Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Parliament p1 - Coggle Diagram
Parliament p1
The House of Lords
Lords:
- delay legislation
- force an election if gov refuses after 5 years
- relaxed party disipline
- passing legislation
- scrutiny
- provides gov with ministers
- 1/4 current members of the Lords are past MPs (Margaret Thatcher was)
- Gordon Brown created a 'government of the talents', made a number of economists into Lords to deal with the economic crash of 2008
- Parliament Act 1911 & 49 restricted powers of the Lords (1949, there was nationalisation, HoL didnt wanna pass so Labour Party at the time introduced act to delay for only 1 year)
- Sailsbury Convention stops the Lords striking down any gov legislation which was in party manifesto
Independent House of Lords Commission (2000):
- HOLAC
- implemented as wanted more cross benchers (no party affiliation, appointed for expertise)
- responsible for vetting party nominations (PM & party leaders nominate, can nominate selves) and appointing non-partisan crossbenchers
- seek peers with 'independence of thought' and has given the Lords the capacity to hold the government to account due to lack of party affiliation
- significant part of the role has been dramatic increase in diversity of the Lords
- 23 MPs from ethnic minorities vs 63 lords
- 11% of peers have declared disability, shared life experiences in opposing the Bedroom Tax in 2012
House of Lords Reform Act 1999:
- allowed 92 hereditary peers, reduced
- reduced membership from 1330 to 669 mainly life peeers
- removed many Lords who came under the Conservative Whip
- no party holds a majority & lords are increasingly independent / cross benchers, a whip system is not used due to relaxed party discipline
Against reforms:
- party leaders are still appointing their own party mainly to the lords
- Blair 43% Labour
- Boris 51% Conservative
- politicisation of nominations
The Cash for Honours Scandal(s):
- cronyism
- 2007, Blair interviewed twice by police during Cash for Honours Scandal
- it was alleged that Labour Donors were being placed in the HoL
- the recent scandal of appointment of Peter Cruddas, despite advice from the independent appointments commission vetting this appointment
- a second Cash for Honours Scandal launched in 2021, recent appointments had donated £3m between them, including Cruddas
Professionalism & Expertise:
- 'expert advice and scrutiny' needed of the revising or amending chamber to fulfil its role
- elected politicians cannot match this, the Commons provides 'generalists' the Lord 'specialists'
- Lord Dannet, former Chief of General Staff and an expert in military matters, has led 8 debates on the Armed Forces Bill and 24 debates on the Overseas Operations Bills, quality scrutiny on areas of expertise
- The Health and Social Care Bill was examined by a committee that included many practising doctors using knowledge that draft amendments
- many top scientists sit in tech & science committee including Lord Winston
Working vs Non-working Lords:
- since joining the Lords in 2009, Lord Sugar has voted in just 2.36% of votes and has spoken only 63 times
- between 2010-15, 62 peers claimed £360,000 in expenses despite not attending or voting in a single vote
- inactive peers provides an unprofessional chamber
- hard to appoint younger / less working lords due to time commitment it can take
The structure of the HoL:
- Lords can be appointed by the executive
- e.g. Peter Mandelson, former MP, made a life peer and served as Business Secretary (first Lord to be Secretary of State)
- expertise, Gordon's 'Government of all Talents'
- however, criticism that an unelected peer can sit in cabinet
Limitations of peer expertise:
- some groups remain unrepresented e.g. Science and Engineering
- peers do not use their professional expertise all the time, often they debate issues with no specialist knowledge
- having busy careers means some peers do not have time to attend many sessions in the HoL
- reform campaigners argue the HoL is undemocratic and so the HoL is unaccountable to the electorate
Composition 2019:
- 791 Lords
- life peers (appointed for their lifetime only, 676)
- hereditary peers (titles passed down generations, 89)
- lords spiritual (bishops & archbishops of the Church of England, 26)
- 583 men, 206 women, 48 ethnic minorities
