User:LordsReform/Roles

Introduction
For main article see: Lords Reform

The perceived roles and responsibilities of the House of Lords is critical in understanding the complexity and problems that have arisen in over a century of attempts to reform the House of Lords. Many MPs have argued that it is wrong to put forward proposals for House of Lords reform "without any consideration having been given to reform of the Commons and the possibility of increasing the pre-legislative and scrutiny roles of the back-benchers through a revisal of the committee structure."

Origin of the Relationship between Commons & Lords
Historically the purpose for a separate House of Lords was to represent a different constituency, namely the Lords & Bishops, whereas the Commons represented the commoners. Over time, social attitudes have changed and the idea of the Lords being there to represent this difference constituency no longer has widespread acceptance in the UK. But, the House of Lords are widely accepted as fulfilling a useful function, but as the reason for their original existence has become unsupportable, it leaves open the purpose that they should fulfil and their relationship with the Commons.

Constitutional experts say: The United Kingdom is a Parliamentary democracy. Sovereignty rests with the Crown in Parliament. Law making rests with the tripartite sovereignty of Crown in both Houses of Parliament.

However, in practice the history of this tripartite system of government has been one the gradual growth in the power of the Commons at the expense of the Crown & House of Lords; and by its domination of the Commons so the largest political party has come to dominate them all.

In former times Kings & Queens claimed an absolute right to rule called the devine authority of Kings (though no king or Queen ever trully ruled without council). Over the centuries this power of the Crown to act on its own has increasingly been reduced and the Crown's powers transferred to the Lords and the Commons.

Even in the 15th century the Commons was asserting the sole right to grant or withhold supply. The power of the Commons significantly increased from the 17th century onward following changes to public finance and the end of the practice of granting the yield of certain taxes for life. As government required more and more money to operate, this right was a strangle hold over finances which gave the Commons a formidable weapon by which it gained control over government.

Since 1678, when the Commons formally resolved that "all aids and supplies, and aids to His Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons", the Lords have rarely even attempted to challenge the effective supremacy of the commons. Today although all ministers, including the Prime Minister, are still nominally the Crown's empoyees and act for the crown, in practice they now owe their position and their allegiance solely to their party.

The basis on which the Commons asserted its right was always said to be its position as the representative body of the people, even when the people who elected it comprised a small minority of even the adult male population. Beginning with the 1832 Reform Act, the increasingly democratic elections increased the democratic legitimacy and authority of the Commons.

Since 1968, the Commons has been totally elected by universal franchise. In theory this gives the people of the UK a free choice of government; in practice however, that choice is restricted to a few main political parties and except in the unusual case of a hung parliament, the party with the largest majority will form the government.

Modern elections are therefore essentially a choice of the party to govern and the leader who is to be Prime Minster. One view of elections are that they are a choice of party manifesto and a way for the people to decide between the policy agendas in each manifesto. By choosing the party of government, the people mandate them to form a government and carry out their manifesto commitments. But, general Elections also return individual MPs who are expected to look to the interests of their constituents irrespective of Party affiliation.

The largest party or party able to obtain the majority of support in the Commons party forms a government. They appoint Ministers who are said to be continuously accountable to the House of Commons through debates and votes. In practice this accoutability is limited because most governments have a majority in the Commons and so effective control over the the Commons. The non-Government Parties form an Opposition, with the largest non-Government Party occupying the position of Official Opposition.

Powers
Originally the two Houses of Parliament had equal legislative powers. The agreement of both was necessary before a Bill could be submitted to the Monarch for royal assent, which if granted made the Bill an Act of Parliament. After the English Restoration a constitutional convention arose that the House of Lords would defer to the House of Commons on measures to raise and spend money.

The Parliament Act 1911 divided Bills into three classes.
 * 1) Money bills, to which if the Lords did not consent within one month, they could be given royal assent without their approval.
 * 2) Other bills where the House of Lords was given a suspensory veto.
 * 3) Bills extending the maximum term of the House of Commons beyond five years. Where the House of Lords retained equal legislative powers.

The Parliament Act 1949 reduced the suspensory veto to two sessions and one year. Legislation can now be passed by the Commons without ratification from the Lords provided: it starts in the Commons; is passed by them in two successive Sessions with Second Reading in the second Session at least 12 months after that in the first; and is sent to the Lords in each Session at least a month before the end of the session. Or in other words the the House of Lords has the power to delay legislation but not to prevent it.


 * Scottish Legislation
 * Paradoxically, the Lords has no role in the oversight of Scottish legislation.


 * Secondary Legislation
 * As of 2001 the Lords had the powers to approve of reject secondary legislation called statatuary instruments The royal commission proposed changing this power of outright rejection to one of allowing the Lords to delay a statutory instrument by 3 months allowing the Government and Commons time to reconsider the issue.

