Unit 2 - Parliament Flashcards
How does parliament award legitimacy to the govt?
- the people elect representatives to the commons
2. Gain legitimacy from the people
3. Govt drawn from parliament
And thus govt is legitimate
What are the main functions of parliament?
- Representation
- Legitimacy
- Scrutiny
- Legislation
- Recruitment and training
- Debate and deliberation
Parliament carries out its representative function (3)
- Elected commons with a wide range of constituencies (650 seats)
- Many methods of representation
- Follows Burkean model well. No need for descriptive representation.
Parliament does not carry out its representative function (3)
- Composition is not proportional
- Unelected Lords undermine representation - lack of mandate
- Socially un representing - 22% women, 4% ethnic minorities
Functions of both Lords and Commons
- Approval of legislation
- Accountability of government
- Scrutiny of legislation
- Debating key political issues
Functions of the Lords
- Delaying legislation for at least a year
- Representing various interests and causes in society
- Scrutiny of legislation
What is a Presidential government?
A form of government whereby the executive and legislature are separate and elected separately.
The president does not sit in the legislature.
- President is accountable to the people due to personal mandate (not to the legislature)
- Constitutional rules establish limits on presidential power
Does the executive dominate parliament? YES
- Govt can claim a mandate from the people and hence Parliament must accept the governments legitimate right to rule
- Govts usually have a clear majority in Commons (aside from coalitions)
- Governments whip MPs to gain or maintain support within the Commons.
- Many MPs seek promotion and do this by remaining loyal to governing party (patronage)
- House of Lords power is reduced
1949 parliament act limits them to only being able to delay legislation for 1 year.
1911 parliament act prevents lords from interfering in financial matters
Salisbury convention is considered to be binding - stated that lords must not obstruct government policies that were part of manifesto
Does the executive dominate parliament? No
- Parliament is sovereign - can veto legislation
- Govt can be removed through vote of no confidence (1979 James Callaghan after period of industrial unrest and economic problems)
- Parliament has the power to scrutinise and amend legislation
- Governments have no chance against significant parliamentary opposition
- House of Lords retains independence as there is no government majority and patronage is weaker. It can defy the will of the govt.
- Departmental select committees need public bill committees scrutinise government.
- MPs and peers call govt to account (PMQT)
Examples of parliament defying the government
- 1979 James Callaghan vote of no confidence
- 1986 shops bill - only time in Thatchers period in office where the government lost a vote on major legislation. Proposed to allow more shops to be open on Sundays. A lot of opposition within Conservative
party - 1994 VAT rise defeat - john major’s proposal to raise the rate of VAT on fuel and energy
- 2005 and 2008 detention of terror suspects ( 2005 - Blair attempted to extend the period to 90 days - commons. 2008 - brown attempted to extend to 42 days - lords)
- 2011 fixed term parliament act (defeated by House of Lords)
Departmental Select Committees
- Consists of 11-13 backbench MPs
- Oversees work of govt departments
- Can question ministers, civil servants and other witnesses or call for official papers
- Produces unanimous reports that cross party lines
- SCRUTINY
Public Accounts Committee
- Chaired by opposition backbencher
2. Investigates financial aspects of govt
Legislative committees of the commons
15-40 backbenchers
- amend legislation and scrutinise
- have a government majority
- rarely pass amendments against government wishes
- largely ineffective
Legislative committee of the Lords
- 15+ members
- Contains peers who are experts
- Weaker party discipline
- Pass significant amendments to improve legislation
- Often defy governments wishes
- Amendments are subject to approval in the commons
Positives of commons representation
Active MPs who represent constituents. Also represent pressure groups and associations
Negatives of commons representation
Commons is not socially representative.
Party loyalty distorts representation.
Party composition in commons does not reflect on support for parties (disproportionality)
Positives of commons accountability
MPs regularly question ministers. Liaison committee questions prime minister twice a year.
Departmental select committees.
Negatives of commons accountability
PMQT is just entertainment.
Whipped MPs fear of being disloyal.
Hard to hold one party to account under a coalition
Positives of commons scrutiny
Effective departmental select committees. 44% of recommendations made by them have been enacted by govt. Rise in pay for committees to provide incentive. Lessens pressure for independent minded MPs who want to further their careers without bowing down to party pressure.
