Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Parliament - Coggle Diagram
Parliament
2.1 Structure and role of Commons and Lords
Main functions of the Commons and Lords
Promoting legitimacy (Commons and Lords)
Successful
Being democratically elected, the Commons has a legitimate mandate (undermined by FPTP or PMs not elected by the public)
Government actions are scrutinised and challenged (effectiveness of this is debatable)
Unsuccessful
The Lords is wholly unelected and not democratically legitimate, however still is in important in creating legislation
Many scandals eg MP's expenses, 'cash for questions', have undermined public faith and trust in Parliament - reducing legitimay
Representing the electorate (Commons)
Successful
Commons is elected and superior to the Lords - democratic legitimacy
In theory, each MP acts on behalf of their constituents (however discredited by 'career politicians')
Unsuccessful
House of Lords is entirely unelected and nondemocratic
Due to FPTP, party's seats in the Commons and share of the vote are disproportionate (eg UKIP 2015)
MPs and peers come from a narrow background - does not reflect women, ethnic minorities and minorities in society
Providing ministers (Commons and Lords)
Successful
All ministers are MPs, so will have spent time as backbenchers gaining parliamentary experience
Backbenchers learn how government and parliament work before progressing to junior ministerial posts, before potentially running a gov department
Unsuccessful
Ministers can only come from the pool of MPs of the largest Commons party, not many people to choose from
Skills learned in parliament may be more debating and speaking rather than managing and organising
Ministers increasingly have no experience of a career outside politics ('the Westminster bubble'), so may lack perspective or understanding of the implications of their actions
Parliamentary scrutiny (Commons and Lords)
Unsuccessful
Government usually has a majority of MPs in the Commons to support and defend them
PMQs is ineffective - often becomes trivial in order to boost opinion pills, rather than genuine focus on policy
Government has a majority on select committees, committees are limited as they only can criticise - government can ignore their recommendations
Successful
PMQs holds PM and ministers accountable
Select committees scrutinise government policy, and public bill committees examine proposed legislation
Debates are held discussing merits of government actions
Opposition is given time to challenge the government
MPs and peers can submit questions to ministers, which they must respond to
Selection of members of the Commons and Lords
2.2 Comparative powers of Commons and Lords
Commons
Has supreme legislative power - the chamber proposes and passes laws, and can stop bills from being passed into law (Lords can only delay bills)
Commons has
confidence and supply
powers - the government only exists as long as it has the confidence of the Commons
'Supply' refers to the Commons granting the government money through supporting legislation involving the supply of taxation
The Commons can be argued to be more powerful than the Lords because:
Lords can only delay bills and suggest amendments which can be overturned by the Commons (eg in 2017, the Lords' attempted amendments to Article 50 which guaranteed EU citizens' rights for those already living in the UK, was swiftly overturned)
Commons can vote down legislation, unlike the Lords
Commons has the option of a vote of no confidence, unlike the Lords
MPs are more independently-minded than in the past, so are less likely to toe the party line - making Commons more assertive against the government
Commons is more democratically legitimate - they have more of a right to challenge government
Committees and PMQs are used to scrutinise government - the PM does not appear before the Lords to be challenged
Lords
Lords can delay bills passed by Commons by up to one year - however they cannot delay money bills for more than a month, or bills which were specifically outlined in the governing party's manifesto - this is protected under the
Salisbury Convention
The Lords has some
veto powers
eg if the government tried to extend the life of parliament - this could be blocked by the Lords
The Lords can be argued to be challenging to the government because:
Party control is much weaker as Lords don't need to be re-elected, so the government can't rely on their own party peers backing them
More political balance in the Lords - no one party dominates, less focus on party politics
More expertise/specialist knowledge - this means bills are potentially more carefully and effectively scrutinised
Peers are from a range of backgrounds, so represent different groups and interests in society - giving them legitimacy
Measures in the Commons such as PMQs are ineffective at properly challenging the government - often focus on trivial issues
2.3 The legislative process
A
legislative bill
is a proposal for a new law, or a change to an existing law, which is brought before parliament - can be introduced in either the Commons or Lords
An
act of parliament
is a bill that has completed all its stages in parliament and has become law
Types of bills
Government bill/public bill
- most important type of proposal that can be debated in parliament - these are brought forward by government ministers to change public policy eg reorganisation of the NHS was brought about by the 2012 Health and Social Care Act
Private bill