- 250 conservative, 188 labour, 98 Lib Dem, 182 crossbenchers, 46 others
Powers of the Lords:
- can only delay legislation for a year (Parliament Act 1949)
- can amend legislation, but needs Commons approval (can lead to 'ping-pong')
- Salisbury Convention - The Lords won't vote against manifesto pledges, however, under the coalition, the Coalition Agreement (2010) was not a manifesto, so the Lords was more obstructive
- has no jurisdiction over financial matters
- no power to dismiss a gov
- more independent with less loyalty to parties; 179 crossbenchers have no party loyalty, also, whipping is less effective
- does not represent constituencies, but other interests
- cannot legitimise as it lacks democratic authority, however, since the 1999 reforms it has more democratic legitimacy, as it gains legitimacy, it uses its powers more
- can, on rare occasions, provide the gov with ministers (e.g. lord Mandelson) - it is a good way of bringing talent into the gov, however, it is seen as undemocratic
Arguments the Lords is more effective than the commons:
Lords was reformed in 1999 when most hereditary peers were removed, since then, it has been more willing to challenge the government as it believes it is more legitimate. HoL has also been noticeably more active since the 2015 election. Cameron gov had a majority of 12 in the Commons, and May led a minority gov
- Party discipline is weaker in the Lords so it is more independent, large number of crossbenchers, so more freedom for peers to debate and express their own views. E.g., the lords defeated the gov: 14 times in 2018 over the EU Withdrawal Bill
- 2010-12., the Lords defeated the coalition 48 times, while the Commons did not defeat the executive on any proposed legislation
- Scrutiny, Lords spend most of the time scrutinising legislation, unlike MPs in the Commons; e.g. 2010-15, for the Lords voted against reforms to constituency boundaries, the NHS, the House of Lords, the AV
referendum and caps on welfare payments
- Legislation: the gov has lost some legislation in the Lords, several controversial pieces of legislation have been effectively dealt with in the Lords e.g. tax credits, NHS reform, welfare reform. Lords also defeated the government in 2012 over its Welfare Reform Act & in 2013 over its plans to cut legal aid.
- Lords can also force the gov to amend bills, most active in challenging the gov over Brexit legislation, defeating the gov 14 times - a modern- day record for one piece of legislation
- Expertise: the Lords is more effective in its scrutinising role for checking the gov than the Commons, many Lords are appointed (as Lords) due to their expertise e.g.
Lord Walton, the former president of the BMA; Lord Hogan-Howe, the ex-police chief.
The House of Commons
Front bencher - an MP with ministerial power e.g. on cabinet or shadow minister
Back bencher - any other MP without ministerial power
The opposition - the biggest opposing party to the one in power, labour is the offical opposition
The executive - the party which is in power / makes up government
- backbenchers get 35 days set aside for debates they choose (35/140 days)
- opposition get 20 days (labour get 17/20 of these as official opposition, other parties get 3 days) - this makes it harder for them to oppose
Whips:
parties hire a number of MPs to act as party whips
Key roles:
- ensuring MPs attend parliamentary votes
- issuing instructions on how MPs should vote, at times a three-line whip maybe used
- enforcing party discipline; persuasion, assurances and expulsion
- backbenchers can also voice concerns around policies to the Whips Office without public comment, helps stops rebellion & uphold collective
- issue offices to the different MPs, 'bigger' MP = bigger office
Challenges to the whip:
- party rebellions against the whip
- the awkward squad
- an unpopular PM (e.g. Theresa May)
- divisive events like war & Brexit
- a smaller majority party / coalition (harder to get votes through so need more whips, weaker PM in general so more MP power)
Key whip terms:
- 'The Awkward Squad' = most opposing / rebelling of whip backbench MPs
- three-line whip = strict instruction, assumption if an MP goes against then they may be removed from the party etc
- remove the whip = no advice given, vote how you want (Corbyn did this, gave party a 'free vote')
Do whips hinder or support effective law making?
