essay: HofL vs HofC

“Evaluate the view that when it comes to fulfilling their response functions, the House of Lords can be seen as more successful than the House of Commons.”

intro/eval:

• some of the most important roles are constructing bills relevant to contemporary situations, scrutinising the incumbent government and promoting democratic legitimacy

• HofC is more successful than the HofL, having a more significant role in much of Parliament’s role

P1: law-making

• House of Commons:

  • can make and unmake any law it wants to, binding to all UK citizens

    • eg: Data Protection Act (2018), increased regulation of personal data

  • no codified constitution restricting Parliament

• House of Lords:

  • rarely proposes its own legislation but usually just ‘cleans up’ govt bills that pass through the Commons

    • eg: defeated EU withdrawal bill 17 times by Oct 2018, eventually forcing legislation changes inc the remained application of environmental law, even after Brexit

  • HofL contains experts who can input into debates n bills’ committee reviews

• evaluation:

  • the House of Commons is far more successful when it comes to law-making, because although the Lords can reject bills and amend policies, the basis of each bill and the majority of each is formulated by the Commons, denoting a stronger position in the law-making process

P2: scrutiny of the government

• House of Commons:

  • during PMQs, PM n govt ministers must explain their actions

  • select committees used to scrutinise the govt dept policy + public bill committees examine proposed legislation

    • eg: 2018 Home Affairs Committee investigated the causes of the Windrush scandal, ending up highly critical of the Home Office

  • opposition party can challenge govt

  • however:

    • govt usually has MP majority = supportive of govt

    • PMQs usually ineffective as PM often skirts around proper response to question

    • govt has majority on select committees

    • SCs have limited powers to change policy, can only criticise eg despite Home Affairs Committee’s investigation, no reforms have yet been implemented, despite their recommendation

• House of Lords:

  • each govt dept has a HofL member linked to it n this members faces question time from other peers

  • HofL submits written questions to the govt

    • between 2016 and 2017, over 7k written n spoken questions put to govt

  • HofL holds govt w large majority accountable by debating n proposing amendments to bills

  • lack of partisanship + constituencies & tenured position in HofL = more time spent on blunt scrutiny

• evaluation:

  • in terms of scrutiny and holding the government accountable, the HofL is generally more successful in its part of this as the peers often have much relevant experience, and having neither a particular bias to a party nor a constituency means their oversight is often more successful

P3: promotion of legitimacy

• House of Commons:

  • the Commons has the approval of the people, because of the required constituency n general election processes ∴ actions are legitimate

  • govt actions scrutinised n challenged by Parliament

  • however:

    • no of scandals have undermined public’s faith n trust in the Commons

      • cash for questions scandal:

        • Ian Greer, London’s most successful parliamentary lobbyist, bribed 2 Tory MPs in Oct 1994, to ask parliamentary qs on behalf of Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed » PMQs credibility as part of govt scrutiny slightly eroded

• House of Lords:

  • unelected n so not democratically legitimate, despite playing a significant part in legislation creation

  • however:

    • an elected HofL would lead to political gridlock

    • less effective scrutiny

• evaluation:

  • HofC is more legitimate within a democratic society, although one may argue that the roles put to the HofL are more effectively done with the way it is currently structured