The House of Lords Is Now More Effective Than the House of Commons in Checking Government Power. Discuss (06/13)

The House of Commons being the dominant and accountable chamber as it is elected, whilst the House of Lords has the role of the revising chamber. The MPs in the House of Commons are constantly overlooked by the whips whereas the House of Lords is more independent minded. The House of Commons remains far more effective due to having greater powers than the Lords in checking the government power.

Firstly, the House of Commons has the critical check on government power through a vote of no confidence. The vote of no confidence motion was last used on 28th March 1979, when the minority government of James Callaghan was replaced by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government all due to the Labour government’s failure. This allows the House of Commons to confront the government creating mutual respect as the House of Commons can use this motion to get rid of a government, if they think that the government is failing at using its power effectively. The House of Commons, being the elected and democratic chamber, also has the power to reject legislation as oppose to the House of Lords, who can only delay the legislation for a maximum of 1 year, due to the Parliament Act of 1949. This had happened in 2001 as the House of Lords voted 317-68 against a fox hunting ban, and in 2004 they threw out the plans for a complete ban, however in November 2004 the Parliamentary act was ignored and the bill came into force in 2005. This shows that the House of Commons has more of a right over legislation than the House of Lords as they are the accountable and legitimate chamber whereas the House of Lords as more of a revising chamber and have no mandate or legitimacy.

Another reason to why the House of Commons is more effective in checking government power is Prime Minister’s Question Time. This is a constitutional convention, where the MPs can weekly question the Prime Minister consisting of notified and unscripted supplementary questions for 30 minutes every Wednesday. These weekly question slots are dominated by the opposition leader who can ask 4 or 5 supplementary questions and also the PM who is able to dodge answering some of these questions by bringing other facts and statistics to impress his voters. Question Time is also holding to account other ministers, forcing them to answer questions from the opposition. The Prime Minister question time can be used to release more heat than light, for example Tony Blair said to John Major “You’re weak, weak, weak”. The PMQ’s are regarded very high profile as it gets a lot of media coverage and the electorate can see the two leaders and make their judgement based on the issues presented and scrutinised. ‘Urgent Questions’ can be particularly effective – in 2012, Education Secretary Michael Gove had to seriously consider GCSE reforms after they were met with opposition in the Commons. This showed that questions can help in the function of holding the government to account, as there are PMQ’s and also ‘Urgent Questions’ which can immediately hold the government to account.

A third reason to why the House of Commons is more effective in checking government power is through debates. These allow for detailed questioning and

scrutiny of government policies and legislation. They also detailed analysis of the minister’s answers and their mistakes in judgements. An example is when Tony Blair said that Saddem Hussain was using weapons of mass destruction, and when British troops were sent over to stop this happening, no such weapons were found. This made the Conservative PM David Cameron more aware and to act more cautiously about the apparent chemical weapons being used in Syria, and the recent debate into this had an outcome of the executive losing. This shows that debates in the House of Commons scrutinise the government on its use of powers and policies and deliberation can allow for this to happen.

A final reason to why the House of Commons is more effective in checking government power is through Select Committees. These committees have the time to produce detailed reports to expose mistakes. For example, after the 2004 Belmarsh case, the committee’s report on the unjust nature of detaining terrorist suspects without due process undoubtedly contributed to the amendment of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act. Recently Between 1997 and 2010 select committees probably produced almost 1500 inquiry reports (or 110 a year) and almost 40,000 recommendations and conclusions, of which 19,000 (or 1450 a year) were aimed at central government. Around 40% of recommendations are accepted by government. This shows that Select Committees do have an impact on scrutinising government power as recommendations are acted on by the government and have a lot of media attention putting even more focus on the government and holding it to account.

However, on the other hand, the House of Lords is more independent minded they are more willing to check