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 will not oppose proposals that were in the manifesto that the governing party was elected upon. * However they play an important role in parliament: The Lords have a wealth of experience the amendments that they suggest to bills can be taken very seriously by the government. Especially because these amendments are generally made without an obvious party political bias. Lords have rejected a controversial Bill and the government has taken notice and withdrawn it appreciating that the Lords may well be articulating public concern or outrage. For example, the Lords rejected plans for a Super Casino in Manchester and the 42 days imprisonment without charge for terror suspects, on both occasions the government quietly shelved their plans. There are also the House of Lords select committees; in particular the European Union Select Committee which famously investigates the constitutional significance of further European integration.

Parliamentary Government vs Presidential Government: The PM is a member of both the Executive and the Legislature | The President is not a member of the Legislature | The Executive is formed from the Legislature and must retain the support of the Legislature. In practical terms, this means that the Government of the day must hold the confidence of Parliament. If the Government loses a vote of no confidence, a General Election must be calledThus, in a Parliamentary system the fate of Government and Parliament are inextricably linked | A President may derive from a different party to the majority party in the Legislature and unlike a Parliamentary system, he Legislature cannot remove the head of the Executive – as that role (called impeachment) in undertaken by the Judiciary | The head of state is usually a monarch and the country is under a monarchy system | The head of state is usually the President and the country tends to be a republic | The PM is not directly elected by the people, as people vote for MP’s not head of state | The President however, is directly elected by the people | Fusion of powers | Separation of powers | Unitary | Federal |