- sponsored by an organisation such as a company or a local authority, with the intention of changing the law as it affects that organisation eg the 2013 London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act which introduced new powers for dealing with obstructions caused by builders and road users
Hybrid bill
- proposes changes to the law which would affect the general public, but certain groups or areas in particular eg the bill to build HS2
Private member's bill
- affects the whole population, introduced by an individual MP or a member of the Lords - in the Commons, at the start of each session the names of MPs applying to introduce a PMB are drawn in a ballot eg the imposition of a duty on councils and NHS services to look after people with autism, passed in 2009, was initiated by Cheryl Gillan MP
How a bill becomes a law
A bill may originate as a
Green paper
(a document setting out options for legislation and inviting consultation), and/or a
White paper
(a more detailed statement of the government's intentions) - but this whole stage is not compulsory
First reading
- First compulsory stage - the bill is made available to MPs but is not debated or voted on at this stage
Second reading
- Principle of the bill is debated and a vote may be taken if it is contested
Committee stage
- Bill is scrutinised in detail by a
public bill committee
(whose membership reflects the strength of parties in the Commons) - amendments may be made at this stage if the government is prepared to accept them
Report stage
- the Commons considers amendments made at the committee stage and may accept or reject them
Third reading
- Amended bill is debated and voted on by the whole house
House of Lords stages
- Bill goes through the same stages in the Lords, with the exception of the committee stage, which is carried out by the whole house - the Lords can propose amendments, which the Commons has to decide whether to accept, reject or further amend these - the bill can go back and forth between he houses for up to a year before it becomes law (known as parliamentary ping pong)
Royal assent
- Monarch signs the bill, making it law - this stage is a formality as the sovereign is a constitutional monarch, who would not get involved in politics by refusing to sign the bill
2.4 The ways Parliament interacts with the executive
Backbenchers
Backbenchers have a significant role
Can introduce Private Member's Bills which can become laws
'Ten minute rule' bills are an opportunity for backbenchers to voice an opinion on a subject or aspect of existing legislation
They can carry out detailed scrutiny of government bills and policy, through working on public bills and select committees
Can challenge and put pressure on government ministers during PMQs
Can challenge government actions through debates in the Commons
Can use their
parliamentary privilege
- this grants legal immunities for MPs and peers to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside parliament
Backbenchers do not have a significant role
PMBs very rarely become law, so most of a backbencher's time is spent considering government bills
Whips limit the role of backbenchers and therefore their ability to scrutinise government - limiting their independence and significance
There is limited time available in debates to discuss issues in detail, and debates often have little direct impact on legislation
Could be argued MPs lack democratic legitimacy - often elected with less than 50% of the vote in their constituencies, and views of women and minority groups could be argued to not be properly represented
PMQs is often trivial and ineffective
Select committees
Select committees have a significant role in challenging the executive
Scrutinise government policy, shadowing the work of major government departments - they do this by carrying out inquiries, writing reports, carrying out Q&A sessions (through which they can call witnesses, including government ministers)
Select committees' role is limited
The government has a majority on the committees, so can dominate them (although the chairs of select committees are elected by parliament as a whole)
Whips control individual appointments to the committees, meaning loyal MPs can be placed on them
Select committees can criticise government policy, but cannot change it
The opposition
The opposition is significant
The opposition is given privileges at debates, eg during PMQs the opposition leader can ask the PM more questions than others
The opposition are allocated 20 days a year to choose the subjects for debate, and often use the time to criticise and scrutinise government policy
The opposition is insignificant
The government usually has an overall majority in the Commons, giving them the ability to dominate in the Commons
They have a lack of resources relative to government eg the civil service is duty bound to support and enact government policy
The opposition party is often in a position of weakness and may be divided, as they have not been electorally successful in the election
PMQs
PMQs is effective in scrutinising government
The PM (or minister) must answer questions on subjects which they are (in theory) not aware of, and must justify and explain their actions, which holds them to account
During PMQs, the opposition leader can ask supplementary questions, allowing them more opportunity to scrutinise the PM
PMQs is ineffective
Questions are often avoided or not properly answered by the PM/ministers
It is often described as 'Punch and Judy' politics - whereby the PM and opposition leader attempt to embarrass each other and score cheap political points, rather than focus on proper meaningful scrutiny
The trivial nature of PMQs damages the reputation of parliament and politicians in the public's opinion