Support:
- get MPs to turn up
- tell MPs what to vote, making decision faster
- allow concerns to be voiced to parliamentary office, upholds parliamentary sovereignty
- whips are more educated & knowledgeable than MPs (supposedly)
Hinder:
- tell MPs what to vote, undermines democracy
- reduces scrutinisation
The speaker:
- presides over debates
- can suspend MPs over misconduct (Labours Ex Cabinet Minister, Liam Byrne, in 2022 for bullying)
- elected by MPs in a secret ballot, once elected must give up party affiliation
- does not vote, unless there is a tie in result, very uncommon
Case study: Empowering Backbenchers:
- John Bercon was known as a reformist or activist speaker, attempted to enhance parliamentary scrutiny of the executive by championing beckbenchers
- concerned ministers were making fewer statements to the commons, he granted more urgent questions increasing the influence of backbenches
- urgent Q's summon ministers if approved (ask them the question)
- 77 questions from 2015-16, 304 so far with Boris, 307 from 2017-19
Case study: Speaker of the HoC:
- John Bercon was also faced criticism for allowing, and at time encouraging, 'parliamentary theatre', particularly during PMQs
- his predecessor Martin was criticised for his handling of the expenses scandal
- Lindsay Hoyle's style is one of the de-escalation, seen through Brexit debates, and he has pledged to improve the image of Parliament
Commons:
- representation
- has a mandate
- passing legislation
- scrutiny
- provides gov with ministers
Composition 2019:
- 650MPs
- MPs only
- 442 men, 208 women, 52 ethnic minorities
- 318 conservative, 262 labour, 35 SNP, 12 Lib Dem, 10 DUP, 13 others
Powers of the commons:
- can veto legislation
- can amend legislation
- can reject any legislation, even manifesto pledges
- approves gov's budget
- can dismiss a gov under extreme circumstances with a vote of no confidence
- run on party lines, so its ability to legitimise gov is limited
- represents constituency interests
- on the whole, MPs represent their parties' policies
- key role of legitimation of the gov and its laws; the Commons is the Senior House, being elected and thus accountable
- vast majority of ministers are selected from the Commons
The Commons is more effective than the Lords:
- Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949: made the Lords less powerful than the Commons, preventing the Lords from rejecting legislation and only allowing them to delay for a year e.g., the Lords forced a delay in the (fox) Hunting Act 2004.
- any Lords amendments that are rejected 3 times by the Commons become ineffective e.g., 2012 the Lords returned the Welfare Reform Act to the Commons with 7 amendments; all the amendments were defeated
- Salisbury Convention: emerged during the 1945-51 gov, convention means that the Lords does not try to vote down a gov bill mentioned in an election manifesto
- Legitimacy and representation of constituents: the Lords is unelected, so they lack a mandate.
- Liaison Committee; part of the Commons and checks the power of the PM, which the Lords cannot do.
- Committees: the Commons select committees have grown in influence and authority, since 2010, they have become much more effective in scrutinising government departments e.g. the Health Committee brought about changes to the coalition's Health and Social Care Bill; Margaret Hodge, while chairing the Public Accounts Committee, called Starbucks (as well as other big businesses) to account over the amount of tax they pay. There are no departmental select committees in the Lords.
- Scrutiny: the Lords is less effective in scrutinising the gov, PM's Questions and ministerial question time only happen in the Commons, while there are only gov spokespeople in the Lords, allows the Commons to directly scrutinise the gov
- Media: still concentrates more on the Commons and its role in making gov accountable
Parliaments role
The UK is unusual as the legislative & executive are fused; the UK is therefore a parliamentary system
Legislative (parliament):
- debate, discuss & amend bills
- vote on bills to become acts of parliament
- representation
- scrutinise government
- recruit ministers
Not parliament:
Executive (government):
- collective responsibility
- advise the PM
- propose legislation
- recruit ministers
Judiciary (Supreme Court):
- declare ultra vires
Difference between the role of legislative & executive:
- legislature cannot propose legislation
- legislature often dont advice PM unless in the inner circle