Component 2: UK Government and Non-core Political Ideas

Pack #2: Parliament

Key terminology

• Parliament • Legislative bills

• House of Commons • Public bill committees
• House of Lords • Backbenchers
• Confidence and supply • Select committees
• Salisbury Convention • Opposition
• Parliamentary privilege

Essay questions to consider

• Evaluate the extent to which parliament is effective at carrying out its various functions.
• Evaluate the view that although the House of Lords has less power than the House of
Commons, in practice it exerts more influence on government decisions.
• Evaluate the view that the House of Lords be wholly elected.
• Evaluate the view that backbench MPs are not effective at controlling government
power.
• Evaluate the view that select committees have now effectively taken over from the
official opposition as the main way in which the government is called to account in the
UK.
This part of the specification is also covered in this pack:
 Reminder: House of Lords

1. There are three main categories of peer: hereditary peers, life peers and 26 ‘Lords Spiritual’. Define
these three types of peer.

2. How many peers are there currently?

3. What are ‘cross-benchers’?

4. Who is the current Lord Speaker? Who is the current Leader of the House of Lords?

5. Who are most life peers nominated by?

6. What is the role of the House of Lords Appointment Commission?

7. What did the two Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 do?

8. What is the Salisbury Convention?

Reminder: House of Commons

1. How many MPs are there?

2. What is the role of the Speaker?

3. Who is the current Speaker?

4. Who is the Leader of the Official Opposition?

5. How many independent MPs are there currently?

 6. What is the difference between a frontbench MP and a backbench MP?

7. What is the role of the Chief Whip? Who is the current Chief Whip?

8. What is a three-line whip?

Primary legislation

There are different types of primary legislation. Task: Fill in the grid to describe the difference
between each type of bill.

Private bills Public bills

Government bills Private Members’ bills

Remind yourself of the passage of primary legislation:

 Consultation.

by the relevant minister but it is not debated or voted on at this stage. This is also
where the Speaker can decide whether EVEL applies to the Bill. This will also happen after
the Report stage and again after amendments, before the bill receives the final Royal Assent.

Secondary legislation or delegated legislation

1. What is secondary legislation?

2. Why do we need secondary/delegated legislation?

3. Statutory instruments (SIs) are the most frequently used type of delegated legislation. Can you
give an example?

4. Why are SIs controversial?

5. What does ultra vires mean?

6. What happened in October 2015 over David Cameron’s plans for cuts to tax credits?
 Functions of the House of Commons and the House of Lords

Task: Remind yourself of the functions of the two Houses – look at your notes.
 Comparing the House of Commons and the House of Lords

House of Commons Both houses House of Lords

• Elected – represents the nation, • Debate and vote • Not elected and therefore lacks
greater legitimacy and accountable on legislative democratic legitimacy
• Tends to be dominated by the proposals • The government does not command a
government (fusion of powers) • Propose majority – a more independent house
• Commons have the final say on amendments to • Scrutinises legislation – the committee
amendments and can veto legislation legislation stage in the House of Lords involves
• The Commons can bypass the Lords • Call government the whole house and often improves
(Parliament Act 1949). The Lords can and individual legislation
hold up Commons Bills if they ministers to • Can propose amendments for
disagree with them for about a year account consideration by the Commons and
but ultimately the elected House of • Bring important can delay bills for up to a year – forcing
Commons can reintroduce them in issues to national the government to think again
the following session and pass them attention through • Has more time and expertise to
without the consent of the Lords. debates examine secondary legislation (House
• Examination and approval of the • Both MPs and of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny
financial affairs of government (the peers can Committee and peers share in the
budget) introduce Private work of the Joint Committee on
• Departmental Select Committees Members’ Bills Statutory Instruments) and make
examine of the work of government • Both have recommendations for further
departments specifically committees which consideration
• The ability to vote down a scrutinise the • Restricted by the Salisbury convention
government with a vote of no executive (though this is debatable, especially
confidence with minority or coalition
governments)
• Also constrained by the threat of
reform or abolition
 Do the House of Lords perform a meaningful role in UK democracy?

