Does HOL exert more influence than HOC?

Structure of essay?

• P1 - Powers of each chamber

• P2 - Legislative scrutiny

• P3 - Non-legislative scrutiny

P1 - powers of each chamber - HOC more influence

• Perhaps the most persuasive argument that the House of Commons

  exerts more power than the House of Lords in practice is that the

  Lords’ legislative influence is significantly limited by both the

  Salisbury Convention and the Parliaments Acts of 1911 and 1949. The

  House of Lords is limited in the legislation it can vote down and play a

  role in, whilst the House of Commons isn’t.

• The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 restricted the House of Lords' power to

  veto legislation. The House of Commons can ultimately bypass the Lords if

  it repeatedly rejects a bill for over a year, asserting the primacy of the

  elected House of Commons.

  • The Salisbury Convention means that the House of Lords, as an

    unelected chamber, shouldn’t block any bill that fulfils a pledge in the

    government’s election manifesto by voting against it in the second or

    third reading.

  • Even when the House of Lords votes against legislation/attempts to

    significantly amend it, it often backs down when the House of Commons

    disagrees again/votes against these amendments, recognising its lack of

    democratic legitimacy.

• The Parliament Act has been used 7 times in total, including for equalising

  the age of consent to 16 for homosexuals and heterosexuals, with the

  Sexual Offences Act 2000.

• Additionally, the HOL proposed several amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Act in 2024.

  • Amendment 9 mandated that Rwanda could not be deemed a safe country until the independent Monitoring Committee certified it.

  • The Commons rejected all of the amendments during the ‘ping-pong’ stage and ultimately caused the Lords to back down.

P1 - powers of each chamber - HOL more influence

• On the other hand, it can be argued that the House of Lords exerts

  more influence than the Commons, as it sometimes refuses to back

  down and takes a stand against a bill when it feels it is justified,

  hampering the government’s agenda.

• This is often to protect human rights or in relation to a bill that has garnered

  a significant public backlash/has limited public support.

  • This delaying power can be very practically significant in influencing

    legislation, especially in emergencies when governments want to pass laws

    quickly.

• The House of Lords achieved significant success in amending the Public

  Order Act 2023, defeating the Bill 8 times in early 2023 to block or restrict

  some of the government's most controversial anti-protest measures.

  • Removed suspicion-less stop-and-search powers, and narrowing definition of ‘serious disruption’.

• This shows how the House of Lords can be effective in challenging

  legislation when the government is weak and some members of the House

  of Commons support the amendments, allowing them to shape legislation.

P2 - Legislative scrutiny - HOC more influential

• The House of Commons ultimately exerts greater influence over

  legislative scrutiny because it has exclusive powers to defeat

  legislation. Backbenchers of the governing party can exert influence

  through rebelling against government bills in order to defeat the

  government and prevent a law being passed.

• The frequency of government defeats has increased a great deal since 2010,

  in part due to some governments having smaller majorities/being coalitions.

  When governments have small/weak majorities the Commons influence is

  increased as MPs are more rebellious, less likely to toe the party line and

  rebellions have more effect.

  • This means that scrutiny in the Commons can directly shape legislation or

    prevent it from being passed altogether, demonstrating that the Commons

    has greater practical legislative influence than the House of Lords, which can

    only delay legislation.

• In July 2025, the government was forced to make major concessions on their

  flagship welfare reform bill, The Universal Credit and Personal Independence

  Payment Act (2025), due to the threat of a large backbench rebellion in the

  House of Commons.

  • 126 Labour MPs signed a ‘reasoned amendment’ opposing the cuts.

    The scale of the rebellion was enough to threaten to defeat the bill

    and stop it progressing through Parliament. This forced Prime Minister

    Keir Starmer to abandon key parts of the reforms, including any

    changes to PIP.

