Parliament essay plans
Evaluate the view that the HoC is more powerful than the HoL
HOC is more powerful than HOL HOC is not more powerful than HOL
HOC proposes leg and HOL is limited HOL holds important role in reviewing
- e.g. Energy Prices Act 2022 = not bound by secondary legislation
convention due to elected nature = have - lords can veto legislation e.g. 2008
mandate = Burkean theory of trustee Counter Terrorism Bill and 2012 Welfare
model Reform Bill
- HOL limited by Salisbury convention- lords
cannot oppose bill on second or third
reading if proposal had been included in
election manifesto
- can only veto legislation for a year before
it becomes law
-cannot oppose financial bills introduced by
HOC
HOC is elected into power Unelected nature of HOL means they can
- hold legitimate mandate granted by the properly scrutinise without fear of
electorate = have more power to act on approval
behalf of them - can offer distinct expertise on an area of
- explains why HOC members are more public policy e.g. Lord Lisvane
popular and recognisable, evident in the (constitutional issues) / Lord Dannat
significant more number of social media (military) / Lord Sugar (business)
followers of members as opposed to lords - Lord Dannat spoke eight times on the
Armed Forces Bill and 24 times on the
Overseas Operations Bill in 2021
- more profound impact on policy than
generalists in the HoC
HOC can examine work of govt HOL prevents tyranny
- debates e.g. PMQs and other forms of - e.g. 2000 ‘independent House of Lords
question time Commission’ – increase in diversity
- select committees e.g. backbench - 11% of Lords declared disability compared
committee and Liason committee to 0.76% in HoC
- 63 ethnic lords
- all types of people are represented and
prevents elective dictatorship
, Evaluate the effectiveness of the legislative process
Effective Not effective
Both chambers review bills HOL limited
- bill goes to both chambers = prevents - limited by Salisbury convention and has
tyranny no financial privilege
- lower chamber uses expertise to influence - can only veto for a year before it becomes
public policy e.g. Lord Lisvane law
(constitutional issues) / Lord Dannat
(military) / Lord Sugar (business)
- Lord Dannat spoke eight times on the
Armed Forces Bill and 24 times on the
Overseas Operations Bill in 2021
Opportunity to scrutinise Power of executive over legislative process
- e.g. Public Bill Committee- amended - can ignore advice of select committees
energy bill, data protection and digital e.g. Foreign Affairs Select Committee
information bill advised against any military intervention in
- debates e.g. PMQs questions regarding Syria yet was ignored
rising energy prices amidst cost of living - party loyalty and whips = expectation to
crisis toe the lie = has led to reports of bullying in
- social media e.g. negative campaigning the chamber
against all parties regarding legislation - scrutiny over legislation only effective if
minority government which is rare
Strengthens representative democracy Public don’t vote for bills passed
through elected members - this can lead to rushed legislation e.g.
