...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
...xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c v c ccccc cdd c fcdf fddf fd ffd When the House of Lords is discussed, the discussion is almost inevitably in connection with its reform, which is seen as incomplete following the removal of most hereditary peers from the chamber in 1999. But the House of Lords is perpetually seen as “unreformed", with proposals for change having been made for over a century. This means the opportunity has often been missed to study the chamber as it is, and its impact on the policy process. Given that the next stage of reform may, like previous ones, be long delayed, such study is important. This project therefore focuses on the contemporary House, and particularly on how it has changed since the 1999 reform. Publications in the first phase of the project (2004-2007) asked questions about the strength and confidence of the House of Lords, perceptions of its "legitimacy", and the real policy impact of government defeats. Research methods included study of parliamentary records, questionnaire surveys and interviews with peers, and public opinion surveys. A complete record of all members and all "divisions" (votes) in the chamber since November 1999 has been compiled in database form. The second phase of the project (2008-2011) continued the collection of some of this data, and generated new publications. These included broader analyses of the impact of Lords reform in 1999 on the British parliament, and its lessons for bicameralism in a comparative...
Words: 308 - Pages: 2
...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
...'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
...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
...'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
...of Lord Burlington owe to political concerns? It is said that from 1721 onwards Lord Burlington began erecting one important building after another. In order to determine what the architecture of Lord Burlington owes to political concerns it is necessary to briefly examine both the political situation in the early 1700s and Burlington’s political stance. Lastly, in order to draw a conclusion as to how much of Lord Burlington’s architecture owes to political concerns, an analysis of Chiswick House and its political representation is particularly essential. Thus this essay will be roughly divided into two parts: the first being a brief narrative of the political life and situation of Lord Burlington, followed by a system of analysis and conclusion. The latter will focus specifically on the Chiswick House and what symbols there exist that may help us to examine the impact of politics on Lord Burlington’s architecture. Lord Burlington, though being a man of arts and beauty, was hardly politically inactive. Up until 1932 he was said to have been a supporter of the Whig administration. He became a supporter of the new Hanoverian king, George I in 1715 and that same year he was appointed Lord Treasurer of Ireland, lieutenant of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire and Vice-Admiral of the County of York. By 1721 Burlington became a supporter of Sir Robert Walpole and was a close friend of the Prince of Wales. When in 1727 the Prince succeeded as George II, for six years Lord Burlington...
Words: 1925 - Pages: 8
...House of Commons Composition In The House of commons there is only one basis of membership and all members of parliament (MPs) win their seats in the same way. * The House of Commons consists of 650MPs. (This number is not fixed but varies each time changes are made to parliamentary constituencies.) * A single-member parliamentary constituency elects a MP using the First Past the post system. * MPs are almost always representatives of a party and are subject to a system of party discipline. * Most MPs are categorized as backbenchers, while a minority are front benchers. Powers Legally and Politically the House of Commons is the dominant chamber of parliament. * The House of Commons has supreme legislative power. In theory it can make, unmake and amend any law it wishes, with the laws only being able to delay these laws. The legal sovereignty of parliament id thus exercised in practise by the commons. * The House of Commons can remove the government of the day. A government that is defeated in the Commons on a major issue or a matter of confidence is obliged to resign or call a general election. House of Lords Composition The House of Lords has a complex and controversial composition. There are three distinct bases for membership of the House, meaning there are four kinds of peers. It is controversial because these peers are unelected. The House of Lords consists of the following: * Life peers. Life peers are peers who are entitled to...
Words: 490 - Pages: 2
...Commission Act 1965. It is run by five Law Commissioners with one being the Chairman (a High Court Judge). The other four are qualified lawyers and each one is supported by a team of barristers, solicitors etc. Under s3(1) of the 1965 Act, the role of the Law Commission is to ‘keep under review all the law’. 2. Compare and contrast the different roles of the following in law making – * House of Commons * House of Lords * Crown The three parts of Parliament are The House of Commons, The House of Lords and The Crown (the Queen). The House of Commons contains 650 members called MP’s who are elected at general elections. The leader of the party with the greatest number of MP’s is the Prime Minister. The role of The House of Commons is to debate and vote on whether to approve new laws. The House of Commons also ensures that the legislative process is democratic. There are approximately 700 members of the House of the Lords who are all unpaid and unelected. Sitting in the House of Lords are hereditary peers, life peers and 26 Bishops of the Church of England. The role of The House of Lords is to pose questions to the Government and debate current issues. The Crown is the title given to the monarch. The Queen opens each parliamentary session as of tradition. She also gives Royal assent to all legislation and appoints and dismisses the Prime Minister. 3. Explain the...