Be aware of the fact that the House of Lords has grown in importance and status in the past 20
years. It should also be noted that the effectiveness of the House of Lords depends on variable
factors, including:

• the size of the government’s majority in the Commons, if it has a majority at all
• how effective is parliamentary opposition in the Commons — where opposition is weak, the
Lords can step in to fill the gap
• the extent to which government policies prove to be controversial among the public.

Task: Fill the table with some ideas:

Evidence that the House of Lords does perform a Evidence that the House of Lords suffers
meaningful role: from a number of weaknesses:
 How Parliament scrutinises the Executive

Task: Remind yourself of the positives and negatives of each of these methods of scrutinising the
government. PMQs has been done for you as an example.

+ PMs can be asked about any area of government policy and

therefore have to have a command over a range of government
policies and prepare thoroughly for it
+ Held every week, so can hold the PM accountable on a regular
basis
+ PMs dislike PMQs as it is challenging
+PMQs is often featured on the news and therefore form an
important part of the scrutiny of government
+PMQs is exciting in contrast to other western democracies and
could engage the public, especially as it is often on the news

- Rowdy and childish atmosphere with heckling and cheering

-Theatrical nature – it is more about political point scoring
rather than serious debate (yah-boo politics or Punch and Judy
politics).
- Gladiatorial/adversarial nature puts the public off and
discourages political engagement
- Both John Bercow (the former Speaker) and Jeremy Corbyn
have tried to reform PMQs but had little success
-Only lasts for 30 minutes and main exchange between leader of
the opposition and PM only lasts for about 10 minutes so it is
easy for PM to avoid scrutiny
- The leader of the opposition is only allowed to ask 6 questions
so does not have enough time for follow up questions
- PMs tend to waffle rather than answer the question, or make
jibes, such as Cameron regarding Corbyn’s tie
 The relationship between Parliament and the executive

You have notes on this in your folders. What evidence could you
use to back up the above points?

Task: This question has been asked before: Evaluate the view that since 2010 the executive has
dominated Parliament. Can you organise the above table into 3 PEACE paragraphs to answer this
potential exam question?
 Evaluate the extent to which parliament is effective at carrying out its various functions.

Introduction
Identify the three key functions of parliament you are going to discuss in this essay – passing and
scrutiny of legislation, scrutiny of government actions, and representation. Make sure you put across
your argument at the start – do you think parliament is effective at carrying out its functions or not?

Use a PEACE structure for this essay, evaluating each function as you write, covering the positives
and negatives and then coming to a mini-conclusion.

Sample paragraph on scrutiny of government actions (NOTE: this paragraph inverts the PEACE
structure to consider the counter argument first, then the supporting argument):
Since the Wright reforms in 2010, select committees such as the PAC have become increasingly
effective at scrutinising ministers and government actions. Members are elected, not appointed, and
chairs of key committees like the PAC are from the opposition side. The Backbench Business
Committee also gives an opportunity to backbench Members to bring forward debates of their choice
and has had numerous success, including forcing the government to release documents related to the
Hillsborough disaster in 2012. However, despite the more independent nature of the committees, they
can still only report and not force change, as there will usually be a government majority on
committees – governments only accept around 40% of select committee recommendations.
Furthermore, other methods of scrutinising government are not as effective. For instance, Prime
Ministers Question Time is often still theatrical despite attempts to make it more serious by Corbyn
and Bercow; it is still largely ineffective at scrutinising the Prime Minster. Overall therefore, despite
improvements in some areas, our governments are not well scrutinised by Parliament. This is especially
the case currently, as governments with big majorities like Boris Johnson’s can ignore much
Parliamentary scrutiny.

Task: Write another sample paragraph on a different point. You can use your notes!

