theme 2 - parliament Flashcards
what are the 3 main functions of parliament?
- scrutiny
- representation
- legislation
what are the 3 different types of Lords in the HOL?
- hereditary peers
- life peers
- spiritual peers
How well does parliament achieve their function to legislate?
FPTP enables for a large majority in the HOC - making the legislative process much easier. This is because the party has a clear mandate, and enough MPs to vote in favour for their proposals.
When the government has a large majority, many bills will be passed into law. For example, Tony Blair and Boris Johnson. Blair had a majority of 179 seats. Blair never lost a vote in parliament until 2005. This led to Blair being able to pass massive bills and changes, like the HOL reform, devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, etc. Whereas Johnson had a majority of 80 seats in the commons, which enabled him to introduce bold legislation - like the Brexit deal, furlough scheme, 4-tier lockdown from covid-19, HS2, etc.
Equally, secondary legislation is available when a government has a minority and struggles to pass bills through parliament. For example: statutory instruments - like Theresa Mays fracking in national parks (2016) and more funding to the royal family (2017).
Why may parliament be limited in its ability to pass legislation?
There is a lot of stages a bill must go through before it becomes law - first reading, second reading, etc. This process can take lots of time, especially if its controversial and requires great debate - and the government can guillotine such time allocated to it, meaning it is unable to pass.
The system FPTP does not always guarantee a clear majority, or even a mandate. Hung parliaments are possible, and sacrifices must be made to ensure a majority, to at least try and attempt implement your legislation.
For example, Theresa May inherited a small majority of 12 when she became PM, and was reliant on other parties voting for her bills for them to pass – like the confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, that resulted in £1 billion more being spent in NI.
She faced many backbencher rebellions, with 118 tory MPs voting against her Brexit deal. Overall, her Brexit deal got rejected 3 times in parliament, leading to her eventual resignation. Thus delaying the legislative process, highlighting how important a majority is for legislation to pass. Had she had a big majority, it is unlikely such an event would’ve happened.
Equally, the HOL can delay a bill through a process known as parliamentary ping pong. The HOL can delay a bill for up to a year, forcing their amendments onto the government if they want to pass it sooner. For example, the ping pong regarding the 2012 welfare reform bill – the Lords voted against it 3 times, despite the government trying to make the amendments they wanted. The Lords were worried that cancer sufferers would be forced back into work before they had fully recovered. These amendments were driven by former doctor Lord Owen. Eventually, after along time debating back and forth, the government accepted all amendments.
How well does parliament achieve its function to represent?
Parliament is naturally representative given the framework of our elections, our elections are democratic and free to vote in. There are 650 constituencies, and each area elects their own MP to voice their individual concerns in the HOC.
^Re-call an MP act also ensures that the constituency’s wants remain representative.
MPs have been known to prioritise the interest of their constituency rather than party, highlighting their role to represent those that voted for them. For example, the 8 conservatives MPs who rebelled against the whip and voted against the expansion of Heathrow airport, were all mainly neighbouring constituencies to the airport itself. One MP raised concerns on how early flights take off and fly over her constituency - stating the earliest is at 4am.
Parliament is meant to accurately represent the country and their views. In recent times, parliament has become a lot more representative in terms of ethnicity. for example, 15% of the Uk is said to be from ethnic backgrounds, and 10% of all MPs are also from ethnic backgrounds. Equally, 35% of all MPs were women in the 2019 general election.
why may parliament be limited in its function to represent?
Sometimes parliament is unable to make sure that the decisions made represent the publics wants, due to the power of the executive -> Iraq war, where 1 million people protested against, and yet parliamentary disapproval (including Robin Cooks resignation) didn’t sway the decision.
Due to the FPTP nature of our electoral system, tactical voting also takes place - distorting how truly representative the makeup of parliament actually is. For example, POLITICO found that 1/3 people voted tactically in 2019. This shows people not voting for the party they actually resonate with, and instead voting for a party that represents their views more loosely, as they have a higher chance of winning.
Parliament is also not very representative of the average Brits wealth however – which may distort their decisions away from the public good. 90% attended university, compared to the population’s 50%. And then, 40% of conservative MPS went to Oxbridge and 20% of labour went to Oxbridge – compared to less than 1% of the population going there. Thus, although parliament is more representative in terms of race and gender, it still isn’t representative in terms of privilege.
