...'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power'. Discuss In theory the House of Commons is the dominant chamber as it is elected while the House of Lords plays more of a revising role, issues to be considered include the powers of each chambers, the fact the House of Lords is more independently minded and the impact of the whips. It will ultimately be argued that the House of Commons remains far more effective due to having greater powers in checking the government power. Firstly, the House of Commons has the ultimate check on government power via a vote of no confidence, this last happened in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher was able to be elected due to the Labour government's failure. The vote of no confidence allows the House of Commons to directly confront the government which creates a mutual respect between the government and the House of Commons as they can get rid of a government if they believe the government is failing to use its power correctly and effectively. Also, only the House of Commons has the power to reject legislation compared to the House of Lords which can only suspend the legislation for a maximum of 2 years. For example, in 2001 the House of Lords voted 317-68 against a fox hunting ban, and in 2004 they again threw out the plans for a complete ban, however in November 2004 the parliamentary act was invoked and the bill came into force in 2005. However, the fact the House of Lords is more independently...
Words: 1305 - Pages: 6
...Powers of House of Commons and the House of Lords The House of Commons has, theoretically, a massive amount of formal power. It has a sovereign legislature, and can make, amend or un-make any law it wishes, and can be only delayed by the House of Lords. Can remove the government of the day in a vote of confidence. E.g. 1979 vote of no confidence in James Callaghan's Labour government. However, in reality it has only a limited influence over legislation due to executive domination of the House of Commons: the Westminster voting system offers the government majority control over the Commons and the party discipline system allows ministers to control backbenchers. Formal mechanisms to ensure accountability like Question Time and select committees are often relatively weak. But, declining levels of party unity have led to more independent, educated and assertive backbenchers, who are able to exert a greater influence. E.g. Conservative backbench rebellion 2011 on having an EU membership referendum, where a massive 81 conservative MPs voted for having it. However, counterbalancing this is a growing trend for landslide majorites, which allows governments to resist pressure from backbenchers and opposition. The formal powers of the House of Lords are, in contrast, quite unimpressive. Lords can only delay legislation from the Commons for a year maximum. Cannot delay money-related bills. Cannot remove the government of the day and can only veto a very limited range of matters...
Words: 441 - Pages: 2
...'The House of Lords is now more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power.' Discuss. (40) The House of Commons and the House of Lords both check government power and together they form our dual chamber system. They both share the task of making and shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government but have different features which has led to debate as to which is the most effective. With the reforms to the House of Lords being a much discussed issue recently, debate as to which chamber is more effective has been heightened further. The House of Lords are appointed based on their expertise. You could argue that this makes them more effective at checking government power because they each specialise in certain areas and posses large amounts of knowledge on certain aspects that would allow them to hold government to account. For example, one lord may be a former Prime Minister whilst one may specialise in business. This knowledge and expertise could be seen as making the House of Lords more well rounded and therefore more effective than the House of Commons in checking government power. This is because in the House of Commons they could be elected for reasons other than their expertise, for example, if a party holds a safe seat then the skill set of their MP might not even be taken into consideration by citizens who are just voting for the party. However, some people may say that because 26 of the most senior bishops are in the House...
Words: 937 - Pages: 4
...The House of Lords an effective institution? an effective institution? Introduction Since the reform of the House of Lords in 1999 by Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ government, the status and legislative scope of the ‘upper house’ has steadily risen. Its role as a ‘revising chamber’, scrutinising bills sent to it from the House of Commons, is an important one. However, unlike upper houses in many modern democracies such as the Senate in the USA, theoretically it cannot stop, and at best can only delay, legislation sent from the Commons. As a largely appointed chamber, doubts remain as to its legitimacy and as recently as 2012 the government tried to replace the Lords with a largely elected chamber. This initiative however failed, perhaps partly because MPs were worried that a wholly elected Lords might in the future question the primacy of the Commons. Task Objective * This task requires you to explore the workings of the Lords and consider how effective it is as a parliamentary body. * It will ask you to consider whether the House of Lords should be reformed further. * It will guide you through a range of reading material and pose key questions for you to post on as you complete each section of reading. Task 1: Overview of Functions____________________________________________________________________ You can get a very quick overview of the role and work of the House of Lords by skim reading the following pamphlet and watching the YouTube clip: http://youtu...
