Structure of parliament

Origins of parliament Kings always had to consult with leading, powerful nobles During the reign of William I this meeting was known as the Great Council – the king would consult on important issues with his nobles and bishops The word parliament comes from ‘parler’, to talk, i.e. a talking shop. The role of parliament at this time was mainly to supply money to the king

Growth of parliament’s power In the seventeenth century parliament established its supremacy over the king as a result of the English civil war 1642-49 and the Glorious Revolution 1688-9. In the eighteenth century the kings became even less powerful as the power of the Prime Minister e.g. Walpole increased. (The P.M. and other ministers were part of parliament). In the nineteenth century democracy (the vote being exercised by large numbers) and the resulting development of mass political parties took the away the residual power of the king and created the modern parliamentary democracy.

House of Commons All MPs win their seat in the same way The HOC consists of 646 MPs (not fixed and varies depending on the constituency) Each MP is elected by a single-member parliamentary constituency using the FPTP voting MPs are almost always representatives of a party and are subject to a system of party discipline (only 2 independents in 2005) Most MPs are categorised as backbenchers while a minority are categorised as frontbenchers

Powers The HOC is politically and legally the dominant chamber of Parliament There is a difference with formal powers of the HOC enshrined in law and the constitutional theory: HOC has supreme legislative power: in theory the Commons can make, unmake and amend any law it wishes with the House of Lords only able to delay. The legal sovereignty exercised in practice by the Commons (subject to higher authority of EU Laws and treaties) The HOC alone can remove the government of the day: Convention of collective responsibility. A government defeated in the Commons on a major issue or a matter of confidence is obliged to resign or to call a general election

Reforming the Legislature: The Commons and the Lords

Bicameralism vs Unicameralism Unicameralism – single legislative chamber Strength of legislature vis-à-vis executive depends on nature of party system Bicameralism – two legislative chambers Weak vs strong bicameralism Strong: 2 chambers have equal power (symmetrical) Weak: lower chamber dominant (asymmetrical) 2 chambers can be (s)elected on different basis Strong bicameralism in federal states Weak bicameralism or unicameralism in unitary states The stronger the bicameralism, the stronger the legislature vis-à-vis executive in parliamentary systems

House of Lords & Executive (1) Lords once more powerful than Commons Representation of different social classes Composition: mainly hereditary peers (& Law Lords, bishops) Once had unlimited power to veto legislation Parliament Act 1911 – weakened Lords Bill could become law without Lords’ consent after 2 years, money bills after 1 month; aspired to remove hereditaries Parliament Act 1949 – 2 yrs delay cut to 1 year Attlee Govt worried Lords would block radical policies Salisbury Convention emerged UK: weak bicameralism

Uses of the Parliament Acts Welsh Church Act 1914 Disestablished Welsh part of Church of England Home Rule Act 1914 Home Rule for Ireland (never implemented) Parliament Act 1949 Amended Parliament Act 1911 War Crimes Act 1991 Enabled UK to prosecute Nazi war criminals for activities outside UK Only time Parliament Acts used by a Conservative Govt European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 Changed voting system for Euro elections Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 Lowered age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16 Hunting Act 2004 Banned fox-hunting and hare coursing

House of Lords & Executive (2) 1958 – Life Peerages Act Enable prominent experts/public figures to enter Lords Appointed by PM Title dies with holder 1968 – Wilson: stop hereditary voting: defeated Powers and functions Legislation Deliberation Scrutiny – important committees Previously Supreme Court of Appeal (Law Lords) Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created new Supreme Court –opened in October 2009

New Labour – Reforming the Lords Hereditary peers – conservative block on New Labour’s aspirations Two-stage reforms – (1) remove hereditary Lords; (2) construct newly-composed chamber Tories opposed removing hereditary Lords ‘Cranbourne compromise’ – keep 92 hereditary Lords Interim House – politically rebalanced: no party had majority Govt established Royal Commission to look into Stage 2 – composition, functions, powers

Composition of House of Lords 2009 Life Peers Hereditaries Lords Spiritual TOTAL Labour 210 4 - 214 Conservative 148 48 196 Liberal Dems 66 5 71 Crossbenchers 169 32 201 Bishops 26 Others 15 2 17 608 91 725

Stage 2 – Still Incomplete Royal Commission (Wakeham) 2000 550 members: 67, 87 or 195 elected White Paper, consultation, joint-committee 2003: Lords voted for 100% appointment; Commons rejected all proposals! Dept of Const Affairs Sept 2003 – all-appointed White Paper 2007 Remove hereditaries Part-appointed, part-elected: 15-year terms, 1/3 elected every five years by regional list PR March 2007: Commons voted for 100% elected; Lords voted for 100% appointed!

Future of the Lords (1) Debate: composition > powers Power underlies debate: election  greater legitimacy Interim Lords flexing muscles Salisbury Convention obsolete? PM – too much patronage power? Is an elected chamber a good thing? Replicate party system in Lords Unsuitable for scrutiny role?

Future of the Lords (2) What is the purpose of a second chamber in a non-federal state? Function > election? Democracy less important because Lords doesn’t choose, maintain or remove Govt & not involved in finance? Dual democratic legitimacies? Deadlock vs rubberstamp? Does present Lords show election unnecessary for upper chamber to check Govt and have legitimacy?

The Lords What are the main arguments for and against Lords Reform? http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=active&q=house+of+lords+reform&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=54dddba18bb93195 What are the Pro’s and Con’s of an unelected second chamber?

Parliamentary Scrutiny Broader question: how effective are parliamentary checks on the executive? Debates on Lords reform: praise for Lords’ scrutinising role Strengthen Commons select committees? But major barrier to parliamentary scrutiny = whipping system and party loyalty Some evidence of greater willingness of backbench MPs to rebel against Govt

Electoral Reform for Commons Parliament weak because 2-party system … which derives from FPTP electoral system PR  Coalition Govts Scotland/Wales Executive more answerable to legislature Problem for reformers: Labour & Tories not (usually) interested in PR – prefer single-party majority Govts

Seat-Vote Differentials in UK General Elections, 1964-2005 Note: Vertical axis measures (% seats won) minus (% votes won). Figures above zero indicate ‘unearned’ seats in parliament; figures below zero indicate ‘deprivation’ of seats; zero indicates perfect proportionality.

Jenkins Report 1998 Labour manifesto 1997 – electoral reform Terms of Reference of Jenkins Committee Keep constituency link Strong Govt Broad proportionality Extend voter choice Recommended AV+ Voters have 2 votes AV in constituencies – MPs win 50% + 1 votes Top-up MPs elected on regional lists (list PR element) Top-up MPs = 15-20% (bit more proportional than FPTP) Illegitimate? – Lab-Lib Dem stitch-up? Never implemented

Conclusion Major check on executive would be electoral reform – referendum promised in Labour’s next manifesto Lords reform is secondary by comparison… … but still important UK’s bicameralism strong in 1900, weak in 1980s, but somewhat stronger in 2009 – Lords enjoys greater legitimacy today