• This shows how legislative scrutiny in the Commons can have a direct and

  decisive impact on legislation, forcing concessions. The mere threat of defeat

  forced the government to alter the core aims of its policy significantly,

  illustrating how backbench MPs can exert powerful influence through

  rebellion.

P2 - Legislative scrutiny - HOL more influential

• Since New Labour’s reforms removing all but 92 hereditary peers, and removing all hereditary peers in 2026 with Starmer’s governments reforms to the chamber, the

  House of Lords has become a lot more professional and has

  significant expertise, which allows for highly effective scrutiny of

  government legislation.

  • The House of Lords is frequently described as a “revising” or “amending”

    chamber, and many of these amendments are taken on, giving it significant

    influence in practice.

• The Employment Rights Act 2025 is a good example of how House of Lords

  amendments to improve bills are often accepted by the House of

  Commons, as they clearly improve legislation.

  • The House of Lords scrutinised the legislation extensively, including

    by recommending 646 amendments at committee stage, of which 78

    were agreed to and 215 amendments at report stage, of which 90

    were agreed to.

  • Amendments included rejecting unfair dismissal being agreed on day one, rather a six-month qualifying period, and being able to opt-out of zero hours contracts being scrapped.

• This illustrates how the specialist knowledge of life peers allows the Lords

  to provide high-quality scrutiny and informed amendments, strengthening its

  practical influence over legislation.

P3 - Non-legislative scrutiny - HOC more influential

• The House of Commons can also exert influence through debates,

  which put issues on the political agenda and put pressure on the

  government to address them. There are a number of different types of

  debates, including emergency debates and debates suggested by the

  Backbench Business Committee, which chooses the topic of debate for

  35 days in each parliamentary session.

  • The creation of the Backbench Business Committee in 2010 reduced

    executive control over the parliamentary timetable and gave backbench MPs

    in the Commons greater influence over the parliamentary agenda. This

    allows MPs to raise politically sensitive topics that the government might

    otherwise avoid, increasing transparency and forcing ministers to publicly

    justify their policies.

• On the 8th December 2025, MPs held a debate on the introduction of digital ID cards scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee, following an e-petition titled ‘Do Not Introduce Digital ID Cards’, which attracted over 3 million signatures.

  • During the debate, Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, Sarah Bool, cited her constituents concerns over costing and the usage of taxpayer money

• This shows how the BBBC and debates have increased the influence of the

  Commons by limiting executive control over the Parliamentary agenda and

  forcing a debate on a controversial policy. By giving backbenchers the power

  to place issues on the parliamentary agenda, the Commons can shape policy

  outcomes, demonstrating that it often exercises greater influence in practice

  than the House of Lords.

P3 - Non-legislative scrutiny - HOL more influential

• On the other hand, it can be argued that the non-legislative scrutiny of

  the House of Lords is even more influential due to the chamber’s

  greater independence.

  • Unlike Select Committees in the House of Commons, Lords committees do

    not shadow individual government departments, instead, they focus on

    long-term investigations, allowing them to conduct more detailed and

    specialised scrutiny.

  • Lords Select Committees can draw on the services of a range of

    well-qualified experts in different fields to make up their membership. The

    House of Lords provides long-term, detailed and expert scrutiny rather than

    short-term, headline-grabbing methods such as PMQs.

• In September 2025, for example, the House of Lords International

  Agreements Committee (IAC) published a report criticising how the UK

  Parliament scrutinised international treaties, calling the process weak and

  insufficient to secure meaningful accountability.

  • Due to the Royal Prerogative, treaties in the UK have been traditionally reserved for Governments to negotiate and enter into without Parliamentary involvement.

  • The IAC is the ONLY parliamentary committee with the jurisdiction to scrutinise treaties and review international agreement, and is crucial to securing accountability.

• This shows how the House of Lords exerts significant influence in practice

  by holding the government to account, especially in areas not addressed by

  the Commons. Comparatively, the Commons lacks a dedicated treaty

  scrutiny committee and the formal powers and resources to provide

  effective oversight.