comparative powers of house of commons and lords

Explain the loss of power of the house of lords?

19th Century- growth of the franchise led to more powers moving to the commons from the lords

1911- parliament act meant that legislation no longer had to go through the lords (two year delay)

1948- parliament act limited the delay to legislation being reduced to just one year

1958- peearges act this saw the creation of new life peers- peerages who could sit in the lords but not pass their peerages on to their children

1999- house of lords act although the initial plan was to remove all hereditary peers, blair compromised to remove all but 92. These 92 would be elected to the house by other peers and fresh elections would be held for a new peer when one died

What are the three types of lords?

Lord spirituals

Lord temporals (hereditary and life)

What are the functions of the house of lords?

Legislation

Scrutiny

Legitimation- unelected

Representation- unelected

Providing government- unelected

Debate

How effective is the lords at scrutiny?

They are far more detailed in their scrutiny and they are not partisan due to no one party having a majority.

As well as this amendments made by either committee in house generally reflect the non-politician

Scrutinises secondary legislation which can avoid government abusing power

All peers have to be supported by the elected commons and the prime minister

Legitimate due to merit and specialism expertise

Most amendments are accepted by the commons

How ineffective is the house of lords at scrutiny?

Dont propose legislation unless its a public members bill

Legitimation- lack a mandate from the public as they are unelected

Government can ignore suggestions made (usually dont)

Representation- they are not accountable to the public

Only critical when condemning democracy- changing it to a democratic elected house would make it more partisan and therefore less effective at scrutinising

What are the strengths of the house of commons?

Pass legislation on any area with the exception that it cannot limit the power of parliament

Can call a vote of confidence in government

Only house that can pass money bills

Questions ministers/ PM directly

Amend legislation

What are the weaknesses of the house of commons?

Dominance of the government (particularly with large majorities) makes the process of scrutinising + amending very difficult

Power of the whips

What are the strengths of the house of lords?

Scrutinising of legislation

Secondary legislation

Can veto legislation for a year

Suggest amendments which generally get accepted

Expertise gives them an advantage in terms of authority

They can veto legislation that would extend the life of a parliament beyond its term

What are the weaknesses of the house of lords?

Limited by parliament act- cannot block legislation indefinitely and they cannot veto legislation

Government can bypass the lords due to the parliament act

Salisbury convention means that it cannot block manifesto legislation

They cannot block money bills- budget

Don’t directly questions government mistakes of state

What reforms debates concerning the house of lords went on after 1999?

2003- free vote in the commons where MPs had 7 choices to make on how to further reform but none received a majority

2007- government white paper proposed a hybrid second house by which 50% were appointed and 50% elected. A series of votes were held and a wholly elected house approved by MPs (as was an 80% elected house) but some MPs aimed to wreck the process whilst the lords supported a wholly appointed house

2021- house of lords bill proposed reforms that would create a chamber with 360 elected memberes, 90 appointed members, 12 bishops and 8 ministerial members. MPs approved it but 91 tory MPs rebelled and Labour indicated that it would vote against a programme motion and thus prevent timely passage of the bill causing the government to abandon it

Give arguments for the house of lords being elected?

Accountability

Legitimacy

Representation

Reduce allegations of cronyism/ expenses scandals

Reducing the power of patronage of the prime minister

Would be an opportunity to use a more proportional voting system- this would impact the nature of party politics because no party would have a majority- this would keep a differentiation from the house of commons

Give arguments against the house of lords being wholly elected?

More costly to run

More likely to create legislative gridlock and power of lords would have to increase

Likely to have low turnout which would impact legitimacy

More party political-lose non- partisan nature

Partisan nature reduces quality of scrutiny

Where does the government sit- commons or lords

Loss of appointer peers would lose specialist knowledge and expertise

More power going to whip

How effective is the house of lords at legislation?

Must adhere to salisbury convention- cannot stop legislation that is in manifestos of governing parties. Adhered to except 2005 lib dem peers questioned labour policy that had less than 20% of support for the policy

Can propose amendments- no obligation to accept amendments tho. Refusal from either side can lead to parliamentary ping pong

What are the positive impacts of the house of lords act?

Life peers are generally nominated because of their service to the country. This had led to the lords developing greater credibility and expertise. This has allowed it to become more assertive.

The removal of hereditary peers has removed the natural conservative bias there was in the house. Before 1999 there were 471 tory lords. Reduced and by 2017 ,253 peers introduced less partisan

Life peers can choose to affiliate themselves with a political party by taking the whip. This will allow them more influence but many prefer to remain neutral. Known as cross benchers- they can also renounce such as lord sugar did in 2015

Power to create life peers is in the hands of the PM

Lack of power to create legislation has made the lords fairly redundant part of the legislature.at the same time it has enabled it to focus more on scrutiny and revising legislation in a less adversarial and more courteous way

What are the negative impacts of the house of lords act?

There have been a number of scandals related to the creation of peerages. In 2006 Blair was questioned by police over accusations that labour had given peerages in return for donations

The longer a PM serves the more influence they will have over the make up of the lords. Blair who governed for ten years created 162 new labour peers, 96 cross benchers, 62 tory and 34 lib dem peers

Camerons list of peerages before he resigned as PM was seen as blatant cronyism with peerages for his chief of staff, head of policy unit and head of operations

Scandals involving the nomination of peerages existed before the 1999 act- in 1922/3 lloyd george reputation was destroyed by accusation that he was selling peerages. In 1976 wilson’s Lavender list gave number of his friends life peerages