In regards to the effective representative nature of Parliament, the system of MP’s and constituents could be seen as giving geographically equal representation of all regions. Another step in the right direction has been the removal of hereditary peers, being replaced by ‘life peers’. These ‘life peers’ represent many different groups and interests, thus improving Parliaments representative nature. However, the ‘first past the post’ currently in place for electing members into Parliament is a weakness in Parliaments equal representation. The FPTP system means that some Political Parties are over-represented, whilst others are seriously under-represented, such as the Liberal Democratic Party. If an electoral system such as Proportional Representation were employed, the number of seats won by a party in an election would be directly proportional to the number of votes gained. It can also be seen that, whilst big improvements have been made in the past few years, women and ethnic minorities are still seriously under represented in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The strict discipline within all political parties also means that MP’s independence is inhibited. For example, homosexuality within the main parties is seen as an issue that should be kept secret from the public when it would, in fact, make the parties more representative of the population.
Parliament also has an important function in legislating. As Parliament is legally sovereign, it can give legitimate authority to laws with The Commons giving legitimacy to legislation and the Lords being able to suggest useful amendments. However, because of party discipline, scrutiny of legislation is weak. This brings in the issue of party patronage. The appointment of all ministers and peers is in the hands of the Prime Minister. It is therefore understandable that those who aspire to such positions are likely to remain loyal and obey the whips. And, once appointed, they will remain loyal to show gratitude. Any MP’s who disagree with the party line may find their careers severely damaged. Thus party patronage can be seen as preventing effective scrutiny of legislation, as well as stifling debate within the Commons and within the party. A further weakness of Parliament is the ritualistic passage of bills. The Government dominates the parliamentary agenda and so is able to block any legislation to which it is opposed. Due to the FPTP system creating governments with very large majorities, it is also usually the case that the passage of a bill, which has the support of the government, is virtually guaranteed. An exception to this rule being the 2004 Tuition Fees vote in which Labour’s majority was reduced from over 160 to only 5. The more independent of the two houses, The House of Lords, is also lacking in statutory power. The Parliament Acts limit its ability to defeat legislation, as seen it the controversial fox hunting issue. Any amendments made to bills by the House of Lords needs the approval of the Commons, thus their changes are unlikely to survive the governments huge majority. The Salisbury Convention also prevents the Lords from defeating legislation that was contained in the government’s election manifesto, as it is believed the public have chosen that government on their promises.
Another weakness of Parliament can be found in its function of redressing the grievances of the general public. Whilst MPs often work hard to take up the problems of their constituents. However, there is often a lack of opportunity for back-benchers to raise their own issues in the Commons, and, as previously stated, the answers to such questions are pre-written and lack spontaneity. Finally, the Commons is given little time for genuine debate, preventing real issues from coming to the surface. The executive also has control over the issues discussed in the Commons, therefore only issues that they feel are important will be allowed. An element of theatrics has also prevented the process of deliberation from taking place, members from different parties resorting to humour to better the opposition, rather than discussing the issue at hand. However, I believe the Commons’ weakness in deliberation is counter-balanced by the great deal of time spent debating issues in the House of Lords, free form the pressure of the party whips.
Overall, I believe that the system of bicameralism within the UK means that, any weaknesses (of which there are many) within the House of Commons are counterbalanced by the time and effort given to debating issues within the House of Lords. Whilst I believe that, short of totally changing our voting system or undermining Parliamentary sovereignty, in reality little can be done to change the way the House of Commons is operated, I also believe that changes can be made to the House of Lords. Building on the improvements made to the legitimacy of the House of Lords by eradicating hereditary peers, the new life peers should be chosen from a wide variety of backgrounds and occupations, helping to increase representation within Parliament. I also believe that the House of Lords should be equal in legislative power as the House of Commons, thus overriding the Parliament Acts that would limit the Lords capability to defeat legislation.
