Unit 2 Government & Politics AS Parliament

• The executive and legislative branches are fused
• Parliament can dismiss the government through a vote of confidence
• Power is exercised collectively within the executive branch
• The prime minister is the person who can command a majority in the parliament following a general election
• The head of the executive is not the head of state

• There is a clear seperation of powers between the executive and legislative branches
• The legislature cannot dismiss the president, execpt in specil circumstances, and the executive cannot dissolve the legislature
• Power in the executive is concentrated in the office of president
• The president is directly elected by the people
• The president is also head of state

The UK has a bicameral legislature, i.e. a parliament of two chambers

Formally the UK parliament is made up of three institutions:

• The house of commons
• The house of lords
• The monarchy

• 650 members of parliament (MPs)
• Elected in a single member constituency
• By the first past the post electoral system
• For a single parliament (up to 5 years)
• The number of MPs is not fixed, but can change following the reviews of parliamentary constituencies

The lords is an unelected chamber and consists of:

• Hereditary peers
• Life peers
• Lords spiritual

The monarchy is head of state but also retains a formal and ceremonial role in parliament

This includes:

• Giving royal assent the legislation
• Appointing the prime minister
• Dissolving parliament
• Reading the Queens speech

The most significant functions of the UK parliament are:

• Legislation
• Scrutiny and holding the government to accountancy
• Representation
• Recruitment of ministers
• Legitimacy

Making laws is known as legislating

Proposals for legislation are contained in bills which must be approved by both houses of parliament and the monarch before they become law

There are several different types, the most common being public bills

If a bill is approved by parliament it becomes an act of parliament 

• There may have been a green paper in which the government sets out a series of options
• There may have been a white paper which sets out the governmnets policy in this area
• There may have been additional pre-legislation scrutiny of the proposed bill

• First reading
• Secomd reading
• Committee stage
• Report stage
• Third reading

The bill is then sent to the house of lords, where it follows the same procedure. If amendments are made in the lords, the commons may agree to them; a bill can go back and forth between the two houses until it is agreed or forced through the lords using the parliament acts

• Private members bills promoted by individual MPs
• Secondary or delegated legislation

Professor Philip Norton has categorised legislatires into:

• Policy making legislatures
• Policy influencing legislatures
• Legislatures with little or no policy influence

The british parliament is a policy influencing legislature

• The fact that most bills are government bills - and it usually has a majority in the commons
• The reality that private members bills have little chance of success unless they are backed by the government
• The executive control of the legislative timetable
• Party discipline
• The constitutional, legal and poltical dominace of the commons over the lords

• In politics, accountability is the principle that an office holder or institution must account for their actions
• In a system of parliamentary government, ministers are accountable to parliament and to the electorate
• Ministers may also be held responsible for policy failures
• MPs face the electorate at a general election, where their constituents may take their record in office into account when deciding whether to vote for them

• Questions, for example at question time
• Debates, for example on bills
• Commottees, both selcte and general
• The activites of the opposition

• Select committees scrutinise the policies and actions of governmnet, conducting detailed examinations of controversial issues
• They question ministers, civil servents and outside experts, and can request access to governmnet papers
• Many select commottees recommendations are accepted by the governnment
• The elction of chairs and members by MPs has enhanced the independence of select committees

• A government with a majority in the commons will also have a majority in committees
• Ministers and civil servents may not provide much information when questioned, and access to documents may be denied
• They have no power to propose policy - governmnets can ignore recommendations made by slect committees
• Some members do not attend regularly; some may be overly abrasive when questioning witnesses

• The geographical nature of representation is supposed to ensure that individual 
  MPs can be identified as the exclusive representatives of their constituents, as opposed to the multi member constiticies produced by proportional representation

• Women
• Ethnic minorities
• The young
• The old
• Sexual orientation
• Eduction
• Social class

Government ministers must be members of either the commons or the lords - parliament is, therefore, a recutiting ground for government

• Scrutinising and discussing government policy
• Holding the executive to account
• Representing the interests of the electorate
• Debating major issues

• The relationship between parliament and governmnet is an unequal one, with the executive the dominant actor
• This does not mean, however,that parliament is impotent:
• The power to dismiss the government is an important weapon
• Select committees have enhanced parliaments ability to scrutinise the government and hold it to account

• The government's parliamentary majority
• The level of party unity
• The assertivness of the house of lords