Words: 1491 - Pages: 6
...developed: why are there life peerages, how do they work, who do they tend to be, how are they appointed? What happened to the hereditary peerages? What is currently proposed for the House of Lords? This article states what Labour’s proposal is, then assesses the strengths of an unelected house (as it is at the moment). Right, now you need to assess the arguments in favour of an elected (partly or wholly) House of Lords! It might make the House of Lords more representative! Explain why this is a good thing. Explain how the House of Lords composition is now (look it up). Then EVALUATE: Would it being an elected house actually make it more ‘representative’? Composition of House of Commons is still rather unrepresentative, despite being elected (call on data from Unit 1). More democratic! Means more legitimate! (be sure to explain what these words mean) Explain why this is a good thing. However: Potentially want more power; likely to exercise its current powers more (Delay -1 year) DEADLOCK – lack of legislation Elected chamber may remove continuity of service – continuity allows for building of expertise and experience of government However, staggered elections can solve this But these make it less democratic Could an elected and more legitimate Lords counterbalance the political dominance of the House of Commons – is Britain actually bicameral right now? Could this reform make Britain truly bicameral? Would it not just mirror the commons? If elected at the same time, would look...
Words: 332 - Pages: 2
...The UK government is also spilt into the national (central) government and the local authorities. National (central) government * Members of Parliament are elected by the UK’s public. * They raise money through tax and VAT. * They are responsible for operating our country. They pay for: * NHS * Bits of education (Sure Start) * Benefits * Pensions * Army (other security) National (central) government * Members of Parliament are elected by the UK’s public. * They raise money through tax and VAT. * They are responsible for operating our country. They pay for: * NHS * Bits of education (Sure Start) * Benefits * Pensions * Army (other security) Local authorities * Councillors elected by local people in that area. * They raise money through council tax, parking fees/fines etc. * Responsible for operating local estates/council. They pay for: * Schools * Bin services * Local street repairs * Recreations (e.g. parks etc.) * Social services * Big events in the area (e.g. firework displays) Local authorities * Councillors elected by local people in that area. * They raise money through council tax, parking fees/fines etc. * Responsible for operating local estates/council. They pay for: * Schools * Bin services * Local street repairs * Recreations (e.g. parks etc.) * Social services * Big events in the area (e.g. firework displays) ...
Words: 984 - Pages: 4
...Assignment 1 The responsibilities of different levels of Government in the UK There are many different levels of government in the UK. The diagram below describes those levels. ↓ UK Parliament ← → Taxes ↓ Welsh Assembly ← → Health → Public Services ↓ → Education Refuse collection ← → Housing Recycling ← ↓ → Town Councils Council Tax Each level contains a variety of different organisations and branches of government which help to keep the country and the public services running smoothly and efficiently. The system of government we have in the United Kingdom has two main levels: central government and local government. But we also have regional government and the institutions of the European Union which affect us. Local, regional and central government are all public services because they are paid by the taxpayer. They are democratic because the public can choose the people who run central and local government when elections are held. European Parliament The European Parliament...
Words: 1377 - Pages: 6
...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
...Despite this there is a belief that the House of Lords scrutinise pubic bills more effectively than that of the House of Commons. The House of Lords spend a much larger proportion of their time scrutinising bills, over the last four sessions an average of just under 53% , whereas in the House of Commons between the 2010 and 2012 sessions less than 30% of their time was spent on it and so the issue of dependency being placed upon the House of Lords is a certainly a debated one. The majority of bills go first to the House of Commons although around a third do start their passage in the House of Lords. Where the Bills...
Words: 748 - Pages: 3