Parliament Functions: Representation, Scrutiny, Legislation, Accountability
Parliament’s main role is to safeguard our democracy against over powerful government- it does this by legitimizing the bills that the executive introduces and then scrutinising the actions of government in a variety of ways such as through general and select committees. The executive is also accountable to the legislature and can be dismissed if it loses a vote of confidence.
Representation: Each of us has a constituency MP who represents us in the Commons. MP represents all of his constituents whatever political party they voted for and a constituent will contact their MP by letter or Email etc. An MP, by virtue of his membership of the Commons, will have special access to ministers therefore providing the link between the constituent and government.
Legislation: Parliament is the supreme law making body within the UK, and a bill has to be passed by both the Commons and the Lords. The government cannot pass a law by itself, without consent of Parliament. Parliament has supreme legislative authority. For example, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown failed to extend detention without charge because Parliament has not been prepared to enact these bills.
Scrutiny: As the Executive and legislature is fused, this gives the legislature a significant opportunity to be able to scrutinise the work of the government. It can do this via Prime Ministers questions where the PM must defend his government’s policies in front of the Commons; while at Ministerial Questions ministers must similarly defend their department’s handling of policy either in a written response or in the House general committees scrutinise bills, after the second reading, they may suggest amendments to them while select committees scrutinise the work of departments of state. For example, the Transport Select Committee is a committee of backbench MPs from all political parties who monitor work of that department.
Accountability: As Parliament scrutinises the government, it makes government accountable for its actions. By being accountable to parliament, it is accountable to the nation. The government is also made ultimately accountable to parliament in a vote of no confidence which means that if parliament is no longer prepared to carry on supporting a government and it loses a vote of no confidence in the Commons, then it will have to resign.
Why does the Executive need a strong Parliament? * The executive sits in the legislature and if the legislature proves to be weak then it will insufficiently hold the government to account as a result of which the executive may well act arrogantly. * If Parliament is strong and self confident then it is much more likely to hold the executive accountable and make it justify its actions. * Parliament has to represent the views of everyone in society so that when controversial proposals are discussed MPs and Lords can stand up for those who might be adversely affected. * A strong parliament will also make the government continually think through consequences of its policies. This is vital in ensuring that the government’s policies take into account as many potential objections as possible. * Finally is parliament is weak then the executive has a weak pool from which draw future ministers.
How well does Parliament fulfil its various functions? * Representation: Our MPs do represent us well in the House of Commons. They are accountable to the electorate at the next elections so it is in their best interests to listen to the concerns of their constituents. The establishment of Parliamentary backbench business committee has also given backbench MPs a greater opportunity to suggest issues for debate. However FPTP ensures that the Commons is not all representative of how public voted. 2005, Lib Dems won 22% of the votes but only gained 9.6% of the seats in the Commons. Labour gained 35.2% of votes and got 55.1% of seats in the Commons. Minority parties which can fare well in elections with proportional representation are thus excluded from almost any influence in the Commons. Representation in Westminster is complicated by the fact that some parts of the UK are over represented. Residents in some constituents are significantly over represented than others (Isle of Wight has one MP for 100,000 voters; Western Isles have one MP for 22,000). As well as that most MPs are generally white, male and middle class which are hardly representative of multi cultural Britain today. MPs also do not need to represent the interests of their constituents in the Commons, as well as obeying the dictates of the Whips may also decide to vote according to the influence of professional lobbyists. Representation of MPs constituents a much more marginal affair than it ought to be. * Legislation: One key problem reducing the impact of Parliament over scrutiny and legislation is the power of the Whips and Party discipline generally. There needs to be tight party discipline but the problem with that is that it discourages independence of thought amongst MPs since they will generally support their party’s line in order to foster their own career ambitions. A new MP in particular will not want to gain the reputation of being a trouble maker since it will therefore be unlikely that he will rise up through the party ranks. It is not easy for an MP to operate outside the confines of party discipline because the vast majority of bills and debates in the Commons are introduced by the government. However it would be misleading to argue that Parliament is failing in all of its functions. A lot of it depends on the personality of the MP and not all MPs slavishly follow the dictates of the whips and instead they try to represent what they regard as being the interests of the wider community. * Scrutiny:
Prime Ministers questions: provides the most regular and obvious way in which the PM is held to account. At PMQ the PM will answer “easy” questions from its own backbenchers and rather more difficult ones from the Leader of the opposition and other opposition MPs. Given media enthusiasm for the adversial nature of this event, the PM and the Leader of the opposition will be more interested in maximising the most number of effective sound bites that are more likely to appear on the evening news bulletins, so it is unlikely that PMQ will generate that much serious discussion and calm and reasoned scrutiny.
Ministerial questions: ministers also answer questions in the Commons and this proves a good opportunity for their performance under pressure to be judged. It gets a great deal less publicity that PMQ but this probably means that scrutiny is better since the minister and his/her questions do not feel that they have to “play the gallery” so much. During an emergency a minister can be asked to make a statement to the House and answer its questions, on an issue of national and international significance.
Departmental select committees: They monitor the performance of government departments. All Departments of state have their own select committees shadowing their performance, deciding whether policies are being appropriately implemented and whether the department is doing its work efficiently enough. This is a key element of scrutiny. In order to achieve their objectives, Select Committees can send for “Persons, papers and records” when they investigate the work of a government department and if a select committee is well led then it will achieve the level of cohesion necessary to make a real impact on the work of a department. For example, the defence select committee gained a great deal of favourable media publicity when it criticised the department of defence for not providing sufficient body armour for British troops in Iraq. Select committees do not posses any coercive power by they can be extremely influential in highlighting controversial decisions and can even persuade a department of state to rethink a policy if it can generate enough unfavourable publicity. However they have very small secretarial support staff. The ministers and MPs can also refuse to attend their meetings and departments are not obliged to act upon their recommendations, in short they have no coercive power.
Liaison Committee: It includes the heads of all the select committees and who can question the PM twice a year. It is quite an unwieldy body and probably tries to cover too much ground to be that effective.
Opposition day: 20 opposition days during a parliamentary session when the opposition parties can chose a subject of debate and will therefore decide to debate issues that are most likely to discomfort the government. The effectiveness of the Opposition das is rather reduced because such debates generally take place in an atmosphere of heightened political debate. In certain circumstances, Opposition day can be effective in forcing a government to rethink its policy if it is combined with public pressure and if the government itself is unsure of the wisdom of a policy.
House of Lords: It has an important role in scrutinising the role, since it rejects legislation with a sufficiently large majority then the government may decide not to continue with such controversial legislation.