Equally, the HOL isn’t even elected at all, and thus not very representative either.
How well does parliament achieve its function to scrutinise?
Scrutiny in parliament can take place in many ways. For example, ministerial question time. This is where the minister who is head of a department is scrutinized on the issues facing his area of work. For example, the minister of defence Geoff Hoon was scrutinized during ministerial question time on why a solider died when deployed for the Iraq War. It turns out the MOD didn’t supply enough body amour for the number of men deployed. The minister publicly apologized to his family and the government. Alok Sharma was also scrutinized over Grenfell tower, despite being the minister of housing for a handful of weeks – he was asked why the response of re-housing residents has been so slow. This shows how no matter external circumstances, ministers will always be held to account for their department – whether they want to or not.
PMQs take place once a week on a Wednesday, where the PM is questioned directly in parliament for an hour. The UK is the only country to hold its leader to account on such a regular basis. Although some call the debate a gladiatorial event now used for point scoring, it is still used to scrutinize the PM and his decisions, with Tony Blair calling it the most nerve-wracking job as a PM. The PM does not know the questions that will be asked beforehand; therefore, they are forced to stay up to date with everything in order to form a well-developed response.
Select Committees are another instrument used to scrutinize the decisions made by the government. They conduct inquiries, write reports, and get witness statements from ministers.
- THE WRIGHT REFORM - gives select committees more independence, MPs are elected onto a committee from a secret ballot instead
the privileges committee scrutinized Boris Johnson’s Party gate scandal. Reforms have also taken place to give select committees more power to hold the government to account. For example, in 2008 it was decided the government should publish a review of every act of parliament 3-5 years after it had been implemented to see how effective it was or not. This gives select committees more material to work with.
^select committee readings are often live streamed for the general public to watch - again acting as an instrument to hold ministers account not only to parliament yet also the electorate.
why may parliament be limited in its ability to scrutinise?
Many ministers pass the blame of their department onto civil servants, who cannot be scrutinized in parliament the same way ministers can. For example, amber Rudd passed the blame onto her civil servants during the Windrush generation scandal – where residents who have lived in the Uk since the 70s were asked to prove their right to work here. Similarly, Matt Hancock blamed his civil servants when scrutinized over Covid-19 responses, he also blamed the WHO (World Health Organizations) for praising their plan of response – stating he placed good faith in their verdict. Neither the WHO or civil servants can be scrutinized in parliament nor take responsibility.
PMQs in recent years have turned into a gladiatorial debate used for soundbites, rather than proper scrutiny. For example, David Cameron using PMQs to question Jeremy Corbyn’s choice of tie and suit, rather than respond to questions aimed at him. Equally, the PM will have a group of civil servants trying to figure out what questioned the PM will be asked so the PM can prepare a response. This explains why they’re able to stand up holding a book to refer to. if they genuinely had no idea what the questions were, they wouldn’t be able to refer to anything.
Select committees hold a lot of structural weaknesses. For example, the committee must reflect the makeup of parliament – so the government’s party will always be a majority in the select committee. The Committee also doesn’t have any legally binding power, and it doesn’t hold any authority to force a minister to attend a meeting for them to be questioned. Only 40% of suggestions are actually taken on board. For example, Theresa May blocked a select committee from questioning the head of the M15 due to security risks. Another example is Boris Johnson refused to attend the first three times the privileges committee asked him to.
^It could be argued the only reason he did turn up the fourth time, was because of the attention the media had brought to his absence, rather than the powers of the select committee itself. if the media wasn’t present, it is hard to imagine he would’ve showed up at all.
what are the exclusive powers of the HOC?
To give consent to taxation and public expenditure. The HOL can debate monetary bills yet they cannot interfere with them as the HOC represents the taxpayers. The Parliament Act 1911 states the HOC no longer had the power to veto any bill, other than delay a bill for up to 2 years – yet this delay period does not apply to monetary bills. This exclusive power was given to the HOC after the HOL refused to pass George Lloyds “the peoples” budget in 1909. The Salisbury convention also states the Lords should not delay a bill which was written in the governing party’s manifesto.
