Parliament Scrutiny Notes

PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY

• Democratic credentials acquired through elections.

Why is democracy good?

• Normative view of the human conditions – autonomy of the individual and right to have a say in the own life.

• Having a voice encourages humans to flourish (Mill).

Types of democracy (UK mixes the two):

• Representative democracy: public select representative by election. After election there is no legal requirement to respect the opinions of those who elected you.

• Participative democracy: public involvement beyond elections. Can be seen in the use of referendums on constitutional questions.

Elections to the Commons

• Elections are used to determine the composition of the chamber, as well as who is going to form the government.

• A general election is triggered by the PM asking the monarch to dissolve Parliament. As of 2010 we have fixed term Parliaments of 5 years: good in principle because an incumbent shouldn’t have an advantage, but might lead to a ‘lame duck’ government.

• Democracy suggests that the widest number of people should be able to stand and vote in elections – but this is a relatively recent phenomenon e.g. women’s suffrage in 1928. Even recent issues like prisoner voting rights have been an issue.

Voting system:

• FPTP – candidate with the most votes wins. AV was suggested in 2011 referendum but rejected

  • Criticised because it means it doesn’t matter how much someone wins by and they don’t need a majority. Advantage is that is has tended to deliver clear winners in general elections, so no need for a hung Parliament (except now!).

Reform

• MPs expenses scandal dented confidence.

• Reform of the voting system: AV was rejected. New Labour deemed the party list unacceptable. AMS, like in Scotland?

  • AV should have passed – more democratic, and wouldn’t result in too much damage to majorities in Parliament, unlike PR.

Fair Play

• Political parties have to get their money fairly, but Labour and Conservatives have both been caught up in funding scandals.

• Individual donations of more than 7500 have to be declared by the party – in the wake of the loans for peerages scandals.

• There may be a limit on the amount any one individual can give. Or there might be an option of state-funding political parties, but this might be tricky!

• There are also limits to the amount that can be used in constituency campaigns - 10,500. And no one individual can spend more than 500 in seeking to get a person elected (used to be 5 but this was seen as ridiculous and overruled in Bowman v UK).

  • There are national spending limits also. If a party is contesting every seat in the UK then it would be allowed to spend 19.5m.

The House of Lords

• Been described as an anachronism. It definitely is.

• Composition:

  • 26 Bishops and Archbishops

  • 23 Law lords (but they won’t be renewed when they die – SC).

  • 92 hereditary peers – used to be 700 but they were stripped of title. When one dies, they elect from the living remaining of the 600 ones of who removed.

  • 600 life peers. Appointed, but no hereditary title. Conferred by the Queen on advice of PM – specialists in a field.

Reform

• 2012 Queen’s speech highlighted intention to reform – believe in wholly or mainly elected chamber (latest white paper suggests 80/20, but wholly elected left open).

  • Term would be for 15 years and elections held at the same time as Commons – elected in thirds.

• Talk of making the Chamber wholly elected. Presence of Bishops undermines separation of church and state – secularism.

• Royal commission found that Lords should complement, not replicate, the Commons. This makes sense – experts can scrutinise more effectively etc. This differs from the US Congress/Senate divide.

  • Commission said that the role of the Lords was to make ‘the House of Commons think again’.

• It has been pointed out that legitimacy is not just given at the ballot box (the judiciary are perfectly legitimate, although they might not be ‘legislators’ as such).

Powers:

• Restricted by Parliament Act 1911 and 1949. They restrict power in two ways:

  • Money bills can only be delayed for 1 month in the Lords

  • All other bills that are attempted to pass, if the Lords votes it down in two separate sessions it can be enacted anyway. The result is a 1 year stalling power.

    • IMPORTANT EXCEPTION: A bill cannot be passed to extend the life of Parliament to beyond 5 years. In Jackson it was suggested that a bill could be passed abolishing this exception and then another extending the life of Parliament. All but one judge rejected this argument: nothing resulting in the breach of this rule would be allowed, even the first Act just described.

• Some view the Acts with contempt in that they seem to erode the checks and balances offered by the Lords.

Advantages of the Lords:

• Less partisan than the Commons. No single party has an overall majority, and there is less obligation to follow part line – no whips etc.

• Lords are not career politicians and don’t have to worry about their position. Less pandering to public opinion.

• 25% of Lords have no party affiliation at all.

• Brings particular expertise to the legislative process.

PARLIAMENT AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

• Most bills brought before...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law Notes.