Words: 4252 - Pages: 18
...How and why should parliament be made more effective? Parliament is the sovereign body in the United Kingdom and so it is vital, for the wellbeing of democracy, that parliament not only exists but is also effective. Parliament plays the role of the Legislative and, as a result, is required to be as effective as possible to assure that laws are well thought out, benefit the whole of society and most of all maintain democracy. However, many people feel that certain aspects within Parliament limit its effectiveness and they feel these features need to be reformed in order for Parliament to carry out its function correctly. Firstly, the most obvious way to make Parliament more effective would be to reform the electoral system. Currently, Westminster elections use the system of First-past-the-post where the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins the seats. However, this system is highly disproportionate in both terms of the word as it exaggerates winning votes for example, the Conservatives received 36.1% of the vote and won 47.1% of the seats in the 2010 general election, whereas it penalises small parties such as the Liberal Democrats who won 23% of the vote but gained only 8.8% of the seats. Particularly as FPTP produces landslide majorities, it makes Parliament less effective as the party that wins the general election forms the government and therefore has a large majority in most cases. If MPs belonging to the party vote along party lines all the time, in...
Words: 1983 - Pages: 8
...representatives who are voted in order to represent the needs of their constituencies in the House of Commons. The UK parliament stands in the Centre of the British political system, as it is the source of all political power as well as being legally sovereign. Government has to be drawn from parliament as well as being accountable to it; accountability means that parliament must justify its policies to parliament as well as referring to representatives who are accountable for their electorates. Parliament main function is not to obstruct and control the government, as it will only do this if the government is seen to be abusing its power by not acting in the public’s interest. The main role of parliament is to support the government and to legitimize its proposals. Parliament is also bicameral, separated in to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Representation is a crucial function of parliament; in the UK we use a system called Representative democracy where most decisions are made by elected representatives rather than the people themselves. There are arguments that representation in parliament is strong. Peers who have more expertise in particular areas of policies and can help to improve legislation, therefore represent many sections of society and associations more effectively. People also feel that representatives will have more political knowledge and the forth are more effective when questioning the minister or calling the government to account. This allows people...
Words: 1548 - Pages: 7
...2 chambers: House of Commons (originally commoners) and House of Lords (originally aristocrats). Parliament is the oldest legislator in the world; it is the mother of parliaments. House of commons is made up of 650 MPS, government are trying to reduce it to 600. House of Lords is around 800. Until 19th century, both houses were roughly equal. But as the 19th century goes on , votes are often given to more and more men , the house of commons requires more status and the house of Lords has less status. The last prime minister to come from the house of Lords in 1902. Parliament act of 1911 removed the power of vetoe. The Lords could not longer vetoe an act of parliament, only delay 2 years. 1949 that 2 years was reduced to 1 year and that’s where it remains. Salisbury convention - the lords will not even delay a bill for which the government have a mandate. Conflict between house of Lords and house of commons is very rare. Rare examples, 2005 – fox hunting, the parliament act was pushed through banned, commons pushed it through. Autumn 2011- the lords rejected Osbornes working tax credits party. The Lords debate bills but more importantly they offer any perspective of bills, they are a revising chamber. Over 800 Lords, the vast majority of them are life peers. Lord Sacks is an independent Lord , he is not under a party. Some Lords who are supporters of particular parties , no party have a majority in the house of lords. This is one...
Words: 1974 - Pages: 8
...Composition, Role and Powers of the House of Commons: * It is an elected chamber, hence enjoys democratic legitimacy. * Composed of 650 MPs, whereby each has been elected to represent a constituency. * It therefore has supremacy and the commons may thus pass any bill that they wish and the Lords may only delay it becoming law. * Executive can therefore only govern if it retains the confidence of the House of Commons. * It the executive loses the vote of confidence, it has no option but to resign and hence provoking a general elections. * Given that there are two Houses of Parliament, the system is called Bicameral. Composition, Role and Powers of the House of Lords: * It compromises of four types of Lords. * The vast majority is Life Peers, where they have been appointed to the House of Lords by the Prime Minister on his own recommendations and that of other party leaders. * While a smaller number of People’ Peers have been appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. * There are 92 Hereditary Peers. * There is Lords Spiritual, the 26 Bishops of the Church of England. * However they are not elected and therefore does not enjoy democratic legitimacy the powers of the Lords are inferior to those of House of Commons. * This means all they can do to proposed legislation that they disapprove of its delay it for one year. * But they cannot do this to the budget. * According to the Salisbury Convention, they...