They have confidence and supply powers. The Government only exists as long as it has the confidence of the commons – if there is a vote of no confidence the given practice is the PM should stand down. Supply refers to the HOC providing money for legislation, paid through taxation. Supply is given when confidence is present.
What are the exclusive powers of the HOL?
The Lords can legally force the HOC to hold an election, if a government tries to prolong their term past their given 5 years.
It acts as revising chamber, who take much more time debating a bill and offering amendments. Sometimes the HOC can be too busy to properly consider all aspects of the bill. For example, the HOL pointed out many flaws in the 2022 Health and Care bills – like the problem of organ trafficking, proposed by ex-doctors in the Lords.
Can delay a non-monetary bill for a year. For example, in 2012, the Government faced a defeat in the HOL on their Welfare reform Bill – the Lords voted against it 3 times, despite the government trying to make the amendments they wanted. The Lords were worried that cancer sufferers would be forced back into work before they had fully recovered. These amendments were driven by former doctor Lord Owen – showing how the Lords past expertise provide legitimacy behind their verdict.
How could it be argued that the HOL has just as much power as the HOC?
Conventions are not legally binding agreements. The HOL has been seen to ignore the Salisbury convention on many different occasions. The whole reason for the parliament ACT of 1911 was because the HOL broke the Salisbury agreement for David Lloyds George the peoples budget.
^More recently, Lib Dem peers opposed labours identity cards law in 2005 as they said they didn’t win by a large enough majority for the Salisbury convention to mean anything in this specific case – 35.2% voted for them.
In 2014, the HOL constitution committee looked into the Salisbury convention, and concluded during a coalition government the Salisbury convention doesn’t stand.
-parliamentary ping pong. Through Parliamentary ping pong the HOL can delay a bill for a year and tactically force their amendments onto the HOC if they want to pass the bill sooner. For example, the ping pong regarding the 2012 welfare reform bill – the Lords voted against it 3 times, despite the government trying to make the amendments they wanted. The Lords were worried that cancer sufferers would be forced back into work before they had fully recovered. These amendments were driven by former doctor Lord Owen – showing how the Lords past expertise provide legitimacy behind their verdict.
How may it be argued that actually the HOL has less power than the HOC?
The HOL has many restraints on its power to make sure it doesn’t interfere with the HOC democratic process. This is where they get their informal name “the second chamber” from.
^The Parliament Act 1911 was brought in after the HOL broke the convention to not interfere with matters of taxation, after David Lloyd George proposed his “people budget” that included higher tax on land and wealth.
The parliament Act 1911 now stated:
- couldn’t delay monetary bills
- could only delay non-monetary bills for 2 years
The parliament Act 1949 stated:
- Lords could only delay a non-monetary bill for a year.
Equally, there are times where the HOC wishes can be seen to dominant the HOL wishes. For example, Gordon Browns bill on freezing terrorist assets was essentially “nodded through” parliament - it took under a week for the bill to pass. Equally, Rishi Sunak kept the HOL in parliament until the late hours of the night to pass his Rwanda bill. Thus showing how when needed, the HOC can apply great pressure on the HOL to pass a bill.
The HOC can use a statutory instrument to enforce law without the HOL agreement. A statutory instrument is a form of secondary legislation that makes changes to a pre-existing law – it will be automatically amended without debate in parliament if the Act can be changed by a “negative resolution”. The HOL has 40 days to try for an annulment – yet this is rarely successful given the tight turn around time frame – the last time they were successful was in 2000. Theresa May, due to her small majority, used statutory instruments often to pass legislation without the HOL scrutinizing her bill – for example the “emergency legislation” proposed that prevented 160,000 claiming PIP (personal independence payments) in opposition to two tribunal verdicts the found the criteria for claiming PIP was insufficient. Theresa May also used statutory instruments to pass more funding for the royal family.
What is a backbencher, and to what extent are backbenchers important? (for interacting with the executive)
to include:
1) their influence over the legislative process
2) their role to scrutinise
3) backbencher rebellions
Backbenchers are MPs who do not have ministerial roles - they therefore sit on the benches behind the front bench in parliament.
Backbenchers can be seen to important for many different reasons:
1) Their influence on legislation:
- private member bills. This is where a backbencher proposes their own bill that they would like to be debated in parliament. A backbencher can introduce a bill in many different ways, one way is the “10 minute rule” where the MP must make their point within a 10 minute speech. For example, the 1967 abortion act was a private member bill.