20 opposition days - 2009 Labour Party defeated in opposition day motion on Gurkhas.
Public accounts committee headed by opposition MP
Negatives of commons scrutiny
Lack of time
Whipped legislative committees
Positives of commons legislation
Legitimate as govt majority have mandate.
Laws are legitimised in parliament as MPs consent on behalf of the people
Commons can veto legislation that is against public interests
- legislation can be passed quickly if needed eg terrorism act took 1 month
Positives of commons checking govt power
Can veto legislation
Negatives of commons checking govt powers
Party loyalty and discipline means that MPs are reluctant to challenge govt
Positives of lords representation and negatives
Many sections of society are represented by peers who have links and experience and knowledge
Negatives - unelected. Who are they representing? No mandate or accountability. Socially in representing
Positives and negatives of lords accountability
Pos - peers are more independent minded. Less party loyalty
Cons - departmental select committees do not exist in lords so govt cannot be scrutinised
Positives and negatives of lord scrutiny
Legislative committees in lords are more effective as there is less party discipline and less party loyalty.
Peers are experienced and knowledgable
Cons - commons can ultimately overturn lords recommendations as lords has reduced power
Pros and cons of lords legislation
Pros - scrutiny by peers who are experts. Laws are more legitimate
2010-2012 80 bills examined with 10,031amendments considered
Cons - unelected so cannot legitimise laws
Pros and cons of lords debate
More time than commons
Peers have expertise
Cons - no legislative power so debates are largely symbolic
Pros and cons of lords checking govt power
Pros - govt cannot control members of lords due to lack of partisanship
Cons - ultimately commons and the govt are more powerful and can by pass lords
Bills passed without lords approval
War crimes act 1991
European Parliamentary act 1999
Hunting act 2004
Methods of scrutiny
- Legislative scrutiny - PAC, headed by opposition MP
- PMQT, Questions to ministers for oral and written answer
- Select committees
- Debates
How are finance and constitutional bills scrutinised?
Committee of the whole House of Commons meaning every MP takes part
Example of poor legislation
Dangerous dogs act 1991/1997
- too rushed with too many loopholes
Voted as one of the word pieces of legislation
Passed quickly in response to public pressure
Problems of public bill committees
- Committee of selection is dominated by party whips
- Experts excluded
- Govt has an advantage
- Not permanent - poor expertise
- Selection reflects party leadership
- Independent minded MPs excluded
Problem with private member bills
Only 13 Fridays a year allocated - little time.
Most MPs return to constituencies on Fridays meaning that there is low attendance for debates on PMBs
Opponents can filibuster
Evidence of small support for PMBs
Out of 2067 between 1983-2002 only 256 received royal assent
Liaison committee
- chairs of all committees and joint committee on human rights
- considers general matters in the commons (eg investigating effectiveness of select committees)
- since 2002, questions PM 2 times a year, requesting evidence on govt policy
Tony Blair in 2002. First time pm given evidence for 65 years
Significant PMB legislation
Murder act 1965
Abortion act 1967
Sexual offences act 1967
Autism act 2009
How have select committees been made more independent?
Since 2010, members are voted rather than being proposed by committee of selection
The uk should have an elected second chamber
- Thy would be more democratically legitimate with a mandate.
- Widen representation
- More authority allowing it to check the power of commons more effectively
- Better legislation
- End executive tyranny
The UK should not have an elected second chamber
- Gridlocked government
- Small c conservative argument
- Peers hold more expertise
- Obstruct the government
- Apathy and voter fatigue if faced with too many elections
- Partisanship
- Lack of descriptive representation
Reforms to the Lords
1999 - removal of hereditary peers
2001 - white paper recommended 20% elected
2006 - loan for peerages scandal gave impetus for reform
Arguments for the lords
- Check on power (especially during landslide majority governments)
- Expertise
- Independence from partisanship
- Small c conservative
- Quality of committee work is high
- Final constitutional safeguard against government of the day
Arguments against the lords
- Unelected, unaccountable and un democratic.
- Weakened independence due to power of patronage of PM
- Hereditary peers
- Under representation of women (18% of women)
5.
