Also very rarely MPS can force legislative amendments from the government, this often occurs like a miracle but it is also possible depending on the persistence proposed by the MPS and the effectiveness of their communication on the issue with the government.
So the Commons is extremely powerful by law, but acts in reality as a kind of 'legitimising' chamber for government bills. It is not, however,” toothless”, as some would say, but performs a very useful function of providing a mechanism by which flaws in legislation can be exposed and remedied.
The House of Lords on the other hand, can be said to be living in the shadow of the House of Commons, however in recent years they have become more active and effective, this is due to the fact that many experts and interested parties make up the amending legislative committees of the Lords. As a result the House of Lords have been so effective in scrutinizing key legislation on issues such as tuition fees for university as well as NHS and wealth benefit system reforms. In 2000, the reform of the Lords, removing all but 92 of hereditary peers, has given the Lords greater authority, the question is will they still remain the minority for long and will the House of Commons be in trouble?
The house of Lords unlike the House of Commons has no veto on legislation and can be overridden if the same Bill is proposed by the Commons in two consecutive sessions. However this does not make the Lords irrelevant but testifies to the stated fact that the House of Commons are more superior to the House of Lords. The House of Lords also have what is known as “cross benchers” who sit in the middle facing towards the speaker, these are absent in the Commons. They seat a large number of peers who are said to be politically independent which is why we say in the House of Lords, there is no single party majority, and the Lords themselves are more individually independent.
The House of Lords consist of former professional politicians, often ex ministers, lawyers, journalist, pressure group leaders whom have retired from their professions but hold a keen interest in politics, they play a key role in society and may have strong party allegiances, but they are no longer subject to prime-ministerial patrongre and do not do not submit themselves to a constituency or worry about defying their party leadership. Hence this brings us to the next key difference members of the House of Commons MPS are elected whereas House of Lords are unelected, as this is still a debate in the parliament on whether or not its should remain so it is therefore an “undemocratic” body.
Again the HOL can be said to lack the legitimacy of the Commons.
In conclusion, The Lords has a lot less power, for example they cannot veto laws but only delay them. Their role is to examine legislation and amend it if they feel it is removing rights, or goes against certain principles, such as Habeus Corpus. In contrast, the Commons provides a forum for improvement of legislation of a rudimentary nature and relating to the people of the UK, while the Lords is effective at improving Bills by providing expert advice and experience.
The Commons could in theory overturn the government's Bills, but doesn't, and the Lords can't, but is more confrontational than the Commons in any case. Commons act as direct representatives of the people as such they have a lot more influence over government. The Lords too have some influence, however, members of the Lords can be members of the cabinet, for example (such as Lord Mandelson) the only difference is that they don't influence decision making as much, because they are not elected it would be wrong for them to have the same level of influence as the Commons as they are not accountable to the public.
by
babs96 (student)