- Backbencher business committee. This committee introduced in 2010 allows the backbenchers to choose a topic for debate for 35 days in each parliamentary session. An example of a successful topic chosen by backbenchers which got passed into law, would be Harvey’s law (2015) – that states the highway agency much notify owners if their pet has been killed on the road. This was brought to backbenchers’ attention after 130k signed a petition for it to be debated in parliament.
- Backbenchers play a key role during the second and third reading of a bill. This is when the debate takes place. Any major objections will be raised by backbenchers - seeing as all government ministers are tied to CMR - something the backbencher doesn’t have to worry about.
^Backbenchers may also have a tendency to prioritise their constituency over their government - thus influencing the likelihood of legislation passing. For example, 8 conservative MPs voted against the 3-line whip for Heathrow’s planned expansion. Most of these MPs were MPs of neighbouring constituencies to the airport.
2) Their role to scrutinise:
- Opportunity to join a select committee. Backbenchers make up the majority composition of a select committee. They can therefore scrutinise the government through research, interviews, etc.
^The Wright reform (2010) - meant that the government could no longer choose who sits on a select committee. instead, people are elected onto these committees through a secret ballot. - Ministerial question times give backbenchers the chance to scrutinise a government minister on a specific area. For example, Geoff Hoon was scrutinised by backbencher questions over the Iraq war, and why a solider died. it turns out the MOD didn’t supply enough body armour for all of the men they deployed. Hoon ended up apologising publicly and to the family in question. Equally, Alok Sharma was scrutinised during PMQs over the Grenfell tower incident, despite only being the minister for housing for a handful of weeks prior. he was asked why it has taken so long to re-house many of the residents effected in the fire.
3) backbencher rebellions
- The possibility of a backbencher rebellion is huge for a government, as this will determine whether their bill passes into law or not.
^The largest ever backbencher rebellion was against Tony Blair over the Iraq war - 139 labour MPs voted against him.
^The second largest in modern history was against Theresa Mays Brexit deal. 118 conservative MPs voted against her bill.
why may backbenchers be considered not that important?
The whip - if you vote against the whip enough times, then the whip can remove your status from the party, meaning you will be forced to stand as an independent MP (or defect onto another party). This reduces your likelihood of being elected again, as much of your previous support would’ve been due to party loyalty, rather than necessarily the individual.
^Equally, the power of patronage and possibility of promotion serves as a incentive to abide the whip. The whip can make recommendations to the PM on who to promote to cabinet - this is important as it shows previous signs of loyalty, and a higher likelihood they will maintain CMR. For all of these reasons, backbencher rebellions are unlikely.
- private member bills are few and far between. The amount of days private member bills must have allocated is only 13 days. Thus the likelihood that a private bill becomes law is dependent on the government supporting such bill, as it is the government that creates the timetable for debate.
^The backbencher committee also falls to this structural weaknesses. Many of the 35 days allocated just serve as their concerns being aired – rather than turning into actual legislation. If the government doesn’t want a bill to pass, they would just not allocate enough time to do so.
The threat of backbencher’s rebellions holds more weight when the government is working with a small majority. This is why so many socialists had to tame their views during the new labour government, as Blair had a majority of 179 seats, thus they knew there was enough alternative MPs for the whip not to be scared to make sanctions on rebellious MPs.
^Equally, even if there isn’t a healthy majority, the government can find loopholes through “confidence and supply” agreements.
to what extent are select committees important for interacting with the executive?
Select Committees scrutinise government through conducting inquiries, writing reports, and getting witness statements from ministers. They can call any minister into questioning, for example:
-the privileges committee scrutinized Boris Johnson’s Party gate scandal.
-The health and social care committee also gathered evidence from Matt Hancock on his covid-19 response.
^Such inquiries are often live streamed, gaining a lot of media attention.
The Wright reform (2010) has also given select committees more independence form the government - allowing them to scrutinise effectively. This reform stated that now MPs are voted onto select committees through a secret ballot, rather than being chosen by the government.
Equally in 2008 it was decided the government should publish a review of every act of parliament 3-5 years after it had been implemented to see how effective it was or not. This gives select committees more material to work with.
