2.2.2 the comparative powers of the house of commons and the house of lords

reasons why the modern house of commons have primacy over the house of lords

parliament acts→ removed lord’s power to block legislation
financial privilege→ commons is solely responsible for financial matters
representative function→ commons contains elected representatives→ more legitimacy

what did the parliament act of 1911 do

removed lord’s power to block legislation and limited delaying powers to 2 yrs
this was then made one yr in 1949

recent example of an act passed using the parliament acts to bypass the lords

hunting act 2004
dogs cant be used to hunt

are the parliament acts significant

yes
only used 4 times
but means the lords is likely to back down rather than risk the act being used by commons
makes its existence very significant

example of the parliament acts surpressing the lords

eu act 2017
act of parli that legislated to trigger article 50 and inform EU that we had intent to leave
lords added 2 ammendments and sent it back to commons
commons overturned these quickly
lords backed down and withdrew these

what is the salisbury convention

that the lords does not vote against any bill in the government’s election manifesto
this is because it is assumed that the electorate wanted it and wanted it to be passed

does the commons get more media attention than the lords

yes
MPs have greates media presence, PMQS more popular than any other weekly political event
reinforces idea the commons>lords

most important further reform to the lords

hereditary peers act 2026
all hp gone by april 2026
house of lords is only life peers, lord spiritual and lords speaker
however, the mandatory retirement age of 80 remains unimplemented
no mandatory attendance

2 problems with the HOL

inactivity of some peers
lack of democratic legitimacy
constrained by convention and statue→ parliment acts, salisbury convention, etc
size and expense

inactivity of some peers

big differences in terms of how much time peers put into their role
3 types of peer
working→ party memebers→ e.g. baroness hoey→41.8% voting rate
full time→ frontbenchers in a party→ baroness smith→ labour→ voting rate 84.1%
non working→ honorific titile peers really→ e.g. lord sugar→ voting rate of 1.53%→ damages the lord’s legitimacy

how well did the house of lords reform act 2014 address the issue of non working peers

not very well
only have to attend once in a parlimentary session to not be reomved
also don’t have to talk

lack of democratic legitimacy

unelected
reduces authority

size and expense

over 800 members
lord hameed claimed over 18k for 2021 to 2022 despite never speaking over voting→ lowers lord’s legitimacy
2023-4 bill for it was over £143 mil

some options for further lords reform

full appointed house of lords
fully elected second chamber
abolition

1 for and against fully appointed house of lords

no eelctions, specialists would be appointed
for→ broad membership will be retained rather than just professional politicians
against→ undemocratic legislation→ lords should not be involved in drafting and passing legislation as not elected

1 for and against fully elected second chamber

for→ addresses democratic deficit→ gives lords full mandate to initiate and amend legislation
against→ threatens commons supremacy→ commons no logner supreme as both elected

1 for and against abolition

for→ saves money
against→ loss of expertise

arguments for keeping lords as it is

expertise
independence from whips and electoral time pressures
lack of psrty dominiation
scrutiny effectiveness