Effectivness of Parliament: INEFFECTIVE | EFFECTIVE | * Critics of how Westminster operates claim that MP’s (and to a lesser extent peers) are little more than “lobby fodder” – doing the will of their party Whips and leader due to their subordinate position in relation to the Executive * The Burkean notion is little more than a quaint phrase disguising the reality of how politics is really conducted in this country * Whilst this is something of an exaggeration, it is undoubtedly the case that Parliament is relatively weak (and therefore ineffective) in relation to the Executive * Some have even claimed that Parliament should now be categorised as a dignified (as opposed to efficient) element of the UK constitution | * MP’s and peers do not always follow the will of the party Whips * This has been particularly notable since 2001, as backbench Labour MP’s have been more willing to voice their concern over the direction of Government policy * Peers have also become much more assertive in relation to the Executive in recent years | * Parliaments sovereignty has been eroded by membership of the EU * Laws and directives made by the EU take precedence over British laws, as such, Westminster is no longer sovereign * It is also argued that referendums undermine Parliamentary sovereignty, in that the people effectively decide an important issues – as opposed to legislators in Parliament * This runs counter to the whole basis of representative democracy | * Westminster has not lost sovereignty to the EU as it may leave at any time * Moreover, Parliament can ignore the results of a referendum – which reasserts the view that Westminster is still sovereign * It is also down to Parliament to decide is a referendum is to take place | * In terms of initiating legislation, the EU and the Government are undoubtedly much more important than Parliament * With the rare exception of a private members bill, MP’s and peers are merely responding and reacting to an agenda implemented by Government (and the EU) * Members of the Legislature are therefore reduced to an essentially revising role * This is particularly notable in the case of the House of Lords, which spends a great deal of its time amending legislation | * Whilst it is true that most legislation is initiated by the Government (and in some cases the EU), member of the Legislature still play an effective role in making key amendments * This is even true of the unelected Lords * Each year the Lords makes 2000-3000 amendments to bills, and some of those changes have been hugely important e.g. those made to the 2001 anti-terrorism crime and security bill on the issue of police powers, and the disclosure of information | * One of the most important roles performed by Parliament is that of scrutiny, and yet the degree to which the Executive is held accountable is relativity weak * As agents of scrutiny, each one the 6 methods available has its flaws * In contrast, the United States congress has a significant degree of power over the Executive which is particularly striking | * The role of scrutiny is an important one for any Legislature to undertake * For a system to work effectively the Executive must be held to account by members of the Legislature, and although the system is far from perfect, it is fair to say that Parliament does successfully hold the Executive to account * In addition, the Executive can only govern if it retains the confidence of the Legislature | * Concerns over the ineffective nature of Parliament have grown in recent years * During his decade in office, Blair often demonstrated a casual approach to the Commons, except of matters of crucial importance or when he was obligated to attend (as with PMQ’s), and there has been no notable improvements on this score since Brown replaced him * When the PM himself rarely attends the Commons, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Parliament is relatively ineffective in relation to the Executive | * Although Parliament is weaker than the Executive, it is far from being a declining institution * Even when the governing party hold a substantial majority, the Executive at all times must cooperate with Parliament in order to implement its manifesto * Compromise and bargaining between the two branches is a hallmark of the UK’s political system , and although there is clearly an imbalance between the two, it is the case that Parliament can and does limit and constrain the Executive to some extent * For example, in November 2005 the Government’s proposals to extend the length of time a terrorist suspect could be detained without trial to 90 days were defeated by Parliament |

Reforms:
The powers of the lords were to remain largely unchanged, they would still remain subordinate to the commons. A proportion of the house (perhaps 20%) would be elected using PR the rest would remain appointed. Abolish all hereditary peers. The political balance of the Lords would not be dominated by any one party. The cross benchers would hold the balance of power.

Arguments FOR reforming the house of lords | Arguments AGAINST reforming the House of Lords | * It is an undemocratic Anachronism in a modern day democracy, many other countries around the world have upper chambers, but with the exception of Canada, Britian is the ONLY one to have a wholly appointed chamber. We have no choice as to who sits in the Lords, which is evident by the fact that it is compromised by hereditary peers, Bishops of the church of England (Lords Spiritual) and questionable public figures appointment by our Prime ministers such as Lord Ashcroft etc | * (counter argument <<) The British parliamentary system has some of the finest, oldest parliamentary traditions in the world. The present bicameral aragnement workds well. It has on countless occasions taken the peoples side on unpopular gov policies such as the 42 day detention, showing that they can be in touch with the people.
Also they are not influenced by the whips to the same extent as MPs, nor do many of them have strong party affiliations therefore they do not need to “toe the party line” per say. And can represent the will of the people arguably more freely | * All too often in the past the Lords contained a HUGE inbuilt Conservative majority. Even today cross benchers tend to be conservative supporters ( just not actual party members) It is clearly wrong for one group to exercise such an unaccountable influence on British politics | * ( Counter argument << ) Today there is no Conservative majority with independent peers holding the balance in many votes | * Does not represent the social make up of society additionally the 26 Bishops of the Church of England is unfair to other faiths | * ( Counter argument <<< ) A great strength of the current chamber is that it allows the appointment of peers who represent sections of society that are unrepresented in the commons. For example until 2010 there was no muslim female mp in the commons, there were however two muslim females in the Lords – these were Baroness Warsi and Udinn | * Speeding the departure of Hereditory peers by appointing peers is not the answer. The present system ultimately allows governments to appoint their own “watchdogs” | * Electing peers may result in knowledgeable peers being deterred from subjecting themselves to the election process | * At present the non elected basis of the Lords restricts its role to that of a “revising chamber” concerned mainly with cleaning up bills .. Popular authority would encourage the second chamber to exercise greater powers of legislative oversight and scrutiny | * ( counter argument <<) Two elected chambers would result in government paralysis. What would happen if one chamber voted for a proposal and one voted against it? If the Lords were to have the same legitimacy as the commons then it would result in Grid lock and rivalry between both chambers. This problem would be even more severe if the Lords were elected on a more proportional system than the commons, in which case they could claim greater legitimacy | * | * |