Task: The question above is on parliament as a whole – i.e., you would need to refer to both the House
of commons and the House of Lords during your essay. However, what if the question was solely on
the House of Commons or solely on the House of Lords? Plan some answers!
Introduction

Evidence that the Lords exerts more influence Evidence that the Commons exerts more influence
The government does not have a majority in the However, the Commons is more powerful than the
Lords. As the government does not have a majority Lords. For instance, due to the Parliament Acts of
in the second chamber, they are constantly aware 1911 and 1949 the Lords does not have the power to
that they may face defeat in the Lords and are more veto legislation or amend finance Bills whereas the
likely to face hostile amendments to legislation. Commons can also veto any piece of government
Evidence/ examples? legislation or policy. Evidence/ examples?
In 2015, the House of Lords voted to delay tax credit
cuts, causing George Osbourne to criticise
"unelected Labour and Lib Dem lords" for defying the
will of the elected House of Commons.

Mini conclusion?

Party loyalty is weaker in the Lords than the However, the Salisbury convention limits the
Commons. There is an expectation in the Commons influence of the Lords. The Salisbury convention
that MPs follow the party line and the promises means that the Lords does not oppose manifesto
made in manifestos. Peers are less likely to toe the commitments. The Commons has no such
party line and there are also crossbenchers in the limitations. Evidence/ examples?
Lords who do not follow a party whip. Evidence/
examples?

Mini conclusion?
Unelected peers are immune from patronage. However, the unelected Lords lacks the legitimacy to
Patronage is used to keep frontbench and challenge the government. The unelected Lords lacks
backbench MPs in line. Peers are appointed for life the authority to wield greater powers and it is right
and so are less affected by patronage. Evidence/ that the elected Commons is dominant. Evidence/
examples? examples?
Scandals such as the ‘cash for honours’ scandal have
damaged the Lords’ reputation. Refer to ‘Tony’s
Cronies’ and ‘Dave’s Mates’.

Mini conclusion?

The government is much more likely to suffer a However, the government can usually reverse
defeat in the Lords than in the Commons. For defeats in the Lords and even bypass them under the
example, the coalition government, 2010-2015, Parliament Act. The government can reaffirm the
suffered 100 defeats in the Lords, compared to 6 original wording in the Commons. The Lords will
defeats in the Commons. Evidence/ examples? usually back down as they are unelected. On the
other hand, once defeated in the Commons, the
government will usually accept this. Evidence/
examples?

Mini conclusion?

Don’t forget that in your Component 2 essays, there is an explicit demand to refer to Component 1.
During your essay you could refer to such points as:
• The impact of FPTP on party composition in the Commons i.e. governments will often have
majorities in the Commons.
• The democratic deficit represented by the Lords i.e. the Lords is an unelected chamber.
• The electoral mandate i.e. by convention the Lords does not challenge policies in the
government’s manifesto

Conclusion
 Evaluate the view that the House of Lords be wholly elected.

Introduction

Define:

Debate:

Direction:

Note: You should clarify that it depends on which electoral system would be used to elect the House
of Lords. This essay will be from the point of view that a system of PR would be used.
The House of Lords should be elected The House of Lords should be not be elected

1. Most importantly, elections would give the House However, evolution, not revolution, is the key to the
of Lords democratic legitimacy longevity and success of the British constitution
➢ It would make members accountable ➢ Since the 1999 reform, the Lords has
developed into an effective and assertive
➢ It would give the house a full mandate to
revising chamber, defending civil liberties and
initiate and amend legislation
forcing governments to rethink badly-drafted
➢ It would help end political patronage and bills
corruption
➢ If it isn’t broken, why fix it? Moving to an
elected chamber would undermine this
progress and introduce a new raft of problems
Evaluation?