Recommendation of the Royal Commission
The Royal Commission recommended that:
 * The role, function and powers of the House of Lords should remain largely unchanged. The House of Commons should remain pre-eminent, but the House of Lords should have the power to criticise, question and delay but not to veto Government legislation approved by the House of Commons. The House of Lords should continue to be a forum for national debate, informed by but not dominated by party loyalties, able to command a body of independent and expert opinion not directly available to the House of Commons. It should be able to make a distinctive contribution to the consideration of legislation and to debate on the issues of the day; (House of Lords completing the reform Nov 2001)

The Government's View
In the White paper the government set out its view that: "the pre-eminence of the House of Commons, has provided Britain with effective democratic Government and accountability for more than a century" they agreed with the Royal Commission that "The House of Commons, as the principal political forum, should have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues" and "it would be wrong to restore the fully bicameral nature of the pre-1911 parliament" (paragraph 4.7) and stated their views that the reforms should not upset this balance but instead strengthen the capacity of Parliament to legislate, deliberate and hold the Government to account.

"it must not alter the respective roles and authority of the two chambers and their members in a way that would obscure the line of authority and accountability that flows between the people and those they elect directly to form the Government and act as their individual representatives. Decisions on functions, on authority, and membership of the House of Lords need to be consistent with these settled principles of our democracy."

In the White paper the government saw the specific roles of the House of Lords & commons as:
 * House of Lords
 * One of the checks and balances of the UK constitution.
 * A body with the power to press Government to justify its actions, but except for highly exceptional circumstance not in the end to frustrate the will of the Commons.
 * An important & distinctive role as a revising & scrutinising chamber for legislation obliging the government to justify further its legislation in a less partisan spirit than the Commons.
 * A body with a different perspective & expertise that complements that of the Commons and "reform should be geared to strenthen its role in scrutiny".
 * As many Ministers are members of the Lords the chamber should continue with the important role holding these ministers to account.
 * A place to debate public issues.
 * Although its role of reviewing the impact of constitutional reform was seen as important, the government felt that "this is something that should develop within the existing constitutional framework"
 * Commons
 * The primary authority for the approval of legislation
 * The place where the government (not individual ministers) is held to account.

View of consultees
"Its distinctive role should derive from the range of experience and insights of its members and their representativeness of the national community (Peter Bradley MP)"

Pre-eminence of Commons
Although it is commonly said that the House of Commons has pre-eminence in the British constitution, there were however aternatives views expressed in the consultation:
 * That if we live in a democracy the people should are supreme.
 * That in practice, the Commons is not the supreme body as it is effectively under the control of the Party HQ of the ruling party and therefore the party rather than the Commons is in practice the supreme in the UK constitution.

"if the members of the second Chamber were to serve longer terms of office than those is the House of Commons they could claim a greater legitimacy.... with the House of Commons retaining its primacy. It is possible for it to do so, if the powers and functions of each chamber are properly defined. )"

"the Commons should retain its primacy" "The second chamber's powers must be subsidiary to those of the Commons and limited to the delay but not the rejection of legislation."

House of Experts
Many saw the House of Lords as being a means to bring into government expertise that would not otherwise be available either because the experts would not wish to stand in an election. For example, many notable politicians when they are no longer prepared for the more active politics in the commons, continue to serve the public in the House of Lords. In particular experts are needed who can "'scrutinize the details of bills... so that organizations like the universities, scientific institutions and the NSPCC could be represented' (Charlotte Atkins MP)"

Scrutiny
"I believe that the correct role of the House of Lords to take is as a body of scrutiny on legislative business with the perspective that appointed or chosen experts can offer acting as a second chamber to the House of Commons (Nigel Beard MP)" "A second chamber has a role of scrutiny and revision (Peter Bradley MP)"

Different Constitutencies
A number of the new proposals aimed to reform the House of Lords so that it did serve a different constituency from the Commons. Some saw the reform as an opportunity to allow the increased representation of various groups that are otherwise under-represented in the Commons. Typical aims were to:
 * Increase the proportion of Ethnic Minority candidates
 * Allow more of a voice for the regions
 * Allow representation from smaller parties like the Greens
 * Include more apolitical candidates (less than 2% of the UK belong to a political party)
 * To retain some form of moral or religious representation in the upper house.

Watchdog/The Engine & Breaks
A number of consultees saw the house of Lords as a kind of watchdog or break on the commons. "(to) have a reviewing body, placing checks and balances on the first chamber (Harold Best MP" The genearal principle is that the commons is the main body for passing legislation. As such it should be allowed to pass legislation. But those holding this view want the Upper house to be in a position to stop the commons "going off the road". A good description of this view is contained in the analofy of an engine and breaks.
 * The Commons - The Engine: In a general election the public hold a debate on the manifestos presented by the political parties and by selecting one or other manifesto they provide a mandate to the government providing an indication of the future direction the voters wish the government to take them.


 * The Upper House- The Brakes/watchdog
 * The House of Lords, like the breaks on a car, or a watchdog, has a more passive role; it is not the prime creator of legislation but a check on the commons if it goes out of control

Appointment of Ministers
"Government Ministers (from the House of Lords) should be appointed only from those elected members of the second chamber(Peter Bradley)"

Deadlock
"I do not think a largely elected House of Lords would be wise because the potential for deadlock on legislative proposals arises. (Nigel Beard MP)"