Words: 3407 - Pages: 14
...debates major issues of current interest, it makes legislation, it scrutinises the executive whilst simultaneously sustaining the government, and it represents the people and redresses their grievances. In many aspects, Parliament is usually effective in fulfilling its functions, but there are occasions where it is not as diligent in doing so. Parliament’s scrutiny function is mainly carried out through four methods; Prime Minister’s Questions, Select Committees, back bench MPs and the House of Lords. Prime Minister’s Questions are a weekly opportunity for the opposition and backbenchers to scrutinise the Prime Minister and by extension the government, and to highlight government failings or simply ask a question. This is a good way of scrutinising the Prime Minister as it puts him/her under pressure to justify their actions, and answer potentially awkward questions regardless of whether they have been pre-submitted. The main weakness of this form of scrutiny is that the questions are often submitted to the Prime Minister some time before Prime Minister’s Questions, allowing him/her to come up with an answer beforehand that might let him/her to actually evade proper scrutiny within the House of Commons. Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament investigate the work of government and produce reports on policy proposals. They can call witnesses in the course of their proceedings. Their role includes investigating the work of the government departments to determine whether...
Words: 1434 - Pages: 6
...While the word ‘Lord’ is generally related to power, the term power is contrary to the reality of the Upper Chamber. In spite of the considerable number of reforms which have been applied by the Government to make it representative, the question of whether to get rid of the House of Lords or not, has been a controversial issue for more than a century. Nevertheless, it is irrefutable that the Lower House has more power due to its legitimacy obtained from citizens voting for its members (MPs). Despite, the House of Lords has increased its influence and it continues to do so. The present clamour for a constitutional reform in the political field demands a close examination of the role and work of the House of Lords. This essay will analyse the advantages and drawbacks of the House of Lords. Firstly, the function of the Upper Chamber will be taken into account and analysed, followed by an evaluation of its unsuccessful reforms. The goal of this essay is to find an answer to the question whether the House of Lords should be reformed or not. As an essential part of the Westminster model, the House of Lords complements the work of the House of Commons, analysing laws from the Commons, scrutinising the decisions taken by the government and bringing a breadth of knowledge and experience to solve matters of public interest. The House of Lords plays a major role in legislation even with the limitations of the Parliament Act (it can only delay non-money Bills for one year) and...
Words: 1228 - Pages: 5
...How effective is parliament? Parliament in the UK is mainly made up of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The ‘executive’ refers to the Government. The effectiveness of parliament is judged by how effectively the government is held to account by the Commons and Lords. One of parliament’s main functions is holding the government to account. One of the effective ways parliaments hold the government to account is it forces government ministers to justify their policies and explain why they were developed as well as explain the future effects of these policies. Debates are a perfect opportunity to hold the government to account they provide an open floor for Mps to speak and question members of the government, however this is usually unreliable seeing as PM’s get pre-prepared questions. The opposition party and everyone else within parliament have the duty to criticise and scrutinise government bills. This works to keep the government in check as it forces them to reconsider their decisions, make changes if necessary and defend their ideas from the oppositions criticism. This then works to ensure that policy is well thought out, and discussed before it is passed through the House of Lords. It is Parliaments ability to question that allows them to keep the power of government in check; this suggests that parliament is effective on government to a large extent. An example of a governments defeat would be the Hunting with dogs’ act 2001. However, Parliament is limited in...