2. If elected by a system of proportional However, by having more legitimacy, it might begin to

representation, it could challenge the dominance challenge the authority of the House of Commons and
that the government usually has over the House of the two houses would come into more conflict and
Commons. produce legislative gridlock.
➢ Commons uses FPTP which often results in a ➢ Disputes about who represents the will of the
government majority, allowing them to people could arise
dominate the chamber ➢ The Salisbury Convention has already come
➢ Using PR for the Lords would make it unlikely under strain with peers disputing the mandate
that one party would dominate the house and of governments
this would help in challenging the government ➢ If an upper house emboldened by direct
and preventing the government having too election refuses to back down, the
much power government may struggle to implement its
manifesto promises, leading to legislative
gridlock, which is often seen in countries like
the USA
Evaluation?
 3. If elected by a system of proportional However, an appointed house would retain the
representation, the chamber would be more expertise and independence of crossbench peers.
representative of the electorate. ➢ An elected chamber would be full of
➢ Regions would gain greater representation professional politicians rather than attracting
compared to the current House of Lords individuals with a wealth of knowledge and
experience in a vast range of fields. Improving
➢ A system of PR would also aid smaller parties
the current way we appoint Lords would be far
and independent members gain seats
better than moving to an elected chamber.
➢ The Lords currently delivers ‘output legitimacy’
– better quality legislation – because of its
current composition and elections may take
that away
➢ and forcing governments to rethink badly-
drafted bills
➢ If it isn’t broken, why fix it? Moving to an
elected chamber would undermine this
progress and introduce a new raft of problems
Evaluation?

4. Elections would give the electorate an opportunity Turnout is already low for elections in the United
to hold the government to account, especially if Kingdom and more could lead to increased voter
they were midterm (i.e. between general elections). apathy.
➢ Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, ➢ With turnout for general elections still lower
the electorate only gets to hold the than 70% and much lower for second-order
government to account every five years elections, it is unlikely that turnout would be
➢ Midterms function in other democracies like high for elections to the House of Lords.
the USA ➢ Additional elections would also create
additional costs and further alienation form
the political system.
Evaluation?

Note: Consider that you might suggest that, instead of moving to a completely elected chamber (which would
be a drastic change), improving the current way we appoint Lords might be a better solution. For instance, a
strong, independent appointments commission could greatly reduce the role political parties and the prime
minister play in the nomination process and keep the current advantages of the House of Lords, such as the
expertise.

Conclusion
 Evaluate the view that backbench MPs are not effective at controlling government power.

Introduction

Define:

Debate:

Direction:

Argument that backbench MPs are not that Argument that backbench MPs are effective
effective
MPs will usually support their party leadership, However, the current divides in both Labour and
due to the whip system. Conservative over big issues like Brexit means
backbench rebellions have become increasingly
It is certainly true that in most circumstances most common, as MPs are willing to defy whips on these
MPs are required to follow the party line, major issues. They may also defy their whips as
especially when a three-line whip has been issued. they are ultimately voted in by their constituents,
This is natural as the governing party has a and may choose to follow their wishes rather than
mandate to carry out its manifesto commitments. those of the party.
Opposition MPs can be more independent as their
party is not in government but they still tend to
vote the way the party whips tell them. Whips
hold a great sway of power and can recommend
promotions which makes it difficult for
backbenchers to oppose them – ambitious MPs
who aspire to a front bench position will do little to
harm their prospects

Evaluation:

