed getting bills through in the form they want. It is therefore prudent to have ministers in the Lords in order to explain bills and to marshal support.

Question 14

What three features render the House of Lords effective for scrutiny and influence?

Answer 14

First, as an elected House, it cannot claim the legitimacy to reject the principle of measure agreed by the elected House.

Second, its membership includes people who have distinguished themselves in specific fields.

Third, the House has the time to date non-money bills in more detail than is usually possible in the Commons.

Question 15

What are the expressive functions of the House of Lords?

Answer 15

It can bring issues onto the political agenda in a way not possible in the Commons. This is due the fact that MPs are elected and are more sensitive to what issues they bring to the table.

Question 16

What are smaller functions of the House of Lords?

Answer 16

Historically, this is the judicial function. Currently it passes a small number of private members’ bills. It is also a brake on a government that behaves in an authoritarian manner in that it can veto bills that extend the life of Parliament.

Question 17

What are the means available with which the House fulfils the task of scrutiny and influence?

Answer 17

Legislation and executive actions.

Question 18

Explain Legislation as a means of fulfilling scrutiny and influence?

Answer 18

Legislation refers to the time available and the multiple stages of reading that bills have to go through in the House of Lords. This occurs mainly at the committee and the report stage.

Question 19

Explain Executive actions as a means of fulfilling scrutiny and influence?

Answer 19

Debates, as in the commons, take place on motions. Motions may take a view or take the form of ‘take note’ motions - ‘Take note’ motions are employed in order to allow the House to debate reports from select committees or matters backbenchers wish to raise or to discuss topics on which the government wishes to hear peers’ views. This is more effective because party ties are less rigid. Debates range on broad topics.

Questions taken on the floor in the Lords are of two types: oral questions and questions for short debate (QSD). Oral questions are taken in question time. A QSD is usually done at the end of the day.

Committees - Although the House remains a chamber-​ oriented institution, it has made greater use in recent years of investigative committees. Apart from established committees dealing, for example, with the domestic function of the House, it has appointed permanent investigative committees (known as sessional committees, as they are re-​ appointed each session) to consider areas of policy and in recent years has made use of ad hoc (now known as special inquiry) select committees to examine specific issues. The committees constitute a valuable and growing supplement to the work undertaken on the floor of the House. They allow the House to specialise to some degree and to draw on the expertise of its membership, an expertise that cannot be matched by the elected House of Commons.

Party meetings - The parties in the Lords are organised, with their own leaders and whips. Even the crossbenchers, allied to no party, have their own elected leader (known as the convenor) and circulate a weekly document detailing the business for the week ahead. However, neither the Conservative nor the Labour Party in the Lords has a committee structure. Instead, peers can attend the Commons backbench committees or policy group meetings, and a number do so. Any attempt at influence through the party structure in the Lords, therefore, takes the form of talking to the whips or of raising the issue at the weekly party meeting.

Question 20

What are the four methods available to scrutinise the actions of executives?

Answer 20

Debates, questions, select committees and party meetings.

Question 21

What were the first stages of reform to the House of Lords in the twentieth century?

Answer 21

Getting rid of hereditary peers was a significant contribution to its reform and the proposal of an elected second chamber.

Question 22

What were the second stages of reform to the House of Lords in the twentieth century?

Answer 22

This constituted on the debate around making the Upper House an elected chamber. A commission was set up in order to consider reform of the House of Lords with a report coming back that only a minority should be elected. It was argued however that over 50% of the House should be elected - this was supported by both parties.

After sufficient support was not gathered for an all elected Lords debate turned to composition of the House of lords to a 350-member second chamber. The bill made no progress.

Over the years attempts to reform the House of Lords proceeded, with other reports and papers documented.

Question 23

What are the four approaches leading to reform in the House of Lord that is talked about today?

Answer 23

Retain, reform, replace or remove.

Question 24

Explain retain in terms of what to do with the Lords?

Answer 24

This argues for retaining a non-elected approach. It argues that it compliments the elected House in that it carries out different tasks - this is because members offer particular expertise. Retaining these members one creates a body of knowledge and experience whilst also creating a body of independence. Cross-benchers are able to judge matters with a degree of attachment.

Question 25

Explain reform in terms of what to do with the Lords?

Answer 25

This favours some modification to the existing House whilst retaining the strengths of the House. It argues against the fact that no members are elected meaning it lacks democratic legitimacy. Having some appointed members means that the knowledge of specialists and their value is retained. Adding some elected members would give it democratic legitimacy.

Question 26

Explain replace in terms of what to do with the Lords?

Answer 26

This is replacing the House with a completely.
There are three variations of this.

The first is an all elected chamber. Legitimacy garnered from this would allow it to be a more effective check on government. This would allow to have a more distinct voice in the political process.

The second is representatives of organised interests - a functional chamber. In which organisations would no longer have to lobby MPs but would instead have a direct input into the political process. Difficulty would be in which groups should be represented.

The third argument is people chosen by lot. Independent views will be able to bring a different insight into the political process.

Question 27

Explain remove altogether in terms of what to do with the Lords?

Answer 27

The House of Lords would be abolished and not replaced at all. There should be only one chamber as an inferior elected second house would have no use. Arguments against this include the large burden of work not being able to be handled by one chamber and the lack of a constitutional safeguard. It is also argued that they will not bring a different point of view when scrutinising legislation.