- hold legitimate mandate granted by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
electorate = have more power to act on - leads to controversial bills being passed
behalf of them e.g. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts
- e.g. trust in govt tightening regulations Act 2022
during COVID to prevent spread of virus - trustee model = opens up to tyranny = can
lead to elective dictatorship
Evaluate the view that parliament effectively scrutinises the executive
Ineffective scrutiny Effective scrutiny
Weak legislative scrutiny Strong legislative scrutiny
- legislative agenda is largely controlled by - usually when issue is controversial and
exec = most bills are govt bills e.g. 76.9% MPs are prepared to defy whip e.g. May’s
bills between 2015-2021 Brexit deal was defeated by a record 230
- FPTP = clear majority = elective votes with 118 Conservative MPs rebelling
dictatorship = don’t have to worry about = she had minority govt = shows
potential scrutiny e.g. Blair didn’t lose a importance of size of govt majority
commons vote in first 8 years as PM due to - HOL also offer effective scrutiny through
179 seats expertise e.g. Agriculture Act was
- heavy whips = rare rebellion against MPs = considered for 32hrs in HOC but for 96hrs
rely of patronage for personal in HOL = due to expertise e.g. Lord Sugars
Evaluate the view that the HoC is more powerful than the HoL
HOC is more powerful than HOL HOC is not more powerful than HOL
HOC proposes leg and HOL is limited HOL holds important role in reviewing
- e.g. Energy Prices Act 2022 = not bound by secondary legislation
convention due to elected nature = have - lords can veto legislation e.g. 2008
mandate = Burkean theory of trustee Counter Terrorism Bill and 2012 Welfare
model Reform Bill
- HOL limited by Salisbury convention- lords
cannot oppose bill on second or third
reading if proposal had been included in
election manifesto
- can only veto legislation for a year before
it becomes law
-cannot oppose financial bills introduced by
HOC
HOC is elected into power Unelected nature of HOL means they can
- hold legitimate mandate granted by the properly scrutinise without fear of
electorate = have more power to act on approval
behalf of them - can offer distinct expertise on an area of
- explains why HOC members are more public policy e.g. Lord Lisvane
popular and recognisable, evident in the (constitutional issues) / Lord Dannat
significant more number of social media (military) / Lord Sugar (business)
followers of members as opposed to lords - Lord Dannat spoke eight times on the
Armed Forces Bill and 24 times on the
Overseas Operations Bill in 2021
- more profound impact on policy than
generalists in the HoC
HOC can examine work of govt HOL prevents tyranny
- debates e.g. PMQs and other forms of - e.g. 2000 ‘independent House of Lords
question time Commission’ – increase in diversity
- select committees e.g. backbench - 11% of Lords declared disability compared
committee and Liason committee to 0.76% in HoC
- 63 ethnic lords
- all types of people are represented and
prevents elective dictatorship
, Evaluate the effectiveness of the legislative process
Effective Not effective
Both chambers review bills HOL limited
- bill goes to both chambers = prevents - limited by Salisbury convention and has
tyranny no financial privilege
- lower chamber uses expertise to influence - can only veto for a year before it becomes
public policy e.g. Lord Lisvane law
(constitutional issues) / Lord Dannat
(military) / Lord Sugar (business)
- Lord Dannat spoke eight times on the
Armed Forces Bill and 24 times on the
Overseas Operations Bill in 2021
Opportunity to scrutinise Power of executive over legislative process
- e.g. Public Bill Committee- amended - can ignore advice of select committees
energy bill, data protection and digital e.g. Foreign Affairs Select Committee
information bill advised against any military intervention in
- debates e.g. PMQs questions regarding Syria yet was ignored
rising energy prices amidst cost of living - party loyalty and whips = expectation to
crisis toe the lie = has led to reports of bullying in
- social media e.g. negative campaigning the chamber
against all parties regarding legislation - scrutiny over legislation only effective if
minority government which is rare
Strengthens representative democracy Public don’t vote for bills passed
through elected members - this can lead to rushed legislation e.g.
- hold legitimate mandate granted by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
electorate = have more power to act on - leads to controversial bills being passed
behalf of them e.g. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts
- e.g. trust in govt tightening regulations Act 2022
during COVID to prevent spread of virus - trustee model = opens up to tyranny = can
lead to elective dictatorship
Evaluate the view that parliament effectively scrutinises the executive
Ineffective scrutiny Effective scrutiny
Weak legislative scrutiny Strong legislative scrutiny
- legislative agenda is largely controlled by - usually when issue is controversial and
exec = most bills are govt bills e.g. 76.9% MPs are prepared to defy whip e.g. May’s
bills between 2015-2021 Brexit deal was defeated by a record 230
- FPTP = clear majority = elective votes with 118 Conservative MPs rebelling
dictatorship = don’t have to worry about = she had minority govt = shows
potential scrutiny e.g. Blair didn’t lose a importance of size of govt majority
commons vote in first 8 years as PM due to - HOL also offer effective scrutiny through
179 seats expertise e.g. Agriculture Act was
- heavy whips = rare rebellion against MPs = considered for 32hrs in HOC but for 96hrs
rely of patronage for personal in HOL = due to expertise e.g. Lord Sugars