In scrutinising legislation, the government also However, determined groups of backbench MPs
has an advantage on bill committees and can have proven they can be effective at amending or
often pass their version of legislation through. defeating legislation, especially when the
government does not hold a majority. For instance,
The House of Commons spends much of its time 11 Tory rebels joined the opposition side in
passing laws proposed by government. December 2017 to defeat May’s government on
Scrutinising legislation is weak as the government key Brexit legislation. In September 2019, 21
usually has a majority on bill committees, ensuring government rebels helped pass no-deal Brexit
that the government can usually defeat proposed legislation against Boris Johnson’s wishes.
amendments and therefore usually gets its way.
Evaluation:
In many forms of the scrutinising the Executive, However, since the Wright reforms, select
ministers have a distinctive advantage which committees have become increasingly
often makes backbench actions ineffective independent. The backbench MPs who sit on select
committees do significant work in calling
Question times are largely ineffective as ministers government to account. They behave in an
and the prime minister find it relatively easy to independent way and are able to obtain key
avoid answering questions fully. In ministerial information from ministers, advisers, civil servants
question time, ministers benefit from knowing the and other witnesses. The chair of key committees
questions beforehand and have an army of civil is also from the opposition side, with members
servants to help them prepare answers. In PMQs, now selected by ballot, rather than being selected
the session is limited to 30 minutes, which means by whips which means they are more willing to
that backbench MPs have little time to question challenge rather than support their party
the PM directly. The theatrical nature of PMQs leadership. In particular, the Backbench Business
means is not a serious event and it is more about Committee has been a significant development in
political point scoring. Some MPs on the making backbench MPs more effective. The
government side will also ask helpful or Committee has a limited allocation of time outside
sympathetic questions rather than criticise Government control in which it can schedule
ministers, which is not an effective scrutiny of subjects for debate suggested by backbench
government actions. Members of Parliament. This includes subjects
raised in national or local campaigns, reports by
select committees and other groups and issues
suggested by constituents, including by people
who have signed an e-petition. In 2011-12, they
successfully pressured the government to release
papers on the football disaster Hillsborough.
Evaluation:

Select committees do have weaknesses. However, backbenchers on other select

committees have also made a difference in recent
Select committees are weak in the sense that they years. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has
can only make recommendations and not force the forced government action in recent years on such
government to change policy. Only around 40% of issues as tax avoidance and evasion, the accounts
recommendations are accepted by government, of the BBC and the financial performance of the
and a similar proportion go on to be implemented. NHS. The departmental select committees are also
Calls for small policy change are more likely to be effective. The Work and Pensions Committee
accepted and implemented, while only but around forced Sir Philip Green to pay money into the BHS
a third of recommendations calling for significant pension fund and the Business Committee also
policy changes succeed. highlighted bad working practices at Sports Direct
and forced owner Mike Ashley to appear before
the Business, Skills and Innovation Committee.
Evaluation:

Task: Write a conclusion

 Evaluate the view that select committees have now effectively taken over from the official
opposition as the main way in which the government is called to account in the UK.

The idea of accountability includes the following principles:

• Forcing government and its ministers to explain their policies and decisions.
• Criticising government when parliamentarians feel errors or misjudgements have been
made.
• Seeking to reverse unpopular policies and decisions.
• In extreme circumstances, calling for the replacement of ministers.
• In very extreme circumstances, seeking to force the government to resign.

Introduction

Define:

Debate:

Direction:

PEACE paragraphs

1. Committees have gained great prestige in recent years. Their work is increasingly publicised and
major reports receive significant media coverage.

However, the committees do not carry the same threat of censure of ministers as the opposition
in Parliament as a whole does. Ministers are called to account in Parliament by the opposition in
a very public way and may face hostile questioning during Question Time. The opposition,
especially when the government has a small majority or no majority at all, also carries the threat
of calling a vote of no confidence in government.

Evaluation?

2. The Committees build up considerable expertise, much greater than other MPs. The chairs of
the committees, especially the Public Accounts Committee, have become senior figures in
Parliament, more influential even than some opposition party leaders. For instance, Amber
Rudd was heavily questioned and criticised by the Home Affairs Committee Chair Yvette Cooper
during the Windrush scandal and was forced to resign.
 However, even the chairs do not have the same prestige and status as the leader of the
opposition. Prime Minister’s Question Time remains the most publicised and highest-profile
form of calling government to account.

Evaluation?

3. Committees are able to undertake more detailed scrutiny than the opposition in Parliament as a
whole. Unlike the opposition in Parliament, they are able to question civil servants, advisers and
outside witnesses. The can call for ‘persons, papers and records’.

The committees cannot carry out detailed scrutiny of legislation. By comparison, the opposition
controls ‘supply days’, which means they may hold full-scale debates on the work of government
and propose alternative legislation.

Evaluation?

Conclusion: