...the House of Lords has existed for about six centuries without reform, some alterations have become necessary in order to bring it into conformity with the changed institutions by which it is surrounded.” – Lord Rosebery, 1884.1 Since Lord Rosebery’s well-known speech there has been much debate about changes in the composition of the House of Lords. Major reforms included the Life Peerages Act 1958 and later the House of Lords Act 1999, which reduced the hereditary members to 92.2 Nevertheless, constitutional experts such as Rodney Brazier argue that the House of Lords continues to be “unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable.”3 The Coalition Government is therefore working on another reform bill to provide for a wholly or largely elected second chamber. This essay will argue that such a drastic change from a largely appointed to an elected system is too unrealistic to be implemented. Instead, the Government should seek to abolish Prime Ministerial patronage as well as the remaining hereditary members and adopt an independent Appointments Commission that appoints all the members of the upper chamber. To arrive at this conclusion, we will need to analyse which selection method best retains the Lords’ expertise, as well as their independence and representativeness. Then, a discussion follows whether the Lords necessarily ought to be democratically elected to provide a legitimate chamber. Lastly, the possibility of a mixed chamber will be considered. The House of Lords is commonly...
Words: 2512 - Pages: 11
...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
...'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
...not gone far enough.” Discuss. I agree with the view that constitutional reform since 1997 has not gone far enough to a large extent. The House of Lords Act of 1999 has reformed the House of Lords, the Human Rights Act of 1998 was an important area of constitutional reform, as well as the Freedom of Information Act of 2000 and the devolution of powers. The electoral system used in the UK has also been subject to discussion over reform however all constitutional reform can be said to have not gone far enough. The House of Lords Act of 1999 removed all but 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. This meant that the House of Lords could be seen as more legitimate as both unelected and not appointed peers would be seen as undemocratic and illegitimate. The removal of hereditary peers means that the House of Lords are more confident in their role in scrutinising and blocking legislation as they feel more legitimate. An example of the House of Lords exerting this role is the blocking of NHS reform which led to the government rethinking and amending plans, as well as the Hunting Act 2004. However reform of the House of Lords could be said to have not gone far enough, 92 hereditary peers still remain in the House of Lords, and the Liberal Democrats call for a wholly elected upper chamber, to make Parliament fully accountable. The House of Lords are also limited in the fact that they can only delay legislation for up to a year and therefore not able to check executive power as much...
Words: 991 - Pages: 4
...Composition, Role and Powers of the House of Commons: * It is an elected chamber, hence enjoys democratic legitimacy. * Composed of 650 MPs, whereby each has been elected to represent a constituency. * It therefore has supremacy and the commons may thus pass any bill that they wish and the Lords may only delay it becoming law. * Executive can therefore only govern if it retains the confidence of the House of Commons. * It the executive loses the vote of confidence, it has no option but to resign and hence provoking a general elections. * Given that there are two Houses of Parliament, the system is called Bicameral. Composition, Role and Powers of the House of Lords: * It compromises of four types of Lords. * The vast majority is Life Peers, where they have been appointed to the House of Lords by the Prime Minister on his own recommendations and that of other party leaders. * While a smaller number of People’ Peers have been appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. * There are 92 Hereditary Peers. * There is Lords Spiritual, the 26 Bishops of the Church of England. * However they are not elected and therefore does not enjoy democratic legitimacy the powers of the Lords are inferior to those of House of Commons. * This means all they can do to proposed legislation that they disapprove of its delay it for one year. * But they cannot do this to the budget. * According to the Salisbury Convention, they...
Words: 3407 - Pages: 14
...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
...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
...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
...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...
Words: 332 - Pages: 2
...the government, and it represents the people and redresses their grievances. In many aspects, Parliament is usually effective in fulfilling its functions, but there are occasions where it is not as diligent in doing so. Parliament’s scrutiny function is mainly carried out through four methods; Prime Minister’s Questions, Select Committees, back bench MPs and the House of Lords. Prime Minister’s Questions are a weekly opportunity for the opposition and backbenchers to scrutinise the Prime Minister and by extension the government, and to highlight government failings or simply ask a question. This is a good way of scrutinising the Prime Minister as it puts him/her under pressure to justify their actions, and answer potentially awkward questions regardless of whether they have been pre-submitted. The main weakness of this form of scrutiny is that the questions are often submitted to the Prime Minister some time before Prime Minister’s Questions, allowing him/her to come up with an answer beforehand that might let him/her to actually evade proper scrutiny within the House of Commons. Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament investigate the work of government and produce reports on policy proposals. They can call witnesses in the course of their proceedings. Their role includes investigating the work of the government departments to determine whether they have acted efficiently and effectively. Select Committees are a strong form of scrutiny as they regularly report back to...
Words: 1434 - Pages: 6
...have a large uproar on their hands. ▪ Central government, The central government is the main layer of government that operates across the whole of the country; the central government is always located in the centre of the country in that country’s capital city and it handles very specific responsibilities that no other group or government can carry out. Some of these responsibilities include signing treaties or certain types of agreements with other nations, making up laws (which would affect the whole country), defending their nation, distribution of the police forces, etc. Our central government is based in Westminster in London. London contains the most important political institutions for the Government, ‘The House of Lords’ and ‘The House of Commons’,...
Words: 7048 - Pages: 29