• The size, or absense, of a majority for the governing party is an important factor in the relationship between the legislature and executive
• The larger a governments majority, the less likely it is that the other parties in the commons will be able to defeat or amend government bills
• If no single party commands an absolute majority of seats then, a minority government or coalition government is likely which will make it much more harder for the government to get its way

• It is a common perception that MPs slavishly follow the party whips without exercising their own judgement
• It is true that MPs vote with their party on the overwhelming majority of divisions in the house of commons
• And when a parliamentary rebellion does occur, it is usually small an can be easily absorbed by a government with a working majority
• But rebellions have become more fequent in recent decades, and some have been highly dramatic
• In the 2005-10 parliament there were rebelions by Labur MPs on 28% of divisions, and a total of 174 Labur 
  MPs voted against the party line at least once
• In November 2005, the Blair government was defeated by 332 votes to 291 on its proposal to allow terrorist subjects to be detained for up to 90 days without charge
• It also lost two votes on house of lords amendments to the racial and religious hatred bill in 2006
• The Brown government lost a 2009 vote on a liberal democrat motion on the right of Gurkhas to live in the UK

• In the 2010-12 parliamentary session, 153 MPs from the coalition parties voted against the whip and rebellions occured on 44% of divisions
• Conservative MPs tended to rebel more on constitutional and european union issues and the Lib Dems on welfare and social policy
• If the whips expect significant opposition to a measure, the government may withdraw or revsie it rather than risk defeat or cause ill will by exerting pressure on MPs

• No party has a majority, so the government must win cross party support for its legislation
• The lords is more confident of its legitimacy and more willling to flex its muscles on lega; and constitutional issues
• Labour governments, it has been argued, did not have a mandate because they were elected with the support of fewer than a third of the electorate
• Backbench MPs have been willing to support bthe lords

Examples of this include:

• Counter terrorism: in 2005, the lords amended proposals on control oders for terrorist suspects and insisted that the legislation had a limited lifespan
• Religious hatred: proposals to introuce a new offence of incitement to religious hatred were emended or blocked by the lords in 2001 and 2005
• Trial by jury: the lords blocked Labur's proposals to restrict the right to trial byjury in 2000 and 2007

• The executive's control over the parliamentary timetable has been weakended
• Backbench MPs provide greater checks on government policy than in the past - increased incidents of rebellion are a consraint on government action
• The reformed house of lords is a more effective revising chamber
• Select commottees have become more influential

• The executive exercises significant contol over the legislative timetable and MPs
• Government defeats are rare
• The governmnent is usually able to overturn hostile amendments made on the house of lords
• Select committees have little power

• Pre legislative scrutiny
• Carry over of legislation
• Modernisation committee
• Liasison committee
• Prime ministers questions
• Westminster hall sittings
• Hearings on public appointments
• Westminster no longer makes law on policies that have been devolved or asks questions on devolved issues

Agreed by the end of 2012:

• Fixed term parliaments
• Implementation of the wright proposals

Dropped:

• Alternative vote
• Reduction in the size of the commons
• Recall of MPs
• West lothian question

• 1997 Labour promises reform in its manifesto
• 1999 house of lords act removes the right to attend and vote from all but 92 of the hereditary peers
• 2000 the wakeham commission reports with further proposals for reform
• 2001 white paper proposes seven options for a reformed membership - MPs reject all of them
• 2003 White paper proposes an wholly appointed house
• 2005 in its manifesto, labour proposes to set a limit of 60 sitting days for the consideration of most bills in the lords
• 2007 white paper proposes a hybrid house
• 2008 White paper explores how a wholly elected or 80% elected house might function, with members chosen over three elections
• 2012 joint committee created to issues proposals on a wholly or mainly elected lords
• 2012 house of lords bill abandoned after conservatives rebellion and labour opposition

• A fully elected house of lords would have the legitimacy that can only be derived from democratic elections
• It would be better placed to scrutinise and amend government bills, improving the quality of legislation
• If no party has a majority, as would be likely under proportional representation, it would be able to challenge the executive
• If elected by proportional representation, it would be more representative of the electorate

• It would come into conflict with the house of commons, as both would claim democratic legitimacy
• Institutional conflict between two elected chambers with similar powers would produce legislative gridlock
• An appointed house will retain the expertise and independence of crossbench peers
• The shortcomings of party control found in the house of commons would be deplicated in an elected upper house