Parliament
House of Lords - The Lords has its roots in aristocracy, and was historically the dominant decision making body. This shifted in the late 19th Century. The lords have a range of expertise from different fields. Its existence isn't essential, but allows Parliament to be more efficient, as without them there would be either less scrutiny of bills or bills would take far longer to be passed, and may risk not being as well thought through. This is essential as the Commons is such a powerful sovereign executive that needs checks.
Many of the lords do not get paid for the work they do and therefore arguably do it out of genuine interest. Their role is to be conservative in the way of checking and being cautious, but pragmatic about changes. In 2011, not one member of the Cabinet had a science background; however, Robert Winston sits in the Lords as a famous, outspoken scientist, who will comment on the scientific validity of bills passing.
Some issues with the Lords include: Not being representative, and not able to be held accountable by the public. This could be argued to be a good thing as it means they can make important decisions without worry of backlash, and also aren't the primary legislative body and therefore decisions cannot make that much of a dent on society. While they do contain some specialists, they are not all specialists and still contain some hereditary peers, which doesn't seem democratic. However, now they are appointed by an independent body that recommends candidates based on skill and expertise.
Example of the Lords working effectively: In 2015, the Lords rejected proposed changes to tax credits put forward by a Conservative government. It aimed at reducing the threshold at which tax credits could be withdrawn, which could affect low-income families. They worked effectively to debate and reject it. However, ultimately, the Conservative government still went through with it.
Acts that reduced their powers: 1. Parliament Act 1911, which stopped the Lords from being able to veto legislation passed by the Commons, which helped to rid legislative gridlock. However, they could still delay legislation for a maximum of 2 years. 2. Parliament Act 1949, which was a further reduction of their power to veto, decreasing their ability to delay bills to 1 year. 3. Finally, the Salisbury convention prevents the Lords from voting against a winning party's manifesto.
The Speaker of the House - Both Lindsey Hoyale and John Bercow were elected by a majority of MPs from the opposition party, which reinforces the impression that it is irrelevant the party they come from. Michael Martin, a previous speaker, also resigned after partisan accusations. Their role is to preside over the Commons; they decide who can speak and ask questions, and also allow for urgent questions, which force MPs to answer questions. In extreme cases of misconduct, the speaker can remove a minister's right to speak. For example, in 2019, Bercow withdrew Phillip Lee's speaking rights for the remainder of the session as he crossed the floor to side with the Liberal Democrats in a Brexit debate. They also have a tie-breaking vote; for example, in 1993, Betty Boothroyd took a tie-breaking vote regarding an EU treaty. The speaker Denison's rule states that if a speaker must intervene, they must do so in such a way that furthers debate or maintains the status quo.
The power of backbenchers - defined as those who don't hold ministerial responsibility within their party. They have an equal vote in the Commons. The backbench busters committee are allowed to choose the topic for debate on 35 days each Parliamentary session, this is more than the opposition, who only get 17 days. Backbench rebellions do occur in the UK. This is where members of a party vote against their own party. For example, in the Iraq war vote, over 100 Labour MPs rebelled. However, if you vote against your party, you may be removed, which is known as 'withdrawing the whip'. This happened to Rory Stewart, who rebelled and was dismissed by Boris Johnson. Although Backbench Committees can scrutinise legislation, the government's inevitable majority means they don't have to listen to these committees.
Why are the Commons superior ? 1. Its superiority is upheld by laws and conventions. For example, only the Commons can initiate money bills, which are legislation specifically regarding taxation or public expenditure. The lords can consider and suggest amendments, but ultimately cannot block or substantially amend them. 2. The Lords do not have control over the budget and spending; they may discuss but cannot veto or amend. 3. Primary powers - the Commons holds legislative supremacy, so its decisions take precedence over those of the Lords. While both chambers must agree on the content of the legislation for it to become law, in the event of disagreement, the Commons' position prevails.
© Copyright mypoliticsnotes