Words: 1083 - Pages: 5
...determine specific policy outcomes. There is a constant debate whether the UK is a truly democratic country or not and to what extent. It is believed that nowadays Britain has a massive issues: the electoral system is totally unfair, there are unelected political members and the lack of parties, Civil Rights are in danger, citizens no longer have a wish to participate in elections, the media is prejudged and, finally, the UK is not representative. This essay will evaluate how to make the Great Britain more democratized. The major point is that there is a low rate of political participation in the UK that might lead to an arbitrary and autocratic government. It is significant element because it makes the government more accountable. There are some ways which can prevent this undemocratic style. Firstly, the UK government can introduce the compulsory voting which is nowadays enhanced in Australia. This method would force citizens to affect the outcomes of elections and make them more politically aware of issues. The second way is to increase the use of referendums in order to encourage political engagement. Although a referendum result is not binding totally on Parliament (it is Omnicompetent), it has to be stressed that it is almost unthinkable that the UK Parliament would defy the expressed result of a referendum. The referendum is the most direct form of democracy that also helps to make decisions legitimate and confirms the principle of...
Words: 1432 - Pages: 6
...mandate to support the party's policies. Defying the party leadership would prove too difficult and could be seen as a betrayal of the mandate. In turn, MP's will feel bound to the mandate made, encouraging them not to challenge the executive and support it's decisions. Another party factor is the overall majority the government has in parliament. The first past the post system guarantees this majority . The conservative party in the current House of Commons has 101 more seats than Labour. This demonstrates the vast majority of Conservative MP's from the 2015 general election. More importantly, for parliament to build momentum against the executive it would be difficult as roughly half the chamber are in the Prime Ministers party. In summary, party loyalty and is a beneficial to the executive's hold of power. However, Parliament does remain effective in different ways and can constrain power of the executive. One of the biggest ways Parliament puts pressure on the executive is via select committees. Select committees work in both houses. They check and report on areas ranging from the work of government departments to economic affairs. The results of these inquiries are public and many require a response from the government. Select committees limit...
Words: 844 - Pages: 4
...introduced a number of reforms designed to make parliament more efficient and more accountable, such as E Petitions, power of recall, the equalisation of constituencies, a reduction in the powers of the Prime Minister and Fixed Term parliaments. Select Committees have also been further reformed, while there are major plans for to make the House of Lords primarily elective. The EQUALISATIION IN THE SIZE OF CONSTITUENCIES to between 72,000 – 80, removing anomalies whereby some constituencies can have 30% more voters than others, might seem relatively un-contentious. However, critics argue that the Electoral Register has not been sufficiently updated for such a radical overhaul of voting, while the new constituencies will often have to cross county borders and urban / countryside boundaries thus complicating the interests that MPs represent. The reduction of MPs from 650 to 600 is also controversial as it will statistically reduce representation in the Commons, as well as proportionally increasing the influence of government in a reduced legislature. There has though been a great deal of support, too, for FIXED TERM PARLIAMENTS since this takes away from the Prime Minister the right to call a General Election at his or her convenience. However, other reforms have been a great deal more controversial; the new ruling that a VOTE OF CONFIDENCE in the government can only be provoked by a vote of 55% in the House of Commons has been condemned as being undemocratic and...
Words: 1122 - Pages: 5
...Module: Public Law& Civil Rights ‘The Government is pledged in its manifesto to complete reform of the Lords to remove the hereditary element entirely and to reconstitute the House on a modern representative basis.’ Government White Paper (The House of Lords: Completing the Reform 2001). Consider the political and legal reasons as to why, some 13 years after stage 1 of House of Lords reform (the House of Lords Act 1999), Parliament has only now started to consider Stage 2 legislation (House of Lords Reform Bill 2012). Abstract During the past 100 years, the British government has never ceased trying to bring democracy to the House of Lords. However, having examined the reform history, one could conclude that all the reforms proposed after 1999 are not carried out as planned. This essay, therefore, attempts to provide descriptions on the major reforms of Lords proposed or implemented since 1911. It will focus particularly on discussing the main political and legal difficulties on the incompletion of reform of Lords since 1999. 1. Introduction The House of Lords has long been known as a historical curiosity of this country. Together with the Canadian Senate, the chamber remains one of the only two unelected second chambers in the modern and major democracies. Owing to the undemocratic composition of the Lords, it was reluctant to utilize its legitimate powers in the 20th century for which some local political scholars described as having ‘a little public profile...
Words: 6234 - Pages: 25
